ashew Reviews

Hand of Death (1962)

To Film Snobs: Lighten Up!!

[6/10 · 10 December 2006]

Reading through some of the IMDb reviews, I was truly bewildered by the responses. It was like bullies beating up on the weakling in school...not because he necessarily needed to be beat up, but just because the bullies could. Well, I'm the principal here to tell those folks to lighten up and leave the poor kid alone! My goodness, this movie had a budget of $1.95, yet everyone is expecting "Lawrence of Arabia"? Come on.

John Agar is a government scientist out in the California desert who thinks he is a few steps away from creating a revolutionary nerve gas agent that will eliminate all wars. His mentor, the mentor's secretary, his scientist buddy, and even his own college intern think it's too dangerous and want him to stop, but John has noble and lofty goals and pushes on. Well, John has an accident, spills one of the liquefied variations on his hands, and slowly turns into a hideous, mutated creature whose touch can kill...and kill he does.

Maybe I was just in the mood for a fun little film like this, but I must say the acting didn't bother me, nor did the production values, the music, the directing, or the monster make-up. Yes, the screenplay is dopey, has holes in the logic, and a rather abrupt and unsatisfying ending, but this is a Z-grade film aimed at kids at a drive-in theater looking for a fun time, not stuffy film critics or pretentious film snobs.

Set your expectations at a reasonable level, have fun, and enjoy a great little throw-back to a bygone age of sci-fi/horror.

Showdown at Boot Hill (1958)

Had Potential

[4/10 · 6 December 2006]

As with most films that "miss", it almost always comes down to a bad script...as it does here. The subject matter the movie tries to deal with is potentially interesting, and could have had some real emotional impact, but the slow, meandering pace and some goofy dialogue undermine what could have been a good psychological Western. It's really a shame because the directing is actually pretty good, the score feels just right, most of the actors hold their own, and the sets actually look remarkably authentic considering what an extremely low budget this movie clearly had.

Throughout the entire movie I kept thinking that it reminded me of another project, but couldn't put my finger on it...and then it dawned on me that the whole thing has the feel of a 1950s TV Western...it especially reminded me of the way the first season of "The Rifleman" was shot. Not sure if this movie was meant to be the second part of a drive-in movie double-bill, or (based on the quality and running time) if this might have actually been shot as a potential pilot for a TV series...Bronson looks fantastic here...he is young, fit, handsome, and would have made an excellent TV star had he been given the opportunity. This project might have passed as decent enough TV watching, but it misses the mark as a feature film, which is a shame considering its potential.

Not only did the film have potential, but you can see the potential Charles Bronson had if he'd chosen to become an actor instead of a silent-but-deadly action hero over the span of his career. His early work gave him some really good opportunities to emote, but I guess the other direction he went in paid a lot better. I suppose one can't argue with success, but it is interesting to think of what might have been.

"Showdown at Boot Hill" is certainly not worth paying money to rent or buy, but if it comes on cable, it is definitely a harmless enough way to spend an hour and change.

Arizona Raiders (1965)

Test of Endurance

[4/10 · 3 December 2006]

It is impossible to imagine a worse beginning to a film. Booth Colman plays a newspaper man who provides a long, meandering, long, convoluted, long, unnecessary, and overly LONG introduction explaining Quantrill's history. He actually breaks the fourth wall and talks directly into the camera as if we're his junior high school class. This goes on for a full SEVEN MINUTES before the movie starts, then they cut to Quantrill himself leading his men to a raid and we are treated to a DIFFERENT actor providing voice-over narration explaining what Quantrill is doing ALL OVER AGAIN. I GIVE!! UNCLE!! MAKE IT STOP!!!

Audie Murphy and Ben Cooper are convicted for their part in riding with Quantrill and not until THIRTY-EIGHT MINUTES into the film are they sprung from a chain gang by Buster Crabbe to earn unconditional pardons for themselves by becoming Arizona Raiders, infiltrating the newly-formed gang of old raiders, and bringing them all to justice. Even film fans who have never taken Screenplay 101 know that the entire premise of the film needs to be provided to the audience within the first ten minutes of the film, not thirty-eight! The most excruciating of all endurance tests.

Because Audie Murphy is the good guy, we know all the "tension" generated by whether he will or won't keep his promise to the rangers is pointless...of course, he strays from the goal every once in a while and someone close to him always manages to die because of it, so he is kept on the righteous path. Of course, the screenwriter has the most important symbol that Audie should care about die first, then a less important person (who seems to make a bigger difference to Audie), and then a Yaqui Indian woman is the one who drives it all home for him (even though they have no relationship and he has no reason to care at all about her). That's just dumb. On top of all that, the first half of the film sets up George Keymas' character as the arch-nemesis for Audie's character (and the main reason Audie agrees to become a ranger), yet it is all undermined when Audie kills him immediately upon finding the gang's hideout halfway through the film! From than point on, Michael Dante's character becomes the main nemesis, but he and Audie have no history/personal grudge/drama/conflict between each other...Dante's character is not even remotely as interesting, or evil, or sadistic as Keymas' character, so it becomes a "So what?" kind of scenario. Everything that gets built up fizzles into ho-hum and is undermined by the screenwriter, so we're left with a lot of dopiness and zero tension.

Okay, now for the good parts...

Audie Murphy, Ben Cooper, Ray Stricklyn, and Buster Crabbe are EXCELLENT!! They absolutely lift this poorly written and constructed film up several notches just by their presence and commitment to their characters. Audie Murphy was short, soft-spoken, and baby-faced...on paper, not the ideal characteristics for a Western hero (truly the anti-John Wayne)...yet it speaks volumes about his charisma and talent (especially for a self-professed "non-actor") that he is such a joy to watch.

If one can ignore the lousy stunt work, even worse stunt doubling, bad foley work, and unimpressive soundtrack, the directing was not bad at all. The action was handled well, and the Arizona scenery was really a pleasure to see.

This is, at BEST, a so-so film...for Audie Murphy fans only. If you can grip the seat cushions and force yourself through the first thirty-eight minutes, the rest of the film has several nice moments that are decent rewards for the initial torture. Don't spend money to rent or buy it, but if it comes on cable, it's worth a look.

The Walking Hills (1949)

Sand Doom

[4/10 · 1 December 2006]

This is John Sturges' movie. It is beautifully directed, with some shots that are truly stylistic, artsy, and beautiful...all the more so since this is in black & white and one can enjoy the symmetry of the shots instead of running the risk of being distracted by vibrant colors.

The cast is loaded with big name B stars and is more of an ensemble piece than a traditional Randolph Scott film. Scott has some of his nicest on-screen moments in this film, along with the always fantastic Edgar Buchanan. Two actors I had never seen before, Jerome Courtland and William Bishop, both give very good performances...especially Courtland. John Ireland, and even moreso Arthur Kennedy, are completely wasted in roles that are one-dimensional and truly go nowhere. The worst of the entire group is Ella Raines. She is not a strong actress, had no chemistry with either Scott or Bishop, and there was really no reason for her to be in the film at all.

This leads me to the script, which is where the movie falls down...it is a collection of missed opportunities. The plot is simple, the motivations extremely flimsy, the tension non-existent, and the ending unsatisfying. A similar "group stuck in the desert" film, James Stewart's version of "Flight of the Phoenix", had some real uncomfortable moments, surprises that worked, deaths that we felt, characters we were interested in, plot twists that pulled us to the edge of our seat...and their group was all focused on a common goal! In "The Walking Hills", the group is ostensibly working toward the same goal (uncovering the gold), but there is the added plot element that they are actually competing against each other at the same time. That element is never fleshed out in a satisfying way. The relationships don't go anywhere, the conflicts never reach a crescendo, the plot twists fizzle out, the promise of double-crosses and triple-crosses never materialize, everyone's hidden agendas don't pay off as they should, and out of the entire group only one character has any kind of arc where something is learned, personal growth takes place, and he is a different person by the end of the film. It's just a boring trek through the desert, with lots of digging, and not a lot of much else going on.

Actually, one other thing does go on: a lot of singing. Fortunately, it's good singing. Josh White sings a few original songs and accompanies himself on the guitar. They are pleasant songs, but do not move the plot along, reveal character elements, or underscore on-screen action, so they are strictly time-killers meant to draw out the running time. As musical numbers, they are fine, but they certainly do nothing to advance the film.

"The Walking Hills" is not what I would necessarily call a bad film...it's just an uneventful so-so experience. As stated, several of the actors do have a moment or two where they shine, and the directing is beautifully done, but the film on the whole is a bit of a dud. Randolph Scott, Edgar Buchanan, and John Sturges fans will enjoy this, others will fall fast asleep.

Arabesque (1966)

Doubly Depressed

[1/10 · 21 November 2006]

I can't figure out which depresses me more: 1) How gut-wrenchingly awful this movie is, or 2) That so many IMDb commenters LOVE it! What is wrong with the world when this movie has become people's "favorite" film??!! This movie is EXCRUCIATINGLY bad. I had my finger hovering over the "Stop" button on the remote at 20 minutes into this fiasco, but due to the praise on this site, figured I would give it a bit more time because I assumed ALL of these people couldn't be delusional. Well, I came to discover that they are.

At first I thought the problem was that the script was idiotic, but I paused long enough to try and imagine different actors interpreting the same lines and I realized that it was strictly the fact that Mr. Peck is a one-note actor who should NEVER have been allowed anywhere near a comedy. Now, "one-note actor" is not necessarily a bad thing, as he was brilliant in "To Kill A Mockingbird", "Guns of Navarone", "The Gunfighter", "The Omen", etc., but was the absolute WORST possible element of this film. It was like watching your own father try and use the lingo of the day and sound like a fool attempting to be "hip & mod". Dreadful. I literally cringed watching him be lecherous toward Sophia Loren...cringed again at his fumbling of some very basic comedy...and cringed again at his psychedelic bullfight with cars on a busy street. That's when I turned this movie off. If it got great after the drug scene, then I will never know.

Sophia Loren: there is no question she was drop-dead gorgeous, and even the site of her naked back in the shower is enough to steam up any room, but she is wasted in this stupid movie and all I could do was feel bad for her predicament. The supporting cast was okay, but was anyone fooled, then or now, by the blatantly Caucasian/British character actors with heavy makeup and dyed hair forced to pretend they were Middle Eastern/Bedouin? Give me a break.

Do you want to see this kind of film done right? Do you want to see actors adept at this kind of dialogue? Please, please, please avoid "Arabesque" and rent/buy "Charade" with two of the greatest stars in the history of film: Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Is "Charade" a perfect film? No. But the two stars make it a magically enjoyable experience.

Now I must run to my DVD collection and watch "Moby Dick", or "Spellbound", or any of the previous Peck films listed to get the foul flavor of "Arabesque" out of my mouth.

Terror by Night (1946)

Harmless Entertainment

[5/10 · 18 November 2006]

This is a very lightweight film, with a basic whodunit premise, decent acting, and the standard script elements one expects from a Holmes/Watson movie. In a couple of the other films in the series, I found Holmes actually mean to Watson to the point of being unpleasant and nasty, which I did not enjoy watching...this film, however, has the two friends acting as friends, with Holmes humoring his less competent friend rather than attacking him.

It is certainly not a bad film, but it is rather predictable, with a few implausibilities, as well as 90% of the mysterious passengers easily figured out in the first part of the film (well before our heroes figure it out). I will admit that there is a very nice twist at the end which did come as a surprise to me, but it was too little, too late. This is an excellent film for pre-teens to cut their teeth on the mystery/detective genre, but it is not substantial enough for most adults. Like cotton candy...sweet, but no real substance.

Cry Danger (1951)

The Second Time Around

[8/10 · 14 November 2006]

Like the old Sinatra song, things can be far better the second time around. The first time I saw "Cry Danger" it was shortly after a viewing of "Murder, My Sweet" and it just couldn't compare to that classic. I recently viewed the movie again and I must say that "Cry Danger" was a lot of fun.

The real stars of the movie are 1) the dialogue, and 2) Dick Powell's delivery of that dialogue. Bogart and Mitchum are blue collar guys who deliver these kinds of one-liners beautifully...and it stings...but Powell has an air of elegance and intelligence wrapped in a white collar, so when he gets caustic, condescending, sarcastic, and nasty, it seems to hurt even more. And it hurts so good. There is nothing more delicious to Noir fans than Powell letting rip with a great one-liner. And the more casual he is, the more "tossed away" the line is delivered, the more we grin with satisfaction. It's just a thing of beauty.

The supporting cast is good, with just about everyone pulling their weight admirably. William Conrad, Regis Toomey, and Rhonda Fleming are in fine form. I was expecting twists, turns, and deceit from Erdman's character, but after an interesting reveal in the beginning of the film, his character seems to be abandoned and left only to provide some comic relief. That missed opportunity aside, though, the script is fun and moves along briskly.

The direction is just fine, though not as dark as I would have liked it...but that is a minor complaint. There is a rawness and realism to these B films that I find much more rewarding than a lot of the glossy A films produced.

8 out of 10 for a thoroughly enjoyable hour and a half crawl through the seedy underbelly of Tinsel Town.

The Man Behind the Gun (1953)

All Gloss, No Grit

[4/10 · 9 November 2006]

I'm a huge Randolph Scott fan, but this film is a dud. The whole thing has a canned, fake, soundstage feel to it, with truly awful rear-screen projection. It has a good plot idea that the screenwriter has successfully buried in a nitwit script, which makes it impossible for the audience to become immersed in the action and truly care about any of the characters. The directing is pedestrian, and only accentuates how bad the script is instead of helping to improve it. I've seen plenty of thoroughly enjoyable "soundstage productions" before, but this is not one of them. All it does is make you appreciate the gritty Scott/Boetticher films all the more.

Randolph Scott is tanned, trim, and shines that million dollar smile throughout. He's always a pleasure...even in the worst of his films. Aside from Scott, the other main reason I wanted to see this movie was due to how much I enjoyed Ms. Wymore in Errol Flynn's movie, "Rocky Mountian". In "Man Behind the Gun", she is just as beautiful, and you can tell she's a good actress, but she was forced to say some pretty dumb lines, and the blocking she was given by the director was truly awful. I've only seen Phil Carey in "Operation Pacific", and he plays the exact same character here...an arrogant pain-in-the-butt you want to beat into unconsciousness. I guess it proves he's a good actor...he made me hate him. There are some lame attempts at comic relief that only detract from the film, in my opinion. Although there are many elements to knock, I must say that I found myself truly enjoying the two Spanish songs sung in the musical numbers...but that's not why we go to see Randolph Scott movies, right?

There are definitely worse Scott films out there, and this one certainly isn't unbearable, but it also certainly couldn't be deemed anything beyond mediocre.

Tribute to a Bad Man (1956)

Cagney's Bad...and That's Good!!

[8/10 · 8 November 2006]

Since, by and large, this is a forgotten film, I wasn't expecting too much when I sat down to watch it. I was stunned to find a throughly enjoyable film. Fair warning: This is not a shoot-em-up Western...it is a human drama with one fist-fight, one gun battle, one hanging, and some (well-deserved) torture of the bad guys.

Evidently, I am a bad man...because I couldn't find one thing wrong with the way the Cagney character went about his business. He was strong, fair...and brutal ONLY when he had to be. Yes, that brutality would have been unforgivable if there was a sheriff or other body of law close-by, but the movie makes the point repeatedly that there is no law for 200 miles in any direction. When there is a vacuum, or void, one must fill it. What the Cagney character does is fill that void with the mandatory strength and frontier justice required for the situation. What he did does not work in today's society, but they weren't living in today's society, so one must take the philosophy in context of the times. He was not an unfair man, or brutal for the fun of it...he was brutal in order to punish the guilty who were there to steal from him...to steal his property, his livelihood, and also those who would try to steal his woman. Personally, I think if there was a bit more justice Cagney style, we wouldn't have nearly the level of crime we do today.

Even with regard to how he treats the Irene Papas character, I didn't see great fault with the man. Yes, he put off marrying her because he had issues, but virtually every scene they had together he was showing her some sort of affection, or enjoying her company...and never in a perverted "I own you" kind of way, but you could see in his face how deeply he cared for her. The drama arises from his determination to hang those who would steal his horses from him, and the Papas character's revulsion by it. Other than that, they clearly love each other.

Robert Wise does a masterful job with the directing...this is a gorgeous film. Whether it's one of the massive Cinemascope shots, or an intimate two-shot in a barn at night, everything is just beautiful.

The acting throughout is quite good, with Irene Papas absolutely phenomenal in her central role. Cagney, with only one or two over-the-top moments, is outstanding as the tough-shell-tender-center rancher who must keep an entire world together...land, men, women, and cattle. He was an actor who could do more with a guttural sound than he could with a paragraph of dialogue. He has some brilliant moments in this film. Don Dubbins is perfectly cast as the "soft" Easterner trying to make it as a horse wrangler. At first I thought I didn't like his acting, but I think it was actually the character he was playing that I didn't like...a bit too meek for my taste...but that was the character written, so he must have done a good job if I believed it enough to not like it. My only real complaint is that there's not even close to enough screen time for Chubby Johnson, Lee Van Cleef, and Royal Dano.

The weakest part of the film is probably the script, which is decent, but not great. Fortunately, they hired top named actors for leads and support, and they infused the movie with a lot that wasn't on the page.

Overall, an enjoyable Western that is well worth a viewing. 8 out of 10 from me for the great Cagney and Papas, plus the brilliance of Robert Wise's direction.

Across the Wide Missouri (1951)

Missed It By THAT much!!

[5/10 · 6 November 2006]

They were so close to having a good film here, but it is another case of a poor script destroying the quality work of all involved. Gable looks great...tan, fit, and masculine as hell. Speaking of masculine, Ricardo Montalban is the bare-chested Native American antagonist...this man has an over-powering charisma that makes it impossible to take your eyes off him. And another special mention must be made: Adolphe Menjou...he was absolutely fantastic as Gable's friend and translator. Truth be told, the whole cast is really wonderful, but as usual, the script gives them hokey garbage to utter to one another. And not just in English! The producers went to the trouble of having much of the script in French and various Native American languages, yet the script was dopey in all those languages. The storyline had great potential, but it wasn't realized well.

The best part of the movie? The scenery. It was, by far, the most unbelievably gorgeous scenery ever put on film. Yes, there have been myriad other films with beautiful scenery, but they had beautiful SHOTS, whereas this movie has the scenery all the way through, behind every actor, in nearly every scene, and it is breathtaking. If this movie doesn't make you want to throw on a backpack and hiking boots and plan a trip to Colorado, then you need to make an appointment with a doctor...either an eye doctor, a psychiatrist, or both.

There are a few nice moments throughout, but overall the film is pretty mediocre. The actors all look fantastic, and do the best with the script they've been given, but what speaks the loudest and makes the biggest impression is the scenery. They had all the parts, but couldn't make the whole...as they said on "Get Smart": "Missed it by THAT much!!"

Seven Thieves (1960)

TV Quality Masquerading As A Feature

[3/10 · 5 November 2006]

Considering the talent involved, this was an incredibly boring film. I'm not a guy who needs CGI, explosions, and car chases for a film to be exciting...how about some crisp, witty, intelligent dialog? I love a good character study as much as the next film fan, but these characters were too shallow, vague, and "mysterious" to be anything beyond one-dimensional. The attempt at mysterious pasts fell flat because they never went anywhere and had no bearing on the caper or its aftermath. Every chance the gang members had at challenging Rod Steiger's authority fizzled into quiet subservience immediately. The "tension" during the heist was forced and unrealistic, with obstacles overcome much too neatly. This seemed more like a TV episode of "It Takes A Thief" or, as another reviewer suggested, "Mission: Impossible". Even the worst episode of either of those series was more enjoyable than this film.

Other reviewers found the plot "complicated". Can't figure that one out, as it is the most straightforward plot imaginable, with a clear avoidance of any meaningful twists and turns. And the "twist" ending fell completely flat because it had no bearing on anything that came before it. All it generates is a shrug of the shoulders and a yawn before the abrupt and pat ending. Lost opportunities to push the envelope, generate legitimate tension, create plot twists, and stir up human drama.

The acting held only one surprise: Rod Steiger. This is the only film I've seen him in other than "On The Waterfront" where he is not chewing up the scenery with wild, over-the-top acting. He actually quiets things down and gives a mostly tight and controlled performance...choosing his outbursts selectively, rather than making his entire performance one long outburst as he usually does. Joan Collins was very pretty, but she is given nothing to do and every opportunity to use her character to stir up trouble in the group, or create a surprise twist with the heist is avoided at every possible chance. And they throw in a couple of dance numbers to "spice" up the movie, but the choreography is dreadful and she's not in rhythm to the music, so it is not erotic or sexy in the least...one just wants her to stop. I was willing to sit through one dance number as a way of introducing her character (eventhough we're already quasi-introduced to her in a meaningless café scene), but when they toss in the second dance number, there is no point other than time filler. Her acting was good...it's a shame the script didn't give her something substantial to do. The rest of the cast does a serviceable job, but again, there is nothing much for anyone to do. Top honors must go to Mr. Robinson, of course. There is no question that he radiates genuine star quality, and he is an absolute joy to watch. When he's not on, the movie becomes an endurance test until he is back on the screen again.

OVERALL: Missed opportunities left and right, boring script, complete lack of tension, a director & script that undermine the drama at every turn, but gets a hearty three out of ten stars strictly for Mr. Robinson's performance.

White Zombie (1932)

Turn the Volume Off & Just Watch

[6/10 · 29 October 2006]

This movie is really fun...until people start talking. Acting has progressed much too far since 1932 to find the acting in this movie the least bit plausible or, in my opinion, bearable. Bela Lugosi looks great, but his accent is so thick that it makes most of his lines unintelligible. The actors also love to add emphasis and "mood" with pregnant pauses...some of which are so long that you can actually read a magazine and balance your checkbook, then return and find that the pause has just ended and the dialogue is about to begin again. Painful.

My suggestion to viewers is to turn the volume off and just watch it as a silent film. In essence, that is what this film is anyway. Because the directing is done so well, 90% of what the dialogue tries to explain the viewer can figure out through the visuals, so the sound really isn't that necessary.

I was truly surprised at how visually stunning this movie was, with some very eerie sets/locations, atmospheric shots, creepy close-ups, and some remarkably good matte paintings, considering it was only 1932.

I'm rating the film a 6 out of respect for the directing. For fun, watch the film twice...once with the sound on, then with the sound off, and decide for yourself if this doesn't actually make a better silent film than talkie.

Enjoy!

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)

Bring Back The "Curse"!!

[4/10 · 24 October 2006]

I loved "The Curse of Frankenstein" so much that I rushed out to get "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of "If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.

Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the "creature", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.

Also, there are virtually no "horror" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of "letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few "horrific" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.

On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did "Curse" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.

The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch "The Curse of Frankenstein" and see a truly great Hammer horror film.

Rocky Mountain (1950)

Enjoyable "John Ford Lite" Western - Great Taste, Less Filling

[7/10 · 23 October 2006]

This movie has a few surprises that make it far better than one might expect from a "forgotten film".

What I was surprised most about was the directing, which comes across as almost an homage (or "rip-off", if you're cynical) to the great John Ford. What Mr. Ford did for Monument Valley, William Keighley tries to do for Gallup, New Mexico. And, for my money, he does an extremely respectable job of it. The scenery is really beautiful, and all the more dramatic due to the fact this is shot in black and white. There are some great angled shots, clever compositions, and the director does well with the action sequences.

The screenplay dispenses with all the heavy-handed messages and over-the-top, unfunny comedy sequences one might find in a Ford film, and aims its sites on a human drama of confederate soldiers on a mission who are forced to go to Plan B, C, and D in order to not only complete their mission, but to get two Yankee civilians to safety in spite of entanglements with Union soldiers and Indians on the war path. I agree with another IMDb reviewer who commented on the middle of the film dragging, and the suspense that should have been building never quite gets a full head of steam, but there are some really nice moments that make it worth sitting through the few dull spots. And I must admit to being utterly shocked by the ending...I really never saw it coming...which made the final moments in this film extremely poignant.

For it being 1950, I was stunned to find so many real and honest performances. There was none of that obnoxious "Studio Acting" where everyone is chewing scenery and pretending to be their character...everyone in this movie WAS the character they were playing. Errol Flynn is one of my all-time favorites and his restrained performance here was wonderful. This was my first time seeing Patrice Wymore on screen and I really enjoyed her performance...it could have easily become an annoying, whiny, shrill character, but Ms. Wymore made some very nice acting choices and created a believable character. The supporting cast is all solid, but three must be mentioned as stand-outs: 1) The great Chubby Johnson as the stage driver has a small but wonderful role. You might not know his name, but you'll know his face and voice immediately...one of the all-time great Western character actors. 2) A very young Slim Pickens has a wonderful role and proves himself the master horseback rider he was in real life. Great riding, great acting, and pure fun to watch. 3) The real surprise here for me was young Dickie Jones. What an absolute pleasure he was. And, in my opinion, he steals the movie away from all of the far more experienced and well-seasoned actors. He is genuine and earnest throughout, with a great monologue in the middle of the film that sucked me right in and made me believe. He was absolutely wonderful in the part and it's a shame he quit the business to go into real estate...I really think he might have had an Oscar in his future had he continued making movies.

This is not a perfect film by any means, but with strong performances, beautiful scenery, and interesting direction, this "John Ford Lite" Western has enough going for it to make up for any of its shortcomings. It's a real tough movie to find, but if you run across it, I sincerely believe it is worth a viewing.

Hope you enjoy!

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Impossible To Watch

[2/10 · 23 October 2006]

I have seen five or six A&C movies before this one and they've never really worked for me. I find Costello completely endearing, and he has had some wonderful small moments on screen, but I rarely muster more than a chuckle at A&C antics on the whole. After reading the IMDb reviews, I was so excited to watch this film, smiling with anticipation at a film that is so universally beloved and respected.

I sat through 40 minutes of this film before I couldn't take anymore and had to shut it off. If it became a brilliant comic masterpiece after that marker, I missed it. It finally dawned on me during my excruciating 40 minutes of viewing time one of the main reasons why I don't like Abbott and Costello. When Hardy is mean to Laurel, we know that beneath all the bluster that Hardy loves Laurel, so we are able to laugh. Beneath all of the hardcore violence and name-calling shooting between each of the Three Stooges, we all know they love each other, so we are able to laugh. When Dean Martin gets annoyed with Jerry Lewis, we know deep down he loves the guy, so we are able to laugh. My problem with Abbott is that I have never watched a single film where I get the sense there is even one IOTA of love that he feels for Costello. He is mean, nasty, demeaning, and I find it very uncomfortable to watch. It is not funny to me in any way...all his abuse does is make me angry with Abbott and feel sad for Costello being so pathetic, spineless, and clueless.

That is the only explanation I can find for not liking their comedy. I was going to blame it on the humor being aimed at a 9-year-old's intelligence level, but then so is most of Laurel & Hardy and the Three Stooges, and I love those comedy teams.

The 40 minutes I watched of this movie was predictable, cartoonish, and thoroughly unfunny, BUT, since I am outnumbered so dramatically on this site, one must assume that I am the only one bothered by the movie, so check out the film and judge for yourself.

Tower of London (1939)

Nice Moments That Aren't Woven Together Well

[4/10 · 23 October 2006]

Aside from superior performances by Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, and Vincent Price, there is little I found in this film to recommend.

I believe the movie fails (as many films do) under the weight of a mediocre script and sub-par supporting cast. Even if one wasn't paying attention during their high school World History class, we already know within the first 15 minutes of the film what the entire story is, what will happen, and can make a common-sense-guess as to how the film will end. And, sure enough, there isn't a single surprise in the entire film. Wait, I take that back...the American accents were quite a surprise for me! Nan Grey is GORGEOUS...just as sexy dressed as a chimney sweep as she is dressed in fancy gown, but her American accent completely removes any sense of truth from the film. Barbara O'Neil at least tries a British accent periodically throughout the film...and even though she fails most of the time with it, at least she tries. The problem with O'Neil's performance is that it is so fake and over-the-top that it is impossible to take her seriously...especially with a couple of her stare-bug-eyed-directly-into-the-camera looks...utterly ridiculous!

And I have no idea what anyone was thinking casting John Sutton as the hero of the piece...he was only slightly more masculine than the character Vincent Price was playing! I know Errol Flynn was too big a star at the time for the role, but he was exactly what this film needed to elevate it to where it needed to be...Basil Rathbone is such a powerful screen presence, he deserved a hero of equal stature.

This movie is a must for Rathbone and Karloff fans, but there is little here for the rest. As good as Vincent Price was in this 1939 film as Clarence, his 1962 version of "Tower of London" has the horror legend giving a stellar, scenery-chewing performance as Richard that is among his greatest!

Overall, a 4 out of 10 strictly out of respect for the lead performances.

Terror on a Train (1953)

Looks great...and that's about it

[3/10 · 23 October 2006]

This is exactly the type of film that frustrates me the most. Great cast, great director, great story potential, then they ruin it all with a screenplay that goes nowhere...and says nothing while going there! There is no depth here whatsoever. No depth of characters, no depth of plot, no depth of surprise, suspense, or common sense. We know what's happening, we are told how they plan to fix the problem, they fix the problem, throw a surprise at us near the end that fails to generate any suspense, then they end the film abruptly. Wasted opportunity.

On the plus side, Glenn Ford leads a cast of UK (and one French) actors who are all fantastic, doing an incredibly impressive job with the one-dimensional writing they were given. One of the absolute favorites is Herbert Walton as "Old Charlie", who provides some wonderful bits of humor and warmth to a dark and serious film. I also thought the film had a great look to it...all shadows and fog...very film noir in feel.

Even though the actors do the best they can and the directing is enjoyable, it still just isn't enough for me to recommend spending the time to view the film. There are far better Glenn Ford movies out there: The Big Heat, Gilda, Affair in Trinidad, etc.

Scream and Scream Again (1970)

The Ultimate Film Fraud!

[2/10 · 17 October 2006]

Rarely have I been as frustrated as I was watching this film. It is as if the producers did everything possible to ruin every last aspect of this cinematic mess. I was utterly astounded by the high praise the film received in the dozen or so IMDb reviews I read before my stomach turned and I was compelled to rebut the praise. It appears that the movie industry has so completely lowered our levels of expectation that this garbage can be praised by so many people...and not only praised, but actually referred to by one reviewer as his favorite 60's horror film?! A most depressing concept to ponder.

This movie is a fraud on all accounts. Let's start with the top of the credits. Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing. Price has approximately three scenes in the movie (the bulk of which does not occur until the last 15 minutes), Lee has two full scenes and an appearance at the end of the movie, and Cushing has ONE measly scene in the beginning of the film and is then murdered!! To lead the public to believe that they are getting three titans of horror and then pull the rug out from underneath us is absolute fraud. Not frustrating...infuriating!

Fraud number two is trying to pretend that this is a horror film. There is very little horrific about this film, other than the level of quality. The stuff that is meant to be gruesome, or shocking, is completely undermined by bad directing, bad editing, and the most inappropriate soundtrack ever! The 60's Mod music is fine for the ridiculously over-long scenes in the club (which was pathetic pandering to "fool" young people they were watching a "hip and with-it" horror movie...all it does is come across as desperation by the film makers), but to have the upbeat, swingin' music running throughout the entire film eliminates ALL of the creepy atmosphere this film is so sorely lacking.

Fraud number three is that this is an exciting film, full of action. Nope. The small bits of action neither thrill, nor horrify. There is a painfully long and boring car chase scene in the middle of the film that looks childish, even by 1970 standards...especially since this movie was released well after the gut-wrenching thrill ride in 1968's BULLITT. The other "action" scene is the fight at the end between Price and the main bad guy, which was so completely fake in every regard that it was impossible to take seriously. Even the lame attempt to titillate the audience by showing the nude breasts of a female corpse and a female "creature" came across as cheap attempts to distract from all that was lacking. And the absurd use of the Shoulder Pinch as the means used by the bad guy to kill people was pathetic, and only served to remind the viewers how it had already been done better by Leonard Nimoy...SEVERAL years earlier.

The script is atrocious, the directing idiotic, the pacing erratic, the plot absurdly convoluted for no reason, the structure annoying, and most of the acting dreadful. Lee is okay in his minuscule part, even though he has the most ambiguous, nonsensical line to end the film, which I can only imagine was meant to set up a sequel if this mess had been a success. Price, who is normally one of my favorites, is not at his best here at all. And poor Peter Cushing, who is as brilliant as they come, was the only one in the "Mystery Country" who was speaking with a British accent when the others were speaking with German accents, yet calling each other "Comrade" (?!).

The ONLY bright spot in the film is Alfred Marks, who steals the entire movie (which is quite some feat when you have Price, Lee, and Cushing in the same film!) His portrayal was superb, and the wonderful touches of humor he added to the film were a great relief from the tedium.

I was going to give this film a 1, but have decided to give it a 2 strictly for Marks' performance. There is absolutely nothing else worth recommending about this confused, childish, boring, fraudulent film.

The Americano (1955)

A Sad Snoozer

[2/10 · 10 October 2006]

I'm a big fan of Glenn Ford, Frank Lovejoy, and Cesar Romero, but this movie goes terribly astray. One must take into account that when this movie was made, the world was less sophisticated, so the lame travelogue aspects of the first half hour were probably exciting, new, and "never-seen-before" footage. Now it is obvious, boring, and an incredibly poor job of editing some location shooting with bad stock footage. Lovejoy and Romero are both presented as smiling bad guys, with Glenn Ford and the audience left to uncover who is truly bad and who Ford should side with. Romero's character was over-the-top and annoying, while I thought Lovejoy gave a very nice, textured portrayal. That being said, I just couldn't care less about either of them, their range war, or who Ford was going to side with. He was back and forth between the two men so often, I started to get dizzy, and, remarkably, throughout most of the 90 minutes, NOTHING gets done! It's just a boring see-saw.

There are murders, attempted rapes, treachery, and much thievery, but neither the script, nor the director (William Castle), generate even the SLIGHTEST bit of tension. A perfect example: In the beginning of the film, Cesar Romero is supposed to lead Ford and his bulls across a river, but warns of the Pirahna fish that will devour the bulls, so he chases a crocodile into the river downstream, the Pirahna chase after the croc, and our hero gets his bulls across safely. It is OBVIOUSLY a set-up for later, but throughout the film, they ride TWO times across the river without even pausing or "distracting" the fish, which completely undermines the set-up. The ultimate undermining shows its effect during the scene toward the end of the film where they threaten to drop the bad guy's henchman into the river if he doesn't confess. Because the Pirahna threat has been undermined throughout half the film instead of bolstered by constant tension and references, the scene becomes a hokey "convenience" that holds zero tension. It's ruined and wasted moments like that which drag the film down.

The script is awful, with a banal plot that goes nowhere, generates no interest, and has a thoroughly unsatisfying ending. Speaking of the ending, we are forced to endure a painfully awkward romance between Ford and a female rancher (Theiss) who have ZERO chemistry together. Ford is lecherous and smarmy (which are not particularly enjoyable qualities in a supposed hero), but he eventually beds Theiss. Ford then sides with Theiss when everything she owns is destroyed so the bad guy can take her land. Ford & Theiss have formed a great bond and romantic relationship, right? Evidently, not, as the end of the movie consists of the evil henchman (Hoyos) that Ford has been at odds with since the beginning of the movie being killed in a boring fight scene with... CESAR ROMERO (Uhh, what was the purpose of building the "tension" and animosity between Hoyos and Ford then?)! Ford goes up against the main bad guy and kills him...OFFSCREEN! And then the movie ends without a single shot of, or reference to, Ursula Theiss, her ranch, her relationship with Ford, etc.! Ford just kills the bad guy, walks off into the jungle, The End. Huh?! Every possible plot point is tied up in the MOST unsatisfactory way. It was as if the producers went out of there way to ruin every aspect of this movie.

I am being incredibly generous and giving this movie a 2 out of 10 because of solid performances by Glenn Ford, Frank Lovejoy, and the insanely sexy Abbe Lane...they did the best they could with a boring script and truly awful directing job by the usually entertaining William Castle.

Walk the Proud Land (1956)

A Real Treat

[8/10 · 1 October 2006]

I just caught this movie recently on AMC and was shocked at how much I enjoyed it. I am a big Audie Murphy fan, but even I am willing to admit that most of his movies rarely rise above mediocre. This movie, however, has Audie in the hands of a good director, with a competent script, and some very good supporting cast members.

There were a couple of moments when Ann Bancroft was on screen when my mouth dropped open at how utterly gorgeous she was. Simply breathtaking! Charles Drake and Morris Ankrum do nice work, and Jay Silverheels can do no wrong in my book (I could watch that noble face and listen to that great voice all day long).

I confess to not knowing the real story of Clum, so I was not distracted by how factually accurate this account was (or wasn't, as the case may be). I watched it purely for its entertainment value and walked away completely entertained. Yes, the script has some rather heavy-handed messages we are beaten over the head with throughout, but I feel most of society could stand to be beaten over the head with some positive messages regarding friendship, loyalty, family, and race relations, so that didn't bother me.

I feel Audie Murphy did some of his best acting work in this film, so if you get a chance to see it, I would highly recommend giving it a shot...it's good old fashioned entertainment.

Destry (1954)

Very Enjoyable

[8/10 · 1 October 2006]

I'm a big fan of Audie Murphy, but even I willingly admit that most of his movies are mediocre at best. That being said, AMC has been running some Audie Murphy movies that I've never been able to see before...and much to my surprise, I found myself thoroughly enjoying "Destry"! Whenever the studios cared enough to surround Audie Murphy with top-quality supporting players (such as Thomas Mitchell, Edgar Buchanan, Alan Hale, Jr., and Lyle Bettger in this film), Audie's performances always rose to the level of those around him. Everyone is good in this movie, with very little of the over-acting that was the style then.

I saw the Dietrich/Stewart version many years ago...I've never liked Marlene Dietrich and never understood what the big deal with her was, but Jimmy Stewart tops the list of my favorite actors, so it surprises me that I honestly can't remember a single scene from their film. The Murphy remake, however, has some really nice moments that have stuck with me. I'm sure I'll offend a lot of people by saying the following, but Mari Blanchard has more beauty and sex appeal than Dietrich ever DREAMED of having. Mari Blanchard is absolutely stunning in this film.

As for the technical end, I found the directing good, the script devoid of the usual brainless dialog and plot holes that many B Westerns of the time seemed burdened with, and the score was not intrusive. People seem to think this is a comedy, but it is not...it is a Western with humor in it...there's a difference. The humor is derived from the real situations, but never descends into broad comedy with pratfalls and nonsense.

Many Audie Murphy films are good for a single viewing and can be forgotten, but "Destry" is definitely worth repeat viewing. If you run across it, I highly recommend checking it out...there is good stuff throughout.

Battle at Bloody Beach (1961)

Those With Reasonable Expectations Will Be Entertained

[5/10 · 18 September 2006]

This movie gets beaten up on quite a bit by critics, so my expectations were as low as they could be before watching...perhaps that is why I was so surprised to find some nice moments in this film.

There is no question that this could never be considered a war classic, but to dismiss it outright simply by its reputation, or ones pre-conceived notions, is to do oneself a disservice. For being a low budget movie, there was some nice location shooting, quality set design, decent special effects (for the time), and good quality stock footage. There is some poor editing here and there, and a few technical goofs in the film, but, that aside, I must say that I found the direction to be quite good, overall, for a drive-in movie...and the score was nicely done, as well.

With only one or two exceptions, the cast was very competent, with Audie Murphy and Gary Crosby doing a nice job, as well as a few enjoyable performances supporting them. The plot had great potential, but the script was poorly written and we didn't get to spend enough time with the people we are supposed to care about. Dolores Michaels is gorgeous, so we can understand why Audie Murphy and Alejandro Rey would both be attracted to her, but she has no real chemistry with either man, so it is hard to get swept up in the love triangle. The characters are written to be very one-dimensional, so the plot points and drama never get a chance to make an impact.

The feeling I got at the end of watching this film was that all of the elements were there for a good movie, but it just missed. That being said, I give it a 5 out of 10 for the enjoyment of watching Audie Murphy, as well as a few nice acting and directorial moments. Prepare yourself for a 1960s drive-in movie level of quality, and you will find moments to enjoy throughout.

Affair in Trinidad (1952)

Enjoyable Island Getaway

[5/10 · 26 May 2006]

Certainly not as good as "Gilda", and nowhere even close to being as good as "Notorious", but I still find it a very enjoyable movie. I enjoyed the directing, the song/dance numbers, and was not bothered by the storyline that others on this site found weak. I like Glenn Ford, too, but I found his performance a little too much on the melodramatic side, and less on the believable side, but he was still enjoyable overall.

A couple of things reminded me of other films: 1) The moment when Rita opens the door to the guest house to find all the bad guys standing just outside waiting for her somehow reminded me of when Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane enter the train car of circus freaks in "Saboteur"...both scenes were a little eerie...and both were very nice cinematic moments. The other comparison that was a bit distracting for me was 2) how much Alexander Scourby in "Affair" reminds me of Morris Carnovsky, Bogart's nemesis in "Dead Reckoning"...they have a very similar look, and their characters are also very much alike.

A previous reviewer knocked Rita Hayworth's performance as being lifeless...Yes, it could be that it was Rita's lack of enthusiasm, but I wouldn't know her frame of mind, so I don't know if that comment is fair for people to make...to me, I took it as her choice for the character...it made perfect sense for her to be dazed and detached...think about all that her character has suffered in a loveless marriage, an unfulfilling job, the grief she feels for her failed marriage, her husband's death, her own emotional death, then what she is forced into doing in terms of the lies, deceit, and intrigue for the police. Add to that her confusion over her feelings for her brother-in-law and is it any wonder that the character's head was swimming? I think Ms. Hayworth did a fine job with the role...and was she ever gorgeous, too!!

"Affair In Trinidad" will never be accused of being a masterpiece, but it is absolutely worth viewing if you're in the mood for some enjoyable, Noirish entertainment.

Coogan's Bluff (1968)

What a Waste

[3/10 · 23 May 2006]

Considering the talent involved, there is no excuse for a movie this bad. Great director, but did nothing worth talking about on this movie. Lalo doing the music, yet nothing memorable. Clint as a lecherous, slimy, rule-breaking deputy sheriff was PAINFUL to watch. Susan Clark has zero sex appeal and is given the most inane role to work with. I guess the bulk of the problem, however, lies with the script. The story is boring and pointless, the attempts at humor are beyond lame (good actors might have been able to make them work, but this cast fails miserably), and the majority of the characters are one-dimensional cardboard cutouts. Dreadful movie. The one bright, shining aspect of the movie, though, has got to be veteran screen legend, Lee J. Cobb. What a pleasure he is in this movie. Pay attention to the lines he has to deliver, then pay close attention to the WAY he delivers them. What sets mediocre actors apart from the great ones has much to do with interpretation of the lines. Mr. Cobb's line readings are the only interesting thing about this movie. His performance alone is the sole reason I give this movie a 3 rating. There are far superior Eastwood movies, so I would strongly suggest not wasting valuable time on this garbage. But, if it is on TV for free, then enjoy the sparkling bits of screen time Mr. Cobb provides.

Mara Maru (1952)

Worth a Viewing

[6/10 · 15 April 2006]

It is beyond me why critics had such a problem with Errol Flynn. He was, even in his worst films, an excellent actor. I think people let his personal flaws and wild personal life cloud their opinion. I think Errol Flynn is one of the most under-rated actors in the history of film, and never got the respect he deserved. Yes, part of that is certainly his own fault, but definitely not all of it.

Mara Maru is unquestionably one of Flynn's lesser films. It is a bit slow in parts, and there are a couple of plot holes that one must overlook, but I found myself overlooking them and just watching the movie to be entertained. If one does this, the movie is certainly worth a viewing. I found Ruth Roman such a blessing, as she was not one of those melodramatic, chew-the-wallpaper actresses from the old studio system...she was grounded, strong, and REALLY beautiful. The rest of the supporting cast was pretty good, too. Raymond Burr is always fun to watch as a bad guy, and I enjoyed the two actors who portrayed the Filipino boys. Paul Picerni and Dan Seymour I found to be a little over the top, but not so bad that they were totally annoying or unwatchable. And, for me, anything with Errol Flynn is fun...even in a mediocre film...there is just something about the guy that I like.

I'm giving the movie a 6 out of 10 mostly because of the solid B-film performances, competent directing through most of the film (I think the flaws are derived from poor editing, not from the directing), and for the ever-enjoyable Errol Flynn. I think those coming to the film with realistic expectations, prepared for B-film entertainment, and willing to overlook the weaknesses of the screenplay, will find themselves in for an enjoyable film experience.