Vincent Price is at the 'Crossroads'

Crossroads: God's Healing (1956)
Starring: Vincent Price, Marcia Henderson, Frieda Inescort, and Adam Kennedy

Director: Nathan Juran

Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

While counseling an elderly woman with a failing heart (Inescort), the pastor of a healing ministry (Price) attempts to rebuild her broken family and restore her relationship with her daughter (Henderson).

"Crossroads" was a dramatic anthology show that began the ABC Network and moved onto syndication. Every week, it presented a tale of a clergyman overcoming challenges, righting lives, and saving souls while being a sterling example of what a truly good man should be, regardless of his religious affiliation.

The episode "God's Healing" is well written and populated by believable characters portrayed by good actors. The way the story unfolds and way the characters interact with each other actually manages to make what could have been boring and predictable into a story where the outcome remains in doubt almost until the very end.

It's also a nice reminder that Vincent Price could actually play likeable characters and didn't always go over the top in his performances. The gentle, compassionate demeanor he presents in this role shows that he had a far greater range as an actor than one gets from just watching his work from the mid-1960s onward where he was almost all-camp and comedic all the time.

Whether you're a Vincent Price fan, or interested in some light, uplifting entertainment, I think you'll find "God's Healing" to be worth half an hour of your time. Click below to check it out.

The 'Hitch-Hiker' is a genre-shaping thriller

The Hitch-Hiker (1954)
Starring: Frank Lovejoy, Edmund O'Brien, William Talman, and Jose Torvay

Director: Ida Lupino

Rating: Eight of Nine Stars

A pair of friends (Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy) find themselves at the mercy of a psychopath when they give a ride to the wrong hitchhiker (William Talman). 

"The Hitch-Hiker" is an acclaimed thriller co-written and directed by Ida Lupino, an actress who turned to directing and producing during a time when she was fighting with Studio Bosses over the sort of roles they kept giving her versus the parts she wanted to play. She went onto direct, write, and/or produce ten movies and over 100 episodes of television series ranging from westerns, to dramas, to comedies. 

The tension you feel as this film unfolds is amazing, fueled by great camera-work, well-chosen locations, great lighting, and the performances of the three principal actors. It is also blessed with a perfectly paced script and tight editing. William Talman is especially effective as the psychotic killer. If you liked him as Perry Mason's courtroom adversary on the television series, you'll love him in this one. 

"The Hitch-Hiker" (1953) is a chilling film that will keep you guessing as to how it will all end up until literally the final fade-out. It becomes even a little more scary when you consider it was based on real events, and that Talman's character was based on an actual killer who preyed upon motorists and took two friends hostage in a fashion similar to what happens in the film. Even Talman's strange, unsettling quirks are echoes of the real-life murderer.

This film has been the inspiration/model for dozens of similarly themed chillers, and it holds up nicely to comparisons with any of those that followed. Fittingly, it was added to the U.S. National Film Registry in 1998.

You can enjoy this excellent film by clicking below. Go microwave some popcorn, grab a drink, and lean back and enjoy "The Hitch-Hiker"!

It's a Bare Bones Sunday with Ezekiel

And, of course, the Delta Rhythm Boys are here, too!

Musical Monday with the Lennon Sisters

The Lennon Sisters are a group of musically talented sisters whose professional singing career (together and occassionally seperately) spanned seven decades. We're kicking off the final week of Women's History Month 2023, with them being all traditional and stuff on "The Lawrence Welk Show" in the late 1950s while performing a song that is best known for its association with Doris Day and the Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much".

The Scottish Play, Retold

At some point during the mid-1950s, writer/artist Mort Meskin created the following retelling of Shakespeare's "MacBeth". Meskin's version moved the action from 11th century Scotland to 20th century America, and replaced the competing clansmen with gangers. Enjoy this rarity (and click on each page for a larger, more easily read version).

 
 
 

 

For more obscure (but fascinating) comics and art, check out The Bristol Board.

If Shakespeare had been a surfer...

 

'Edge of Doom' is a fascinating look at the psychological effects of poverty

Edge of Doom (1950)
Starring: Farley Granger, Dana Andrews, Paul Stewart, Robert Keith, Joan Evans, Mala Powers, Howard Vermilyea, Houseley Stevenson, and Adele Jergens

Director: Mark Robson

Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When his devoutly religious, beloved mother dies, Martin (Granger) snaps under the pressure of living life in poverty and murders an elderly priest (Vermilyea) he blames for much of his misery. As he spirals deeper into despair and madness, Martin becomes obsessed with getting enough money to provide his mother with the elaborate funeral he feels she deserves.

"Edge of Doom" had the potential to be one of the bleakest, most depressing, and emotionally impactful films ever made. It takes place almost entirely at night, which is an embodiment of the everpresent gloom in the impoverished inner-city neighborhood in which the story unfolds. The central character is one of the working poor who, despite living an honest life and working hard can't get ahead. There is no way to not feel empathy for him, because circumstances have literally been against him his whole life. The film gets even darker, because those in his life who could possibly stop his downward spiral are either self-interested criminals, trying to keep their own heads above water, or so distracted and/or burned out by the unending cycle misery and social and economic struggles of the neighborhood that they are blind to Martin's meltdown and that they have the ability to stop it.

The villains in this picture aren't any of the characters (although Paul Stewart, in an excellently performed supporting role, comes close to filling that slot)... no, the villains here are Fate, Luck, and perhaps Society. It's rare that a film that a film successfully manages to have ephemeral concepts as the primarily antagonists in a story, but "Edge of Doom" pulls it off. Mostly. Some terrible decisions are made, which I get into below.

The set design, camerawork, and lighting are excellent and all work together to emphasize the unescapable gloom that permeates the neighborhood and infects everybody. Most of the performances are likewise fitting for the characters and situations, with the way the characters are written and how the actors portray them . Even the main police detectives who initially seem to be one-dimensional, dimwitted bully-boys that populated many films of the 1930s and 1940s, end up being portrayed with some nuance, both due to the story and to actors portraying them. 

Although Farley Granger does not get top billing, he is the undisputed star of the film. His character is central to almost everything that happens in the picture, and he has more screen time than any other actor. He also delivers a star-caliber performance, even if he goes a little over the top on a couple of occasions. He's not as good here as he is in "Strangers on a Train" (which he would star in the following year), but it's close.

With all the praise I'm heaping on "Edge of Doom", why is it only getting a Six-Star rating? Well, because someone, somewhere, made the absolutely awful decision to tell the story in flashback, bookending the main story with a sequence featuring Dana Andrews trying to convince a young priest to not quit the parish, because, despite the harsh nature of life there, he has a chance to make a difference if he just sticks with it. This sappy framing sequence not only undermines the dark tone of the story, but it removes any tension that surrounds Andrews' character as the main story unfolds, since we already know how his part in it ends. 

The cheesy narration that the flashback structure provides an excuse for, further undermines the tone of the film and brings to the fore what might otherwise have been a preachy under-current. The message that poverty breaks those trapped in in and those who try to get them out of it is delivered clearly enough through the story without the narrator beating us over the head with it. It also undermines Andrews character, since he does seem like a devout, humble and empathetic priest and not a holier-than-thou, preachy one--which is what the voice-over narration borders on. And this is a real shame, because Andrews does a good job with the character otherwise.My dislike of the framing sequence and related narration can't be overstated, and it caused me to knock at least a Star off my rating.

Despite the terrible decision to tell the dark and tragic story of "Edge of Doom" in a flashback sandwiched by a hokey priestly pep talk, I think this is a film that's well worth watching. Farley Granger and Dana Andrews are both very good, and their performances are enhanced by equally remarkable performances from the supporting cast. As mentioned above, Paul Stewart is particularly impressive as Martin's sleazy neighbor. Adele Jergens, as Stewart's wife play a much smaller part, but she is equally remarkable. Both these characters are obviously bad people, but they are portrayed with deftness and nuance by the actors to the point where the viewers can actually find them somewhat sympathetic.

If you are an Amazon Prime subscriber, "Edge of Doom" is, as of this writing, one of the films you can watch for free. Click here to check it out.

A fine silent movie with a timeless message

Two Men and a Wardrobe (1958)
Starring: Jakub Goldberga, Henryk Cluba, Barbara Lass, Stanislaw Milchalski, and Roman Polanski
Director: Roman Polanski
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A strange pair of men emerge from the sea (Goldberga and Cluba), carrying a wardrobe. They try to get along with the people on land, but are rejected everywhere they go.

"Two Men and a Wardrobe" is a story that's equal parts amusing, sad, and infuriating. It also features a heavy dose of surreal fantasy in the form of our mysterious protagonists--the men and the wardrobe of the title--but the magic and joy that seems like it's trying to emerge in the film is, instead, crushed over and over by the vicious or indifferent citizens of the seaside town. The men are either rejected for their strangeness or outright abused. The only ray of positivity that remains by the end of the film is that the men from the sea that not had their kind natures blunted by the abusive townsfolk... but it's a nonetheless bittersweet conclusion, because the town will not benefit from it.

The message of "Two Men and a Wardrobe" isn't delivered in a subtle fashion, but it is still entertaining and clever. It's also a timeless message that is just as worth taking to heart and paying attention to--it's worthwhile to be attentive and considerate of immigrants or visitors who find themselves in a strange land or culture where they don't understand the "rules". If no one is willing to take the time to engage with them and explain what they are doing wrong or how they might be able to fit in, whatever contributions those individuals might be able to make will be lost. 

This is an early film from writer/director Roman Polanski that's well-worth the 15 minutes it will take to watch it. There are a few badly executed edits (exclusively involving the scenes by the seashore), but otherwise it's an effective and entertaining silent film 

 

  

Irony and twists abound in "The Lamp"

The Lamp (1959)

Starring: K. Romanowski
Director: Roman Polanski
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A dollmaker (Romanowski) modernizes his shop with unfortunate results.

"The Lamp" was made by future super-star director Roman Polanski when he was still in film school. It is one of his first films that use sound... and it does so with varying success. It's still basically a silent movie, but it uses sound effects to note the passage of time, as well as the power of electricity when the dollmaker's shop is wired for such.

The reason to watch this film is for the creative cinematography and lighting that infuses a great level of spookiness into the elderly dollmaker and his shop, as well as the creepiest anthromophication of an old-school fuse box you're ever likely to see. The film is further elevated by the way it plays with the audience's expectations, and, finally, by an ending that's ironic on many different levels. Polanski's takent for filmmaking is on full display, even in this very early work.

Check out "The Lamp", below. I think you'll find it well worth a few minutes of your time.

(On a purely personal note, I found myself struggling to not interpret this film in light of Polanski's predilection for wanting to control and have sex with young girls. It adds new levels of possible meaning to the film, some of them really disturbing, some of them showing more self-reflection that I imagine a sick person like Polanski is capable of. It can be hard to separate the art from the artist...)

A moment with a pervert

Toothy Smile (1957)
Starring: Nikola Todorow
Director: Roman Polanski
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A man (Todorow) going out for the evening stops to ogle his topless neighbor, but learns he should have stopped while he was ahead.

"Toothy Smile" is a short film made by Roman Polanski while he was at film school in Poland. It's a silent film, although there is one moment where it really needed sound (or at least a shot including a different angle on the action). 

It runs just shy of two minutes, so it will take almost no time at all for you to check it out--it's well worth it. My summary might make it sound a little more dramatic than it actually is, but everything here shows that Polanski had excellent mastery of cinematic storytelling from the beginning.

Note: Tuesdays in August of 2021, there'll be a review of one of Roman Polanski's short films at this blog. This is in observation of his 88th birthday, which is on the 18th. While he may be a shitty human being (what with him being a convicted child rapist who refuses to face punishment for his crime), he's made some pretty good films that are worth checking out.

'The Maze': Fine gothic tale with a weak ending

The Maze (1953)
Starring: Veronica Hurst. Richard Carlson, Katherine Emery, Michael Pate, Robin Hughes, John Dodsworth, Hillary Brooke, Lilian Bond, and Stanley Fraser
Director: William Cameron Menzies
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Kitty (Hurst) and her Aunt Edith (Emery) travel to Scotland to learn why Kitty's fiance, Gerald (Carlson) abruptly cancelled the wedding plans after inheriting his family estate and title.

Although "The Maze" was made and released in the early 1950s, it has an aura about it that feels like a horror film from Warner Bros. or Universal from the 1930s. It's soaked in a gothic sensibility from beginning to end, and it presents a nice, serious-minded spin on the "Old Dark House" genre to the degree that it's almost surprising the filmmakers pulled it off as successfully as they did.

Another key to this film's success is that it embraces the full spectrum of gothic tropes, including that of a young woman who, driven by love, ends up uncovering dark secrets. While Kitty's fiance is not a dark, brooding man at the beginning of the film, he rapidly turns into one once he is ensconced in his ancestral home of Craven Castle. Young Kitty and her aunt Edith (however reluctantly the latter is drawn into the shadows) spend the majority of the movie trying to outsmart the servants in the creepy castle and to force its secrets into the light--all in the service of saving Gerald from whatever mysterious fate he has apparently surrendered himself to. The film hits almost every gothic note, except that Kitty never gets to run down corridors in a filmy nightgown (even if she does carry a candle abound quite a bit). 

Kitty's quest to uncover the mystery of Craven Castle, and what has seemingly aged Gerald a decade or more in the space of a few weeks, is one that I found to be engaging. It became even moreso when it became clear that there indeed was some sort of monster creeping around the castle at night--and that there might well be some solid justification for why visitors were locked in their rooms at night. My curiosity became even stronger when the level headed Aunt Edith came face-to-face with the creature (after devising a way to not get locked in her room), but whatever she saw was alien and strange that her mind could not process whatever it was that she saw. This encounter thickened the atmosphere of gothic horror in film by adding a Lovecraftian touch to the proceedings. 

The film is further buoyed by strong performances by all cast members. Gerald's two creepy man servants (Stanley Fraser and Michael Pate) give the sense of being equally willing to keep the unwelcome guests at Craven Castle under control until they leave, or to kill them if they prove to be too much trouble. Meanwhile, Veronica Hurst, the film's real star despite Richard Carlson's top billing, gives an excellent performance as a strong-willed young woman who wants to redeem and recover the virile, kind and personable man viewers met during the film's first few minutes, or at least discover what caused him to change into a prematurely aged, bitter and loveless hermit. 

Speaking of Richard Carlson--the warmth with which he portrays Gerald McTeam in the early scenes of the film go a long way to making viewers invested in Kitty's success. The only flaw in Carlson's performance is that his transformation from Kitty's perfect husband-to-be into the haunted lord of a creepy castle in the Scottish highlands isn't sharp enough--there needed to be more menace in his performance during the middle part of the film. It would have made his transformation more shocking, and it would have made the scenes where Gerald is rejecting Kitty's pleas for him to let her help, as well as his interactions with old friends (whom Kitty contrives to get to the castle in hopes of snapping him out of whatever has gotten hold of him) more dramatic and moving. (A few years later, Carlson would give an amazing performance as a truly vile character in "Tormented"; if he could have tapped into a little of that for this role, he would have been amazing instead of merely good.

Carlson's good-but-not-perfect performance wasn't what made me knock this film down from a High Eight to a Low Seven on my Ten-Star rating scale. As strong as this film is for most of its running time, it starts to sputter toward the end, as Kitty and Aunt Edith follow Gerald, his servants, and some thing into the film's titular maze.

First, there's a ridiculous bit where Gerald & Company are escorting the thing through the castle, but are hiding it behind a sheet for no reason other than to keep it from the view of the film's audience. Secondly, the ladies' attempt to find their way to its center (where strange splashing sounds can be heard) starts to drag quickly, and soon becomes boring. The moment where they uncover the horror that the men of Craven Castle were trying to hide is extremely well done, as is the dramatic and fast-moving aftermath... but this is ultimately squandered during the film's denouement where the filmmakers went a little too far in capturing that old-time horror movie feel: Instead of letting Craven Castle's secret be something supernatural, we're treated to some pseudo-scientific, weak sci-fi babble when "curse" would have been far more effective. (In fairness, though, I am led to understand that the film is true to the novel upon which the script was based in this sense... but a bad ending is a bad ending.)

If you like gothic horror tales, as well as horror movies from the 1930s, I think you'll enjoy this film, despite the ending not being what it could have been.

'Night of the Demon' is terror-riffic!

Night of the Demon (1957) (aka "Curse of the Demon")
Starring: Dana Andrews, Peggy Cummins, Niall McGinnis, Liam Redmond, and Athene Seyler
Director: Jacques Tourneur
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

An American (Andrews) travels to England to help investigate a demonic cult, and he finds himself targeted by supernatural forces unleashed by the cult's leader (McGinnis).

"Night of the Demon" is a by-the-numbers horror film where a skeptic is beset by supernatural forces and the only way he can survive is to turn the tables on those who have unleashed them. The fact that it's straight-forward with only one unexpected and shocking moment isn't a strike against it, because the story is expertly paced and structured, and so excellently acted by ever cast member that the predictability of the story becomes irrelevant.

The mood grows increasingly intense as the film unfolds, and the trainyard climax is perhaps one of the best finishes to a horror film I've ever seen. What's better, the film delivers its scares through quality acting, lighting, sparse use of soundtrack music, and perfect pacing; who could have imagined that a piece of paper fluttering away on a breeze could be such a source of suspense? I highly recommend this film to anyone who likes their horror with a minimum of gore.

With all the praise I'm heaping on the film, you may be wondering why I'm only giving it a rating of Eight Stars? It's because of the film's one and only misstep; it establishes right from the beginning that the supernatural powers of the villainious cult leader (played with just the right amount of slimeness and pomposity by the underappreciated character actor Niall McGinnis) are real. While on the one hand, it accelerates the viewer's sense of apprehension for the death-marked hero, it undermines takes away any mystery in the story. We don't even the a startling reveal of the demonic creature, as that, too, is shown to us in the very beginning. It's hard for to judge if the film would have been better with the more standard "is it all a hoax or is it supernatural forces" approach, but I leaning toward thinking it would have. Therefore, I am assigning it a rating of a High Eight.

"Night of the Demon" was released in the United States in 1958 under the title "Curse of the Demon", with a running time that's roughly 7 minutes shorter than the original British version. The most recent DVD release contains both cuts of the film, and I was sure that part of the cut material would be from the opening sequence where we see a character get killed by fire demon. I was wrong; instead, character building bits, and a crucial exposition scene were cut from the film.

Drink Wilkins Coffee... or Else!

Meet Willkins and Wontkins, the first celebrity Muppets to be born of the mind of Jim Henson.

In 1957, Henson was approached by the Wilkins Coffee Company, which operated in the Washington D.C. area, to create a series of television ads that could run along with station identifications. This meant Henson had 6-7 seconds to capture viewers' attention and market Wilkins Coffee to them. The path he took to accomplishing this is something that needs to be seen to be believed--but suffice to say that a recurring theme of the ads is: Strange things happen to those who don't drink Wilkins Coffee... strange, terrible things!. (I've embedded a video, via YouTube, that compiles several dozen of Henson's Wilkins Coffee commercials below, for your viewing pleasure and amazement.)



Once you've watched just a few of the Willkins & Wontkins commercials, you'll fine this bit of trivia amusing: Jim Henson didn't drink coffee... he didn't even like it.

The two Muppets featured in the ads were so popular with televion viewers that Wilkins marketed and sold toys based on them in the early 1960s. The campaign was so successful that Henson was able to take the concept and puppets to other local coffee companies across the United States and re-film the ads using their brands in place of Wilkins.

Jim Henson, assisted by his wife Jill, wrote and performed the Wilkins Coffee ads from 1957 through 1961. Wilkins Coffee was eventually acquired by Maxwell House and the brand was retired.

Brands and corporations come and go, but Willkins & Wontkins (and their boss Mr. Wilkins) will live forever in our hearts and imaginations (and possibly our nightmares). You can read more information about the insane Wilkins Coffee ads by Jim and Jane Henson here.

'Abbott & Costello Meet the Invisible Man' is a flawed film but still lots of fun

Abbott & Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951)
Starring: Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Arthur Franz, William Frawley, Nancy Guild, Gavin Muir, Adele Jurgens, Sheldon Leonard, Paul Maxey, John Day, and Syd Saylor
Director: Charles Lamont
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Tommy (Franz), a professional boxer framed for murder by a mobster (Leonard), hides from the police by using an invisibility serum. He teams up with a pair of rookie private detectives (Abbott and Costello) in a desperate gambit to prove his innocence.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Abbott & Costello made a series of comedies that incorporated Universal's classic monsters from the 1930s, like Dracula, the Mummy, Frankenstein's Monster, and, the Invisible Man. Universal had revived the properties in a series of mostly serious sequels, several of which were crossovers with the Larry Talbot, the Wolfman, who encountered Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster while searching for a cure to his condition. (Larry Talbot's character was itself a revival of a 1930s horror character, the Wolfman of London, but it been the success of the other Universal horror films, so it was "rebooted" rather than being subject to sequels.)

Unlike some of their monster comedies, "Abbott & Costello Meet the Invisible Man" is established as a true sequel to previous films in the series with references to the origins of the invisibility serum. For viewers familiar with "The Invisible Man" (1930) or its sequels ("The Invisible Man Returns" and "The Invisible Agent"), this tie-in lends a sense of urgency as the longer a person has the invisibility serum in their bloodstream, the more likely it is that he or she will be driven insane by it.

Unfortunately, that sense of urgency never becomes what it should be, because Tommy, our invisible man wanting to prove his innocence comes across as a total jerk and more than just a little crazy from the moment he is first introduced. There is literally not a moment where he isn't rude and abrasive to everyone he interacts with. Even in scenes where he is interacting with his girlfriend and the scientist who are risking imprisonment themselves to help him--scenes where there was an opportunity to make him more sympathetic--he is so obnoxious and paranoid that one wonders why the girlfriend even wants to be around him. (There are also a couple of plotting issues--big, gaping holes in the story that leads one to wonder if a scene or two were cut... because it's hard to imagine that any script could be so sloppily written and no one noticed as the film was being made.)

Of course the drama of whether the wrongfully accused man gets cleared of murder before the serum drives him insane or not is basically just an excuse to get us from comedy bit to comedy bit. Most of the routines in the film revolve around characters reacting to seeing--or rather NOT seeing--the invisible man, or boxing gags. The former gets a little old, with the callbacks later in the film being more tiresome than funny (although the spin-off gag involving hypnotism and half the officers and support staff at a police precinct is one of the film's comedic highlights). The latter, however, keeps getting funnier and more involved as the film unfolds, with Costello cartoonishly throwing punches that are actually being landed by the invisible pro-boxer--in a bar fight, in a boxing gym, and ultimately in a the boxing ring. Costello gets to to the physical comedy and pratfalls that he so excelled at, and he does it brilliantly. Meanwhile, Abbott is also very funny as a fundamentally self-centered and greedy huckster who wold probably sell out his own mother for a buck... but he is a charming rogue and you can't help but like him even while thinking he's being a bastard.

While this isn't the strongest of Abbott & Costello's efforts, it has enough going for it that I am giving it a very high Six rating. It might have been a low Seven if the filmmakers hadn't decided to end it on gag that's nonsensical and completely illogical and out-of-step with the rest of the movie. While the supposedly romantic lead being an unlikely jerk hurt the film, it's final 30 or so seconds nearly torpedoed it the material is so bad.

Who's greater than Tony the Tiger? Superman!

Then there was that time where Superman saved ZaSu from getting beat up by her abusive husband...



(We're presenting this slightly disturbing television ad, which aired during the Superman television series at some point between 1953 and 1958, because ZaSu Pitts was born on January 3, 1894--125 years ago today.)

A case where the 'monster' is the hero

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
Starring: Richard Carlson, Julie Adams, Antonio Moreno and Richard Denning
Director: Jack Arnold
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A group of scientists travel into the Amazon jungle to retrieve an unusual fossil, but instead find themselves battling a very-much-alive amphibious humanoid.


I don't think I've ever seen a movie where I've been so quickly on the side of the monster, or rooted so strongly for it to kill off the cast of "heroes" as I did when I saw "Creature from the Black Lagoon".

I also don't think I've seen a movie that has irritated me quite so much as this one did.

If the morons we're supposed to be rooting for had behaved like scientists instead of big game hunters, they might have learned something about the creature, like, oh, that it was intelligent. From beginning to end, the assholes on the good riverboat Rita caused their own troubles, and they are completely unsympathetic as a result. The only member of the expedition with a brain was Richard Carlson's character, and even he seemed awfully slow on the uptake. (When the monster starts laying traps and blocking the river out of the lagoon, it's time to stop treating it like it's a shark with arms and legs, doofus.)

Despite my annoyance with every single character in the film, except the monster, whose initial mistake was one of curiosity and who later is justifiably pissed off at these interlopers who keep shooting sharp sticks and shining blinding lights at him (her?), I was very impressed with the astonishing quality of the underwater action photography and the amazing design of the creature. (And I'm even more amazed at the way the outfit allowed the stuntman wearing it to swim and seem more convincingly real than just about any other "guy in a rubber suit" monsters that have graced the silver screen.)

Unfortunately, the film has a padded feel to it, as there are several drawn-out pointless conversations, and a number of scenes that go on well past the point they should have ended. The film also suffers from a general lack of suspense, although perhaps if I hadn't been wishing for the monster to kill those idiots, maybe I would have felt a little more tension than I did.

Still, the look of the creature is fantastic, and the underwater sequences are amazingly well done. In fact, every shot of the creature swimming or fighting is a joy to watch, and the film is at its very best during a long sequence where the looks-great-in-a-bathing-suit marine biologist goes for a swim in the lagoon, and the creature is pacing her under the water, watching her with no menace but obvious curiosity.

The flaws and the strong parts of the film almost balance each other out, but the end result is a movie that's not quite as good as I expected. Maybe I had my expectations set to high, maybe it's a film that doesn't mesh well with modern attitudes--or maybe it just doesn't mesh well with my attitude.

This movie so annoyed me so much that it's the only one of the classic Universal Monsters where I haven't seen all of the original films. I'm getting around to changing that since I was gifted with a copy of the Creature of the Black Lagoon Legacy Collection. Time will tell if I keep rooting for the monster, or if the "heroes" are being bigger assholes in the rest of the series.

A mad scientist goes to extremes to get ahead (or is that "a head"?)

The Head (1959)
Starring: Horst Frank, Michel Simon, Karin Kernke, and Helmut Schmidt
Director: Victor Trivas
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A mad scientist (Frank) keeps the head of a brilliant doctor (Simon) alive so that the doctor can consult on an operation to transplant the head of Brandt's beloved--a hunchback nurse (Kernke)--onto a sexy body.

Writer/director Victor Trivas's greatest claim to fame is that his directorial debut--"Hell on Earth" (1931) was outlawed and destroyed by the Nazis in 1940, with no copies known to have survived. His second greatest claim to fame was being nominated for an Oscar for the script for Orson Welles' "The Stranger". And then there's "The Head".

"The Head" is an extremely cheezy, intentionally schlocky film that surprised everyone involved (except maybe auteur Triva) by becoming a hit across Europe and in the United States. But for all the melodrama and dodgy scripting and the prerequisite for big-time suspension of disbelief for the film to even work (but if you're not already planning on doing that, you wouldn't be watching this film to begin with), it's got stylish visuals and it delivers its story with a high degree of tension.

Unfortunately, as the film builds toward what should be a weird, over-the-top, insane climax, it starts to sputter and lose steam. It doesn't quite stall out, but the final act drags to a conclusion instead of roaring toward it, giving this otherwise dark and fun ride a slightly disappointing in. It's still worth your while if you like movies with mad scientists doing mad things.

Sherlock Sunday: The Great Detective on TV

From now until I run out of reviews, I will be giving my take on black-and-white Sherlock Holmes adaptations on the fourth Sunday of every month.

Sherlock Holmes (39 half-hour episodes, produced 1954-1955)
Starring: Ronald Howard, Howard Marion Crawford, Archie Duncan and Kenneth Richards
Directors: Steve Previn (25 episodes), Sheldon Reynolds (9 episodes) and Jack Gage (4episodes)
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

From 1954 through 1955, Ronald Howard starred as Sherlock Holmes, with Howard Marion-Crawford as Dr. Watson, in a 39-episode series that was produced in France with a British cast. The half-hour episode were mostly original stories, with some drawing heavily on some of Doyle's original tales (like "The Case of the Red Headed League," and "The French Interpreter," which was almost a straight adaptation of "The Greek Interpreter"). 

The series is more lighthearted than most Holmes adaptations that don't bill themselves as comedy, with Watson, Holmes and Lestrade taking turns at being the focus of humor, the butt of jokes, and even solving the mysteries at hand.

Ronald Howard's Holmes is a flighty, playful man possessed with an almost juvenile sense of humor. While he is every bit the genius one finds in the Conan Doyle tales, he comes across more like an overgrown child than a man who grows erratic when bored. But he is also probably far more fun to be around than Holmes would have been as he was written by Watson (and portrayed in most other adaptions). In fact, the boyish nature of Holmes as we find him here makes the cluttered rooms at 221B Baker Street seem almost like a clubhouse where he and Watson hang out after school. It's a sense that is enhanced by the good humor and comedy running through nearly every episode.

The comedic touches in the episodes is a nice addition to the Holmes tales, but an even nicer touch is the fact that Watson is repeatedly shown to be smart and capable. On more than on occasion, he even manages to out-do Holmes, primarily because Watson is more down-to-earth and less prone to flights of fancy. Another refreshing aspect to Watson's character is that he more than once stands up to Holmes rather fiercely, refusing to be the brunt of his jokes and on more than one occasion getting Holmes to apologize. In fact, the relationship between Holmes and Watson seems more real in this series than in several other versions, despite the buffoonery and antics.

Another interesting aspect of the series is the way Archie Duncan appears as several different characters throughout. His main role is as Inspector Lestrade, but he also appears as Lestrade's cousin and even one of the villains as the series unfolds.

Like all television series, this one is a mixed bag. Of the 39 episodes produced, a handful are excellent (like "The Case of the Jolly Hangman" where Holmes helps a widow by proving her husband didn't commit suicide, "The Case of the Perfect Husband" where Holmes must save an innocent woman from her psychopathic husband while attempting to prove that he has murdered half a dozen women previously) or "The Case of the Belligerent Ghost" where Watson is repeated assaulted by a dead man), a few are absolutely awful (like "The Case of the Texas Cowgirl" which has a nonsensical plot and a lame mystery, while "The Case of the Thistle Killer" was so weak that Holmes should hang his head in shame for taking so long to solve it), but most are decent little mystery tales. Some have darker tones than others--"The Case of the Perfect Husband" and "The Mother Hubbard Case" are chillers that deal with deadly serial killers, while "The Christmas Pudding" sees Holmes under real threat of death for perhaps the only time in the whole series--but the series can be a great introduction to Sherlock Holmes if you have young kids who are getting into mysteries.

There are a couple of different DVD packages that contain the entire series. I viewed the one issued by Mill Creek. The quality of the source tapes varies from episode to episode, but the sound is generally clear and the picture is only occasionally washed out. It's not perfect, but the three-disk set is very reasonably priced.

Get ready for Halloween with 'Dracula: The Complete Legacy Collection'

Nothing says Halloween like Bela Lugosi (at least for me)... and he is tightly associated with the character of Dracula, even if he only played the character on screen twice. As you get ready for Halloween, I recommend warming up by watching one movie from this set each Friday in October... and then relaxing on the night itself with one of the greatest "monster mash" movies of all time--also included among the seven movies in "Dracula: The Complete Legacy Collection". Each film included is a certified classic!

Even if I'm of the opinion that while the original Universal Studio's "Dracula" film, one of the very important first building blocks of the cinematic horror genre, it is also is overrated.

Watching it in close proximity to the sequels from the 1930s and 1940s and, more importantly, to the Spanish-language "Dracula" that was filmed simultaneously to the English-language version and on the same sets but with a different cast and crew, I am more convinced than ever.

Without "Dracula," the horror film industry as we know it would never have come to be. However, the movie is inferior to "The Mummy" and "Frankenstein" and even the independently produced, Bela Lugosi-starring, low budget chiller "White Zombie" are far better movies. It's not even as good as the Spanish-language "Dracula." In fact, the only thing better in the English version of Dracula than the Spanish version is Bela Lugosi. The guy doing Dracula in the Spanish version isn't even in the same league.

Both of Universal's 1931 versions of "Dracula" and immediate sequels are available in a very affordable, very well put together package. (My only complaint is that they included "House of Dracula" in this set instead of putting it the Wolf Man Legacy Collection... but more on that when I post my reviews of the movies included in that set.)


Dracula (1931)
Starring: Bela Lugosi, Dwight Frye, Helen Chandler, Edward Van Sloan, Herbert Bunston, David Manners, and Charles K. Gerrard
Director: Tod Browning
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Count Dracula (Lugosi) travels to England where he sates his bloodlust on young women, including the lovely Mina (Chandler).

Universal's 1931 "Dracula" was the first horror talkie and is one of the three most influential horror films ever made. It's a film that's truly a significant milestone not only in film history, but in pop culture as well, and, even though its age is showing, it's a genuiine classic.


I don't think anything quite as subtly creepy and startling as Dracula passing through a mass of cobwebs without breaking them has ever been put on film. It's a perfect film moment, because the feeling of "waitaminnit... did that just happen?" that Renfield (Frye) has is shared by the audience, and we're sitting there with a chill that goes right down to our very bones.

Because this film is such a classic milestone, I feel a bit awkward about not liking it more than I do. Like "Frankenstein" (also made by Universal in 1931), this movie has nearly as many flaws as it has elements of perfection.

The biggest problem with "Dracula" is the haphazard way the film unfolds, particularly in its second half. The vampiric Lucy and her preying on little children is dealt with a throw-away fashion, and the climactic encounter at Carfax Abby, which is so weakly and disjointedly handled that it is barely a climax at all. (It's particularly disappointing that Dracula's death happens entirely off-screen, except for a very effective reaction from the psychically bonded Mina.)

In fact, in many ways, it's almost as if someone forgot the movie needed a script, and it was made up as the crew went along. The film is worth seeing for spectacular performances from Bela Lugosi (it's easy to see why he solidified vampires as suave, sharp-dresserrs as opposed to fugly scarecrows like the one featured in "Nosferatu"), Dwight Frye (who, as Renfield, is as much a star of the film as Lugosi, and who does some great acting when he vascilates from raving madman to apparently sane and back again), and Helen Chandler (who, as Mina, conveys more with her eyes, body language, and facial expressions than one would thinks possible, and who has the only decent moment during the film's climax as she shares in Dracula's pain as Van Helsin stakes him). The film's impressive sets and creative camera work also bring about some genuinely creepy moments, such as when Dracula and his vampire brides emerge from their coffins under his Transylvanian castle, and then when they later close on an unconscious Renfield; the discovery of Renfield in the hold of the death ship after it runs aground; Dracula's feeding upon the flower girl in London; Renfield crawling across the floor toward an unconcious maid with a look of madness and bloodlust on his face; Mina's transformation as she urges John Harker to get rid of Van Helsing and his crucifixes; and Dracula and Mina's arrival at Carfax Abby.

But, for every great moment or spectacular performance, there's a boring one, or one where opportunities that should have been obvious to filmmakes even in 1931 are completely missed. Edward Van Sloan (as Van Helsing) and David Manners (as a particularly milquetoasty Harker) are completely dead spots in the film, giving weak performances that almost manage to drag down those excellent ones from Chandler, Frye, and Lugosi. (In fact, Van Sloan and Manners are so weak here that it's surprising to me that they;'re the same actors who do so well in "The Mummy" just one years later. (Perhaps the better script and a different director made all the difference for them.)

By the way, the new score that Phillip Glass composed for the restored version of the film included in the "Dracula Legacy Collection" (and which can be toggled on and off) is actually a fine reflection of the movie itself: Glass has some good moments and some supremely weak moments in his score. For the most part, it is just Muzak that doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with enhancing the mood on the screen, but every so often, it is spot-on and it makes the film that much more impressive. (Glass's music ALMOST gives the film's climax some impact, for example.)

Although far from perfect, the 1931 "Dracula" is a must-see for anyone with an interest in examining the origins of horror as a separate and unique genre. While I'll take "White Zombie" or "The Mummy" over this film any day, I think the 75 minutes it takes to watch this film, is time well spent.


Dracula (1931 Spanish version)
Starring: Carlos Villar, Pablo Alvarez Rubio, Lupita Tovar, Barry Norton, Eduardo Arozamana and Carmen Guerrero
Director: George Melford
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Count Dracula (Villar) travels to London--where everyone suddenly has taken to speaking Spanish and being Catholic--and sets his undead sights on the sexy Lucia (Guerrero) and the beautfiul, virginal Eva (Tovar). Will occult expert Dr. Van Helsing (Arozamana) and Eva's fiance Juan (Norton) save her from the fiend's embrace of death?


The 1931 Spanish-language version of "Dracula" was shot simulateously with the more famous Tod Browning version, using the same sets at Universal Studios but its actors and crew shot at night after production wrapped for the day on the other film.

Although treated as a secondary venture by Universal at the time, this film is actually superior to Browning's "Dracula" in many ways. Although it is about half an hour longer, the film seems to move faster due to superior story cohesion, better staging of many scenes, some of the best cinematography I've seen in any of the early talkies, and better acting on the part of many of the principles. For example, the famous scene where Van Helsing suprises Dracula with a mirror while the Count is visiting the Seward house is clearer and far more dramatic due to better placement of the camera and more efficient blocking of the scene in general; and the scene with the near-sexual assault that the Dracula-corrupted and suddenly very horny Eva (Mina renamed for the Spanish version, played with great effectiveness by Lupita Tovar) on Juan (the renamed Jonathan Harker, played by Barry Norton) is both far sexier and far scarier than the one featured in Browning's version.

Not everything here is better than in the Browning version, however. My favorite scene--where Dracula passes through a spiderweb without breaking it--is completely in this version, and the actor they have playing Dracula is more funny than scary or mysterious. Carlos Villar was apparently a big star in his day, but the reason for that is not evident in this film. He has one acting mode--over-acting--and he has two facial expressions, and they both look like he just smelled something that makes the stench from a baby's dirty diaper seem like a sweet-smelling rose. In fact, Villar's performance seems almost like he belongs in a spoof of "Dracula" instead of a serious movie, and he is so bad that if the Dracula character had gotten any more screen time, his presence would have destroyed the movie.

The Spanish-language "Dracula" is a film that anyone who loves the old Universal horror pictures should check out. While it suffers because of Carlos Villar's unintentionally comic performance, this is an excellent film, one deserving to be recognized and honored as a classic cinematic work.


Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Starring: Gloria Holden Otto Kruger, Edward Van Sloan, Marguerite Churchill, Irving Pichel, and Nan Grey
Director: Lambert Hillyer
Steve's Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Dracula may be dead, but his vampire brides live on. While Van Helsing (Van Sloan) languishes in jail for murder, Countess Zaleska (Holden) steals Dracula's body from the police, blesses and cremates it in the hope that she will finally be free of her vampire curse. But, she finds she stll cannot resist the lure of human blood, so she seeks the help of a noted psychiatrist (Kruger) to assist her in finding a way to a peaceful life.

"Dracula's Daughter" is a far better movie than the film it is a sequel to. It has a coherent, engaging story (even if the ultimate climax has a of a rushed feel to it), its got an active and engaging hero (Dr. Garth, a psychiatrist who doesn't believe in vampires, even after one seeks his help), and a villain who wants desperately to be the story's protaganist, Countess Zaleska. What's more, the film has a steady tone and look to it--all classic Universal Horror--unlike :"Dracula", which vasilated between creepy, atmospheric scenes and boring, stale drawing-room scenes. (Of course, one can't be too hard on "Dracula", because it was treading new ground and was made on a sparse budget. By the time 1936 rolled around, and this film was released, not only was the horror genre well-established, but Universal was doing very, very well.)


Now, there are some plot holes that a swarm of bats could fly through if one considers it in the light of the original "Dracula"--like where are John Harker and Mina Seward, both of whom could help clear Van Helsing of the murder charge, just to mention the biggest one--and a couple of developments that feel just a little too convienient... but these are flaws that can be forgiven when one considers what a rare sequen this is. Not only is it better than its predecessor, but it has an identity all its own; it doesn't bring Dracula back so it can retreat the same basic plot all over again, but instead follows a new and unique path.

My favorite thing about the movie is the character of Countess Valeska. It's a character that oozes mystery from her first appearance through to the very end--she's the ultimate femme fatale in every way. She's also a character that, despite being a blood-drinking fiend, she's a character the audience gains sympathy for early on. Unlike the Dracula character, Valeska doesn't want to be evil, doesn't want to be a spreader of death and misery... she wants to live and let live. But, she can't shake the taint of Dracula, and she can't resist the call of vampirism. (It doesn't help any that she's got an evil bastard for a manservant, Sandor. One has to wonder how Valeska might have fared if she's just gone ahead and sucked him dry in celebration of Dracula's demise. Further, while the "recultant vampire" has been done over and over in movies and TV shows, Valeska, despite being the first, remains among the most enjoyable... because while she may lament her fate, she doesn't whine.

In fact, as I'm thinking about it, Countess Valeska is probably one of the best-presented, tragically romantic vampires in any movie I've seen, tying Jack Palance's portrayal in the 1973 Dan Curtis-directed "Dracula" adaptation starring Jack Palance. In both films, the audience can't help but root for the "bad guy" and can't help but feel sorry when their inevitable demise comes about.


One thing that I've often seen made reference to in reviews of "Dracula's Daughter" is lesbianism. I've seen it commented upon as "subtext" and I've seen it stated that it's there, blatant and wide-open. And I simply don't see it; it looks like it's a case of critics reading too much into the film as it unfolds. The scene they tend to point to is the one involving Valeska and a young woman Sandor picks up for her. Maybe I'm just too innocent (or my mind just isn't deep enough in the gutter), but I see nothing sexual about that scene... or any other scene in this film for that matter.

"Dracula's Daughter" is a film that, like "Dracula" is a landmark of cinematic history. It may not be the most famous of films, but it can be found in the DNA of many vampire movies that have been made since. It's worth seeing by anyone who is a serious student of the development of the horror genre, as well as those out there who enjoys classic cinema.


Son of Dracula (1943)
Starring: Robert Paige, Frank Craven, Louise Allbritton, Lon Chaney, Jr., Evelyn Ankers, and J. Edward Bromberg
Director: Robert Siodmak
Steve's Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Eccentric sothern belle Katherine Caldwell (Allbritton) apparently falls under the sway of a mysterious Transylvanian nobleman, Alucard (Chaney), while traveling in Europe. When he arrives in the United States, strange deaths start happening, and isolates himself and Katherine in her manorhouse on Darkwood Plantation. But after she is accidentially shot to death by her fiance (Paige), the true horror of what Katherine's plans start to emerge.

"Son of Dracula" is a surprisingly effective and mature horror film. I had very low hopes for it when Dracula shows up in Louisiana with the clever aka of "Alucard"--gosh, no one's going to figure that one out!

But fortunately, that's the one bit of childish idiocy in this exceptionally creepy movie.

From Dracula's takeover of Darkwood, to the first time we see Dracula emerge from his swampbound coffin, to Frank going insane from gunning down Katherine... and to the twists and turns the film takes as it moves through its second and third acts. (To reveal that Katherine dies at the hand of Frank is NOT a spoiler for this film. Her death is where the story starts to truly unfold.)

Every scene in this film drips with atmosphere. Despite dating from the mid-1940s where Universal horror films seemed to be targeted primarily at kids, this is a movie with a story that compares nicely to "The Mummy" and "Frankenstein". It may even be a little superior to those two, as far as the story goes, because it's got some twists that I guarentee you will not see coming.

The film is also blessed with a score that is surprisingly effective for a Universal horror picture--I tend to find them overblown for the most part, but here the music perfectly compliments what unfolds on the screen--and with a cast that is mostly superb in their roles.

I say mostly, because Lon Chaney Jr. is does not make a good Dracula at all. He comes across like a dockworker who's borrowed someone's tuxedo for the evening (or who maybe took it off the owner after beating him into unconsciousness). There simply is nothing menacing about Chaney's Dracula... he's brutish and, as the film builds to its climax, desperate, but never menacing or frightening. He is quite possibly the worst Dracula I've ever come across.

Aside from a weak "Dracula", everything else in this film is top-notch, resulting in a horror movie that's surprisingly effective and high quality when compared to the rest of Universal's horror output of the time. In fact, it's a movie that may even have been ahead of its time, as the pacing, style, and overall look of the film reminded me more of the British horror movies that would emerge from Hammer Films starting a little more than a decade after "Son of Dracula" was first released.

In fact, whether you prefer the Hammer Dracula films (as I do) or the Universal ones, this is a film that will appeal to you.


House of Dracula (aka "The Wolf Man's Cure")
Starring: Lon Chaney Jr., Onslow Stevens, John Carradine, Lionel Atwill, Martha O'Driscoll, Jane Adams, and Glenn Strange
Director: Erle C. Kenton
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Unwilling, immortal werewolf Larry Talbot (Chaney) seeks out Dr. Edelman (Stevens), hoping the doctor's cutting edge therapies will cure his affliction. Unfortunately, the doctor's other patient, Count Dracula (Carradine), endangers this hope when he out of pure malice afflicts Edelman with a condition that causes him to become a violent madman at night. It is during one of these fits that Edelman revives Frankenstein's Monster (Strange), which has been dormant in his lab since it was recovered from mud-floes under Edelman's castle.

"House of Dracula" was the third sequel to "The Wolf Man" and "Dracula" and the fifth sequel to "Frankenstein"... and it was the next-to-last stop for all three of the characters as Universal's decade-and-half long horror ride came to an end. nearly the last stop for Universal's original monsters, and it is something of a high note when compared to other Universal horror films from around the same time, even the one to which this is a sequel, "House of Frankenstein" with Boris Karloff.

The script in "House of Dracula" is stronger and more coherent than "House of Frankenstein". The effort at maintaining continuity with other films featuring the character of the Wolf Man are in evidence here, and they are greatly appreciated by this continuity geek. Also, all the various monster characters each get their moment to shine--unlike in "House of Frankenstein" where Dracula was completely superflous to the storyline and whose presense was little more than a marquee-grabbing cameo.

In this film, Dracula is the well-spring of evil from which the plot flows. Although he supposedly comes to Dr. Edelman seeking release from vampirism and his eternal life, he is either too evil or too stupid to control his desires for Edelman's beautfiful nurse (O'Driscoll). He gets his just desserts, but not before he guarentees that every brave and goodhearted character in the film is set on a path of destruction.

The climactic scenes of this film, as the insane Dr. Edelman and Frankenstein's Monster go on homicidal rampages, feature some very, sudden, casual, and matter-of-fact brutality. (I can't go into details without spoiling the plot, but two main characters are dispatched with such swift and surprisingly brutal fashion that modern-day horror filmmakers should take a look at the final minutes of "House of Dracula" and attempt to learn some lessons from them.)

And then there's Larry Talbot. The role of the wolf man in this story is the meatiest since the character's debut in "The Wolf Man". Although he still doesn't get to have the stage to himself, and he is once again a secondary character--the main character of "House of Dracula" is the unfortunate Dr. Edelman--he has some great moments... like his suicide attempt and his discovery of the dormant Frankenstein's Monster.

Acting-wise, this is also one of the better than many other Universal horror films of the period. This is partly due to a superior script that features a story that actually flows with some degree of logic and where the actors have some fairly decent lines to deliever.

Lon Chaney Jr. does his usual excellent job as Larry Talbot, but Onslow also shines as a scientific genius who's a little less mad than the standard in a movie like this (well, at least until Dracula is done with him).


John Carradine performs decently, but I simply can't buy him as Dracula. Even in his younger years, he had the look of a burned-out, alcoholic bum, and the lighting and make-up in this feature strengthen that look as far as I'm concerned. While miscast, he does a decent job.

Lionel Atwill is also on hand for another fine supporting role. The part is similar to the one he played in "Son of Frankenstein", but the role is even more interesting, as he's the voice of reason in a town that is otherwise inhabited by villagers whose favorite pastime seems to be grabbing torches and storming the castle.

When all things are taken into account, this is the best "serious" Universal "Monster Mash" movies. It's second only in quality to "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" and I think it's a film that is worth seeing by modern horror fans... particularly if they also have aspirations of being filmmakers.


Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Lon Chaney Jr., Lenore Aubert, and Bela Lugosi
Director: Charles Barton
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

The reluctant Wolfman, Larry Talbot (Chaney) learns that Dracula (Lugosi) intends to revive Frankenstein's Monster and use it as his personal super-soldier. He pursues the evil vampire lord to the United States where he finds his only allies to be Wilbur and Chick (Costello and Abbott), a couple of less-than-bright shipping clerks. Unfortunately, Dracula as an ally of his own--mad scientist femme fatale Dr. Sandra Mornay (Aubert), and she has Wilbur wrapped around her little finger. Little does Wilbur know that his girlfriend doesn't love him for his mind but rather his brain... she intends to do Dracula's bidding and transplant into the rejuvenated monster!


"Abott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" is a wild screwball comedy with the two master comedians doing their usual routines within the framework of a solid script and a story that's actually pretty logical in its own crazy way. I think it's the first fusion of comedy and monsters, and one reason it works so well is that the monsters are played straight. Even when they are involved in funny schtick (Dracula and the Wolf Man are both part of several routines), they remain as they were featured in the serious monster movies they were in.

Too often, I hear this film written off as Universal's last and crassest attempt to wring some dollars out of their tired monster franchise. While that may be all the studio bosses had in mind, the creators involved with "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" managed to make a great movie that is still worth watching today. It's even superior to many of Universal's "straight" movies with Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, and the Wolf Man (or, for that matter, countless recent so-called horror films). Much of its strength grows from the fact that has a plot that with some tweaking could be a straight horror movie.

I recommend this underappreciated film to any lover of the classic monster films, as well as lovers of slapstick comedy.

Nip-and-tuck surgeries taken to the extreme!

The Head (1959)
Starring: Horst Frank, Karin Kernke, Dieter Eppler, and Michel Simon
Director: Victor Trivas
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

When a scientific genius Dr. Able (Simon) suffers a heart attack, his psychopathic assistant Dr, Ood (Frank) decides to use his cutting-edge methods for preserving transplant organs to keep his head and brain alive--for SCIENCE! Ood then embarks on a project to put the beautiful head of a hunchbacked nurse (Kernke) on a matching beautiful body.

This German (dubbed into English) B-movie of horror and mad science has some themes in common with "The Brain That Wouldn't Die" (review here), but it tries to stay more scientifically grounded, and it avoids the unintentional comedy of that better-known film. It also generally features better cinematography and more moodily lit sets, making its chills more impactful.

Sadly, the film falls down over the fact that it is populated mostly with characters who are either dull or unlikable. I also had a strange feeling that we're supposed to feel empathy for the murderous Ood, despite the fact that he is utterly remorseful in is actions--although that could just be my reaction to the fact that Horst Frank has the strongest screen presence of any of the actors in the film.

This is not a film that I recommend going out of your way for, but if you see it in one of those multi-movie packs (like I did, in the Sci-Fi Invasion 50 Movie Collection) it's harmless filler.


Trivia: Victor Trivas's greatest claim to fame is that his directorial debut--"Hell on Earth" (1931)-- was outlawed by the Nazis in 1940, who attempted to destroy all prints. He was nominated for an Oscar for the script for Orson Welles' "The Stranger".