Evelyn Ankers Times Seven

As part of the effort to promote "The Mad Ghoul" (1943), actress Evelyn Ankers posed with co-star David Bruce and a post containing the titles of all the movies she'd been in for Universal Pictures up to that point.

Over the years, we've written reviews of all seven of those films, so we took Ankers' post as a rationale to make a post of our own that re-presents those reviews. (Even better, the post inspired by the post with seven reviews is appearing on the 7th day of the month!)

Perhaps you can find this a helpful resource for choosing your inspirational viewing this Halloween Season!

The Mad Ghoul (1943)
Starring: George Zucco, David Bruce, Evelyn Ankers, Turhan Bey, and Robert Armstrong
Director: James Hogan
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

College chemistry professor Alfred Morris (Zucco) re-discovers a formula for a gas that ancient Central Americans used turn people into pseudo-living zombies, as well as a means for reversing the transformation. He uses his assistant, Ted (Bruce), as an unwitting human test subject while trying to put the moves on Ted's opera-singing fiance (Ankers)... but when the antidote for the gas turns out to only be temporary, Morris's life and Ted's pseudo-undeath become a lot more complicated.

"The Mad Ghoul" is a horror film from Universal Pictures--the studio that bought the world "The Mummy", "Dracula", and "Frankenstein"--that sounds like a film from Monogram or PRC, with its mad scientist with an even madder scheme, a young couple being threatened by evil, and a crusading reporter who is going to stop the monster the police have been unable to catch.

What the writers and director does with those elements are a great change of, though: The crusading reporter ends up, the young couple's romance is revealed to have been over even before the film starts, and the mad doctor's mad scheme keeps getting more insane, first because he was cocky and had to cover up a failed experiment and then because he wanted to remove all rivals for the woman with whom he believes he shares a mutual attraction. (Some of my favorite parts of the film is when George Zucco and Evelyn Ankers' characters are talking past each other; Zucco thinks they are expressing their love for each other while Ankers thinks she's just unloading her sorrows to a sympathetic ear. These scenes feature some nice acting and even better writing, because they perfectly communicate the notion that Zucco's character later expresses, after he realizes he was mistaken: "Sometimes we see what we want to see.")

The cast of "The Mad Ghoul" all provide good performances. Zucco is in particularly fine form, playing the crazed heavy he specialized in but with a tiny bit of nuances thrown in. Robert Armstrong is also fun as the "I'm smarter than the cops" newsman who populates films of this type, and while I saw his brutal end coming before it actually happened, I was a little sad to see him go. Meanwhile, Ankers and Bey play the kinds of characters they portrayed in many other films, and they do it with their usual skill. Finally, David Bruce, in one of his few starring roles, is good as what initially comes across as the standard, fairly bland romantic lead, but becomes an increasingly interesting and nuanced character as the film unfolds.
 

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 southern 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 guarantee 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.

Captive Wild Woman (1943)
Starring: John Carradine, Milburn Stone, Lloyd Carrigan, Acquanetta, Evelyn Ankers, Fay Helm, and Ray Corrigan
Director: Edward Dmytryk
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A mad genius (Carradine) proves the correctness of his cutting-edge theories in glandular functions by transforming a gorilla into a shapely young woman he names Paula (Acquanetta). Tragedy and death ensue.

 

The more one watches horror and sci-fi films from the 1940s, the more obvious it is why Universal's attempt to recapture the horror profits that carried them through the depression in the 1930s failed. Too many of the films from this "revival period" are no different than the nonsensical films from small studios like Monogram and PRC; instead of living up to greatness of "The Mummy" and "The Invisible Man," Universal executives and directors instead lowered themselves to the level of those who had followed on their coattails.

When compared to the classics of the 1930s, or even "Ghost of Frankenstein" and "The Wolfman" from the 1940s--something the modern-day Universal marketeers are encouraging us to do by including this film is DVD multipack titled "Universal Horror: Classic Movie Archive"--this movie falls woefully short. It's more in the league of low-budget efforts like "The Devil Bat" or "The Monster Maker," just to pick two movies about mad scientists at random. That is a serious step down from the great horror shows of the 1930s.

While disappointing when considered in the light of the cinematic greatness that Universal had once brought to the world, "Captive Wild Woman" is well-acted and well-filmed, with a fast pace to carry us quickly through the story. While Carradine is no Bela Lugosi or Lionel Atwill, he does a decent enough job as the mad doctor at the heart of the story, and the exotic beauty of Acquanetta makes the movie more enjoyable as well. This is not a "classic" in any sense other than it's an old movie, but it's worth checking out if you like the fantastic pulp-fiction science of the early sci-fi and horror flicks.



Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror (1942)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Henry Daniell, Thomas Gomez, Reginald Denny, and Evelyn Ankers
Director: John Rawlins
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

As Hitler's armies devour mainland Europe, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Rathbone and Bruce) are retained by British Intelligence to stop the activities of Nazi saboteurs being coordinated by the mysterious Voice of Terror in radio broadcasts that hijack the British airwaves once a week. Holmes soon comes to suspect that the broadcasts portent something far more sinister and dangerous than the horrific acts of terrorist... and that the enemy within England itself is more powerful than dreamed of in the worst nightmares.

Loosely based on Conan Doyle's "His Final Bow" (where Holmes came out of retirement to catch a German spy at the beginning of WW1) and the real-life Nazi propaganda broadcasts that overrode BBC signals during the early 1940s, "Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror" is the first of a dozen Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce that transports the Great Detective and his loyal sidekick to modern day England. (Modern-day being the 1940s.)

Holmes' methods receive a slight upgrade--the key to unlocking the mystery behind how the Voice of Terror is able to coordinate the broadcasts and the sabotage involves analyzing different types of broadcast with cutting edge audio equipment--he trades in his deerstalking cap and tweed cape for an fedora and overcoat, and the speed of modern travel and communication also impacts the story, but overall the character of Holmes is as it's found in the pages of Doyle.

Although partly a war-time propaganda movie--the kind that I've lamented aren't made anymore, what with American filmmakers preferring to glorify those who would take away their freedom rather than those who defend it--with the patriotic speeches and dastardly Nazi villains that encompasses, the film sets the tone for most of the Universal efforts that will follow. Holmes is a renegade genius, Watson is a doddering moron that seems like he is going senile (even if he isn't quite as dimwitted here as he seems in later pictures), and the villains are of a stripe that would make even the worst of the worst that inhabited the pages of pulp fiction magazines in the 1930s give them a wide berth. But the stories are exciting and fun, so the bad treatment of Watson can be overlooked... as well as the absolutely rediculous hair style that Holmes sports in these early Universal films. (Transporting Holmes to modern-day was the idea of Basil Rathbone who felt the Victorian era was too old fashioned, so I wonder if he was also the genius behind that awful hair.)

While Watson as a ninny didn't originate with the Rathbone/Bruce pictures--there were hints of it as far back as the Arthur Wontner pictures--but it was these pictures that solidified the approach as "standard." The same is true of Holmes as nearly 100% hands-off as far as physical altercations go; when a brawl breaks out between Nazi agents and Limehouse ruffians hired by Holmes as muscle, you almost get the sense that Holmes is afraid to get in the middle of the fight. The Rathbone Holmes seems like he would never throw a punch but would instead leave it to others even in the most dire of situations, so it is with these films that the idea that a "action-oriented" Holmes isn't truthful to Doyle began.

The strong presence of these legacies aside in this film doesn't really harm the entertainment value, however. The story is too fast paced for anything but Holmes bad hair to distract from the fun, and excellent performances by the stars and supporting cast only made it that much better.


Basil Rathbone is excellent as always as Sherlock Holmes (even if I will always prefer Peter Cushing's portrayal) and Nigel Bruce is solid as the comic relief, perhaps even moreso than in future sequels as less of the humor is at the expense of his character than will become the norm. Other standout performances are delivered by Henry Daniell (who will return to the series again and again, as a different villainous character almost every time) and Reginald Denny as power-brokers in British Intelligence, either of which could be a double-agent and the Voice of Terror himself. Finally, Evelyn Ankers has a small but important part as a Limehouse bar girl who helps Holmes track the Voice of Terror's main operative for deeply personal reasons.



The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)
Starring: Cedric Hardwicke, Ralph Bellamy, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Lon Chaney Jr, and Evelyn Ankers
Director: Erle C. Kenton
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

The evil Ygor (Lugosi) resurrects the Frankenstein Monster (Chaney) and forces the second son of Baron Frankenstein (Hardwicke) to "fix him." Frankenstein resolves to give the monster the mind of a decent man, but Ygor and Frankenstein's jealous colleague (Atwill) have other ideas.

"The Ghost of Frankenstein" is a good, workman's like horror flick. The sets are decent, the acting is good, and the script moves along briskly and makes sense (within the context of manmade monsters and full brain-transplant operations). However, the film lacks the style and atmosphere of the previous three films in the series. Gone are the sets with the disturbing angles and sharp shadows. We've also got more subdued, more realistic acting on the part of the cast--and this is a great shame as far as Lugosi's Ygor character goes. Virtually all the humor and quirkiness that made this such a great character in "Son of Frankenstein" is gone, although there is still plenty of menace here.

Speaking of menace, a strong point of this film is that the Monster is actually put to good use story-wise, and the demand he places on Frankenstein is truly monstrous. It's not the character we saw in either "Frankenstein" or "Bride of Frankenstein", but it is an evolution that makes sense; it's as if the Monster wants a fresh start, but that the evil influence of Ygor has leeched away even the slight decency he showed in "Bride."

This may not be the high point of classic horror, but it's a fun flick and one you'll be glad you saw.



The Wolf Man (1941)
Starring: Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains, Evelyn Ankers, Maria Ouspenskaya, Warren William, and Bela Lugosi
Director: George Waggner
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Engineer Larry Talbot (Chaney) returns to his ancestral home and reconnects with his roots... only to be bitten by a werewolf and find himself cursed. Will he manage to find a cure for a malady that no one in the modern world believes in before he kills someone he loves?


"The Wolf Man" isn't the first werewolf movie--I think that was Universal's "Werewolf of London"--but it's the one that brought werewolves firmly into pop culture, and most every other film, novel, or comic book that's followed in the 65+ years since its release owes one thing or another to it. In fact, there are a numer of elements that are now taken as "fact" about werewolf legends that didn't exist until the writer of "The Wolf Man" made them up.

Interestingly, this really isn't that good a movie. It's sloppily edited--leading to characters entering through the same door twice within a few seconds and other glitches--and the script shows signs of only partially implimented rewrites that gives the flm a slightly schizophrenic quality and that causes characters to seemingly forget key plot elements as the story unfolds. (The biggest one; Larry's given an amulet that will supposedly suppress his transformation, an amulet he gives to a lady friend when he thinks the werewolf stuff is a bunch of hooey. Later, though, he seems to have totally forgotten the purpose of the amulet. And let's not even consider the bad script-induced callousness of our heroine, Gwen, who cheerfully goes on a date the night after a good friend is mysteriously murdered in the woods.)

However, what flaws this movie possesses are rendered insignificant thanks to an amazing performance by Lon Chaney Jr. as the tortured werewolf, Larry Talbot. "The Wolf Man" is one of those rare movies where a single actor manages to lift a weak film to the level of a classic. Although he's assisted by a supporting cast that is a veritable who's-who of 1930s and 1940s genre films, and the set designers and dressers went all out, this is truly it is Lon Chaney Jr's movie. It might even be the brightest moment of his entire career.

Chaney plays a decent man who becomes a monster through no fault of his own, and who is horrified by the acts he commits while he is the wolf man. This makes Larry Talbot unique among all the various monsters in the Universal horror picutres of the 1930s and 1940s, and Chaney makes the character even more remarkable by playing him as one of the most likeable (if a bit smarmy when it comes to the ladies) characters in any of the classic horror films. This likeability makes Chaney's performance even more powerful and causes the viewer to feel even more deeper for Larry when he experiences the grief, helplessness, and terror when he realizes that he is a murderer and the victim of a supernatural affliction that his modern, rational mind can't even begin to comprehend.

There are other good performances in the film, and they too help make up for the weak script. Most noteworthy among these is Maria Ouspenskaya who plays a gypsy wise-woman. Ouspenskaya delivers her magic incantations and werewolf lore with such conviction that it's easy to see why they've become the accepted "facts" of werewolves. (This may also be the first film where gypsies became firmly associated with werewolves.)

Although flawed, "The Wolf Man" is a cornerstone of modern popular horror, and it's well-deserving of its status as a classic. It should be seen by lovers of classic horror pictures (Lon Chaney Jr. deserves to be remembered for this film and it's required viewing for any self-respecting fan of werewolf films and literature.



Hold That Ghost (1941)
Starring: Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Joan Davis, Richard Carlson, and Evelyn Ankers
Director: Arthur Lubin
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Two friends (Abbott and Costello) inherit a derelict roadhouse within which a gangster may have hidden a large fortune. Upon being stranded there one stormy night with several strangers (inlcuding Ankers, Carlson, and Davis), they discover it may be haunted by murderous ghosts as well.

"Hold That Ghost" is a spoof of once popular 'dark old house' thriller genre, which included such great early films as the original "The Cat and the Canary" and the straight-forwardly named "The Old Dark House". It is sort of a precursor to the many horror spoofs Abbott & Costello would make a decade or later involving the various iconic Universal Monsters.

Unfortunately, this film is flawed at its foundation. While all the actors are clearly game and do the best they can with the material, almost every character in this film feels flat and entirely too much of the plot only works because the characters are stupid even by comedy standards, or very forgetful. Even worse, while Abbott's character is often brusque and even mean toward Costello's character, he is often excessively so in this film. I think this may be the first Abbott & Costello film I've seen where I don't understand why the two main characters want anything to do with each other.

On the positive side, the weaknesses mentioned above are largely made up for by Lou Costello giving some really funny performances, especially relating to the running gag that he is almost always the only person who happens to see the mysterious going-ons in the creepy roadhouse the characters are stuck in. He also has a cute dance routine with Joan Davis, who, in an unusual twist for an A&B film, shows romantic interest in Costello without having an ulterior motive. Another positive of the film is the elaborate sets that make up the dilapited roadhouse and the moody lighting within it.

In the final analysis, "Hold That Ghost" isn't be best of Abbott & Costello's films, but it is still well worth your time, especially if you enjoy the creepy house horror/mystery films.

--

Additional films featuring or starring Evelyn Ankers that we've reviewed are "The Frozen Ghost" (1945) and "Weird Woman" (1944).

Invisible Man Chiller Theater Double Feature!

Here are reviews of a pair of films that are perfect Halloween viewing, since they feature liberal mixes of humor and horror. They're also classics that star horror movie legends!

The Invisible Man (1933)
Starring: Claude Rains, William Harrigan, Una O'Connor, Gloria Stuart, Forrester Harvey and Henry Travers
Director: James Whale
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Chemist Frank Griffin (Rains) develops a formula that turned him invisible. He goes on a homicidal rampage in rural Britain after it also drives him insane.
 

"The Invisible Man" is another true classic from the formative years of the horror genre. It's quite possibly the first horror comedy and it's black humor holds up nicely even today--arrogant scientists, simple country bumpkins and incompetent cops never go out of style!

The film's special effects also hold up surprisingly well, with simple techniques employed here that were used over and over until CGI came fully into its own but rarely used as well as they were here. (Yes, there are a few places where one can see the matting, but the "invisible action" here is depicted better than it is in many films made with much more sophisticated special effects technology.)

And finally, the film has a literate, finely honed script with loads of tension that effectively translates the mood of H.G. Wells' original novel to the screen. The characters seem well-rounded and believable, and this, even more than the special effects, make the movie such a pleasure to watch even now. The film even manages to capture the point about loss of identity resulting in loss of connection with the world around you and ultimately insanity (even if the movie attributes Griffin's madness first and foremost to the chemical concoction he's created).

Lovers of classy horror and sci-fi films owe it to themselves to check this one out. The same is true if you have an appreciation for dark comedies.

 


The Invisible Man Returns (1940)
Starring: Vincent Price, Cedric Hardwicke, Nan Grey, Cecil Kellaway, John Sutton and Alan Napier
Director: Joe May
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A wrongly convicted man (Price) uses an invisibility serum to escape execution and find the murderer who framed him. But, even with the help of his loving fiance (Grey) and his loyal best friend (Sutton), can he track the killer before he is driven mad by the substance that renders him invisible?
 

"The Return of the Invisible Man" is a well-conceived sequel. It's got significant ties to the original, retains some of the same basic themes, but presents a completely different and unique story. Too often, sequels either shoehorn connections to the film into the story in an artificial manner or have so little to do with the original that one wonders why a connection was even drawn (well, aside from naked greedy attempts to ride on the coat-tails of another film's success).

A well-scripted mystery is added to the invisible man shenanigans... and although it's a bit slow in getting started, it is a gripping tale once it gets going. The mystery isn't terribly hard to solve for those who like playing along--there really is only one suspect and the film never launches any serious attempt to divert the audience's attention from that villain. However, plenty of suspense arises from watching the invisible man start to lose his mind even as he identifies his prey.

The great cast of the film is also to be credited with its success. Most noteworthy among the actors are Vincent Price lends his distinctive voice to the film's unseen protagonist, and Cecil Kellaway who appears in a rare dramatic role as the inscrutable Inspector Sampson of Scotland Yard.

The only complaint I have with the film are the invisibility effects. Whether due to a lack of budget or creativity on the part of the director and special effects crew, there is nothing here as impressive as the cinematic tricks used to sell the presence of an invisible character on screen as was found in the original "Invisible Man" nor in the "Invisible Woman", a comedy dating from the same year yet featuring far more impressive effects. (Nothing in "The Invisible Man Returns" comes close to the bicycle stunt in "The Invisible Man" or the stockings scene in "The Invisible Woman".)

However, the solid story and excellent cast make up for the shortcomings in the special effects department.

'House of Horror' contains both good and bad

House of Horrors (1946)

Starring: Martin Kosleck, Rondo Hatton, Virginia Grey, Robert Lowery, Bill, Goodwin, Alan Napier, and Joan Fulton

Director: Jean Yarbrough

Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Marcel (Kosleck), a sculptor of meager talent, manipulates a psychopathic killer known as The Creeper (Hatton) into murdering critics he feel ruined his career as an artist.

"House of Horrors" is a well-acted, fairly well-written film that is elevated by stylish camera-work  stylishly shot with sets and camera angles and lighting that takes full advantage of the black-and-white medium. Like most the Universal horror films from the 1940s and 1950s, it's a film that's worth watching for the quality cinematography alone. It makes this already briskly paced film go by even faster. The chilling scenes where Rondo Hatton's character is preparing to kill Virginia Grey and Joan Fulton respectively are also definite highlights of not only this movie, but horror films of the 1940s in general.

Among other highlights are Alan Napier (perhaps best remembered as Bruce Wayne's butler in the 1960s "Batman" television series) as an art critic you'll want to see murdered; fine performances by Martin Kosleck and Rondo Hatton as a pair of very different maniacs; and Robert Lowery and Virginia Grey who have a sort-of lowkey on-screen chemistry that make them very believable as a couple in a steady relationship.

So why did I only give "House of Horrors" a Six of Ten rating? 

Well, for one, the script moves a little too briskly. While I got that the psychopath was so grateful to the artist for saving his life that OF COURSE he's willing to kill those who have done harm to his new (and only) friend. What I want to know is how did Marcel know that the psychotic killer he fished from the harbor would be willing to kill for him?

Second, while I like the fact the film has a sort of in media res feeling vis-a-vis Rondo Hatton's serial killer character, I still think the film would have stronger if they'd filled in a little more of his backstory. It might have given an opportunity to explain why Marcel knew he would "weaponize" him successfully. (On the other hand, it allowed me to fill in the blanks with something  far more interesting than what the writers probably would have provided. Still, there is such a think as leaving too much to the imagination, and I think this is an example of that.)

Finally, although generally well-written, I found some of the actions taken by the film's heroine, played by Virginia Grey, to be so annoyingly stupid they almost ruined the character entirely. I can't get specific, but they fall squarely in the Stupid Character Syndrome (SCS) that's caused by writers who are either too sloppy or lazy to make their plot flow , so one or more characters has to do monumentally stupid things to make sure the story keeps movie toward the resolution. When Grey's character does the first stupid thing, you may think she's just hungry for a scoop to fill her weekly arts column, but when she does the next stupid thing, you'll see the full-blown case of SCS for what it is. It's a shame more care wasn't spent on those parts of the plot, because it drags the whole movie down. 

Although not perfect, "House of Horrors" is still well worth our time, especially if you're looking for some light viewing to get ready for Halloween.

'The Strange Case of Dr. Rx' is worth investigating

The Strange Case of Doctor Rx (1942)

Starring: Patric Knowles, Anne Gwynne, Mantan Moreland, Edmund McDonald, Shemp Howard, Samuel S. Hinds, and Lionel Atwill

Director: William Nigh

Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A successful private detective (Knowles) puts off early retirement at the behest of both a friend in the police department (McDonald) and a high-powered attorney to mob (Hinds) whose clients are being murdered by a seemingly invisible, intangible assassin.

"The Strange Case of Doctor Rx" is a fast-paced comedy-thriller starring a solid cast of mostly under-appreciated B-movie actors who are working with a script full of snappy dialogue and an intriguing murder mystery that deepens and becomes more convoluted as the film unfolds. In fact, everything about this film becomes more convoluted as it unfolds.

By the time "Strange Case" came to an end, I had the amusing thought that someone had challenged writer Clarence Upton Young to include every single mystery B-movie mainstay into one script... and he accepted. As this film unfolds, we get a charming gentleman detective and his befuddled manservant; a go-to-any-lengths-to-get-the-story lady reporter; cops who are tough but not bright; a rich, possibly crooked lawyer with a possibly even more crooked wife and family; gangsters and a gun moll; a suspicious mystery man who may or may not be the killer; a mad scientist; and a guy in a gorilla suit. In the end, nothing makes a whole lot of sense--and it feels a little like Young was hard-pressed to even formulate a satisfactory resolution to the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink mess he'd created. (I was left with one major question at the end, a question that was obviously left unanswered on purpose as it gave Mantan Moreland an opportunity to give us one final, mildly disturbing laugh.

Speaking of Mantan Moreland, this is another one of those films where he's more of a hero than any of the other characters give him credit for; his character isn't as smart as the one he portrayed in 1941's "King of the Zombies", but he absolutely key to the main hero's success and he makes a great personal sacrifice in the process. So, Moreland is perfectly cast here, as is everyone else. Most of the players in the film are at their best, with Moreland, Anne Gwynne, and Shemp Howard (of Three Stooges fame) are particularly fun to watch, even if Gwynne's performance is undermined a bit by the disjointed manner in which her character drifts through the story. Lionel Atwill plays a small but crucial role in the film, and the presence he lends is more a result of brilliant casting than anything Atwill does on screen. (Although, given his ability to slather on the villanous attitude, perhaps the harmless air he  air he has about him in the few scenes he's in is remarkable. At any rate, Atwill just being there brings with it certain expectations that help drive the story along and make it that much more entertaining.

"The Strange Case of Doctor Rx" is one of five movies included in the "Universal Cult Horror Classics" collection, despite the fact even the most creatve marketing executive or inventive critic could come with a good reason for why it should be considered a horror film. Nonetheless, it's fun flick, and it's presence is one of the many reasons why the set is worth owning if you enjoy old-time B-movies.

'Secret of the Blue Room' is a lesser effort from the Golden Age of Universal Horror flicks

Secret of the Blue Room (1933)
Starring: Paul Lukas, Gloria Stuart, Lionel Atwilll, Edward Arnold, William Janney, Onslow Stevens, and Robert Barrat
Director: Kurt Neumann
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

On the night Irene (Stuart) turns 21, three men hoping to marry her (Janney, Lukas, and Stevens) agree to prove their bravery and worthiness of her hand by each spending successive nights in the supposedly haunted Blue Room of her castle home. Their actions seem to awaken a deadly curse that has been dormant since shortly after Irene's birth... a curse that has already claimed three lives and will soon claim more.

"Secret of the Blue Room" is a locked room mystery crossed with the "dark old house" sub-genre of thrillers/horror that flourished during the 1930s and into the mid-1940s--and it was filmed on the same sets used for the 1932 film of the same genre "The Old Dark House.". It was made during what was a Golden Age for Universal and horror films, although it is one of the lesser efforts.

While this is a far more workman-like picture than "Frankenstein" or "The Invisible Man" or "Werewolf of London", I have a hard time judging how much of what seems flawed in this picture is a result of the passage of time, and how much is weakness that was present from the beginning. This kind of story has been told and retold so many times since 1933, so it could be that what was effective then is less so now.

From a story perspective, the film suffers from the mystery at its core not being much of  a mystery. I had the broad strokes of the story figured out once the three suitors agreed to prove their courage by braving the possibility of death by sleeping in a cursed room. When Bad Things started happening, I was proven right... and although attempts were made at misdirection--a creepy stranger who is somehow in cahoots with the shady butler; the lord of the manor (played by Lionel Atwill) obviously trying to hide something; and a sleazy chauffeur and the nosy maid who may or may not be up to something--none really presented anything close to an alternate explanation to the mysterious events in the Blue Room. Although everything played out in a predictable fashion, the film at least unfolded at a rapid pace, and features such an excellent cast of actors that it wasn't dull. I felt the climactic chase and running gun-battle in a secret basement under the castle went on a bit too long, but otherwise I felt the pacing was spot on.

When it comes to the films cast, I feel like they all gave excellent performances. I particularly enjoyed Paul Lukas, who at the beginning of the film felt to me like a poor man's Bela Lugosi, but by the end I wanted to see what might be in store next for his character. On the other hand, I enjoyed Gloria Stuart from the beginning, but became disappointed  as the film wore on. It wasn't that she gave a bad performance, she just wasn't as good as she was in "The Old Dark House", where she basically outshone all the other cast members. Here, she has less to do from the outset and she fades into the background as the movie continues. This film is a prime example of why Stuart's film career never really got off the ground; she just didn't get enough interesting roles to play.

Speaking of Paul Lukas and Gloria Stuart, as much as I liked them in the film, their characters have a very creepy relationship. As mentioned above, the film opens on a young lady's 21st birthday... and there are four men in attendance: Her father (Lionel Atwill), a would-be suitor her age, a would-be suitor five or ten years older (Oslow Stevens), and a would-be suitor old enough to be her father (Paul Lukas). It's slightly gross to think of Lukas's character wanting to marry and bed a woman less than half his age... and for her father to be sitting right there and approving of the idea. It tainted the character--who is otherwise honorable and heroic--for me, and the movie in general.

"Secret of the Blue Room" is an adequate picture that I think hasn't weathered the passage of time as well as others in the same genre. If you like "it was a dark and stormy night"-type mysteries, I think you'll enjoy it... but at the same time, you should now there are better entries in the genre out there. (You can click on the Old Dark House tag at the bottom of this post to see my reviews of some of them.)

'Counsellor at Law' is undeservedly obscure

Counsellor at Law (1933) 
Starring: John Barrymore, Bebe Daniels, Onslow Stevens, Isabel Jewell, Melvyn Douglas, Doris Kenyon, Thelma Todd, John Hammond Dailey and Vincent Sherman
Director: William Wyler
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

George Simon (Barrymore) is a workaholic and a highly successful attorney who clawed his way up from the gutter to an office high atop New York City in the Empire State Building. Over the space of a few days, he finds his professional and personal life crumbling to ruins.

"Councellor at Law" is a swift moving drama whose origins as a stage play are clearly evident throughout its run-time. While that's usually a negative in these reviews, this film is the exception that proves the rule. All the film's action takes place within the high-cielinged, art-deco rooms that make up the Law Office of Simon & Tedesco, so the limited locations and characters moving about as if they're following blocking on a stage and arriving stage left and existing stage right isn't a distraction. It also helps that the entire cast is made up of actors who are film veterans--some of whom got their start as child actors during the silent film days, like Bebe Daniels--and therefore are all giving cinematic-oriented performances rather than being stagey and projecting and emoting so the audience in the back rows can pick up on what's going on.

John Barrymore and Bebe Daniels, the film's stars, give particularly impressive performances. They both give perfect examples of what "show, don't tell" means. Daniels' character never expresses the deep love and respect she has for her boss, Simon, nor how much it pains her to see how blind he is to the disrespect and disregard he gets from the blue-blood wife (Doris Kenyon) he loves above everything else. Bebe had, literally, grown up on movie stages and at this point had more than 20 years of film acting behind her--and it shows. Similarly, Barrymore's best moments in the film come in near-wordless scenes, and the moments in the picture when he lost all hope and is contemplating suicide are some of the most impactful bits of filmmaking I've come across. (Barrymore's acting is top-notch, but he is ably supported by a director and technical crew who understood how to take full advantage of the black and media they were working in.)

While Barrymore and Daniels shine the brightest here, the supporting cast is also spectacular. Among the most remarkable performances are Thelma Todd in a small, but important role, as one of George Simon's shady clients with a case against an even shadier person who as wronged them; Doris Kenyon as Simon's snobbish wife whose actions demonstrates that he only has value to her so long as she can exploit his love for her and desire for acceptance in her social circles, with Melvyn Douglas taking a turn as a blue-blood leech with with lecherous designs on the wife underscoring this point; and Onslow Stevens and Isabel Jewell, as Simon's law partner and the office receptionist/switchboard operator respectively, providing office and period flavor for the story.

All in all, this film is an example of all the good things works from this period has to offer. It's got cool art-deco sets (since it's set during the 1920s, probably right around the time the stock market is getting ready to crash); a flawed hero who is obviously the embodiment of the film's major social and political messages but who is the creation of writers who have enough respect for the audiences intelligence that he isn't also a funnel-shaped mouthpiece for those messages; and snappy dialogue that moves scenes from lighthearted to dramatic with blinding speed.

I only have one real complaint about this film, and it relates to an otherwise excellent sub-thread about office romances/sexual harassment that runs through the film. While one of the clerks is constantly and crudely hitting on the receptionist, a young lawyer in the firm is just as constantly and politely asking Bebe Daniels' character on dates. She constantly rebuffs him with escalating hostility, because she is increasingly distraught over how everything is falling apart for George Simon, as well as Simon's obliviousness to how he is being badly used by people he thinks are on his side. Ultimately, the young lawyer has had enough of her coldness, stops pursuing her, but he hands her a letter of some sort during their last exchange. We never find out what's in that letter, and I really wanted to know what that was because that subplot (out of the many in the film) remains unresolved at the end.

"Councellor at Law" is an undeservedly obscure film. If you appreciate early talkies, or have been impressed with John Barrymore and Bebe Daniels in other roles, you need to see it.

'The Mad Ghoul' is worth knowing

The Mad Ghoul (1943)
Starring: George Zucco, David Bruce, Evelyn Ankers, Turhan Bey, and Robert Armstrong
Director: James Hogan
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

College chemistry professor Alfred Morris (Zucco) re-discovers a formula for a gas that ancient Central Americans used turn people into pseudo-living zombies, as well as a means for reversing the transformation. He uses his assistant, Ted (Bruce), as an unwitting human test subject while trying to put the moves on Ted's opera-singing fiance (Ankers)... but when the antidote for the gas turns out to only be temporary, Morris's life and Ted's psuedo-undeath become a lot more complicated.

"The Mad Ghoul" is a horror film from Universal Pictures--the studio that bought the world "The Mummy", "Dracula", and "Frankenstein"--that sounds like a film from Monogram or PRC, with its mad scientist with an even madder scheme, a young couple being threatened by evil, and a crusading reporter who is going to stop the monster the police have been unable to catch.

What the writers and director does with those elements are a great change of, though: The crusading reporter ends up, the young couple's romance is revealed to have been over even before the film starts, and the mad doctor's mad scheme keeps getting more insane, first because he was cocky and had to cover up a failed experiment and then because he wanted to remove all rivals for the woman with whom he believes he shares a mutual attraction. (Some of my favorite parts of the film is when George Zucco and Evelyn Ankers' characters are talking past each other; Zucco thinks they are expressing their love for each other while Ankers thinks she's just unloading her sorrows to a sympathetic ear. These scenes feature some nice acting and even better writing, because they perfectly communicate the notion that Zucco's character later expresses, after he realizes he was mistaken: "Sometimes we see what we want to see.")

The cast of "The Mad Ghoul" all provide good performances. Zucco is in particularly fine form, playing the crazed heavy he specialized in but with a tiny bit of nuances thrown in. Robert Armstrong is also fun as the "I'm smarter than the cops" newsman who populates films of this type, and while I saw his brutal end coming before it actually happened, I was a little sad to see him go. Meanwhile, Ankers and Bey play the kinds of characters they portrayed in many other films, and they do it with their usual skill. Finally, David Bruce, in one of his few starring roles, is good as what initially comes across as the standard, fairly bland romantic lead, but becomes an increasingly interesting and nuanced character as the film unfolds.

'The Devil's Party' is okay but not much more

The Devil's Party (1938)
Starring: Victor McLaglen, William Gargan, Paul Kelly, Beatrice Roberts, Frank Jenks and John Gallaudet
Director: Ray McCarey
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Five childhood friends, now grown up and successful each in their own different walks of life, hold their annual reunion. It's disrupted this year when the professional life of one (McLaglen)--a nightclub owner who also runs an illegal gambling operation--of the friends collide with the professional life of two others--now police officcers (Gargen and Gallaudet)--with deadly consequences for some, and tragic consequences for all.

Well-acted and decently filmed--this is one of those movies that takes full advantage of the black-and-white medium, with deep shadows and creative camera-work to heighten mood--the film is nonetheless boring and predictable at every turn. It's only 65 minutes long, yet it starts dragging at about the 30-minute mark, and it feels like it's far longer than it really is.

Given the overall decent quality of the film, I think it's just that this story has been told so many times (and told better) in the 70 or so years since this film was made, I think this is one movie that history has left behind, and a film that the modern viewer can safely skip.

'Sinners in Paradise' should be left there

Sinners in Paradise (1938)
Starring: John Boles, Madge Evans, Bruce Cabot, Milburn Stone, Willie Fung, and Gene Lockhart
Director: James Whale
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

When a plane bound for China crashes in the South Sea, the surviving passengers--a motly group of killers, criminals, and the criminally annoying--are stranded on an uncharted island. They soon discover they aren't alone, but that the mysterious Mr. Taylor (Boles) and his Chinese servant Ping (Fung) are already living there... shunning civilization for reasons of their own.

"Sinners in Paradise" is a movie that time has passed by. Not only is it a story that I've seen done far, far better (Will Eisner told this type of story several times in his "Spirit" comic strip, and although he may have been drawing inspiration partly from Whale's picture, his tales are better), but the dramatic portions of the story come across as eye-rollingly stupid to contemporary audiences.

This film was far from James Whale's finest work. None of the creativity that was so evident in the productions of "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" can be seen here. Although this film probably had a budget far smaller than any of those other films, it still would have been nice to see something that was a little beyond "get the shot and move on."

'Little Giant' is a departure from A&C norm

Little Giant (1946)
Starring: Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Jacqueline deWit, Elena Verdugo, George Cleveland, Mary Gordon, and Pierre Watkins
Director: William A. Seiter
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Kindhearted, but oh-so-dumb, Benny Miller (Costello) sets out to become a great salesman after completing a correspondence course.

"Little Giant" is very different than any of the dozen or so other films I've seen starring Abbott & Costello. Both headliners are, generally speaking, playing their usual characters (Abbott is sleazy and scheming, while Costello is guileless and honest to a fault), but with more intensity. They are also not allies against a common enemy; here, Abbott plays the part of a full-on villain, and the hapless Costello becomes one of his targets.

According to various commentators, this movie is a departure from the usual  Abbott & Costello model of including numerous Vaudeville-inspired routines either because the two stars wanted to do something different and stretch themselves, or because they were in the middle of an argument and they didn't speak except when on-set. Whatever the reason, there's a different vibe in the picture that extends well beyond the absence of the expected comedy routines. (There is still a single "traditional" routine in it, though.)

"Little Giant" sees Bud Abbott playing two different roles--a pair of identical cousins who are both sales mangers in the Hercules Vacuum Company. One is a crook who is skimming from the company and the other is a hard-working, honest man who wants to see his staff and company do as well as it can. Both have interactions with Costello's character, and each have a hand in his fate as a salesman to some degree. It's interesting to watch Abbott play an out-and-out bad guy with no redeeming qualities whatsoever--no matter how big a sleazebag he's been in other movies, at least he was a kinda-sorta a friend to Costello's character, even if it was an exploitive and abusive one. And, on the flipside, he also gets to play a nice, honorable character for once; the "good cousin" at Hercules Vaccum Company is a thoroughly professional manager who holds himself and his people to account and is one of the more likable characters in the film.

Meanwhile, Lou Costello is playing the typical babe-the-woods character, but without the usual bullying/guiding force of an Abbott-type character on his side, he comes across as even more hapless and hopeless than ever. I almost felt guilty laughing at his antics and pratfalls, and I felt deeply sorry for him when he became an object of mockery by his fellow sales associates. On the other hand, it was even more satisfying than ever before to watch him emerge victorious as a direct result of their mistreatment... and it was even more heartbreaking that ever to watch the villain get the upper-hand again and send poor Benny Miller slinking back to his hometown with his spirit completely broken. (In fact, One of the saddest scenes I've ever seen in a comedy happens toward the end of the film.)

Things look so dark toward the end of this film that when the happy ending does manifest, it felt a little forced. Although it follows perfectly logically from the events of the film (with the exception that one of the supporting characters must have grown a spine off-camera to bring it about), it still feels tacked on because of the emotional whiplash the audience is subjected to in the space of a few short minutes. Maybe if there had been some stronger hint of the trigger that sets everything onto a path toward a just end for the film's characters the ending would have felt a little more motivated; I can't really make up my mind on that count.

.All in all, though, this unusual Abbott & Costello film is well worth a viewing for those who enjoy their regular fair, as well as those who enjoy a well-made comedy. "Little Giant" is a fun story that's  performed by a talented cast. It's one of the eight movies included in The Best of Abbott & Costello Volume 2.

Abbott & Costello are great in an otherwise mediocre movie

In Society (aka "Abbott & Costello In Society") (1944)

Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Marion Hutton, Kirby Grant, and Ann Gillis

Director: Jean Yarbrough and Earl C. Kenton

Rating: Five of Ten Stars

A series of mistakes and bad assumptions lead to a female cab driver (Hutton) and her incompetent plumber friends (Abbott and Costello) to be drawn into the social machinations of high society, as well as an art heist.

"In Society" is one of the weaker Abbott & Costello films. It's main problem is an unevenness of tone and energy. When it's Abbott & Costello are being mischievous and/or destroying property, the film is lively and full of energy. When the rest of the cast are off in other scenes setting up the plot or moving it forward, things are stilted, overly stagy, and borderline dull. It doesn't help matters that the obligatory songs in the film are performed by Marion Hutton--a pretty lady but a so-so singer and an awful actress. Her film career consisted of just four entires, and this was her only starring role... and judging from her performances in this film, it's no surprise why what is.

Another aspect of "In Society" that bothered me is that Abbott & Costello's standard characters have been ramped up to the point where Abbott is so vicious toward Costello that I had a very strong dislike for him, a dislike that was intensified by the fact that Costello was so dim and childlike in the way he played that he came across as simpleminded or even retarded, which made Abbott's behavior seem even more reprehensible. I had a similar reaction to Abbott's character in "Hold That Ghost", but it was more intense here. 

For all I didn't like about the film, I loved the four major comedic set-pieces that A&C have in the film--and they got a full star in my rating by themselves--the bit where Costello sets up work for their plumbing company; the bit where he argues with a police officer about honking a car-horn at night; the bit where they destroy the bathroom in a mansion; Costello trying to get directions from people on a city street; the pair disrupting a gathering of snooty rich people; and the climactic scene where they are chasing thieves on a fire truck are them at the top of their game (even if I think that chase scene relies a bit too much on stock footage).

"In Society" is nowhere near the best Abbott & Costello film, so you can save it until you've watched the others included in eight-movie collection The Best of Abbott and Costello Volume 2.

'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.

'She-Wolf of London' is a disappointment

She-Wolf of London (aka "The Curse of the Allenbys") (1946)
Starring: June Lockhart, Don Porter, Jan Wiley, Sara Haden, and Dennis Hoey
Director: Jean Yarbrough
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Young heiress Phyllis Allenby (Lockhart) comes to fear that she has fallen victim to a family curse and has begun committing grisly murders in a nearby park. Her fiance (Porter) sets about to prove her fears wrong by finding the real killer.

"She-Wolf of London" is a slightly lethargic thriller that's more of a mystery than a monster movie, despite the title. It could be that this is a movie that's become predictable given the hundreds of similar films that have been made since its release in 1946, but I pretty much knew how it was going to resolve some five-ten minutes in, as well the true reason for the Allenby curse's return.

Usually, I don't mind being right about guessing where a film is heading before it gets there, particuarly when the filmmmakers throw in some nice bits of misdirection that make me suspect I'm wrong... and the actions of Phyllis's insensitive friend Carol (Wiley) were so well orchestrated that they made me do just that--could she REALLY be that much of a bitch without trying, I had to ask myself? Unfortunately, in the case of this movie, when it does arrive at the ending I had already guessed, it completely botches it. Setting up Carol as a possibility for the she-wolf was really the only decent bit of storytelling here, everything else being very pedestrian and the ending being a suspenseless, badly written and badly staged cop-out.

I wish more effort and care had been put into giving "She-Wolf of London" a better ending. I became very interested in the film about halfway through when I realized that its storyline was very close to what the 1941 classic "The Wolf Man" (review here ) was originally supposed to be--a psychological thriller where the "werewolf" might just be a deluded psychopath whose "transformation" is a figment of a diseased mind--and this concept could have been put to far better use than it is here. I might have felt the letdown of the poorly executed ending more sharply because I got my hopes up for what was coming, but I suspect it's more likely the pathetic ending is simply the natural outcome of a production where quality wasn't a top priority. After all, this is a film set in 1890s London, with lead characters who are all British bluebloods, but none of the stars make even a halfhearted attempt at a British accent.

In the final analysis, this is a shoddy movie that is very solidly deserving of the 4/10 rating I'm giving it.

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.

'Hit the Ice' has Bud & Lou at their finest

Hit the Ice (1943)
Starring: Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Ginny Sims, Patric Knowles, Sheldon Leonard, Elyse Knox, Mark Lawrence, Joe Sawyer, and Johnny Long
Director: Charles Lamont and Erle C. Kenton
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A pair of photographers (Abbott & Costello) accidentally become entangled in a bank heist and are mistaken for the robbers. As they try to clear their names, the actual thieves want to tie up loose ends by eliminating them when they cross paths again at a ski resort in Sun Valley.

"Hit the Ice" is a solid Abbott & Costello film. Almost every routine is perfect from set-up through execution, the plot that carries us from gag to gag is just enough to keep things moving, with the schemes of the villains providing suspense and connecting the various characters to each other as the paper thin story unfolds. The film is further lifted by the fact that, unlike in several other films that Abbott & Costello made together, their characters are written in such a way that viewers can believe that they're friends, because Abbott isn't as cruel and vicious toward Costello as his characters sometimes are. In fact, this may be one of the most cheerful A&C movies, because sympathetic character truly is smpathetic, Abbott and Costello are both portraying characters who are genuinely nice, and everyone comes out ahead in the end (except the bad guys of course); they get theirs in an extended and very funny and cartoonish skiing sequence.

As with many (most?) of Abbott & Costello's films, there's an attractive couple or two in the supporting cast that are acting out a romantic subplot. While the attractive couples are here, the romantic subplot is so light so as to be non-existent... while Costello becoming smitten with songstress Ginny Sims more or less erases her romance with band leader Johnny Long until the very end of the movie. It's a nice change of pace, and it's even nicer to see Abbott try to help his buddy impress and obtain the unobtainable girl instead of just dismissing him.

Unfortunately, for all its strengths, the weak parts of this movie are really weak... and they are all related to the film's musical numbers. Singer Ginny Sims, together with Johnny Long and His Orchestra, perform five different songs, each less interesting than the one before. The movie even more-or-less ends with them performing a song, ensuring that the final impression the movie will leave you with is boredom instead of cheerfulness--despite the great performances from Abbott & Costello. The boring musical numbers make the one sequence in the film that drags on seem even longer. About halfway though the movie, the ice-skating hijinx implied in the title arrive, but they quickly become unwelcome as Costello's pratfalls grow repetitive, the ice dancing goes on for too long, and it's all set too the seemingly never-ending and absolutely terrible song "The Double-Slap Polka" performed by Sims and Long's orchestra. The boring musical numbers cost this film a Star, and if it hadn't been for the superior material that Abbott & Costello had to work with here, they could have ruined the whole movie.

"Hit the Ice" is a really fun movie that I think lovers of classic comedies will enjoy... so long as they keep in mind that the reward for sitting through the boring songs is getting to see Abbott & Costello at their best.