'The Old Dark House' is a classic that failed at the box office

Many great masterpieces started out as commercial product, made by all involved as part of the everyday grind of making a living, just like a carpenter makes a table. They were also rarely seen as little different than the carpenter making the table. It therefore is not surprising that no matter how good the end product, if it doesn't catch on in the marketplace, it will be tossed aside for items that will bring in more money and pay those ever-voracious creditors.

One such product is "The Old Dark House," one of a number of nearly forgotten early horror films from Universal. Like other obscure films, it didn't do well at the box office... in fact, this one bombed so badly both on its initial release and re-release that it left craters. (While it broke box-office records in the UK, the film was a financial disaster in the US. It was also slammed by most American film critics when it was first released, with only the New York City critics seeming to like it.)

It's only natural that Universal Pictures and all those involved with the film tossed it aside and instead focused on things that put helped them keep up with the bills. The film was considered so worthless that it was believed to have been destroyed until it was rediscovered and restored in the late 1960s. At that time, Boris Karloff is reported to have seemed bemused when the man who saved the film from oblivion told him of the restoration effort; I imagine Karloff couldn't conceive of why anyone would spend money and time to preserve a failed movie.

Truth is, "The Dark Old House" was only a failure in a commercial sense. Anyone with a taste for classic movies who watches it now will recognize it as a film that should be held in equal regard to the other landmark Karloff features like "Frankenstein" and "The Mummy." Like those, it's a true classic that is exciting to watch even today.


It was, ironically, the invoking of Karloff that probably helped doom this movie during both its initial 1932 release and its 1939 re-released in the United States. Universal's marketing material so emphasized the fact that Karloff of "Frankenstein" fame was in it that one is left with the impression that he is not only the star but that this is another monster-driven fright fest.

Both of those impressions are false, so it's no surprise that negative word-of-mouth killed the box office even in New York where the papers were praising the film.

Truth is, "The Dark Old House" is more of a mystery/comedy film than a horror movie. It's also a far more "British" film than "American" as far as the humor and characters go, so it's no surprise it was better received in the UK.

I assume most of you reading this have already seen "The Dark Old House," so you know what a treasure it is--as for me, the DVD was in my "To Watch" pile for about a year, until this Blogaton gave me the perfect opportunity to watch and write about it. Now I wish I'd seen it the very moment it arrived in the post!

If you haven't seen "The Old Dark House," you absolutely must check it out. It's available on an excellent DVD from Kino Video. Read on for my review of the film, and then use the Amazon.com link to get yourself a copy; it'll cost you about the same as a movie ticket these days, but it's a film far superior to most of the garbage polluting the cinema now.


The Old Dark House (1932)
Starring: Gloria Stuart, Melvyn Douglas, Raymond Massey, Lilian Bond, Charles Laughton, Ernest Thesiger, Eva Moore, Bremer Wills and Boris Karloff
Director: James Whale
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

A violent storm forces five travelers to take shelter in an isolated house in the Welsh mountains. Before the night is over, love will come to some of the inhabitants of the house while death will come for others.


"The Old Dark House" is a quirky horror film from the days when the genre was still taking shape. It features an even mix of romance, dark comedy and melodramatic horror action in a household so riddled with insanity that even the House of Usher looks like the Cleavers by comparison. It's a tone and mixture of elements that has only rarely been achieved, with films like "Drag Me to Hell" and "Dead Alive" coming closest in the past decade.

When it was first released, it failed to appeal to the public nor to most critics, due in a large part to a marketing campaign that centered on Boris Karloff, who had just been featured in the mega-hit "Frankenstein." Karloff's role in this film is actually very minor, and he is more red herring than monster. He was also, strangely, more easy to recognize in the monster make-up than he is under the beard and facial scars of Morgan, the alcoholic and mute butler he portrays in this film.

The true star of the film is actually Gloria Stuart. Although it is a definite ensemble piece, Stuart appears in all the key scenes and hers is the character that is threatened in turn by each of the menacing figures in the old dark house. She gives an excellent performance throughout the film, It's a shame that this would be the only truly good part she would play in her film career, and the only decent role the casting directors at Universal chose to give her. (Interestingly, Universal executives wanted Stuart for the part of a "female Tarzan," and it was possibly her adamant refusal to even consider it that doomed her chances of ever playing a decent role at the studio again.)

Aside from Stuart, the two other standout performers are Melvyn Douglas, whose roguish war veteran character is the heroic and romantic center of the film; and Bremer Wills, whose character arrives late in the picture, but whose chilling performance is nonetheless one of the most memorable things about the film.

Also of particular note are Lillian Bond, who is perhaps better here than in any other film she would make; Charles Laughton, who actually sympathetic for once; and Ernest Thesiger, who manages to be funny and scary at the same time.

The staging of each shot is also remarkable, as is the attention paid both to the visual composition of each scene, as well as the careful deployment of sound throughout. There is no music score for the film, but the sounds generated by the storm raging outside the house provide far more drama than any orchestra could do.

Because the film was a commercial disaster both in 1932 and during its re-release in 1939, Universal Pictures considered it a worthless property. They eventually let all rights revert to estate of the novelist whose work the film had been based on and the negatives were left to rot in storage in New York City. If not for a concerted effort on the part of filmmaker Curtis Harrington--a fan of the film and friend of director James Whale--it might have been lost forever by the late 1960s. Even the best available print shows some damage, despite the restoration efforts.

"The Old Dark House" is a film worth seeing again and again for the excellent performances and careful staging; you are guaranteed to notice something new each time you watch it. It's particularly worth watching for Gloria Stuart's performance. Karloff is, as usual, excellent, doing what he can with a part that doesn't give him very much to do.


>

Underrated Orson Welles thriller

The Stranger (1946)
Starring: Edward G. Robinson, Orson Welles, and Loretta Young
Director: Orson Welles
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A US government agent, Wilson, (Robinson) is on the trail of Franz Kindler, a psychopathic genius who made the Nazi concentration camps the efficient centers of death they were. No pictures exist of him, but when Wilson traces Kindler to a small Connecticut town, clues start mounting that well-liked newcomer to town college professor Charles Rankin (Welles) who just married the beloved daughter of the town's leading citizen, Mary (Young), is in truth Kindler.


"The Stranger" is a greatly underrated Orson Welles movie. It's a little slow in the wind-up, but once it gets gong, it moves along its suspenseful story-track with great deliberation and all of the elements working together in perfect time, just like the mechanisms of the clocks that Rankin and Kindler both enjoy working with.

Full of great acting, great camera work, and a perfectly paced story that first keeps the audience guessing and then keeps them on the edge of their seats as it builds toward its spectacular finale high atop the town's clock tower. Welles is in top form here, both as an actor and a director, and if you are a fan his work, of "film noir", or if you enjoyed recent films like "A History of Violence", you need to track down a copy of "The Stranger."

(Trivia: This was the only film Orson Welles produced/directed that turned a profit, primarily because he stayed on schedule and under budget for this one and only time.)

Ed Wood and the Criminal Mind

Edward D. Wood Jr. is remembered by history as a cinematic sad-sack. He was a dreamer who never put in the effort to learn the craft of writing or filmmaking, and all his excitement and hopes couldn't replace craftsmanship. His films are universally shoddy to say the least.

Wood's most famous pictures are the ones he made with Bela Lugosi (including his best work, the very heartfelt and bizarre "Glen or Glenda?"). You can read my reviews of those films here, at a blog closely related to this one, The Bela Lugosi Collection.

In this article, however, I discuss Wood's two attempts at the film noir genre, one which was a solo effort and another where he simpl wrote the script for another (equally inept) filmmaker.


Jail Bait (aka "Hidden Face") (1954)
Starring: Herbert Rawlinson, Lyle Talbot, Dolores Fuller, Timothy Farrell, Clancy Malone, Steve Reeves, and Theodora Thurman
Dirrector: Edward D. Wood, Jr.
Steve's Rating: Four of Ten Stars
A kindly old plastic surgeon (Rawlinson) is forced to give a gangster (Farrell) a new face in order to save his son's life.


"Jail Bait" is average Ed Wood, which means it's pretty bad.

The acting is universally awful, although in the case of Rawlinson and Talbot, I think the performance is more a result of what they had to work with and WHO they had to work with than a lack of talent; both men have been much better in other films. Talbot was never particularly amazing, but he was far better in "Trapped By Television," for example. (Although, it might speak volumes of Rawlinson's professionalism that he was willing to deliver a classic Ed Wood lines like "This afternoon we had a long telephone conversation earlier in the day." Although, why no one on the set didn't say, "Hey, Ed... should this line be 'We had a long telephone coversation earlier this day' or 'This afternoon we had a long telephone conversation'?" I can't possibly imagine.)

The story is also padded and drawn out, first by a pointless bit of older footage of a boring burlesque dancer and then by a handful of overwrought scenes of questionable value. Basically, Wood crams 45 minutes of excitement into a 70-minute running time.

There are some interesting ideas plot-wise, though. I think that with a more competent director, a better cast, a script that had been revised by someone who could read, and a budget of more than $32 for sets and make-up--even the most generous and most imaginative of viewers couldn't possibly consider the shabby set that is the home of gangster Vic Brady's kept woman "fancy", no matter how much the characters insist that it is--this could have been a decent crime drama. It might even have been touching at times, with its message about supportive fathers and love between family members.
But, none of that is the case, and this ends up being a weak effort, even by Edward D. Wood, Jr. standards.

Still, there's enough quirky charm here to make "Jail Bait" worthy of adding to the line-up for a "Bad Movie Night." Just know that the title is misleading--its taken from a line delivered by Fuller's character, where she refers to her brother's unregistered handgun as "jail bait"... the phrase must have meant something different in 1953, or at least something different to Ed Wood.


The Violent Years (aka "Female," "Girl Gang Terrorists" and "Teenage Girl Gang") (1956)
Starring: Jean Moorhead, Barbara Weeks, Joanne Cangi, Gloria Farr, Therea Hancock, Timothy Farrell, Arthur Millan, I. Stanford Jolley, and Lee Constant
Director: William Morgan
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

The neglected daughter of a socialite and a workaholic newspaper editor forms a gang of other girls who receive everything but attention from their parents. Together, they go on an ever-escalating crime-spree that involves gas station robberies, the rape of young men, and even the desecration of the American flag!


"The Violent Years" is a film written by the infamous Edward Wood, a screenwriter and director whose flims only redeeming qualities were that the passion he had for filmmaking managed to show through the cheap sets, bad acting, and incompetent direction, and the quirky sort of poetic cadence that was present in his dialogue. (Of course, also present were awful lines like, "It's hard for an old friend to sit in judgement of an old friend.") Although one might think that another director at the helm of this movie might elevate above Ed Wood's usual low standards, but it happens that William Morgan is about as skilled a craftsman as Wood.

That said, this film still has has its decent points. First off, it has a message that is equally valid today. Parents need to do more parenting--as in, they need to set aside their own interests and desires for the years when they should be focusing on guiding and nurturing the young lives they've brought into this world--if we're to pull American society out of the tailspin it's been in for the past 50 years. It's delivered in so hamfisted a fashion that it makes "Reefer Madness" seem subtle, but it's a message that I wish would reach reach the appropriate ears and one that I wish would be heeded. It also features a nice reversal of the oft-featured gang-rape scene in these sorts of youth crime films, and perhaps one of the most creative executions of a car crash in a film where the budget didn't allow for a car crash. Oh... and just about every female character who you might want to see in tight clothes is indeed wearing tight clothes. If only real life had so many firm bosoms in tight sweaters!

On the downside, we've got some pretty horrible acting that's matched only by the film's horrible casting. The teenage wild things, who are around 15 or 16 years old according to the film's story, are played by actresses who are obviously in their late 20s or early 30s, something which lends an air of rediculousnesses to the story. Further, we once again are treated to some of the cheapest looking homes of rich people that have ever been put on film. (Ed Wood kept writing about fancy homes, but the sets in his movies never rose to even being close to believable on that count.)

Of course, there's also plenty of "so bad they're good" moments in the film, such as the pajama party, the shoot-out, and the aforementioned rape scene which is on one hand as creepy and disturbing as it needs to be, but undermined by an illogical simultaneous escape scene.

Like Ed Wood's other message picture, "Glen or Glenda?", "The Violent Years" delivers a point that is worth taking to heart--while the previous film asked for tolerance of those who are different, this film calls for parents to live up to their responsibilities and presents us with an over-the-top example of the consequences of parental neglect. And it has the added benefit of delivering its message wrapped in tight sweaters.

'Beat the Devil' is quirky fun

Beat the Devil (1954)
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Jennifer Jones, Robert Morley, Gina Lollobrigida, Peter Lorre, Edward Underdown, and Ivor Barnard
Director: John Huston
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A down-and-out, formerly wealthy couple (Bogart and Lollobrigida) hook up with a group of international criminals who wish to use their reputation in order to facilitate a scam in British East Africa involving the acquisition of land rich in uranium. They befriend an English couple (Jones and Underdown) who will be traveling with them on the same tramp freighter to Africa, but their new friends aren't quite what they seem.


"Beat the Devil" is a low-key comedy that spoofs the crime dramas so popular in the '40s and '50s and that holds your attention with its fast-moving plot and witty dialogue. The characters featured are all seemingly stock characters from those movies--and the lead actors playing them have done exactly these types of characters in other films--but as the movie progresses, we discover they've all been given slight twists that turn them into mildly comic versions of their stock counterparts. (The exception is Bogart, who remains the straight man throughout, as the other characters have their ludicrous sides exposed and he tries to keep his ticket back to wealth from collapsing.)

Particuarly fun are Morley, who portrays a gullible and inept criminal mastermind; Lorre, who plays an escaped Nazi who now goes by the name of O'Hara, despite his accent marking him as anything but Irish; Barnard, who portrays the homicidal British ex-Army officer who thinks the defeat of Hitler has sent the world into a downward spiral; and Jones, who plays the wide-eyed British subject abroad but whose unending pathelogical lying (and her inability to keep her stories straight or even tell the same lie twice) serves as the catalyst that sows distrust and chaos among the story's characters. And things are all the more hilarious, because everyone is playing their parts straight and taking things as seriously as you'd expect them to in any other crime drama.

With an all-star cast giving fine performances, powered by John Huston's skilled direction and Truman Capote's sharp and witty script, "Beat the Devil" is another one of those classics that is seen too rarely.

If you decide to check this movie out, I want to warn you away from the version released by Passion Productions--it's got an orange cover with black-and-white images of Bogart, Jones, and Lollobrigida on the cover. The dialogue is out of sync for a good portion of the film, and it's very distracting.

One of the finest thrillers ever made

The Amazing Mr. X (aka "The Spiritualist") (1948)
Starring: Turhan Bey, Lynn Bari, and Cathy O'Donnell
Director: Bernard Verhaus
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Greiving widow Christine Faber (Bari) finds herself haunted by her husband's ghost. In a fortuitous coincidence, Christine meets Alexis (Bey), a psychic who offers to help her contact her husband's spirit put it to rest. But Christine's younger sister (Cathy O'Donnell) and Christine's would-be new paramour thinks that the meeting with Alexis was too fortuitous, and they suspect that perhaps he is part of a scam to defraud the emotionally frail Christine of her inheritance. Meanwhile, the haunting grows more intense, and the ghost seems to want to drag Christine to a watery grave....




This 1948 B-movie is an excellently made thriller. It is well acted, well filmed, moves briskly, and keeps the viewer engaged with clever plot-twists and a couple of nicely done double-reversals of expectations. There are films with perhaps twenty times the budget of "The Amazing Mr. X" that aren't half as successful at telling the kind of story that this film features--which, I admit, was pretty well-worn even in 1948. Modern filmmakers trying their hands at thrillers with supernatural overtones would do well to study this film, as it shows exactly how that kind of film is made.

Don't let the cheesy title fool you. This is a top-notch thriller that's well worth a look by any lover of the genre.

Picture Perfect Wednesday: Claudia Dell

Claudia Dell was a chorus dancer who appeared in a string of B-pictures during the 1930s, but whose greatest claim to fame was serving as the model for the original Paramount Pictures logo (the one with the beautiful woman holding a torch).

Most impressive vomiting scene ever filmedis highlight of 'Jack the Vomiter'

Jack the Vomiter (2006)
Starring: Jon Swanstrom
Director: Derrick King, Mike Corrigan, Travis Hiibner and Gary McLeod

A killer (Swanstrom) is stalking through the shadows of a Victorian-era city, butchering prostitutes and leaving a... um... most unusual signature at each brutal slayings.


The film's title gives away part of this strange little short's punchline, but you still won't be prepared for what actually happens, and you'll be laughing despite yourself... laughing until you almost puke. But you won't puke like Jack... no one pukes like Jack!

The filmmakers shot "Jack the Vomiter" as if it was a silent movie, and they used various methods to make the film appear as if it was a ill-used silent movie, with missing frames, badly done splices, scratches, and burn- and mildew-damage. When I originally posted this review to Rotten Tomatoes, I commented that I thought they filmmakers had gone a bit far with the "aging" of the film, that the damage appeared so severe that I doubted it could even run through a projector if it had been real. At the time, I assumed the damage was computer generated.

However, Mike Corrigan contacted me with the following technical information about the film: "The 'missing frames, badly done splices, scratches, and burn- and mildew-damage" were actually the result of hand-processing the 16mm sections in a bucket without any regard for correct procedure. Hence, the film came out stuck together and half processed in spots. Then we dried it in my back yard where it picked up even more crud. We actually DID run it through a projector (amazingly) and parts of it were transferred at home. Just thought you'd be interested in our 'process.'"

"Jack the Vomiter" is a very interesting bit of film, although the inconsistent narrative tone is a weakness that bothers me. In some scenes, the filmakers do a good job of capturing the feel of a real silent movie (even if the subject matter would never have appeared in one), yet in others not even a halfhearted attempt is made. However, the effective use of an occasional sound and the strategically placed, deadpan-humours title cards go along way to make up for the inconsistent cinematic styles. And the projectile vomiting. I've never laughed so hard at vomiting in my life! It's a scene that must be seen to be believed!

As far as the vomiting goes, Corrigan added this: "The Vomit Canon? Well, that's a trade secret!"

I must admit that I don't understand the point of this film (unless it was to create the most impressive vomit scene ever displayed on screen), but it entertained me and that's ultimately what matters most when it comes to movies.

Click here to visit the official HeadJuice Production website. You can even purchase your very own DVD copy of "Jack the Vomiter" while there.

'The Industructable Man' is low point for Lon Chaney Jr

The Indestructable Man (1956) Starring: Lon Chaney Jr, Casey Adams, and Marian Carr 

Director: Jack Pollexfen 

Rating: Four of Ten Stars 

 After executed killer and armored car robber Charles "Butcher" Benton (Chaney) is accidentally revived, made bullet-proof, and given super-strength by a researcher experimenting on cadavers, he sets out to get revenge on his former partners in crime. Along the way, he butchers anyone who gets in his way. "The Industructable Man" is 45 minutes of excitement stretched out to 70. And it's done with cheap sets, cheap special effects, and cheap actors. It also does it with a cheap script by a pair writers who don't quite know the rules of storytelling. 

The writers set up a situation where the vengeful "Butcher" might seem to kill our burlesque-dancing heroine (Carr) and then do nothing with it--and dammit, if there's a rifle over the fireplace in the first act, it needs to be fired by the third! 

 Another drawback with this film is the frequent close-ups of Lon Chaney's eyes. He looks like a broken-down drunk in the long shots, but the extreme close-ups of his wet, quivering eyes with bags under them almost as large as the eyeballs themselves does drives home the image. I'm sure the filmmakers had envisioned a sense of menace in those eyes... but all they really say is "Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?" 

 The one thing the film has going for it is its deadpan, "Dragnet"-style cops and narration. Nothing seems to faze these guys... or get in the way of their romancing exotic dancers at drive-in burger joints.

The Alcatraz Three vs. the Third Reich

Hitler, Dead or Alive (1942)
Starring: Ward Bond, Dorothy Tree, Paul Fix, Warren Hymer, Felix Basch, Bruce Edwards, Bob Watson, Frederick Giermann and Russell Hicks
Director: Nick Grinde
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Three recently-released-from-Alcatraz gangsters (Bond, Fix and Hymer) head to Nazi Germany to collect a $1 million dollar bounty placed on the head of Hitler (Watson) by an eccentric industrialist (Hicks).


"Hitler, Dead or Alive" was a war-time action/comedy that was clearly intended for kids and teens. I think that even in 1942, adults would either chuckle or sneer (depending on whether they had a sense of humor or not) at the ludicrous scheme of our three heroes.

Without spoiling the film, here's the gist of the plan: The Alcatraz Three join the Canadian Airforce as paratroopers and steal a transport plane during a training mission and head to Germany with no more of a plan than to claim they are Nazi agents with an important message that can only be delivered to Hitler in person... at which time they intend to shoot him. They only get as far as they do because the SS officers and troopers they deal with are even more thick-headed than they are, and because the leader of an underground railroad helping prisoners escape the Nazis becomes curious about what the three knuckleheads are up to.

Of course, the film is primarily comedic in tone, so some of the outrageousness of the storyline can be forgiven and even appreciated. Even the hokey dialogue can be enjoyed if this movie is approached with fun in mind. The overall package here is so silly and strange that the film would be a perfect addition to a Bad Movie Night, especially one focusing on war movies.

"Hitler, Dead of Alive" reaches the height of goofiness when the heroes contact the German underground by hearing a man walking along whistling "Yankee Doodle Dandy." The leader of the gangster, Steve, says, "That's the one song no Nazi would whistle!" And when Hitler arrives on the scene, the way he's portrayed is only slightly less goofy... it's almost as if Hynkle crossed over from Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" for a guest appearance. I think this film also features one of the weirdest, yet fitting, demises for Hitler ever put on screen.

The strangest aspect of the film is the sudden shift in tone it takes during its closing minutes. The comedic tone--with the dimwitted gangsters and even stupider Nazis and antics involving dressing up like a string quartet in order to get close to Hitler--is suddenly thrown overboard when the Nazis start lining children up against walls and gunning them down. It's an abrupt change... and it might be a reflection of the American psyche as the full scope of the horrific acts of Hitler and his Nazis could no longer be covered up or ignored by sympathizers and appeasers.

(The lack of knowledge of the part of Americans is clearly on display in this film as the three heroes are briefly imprisoned at Dachau, a place we now know was one of camps where the Nazis carried out their agenda of genocide but which here is portrayed as an internment camp for political prisoners. It's a clear illustration of the fact that even those making anti-Nazi propaganda films couldn't imagine the true monstrosity of what was unfolding in Germany and the countries it conquered.)

"Hitler, Dead of Alive" is actually the sort of film that I wish someone in Hollywood would have made back in 2002 or so... "Bin Laden, Dead of Alive" would have been a movie worth seeing, a movie where even criminals come to recognize who the real bad guys are, even if they are initially motivated by greed.

Bi-planes buzz through dawn of talkies in 'Hell's Angels'

Hell's Angels (1930)
Starring: Ben Lyon, James Hall, and Jean Harlow
Director: Howard Hughes
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When WWI breaks out, two very different brothers (Lyon and Hall) join the infant RAF... and become two of the first War in the Heavens' many unsung heroes. Along the way, zeppelins are blown up, bi-planes crashed, hearts broken, and war lays bare the true nature of both men.


I thought I'd like this movie more than I did. Perhaps I'd wanted to see it for so long, and I'd heard so many good things about it that my expectations were too high.

The characters were decent and well-defined--I felt very sorry for the more British-than-British and honorable-to-the-bone Roy Rutledge, who gets abused by his slutty girlfriend (Harlow) and his cowardly brother, despite his loyalty to and love for both--the lines between the good guys and bad guys are clearly drawn--the German officers are shown to throw away the lives of their men with barely the slightest hesitation, while the British officers concoct dangerous schemes to weaken the enemy and preserve the lives of their troops--and the film features spectacular action sequences--the battle of the zeppelins over London is the movie's high point, but the battle above the German lines during the daring bombing run a depot far behind enemy lines.

It's definitely a well done movie, but it's a movie that's shows its age. Despite the well-defined characters and great action scenes, it, like so many of the early talkies, feels like it's struggling with the new medium of sound. The actors in particular are still performing as though they are in a silent movie, and just about every emotion and action is so exaggerated that many of them come off as being bad actors.

I think the film also suffers from the fact that extended sequences are shot using early versions of color film, which basically boiled down to everything appearing in varying tones of blue (during many of the aerial scenes) or greens and reds (like during the grand charity ball where we first discover that the love of Roy's life, Helen, is something of a slut) instead of the shades of gray that's typical for a black-and-white movie. While its impressively adventuresome of Hughes to be utilizing that technology at such an early time, it was used with such greater effectiveness in "Doctor X" that they "color" sequences mostly annoyed me than thrilled me. And I wasn't exactly thrilled by the duo-tone in "Doctor X", but they did some impressive and impactful things with the color there... here, the filmmakers just seemed to take the stance that color was enough in-and-of-itself and there was no need to get terribly creative with it.

Despite being disappointed, I still think this is a good movie, and it's a film that everyone who considers themselves a film-bluff should see. I should probably be embarrassed for not having sought it out early, but I also can't remember the last time I've seen it for sale or rent. (I'm glad I waited though, because the UCLA-spearheaded restoration I was was a spectacular work, and I recommend that you seek out that version, if you are looking for the film.)