'The Ghostbreakers' features a great cast, great cinematography, and a weak script

The Ghostbreakers (1940)
Starring: Bob Hope, Willy Best, Paulette Goddard, Paul Lukas, and Anthony Quinn
Director: George Marshall
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A risk-taking radio reporter (Hope) and his butler Alex (Best) set out to protect an heiress (Goddard) when it seems a sinister Cuban businessman (Lukas) is going to try to scare her out of her ancestral home with a fake haunting.

"The Ghostbreakers" is a fast-paced, messily plotted horror comedy that has Bob Hope playing an oddly contradictory character--one who constantly talks about how scared and cowardly he is, but who invariably chooses the most direct and dangerous path toward problem solving at every opportunity. He is ably supported by Willie Best, who plays his man-servant and is slightly more prone to fear than his boss but who also seems to be a little smarter; and by Paulette Goddard, the chipper and stubborn heiress who refuses to be intimidated and who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "no." This trio of performers play fabulously off each other, each displaying fine perfect timing and switching back and forth between the roles of "straight man" when the jokes are flying.

The comedic performances of the stars is both enhanced and contrasted by stylish and moody cinematography and great sets that puts a number of straight horror movies from the 1940s to shame (including some of Universal's later Mummy pictures and all the "House of..." monster mashes). A number of sequences would be perfectly at home in a horror film, such as when the characters arrive on the island housing the haunted castle, and the one where Paulette Goddard is stalked by a zombie.

Unfortunately, the excellent cast and crew are laboring in the service of a badly done script. While each joke and comedic set-piece are funny by themselves, the plot that links them together is so badly constructed that it can't even be described as flimsy. Several of the red herrings obscuring who the true bad guy is are left to just flop around on the floor without any tie-in whatsoever to anything else that's going, and no explanation is offered as to how the weird caretaker of the castle and her zombie son fit into things. Presumably, they are in league with the villain, but that's never made clear, nor is there any sort hint provided to whether the son truly is a zombie or not. Worse, the zombie is the object of one of films pure moments of slapstick when within this space of a few minutes it manages to put on (or be placed in) a suit of armor and ambush Hope and Best with a morning star. Did the zombie disguise himself? Did his mother? Did the villain? It's just one of many disconnects in the film that cause its second half and conclusion to be less-than-satisfying.

Speaking of zombies and disconnects, this is one of those films I've heard is supposed to be racist through and through, because Willie Best plays a character that is a spooked black servant who is the butt of a number of jokes from Bob Hope. However, if one actually watches the movie, one sees that Best's character actually gives as good as he gets--lobbing more than just a few zingers Hope's way--and is no more or less cowardly or scared than any other character in the film. Yes, he's a clear-cut comedic figure in the film, where Hope swings between comedic and heroic, but he stands watch over the lady in distress even while knowing a killer is on the prowl, and he joins with Hope in a physical fight against the zombie. I had the same reaction to this film as I had to "King of the Zombies", another film featuring a supposedly horribly racist portrayal of a black character, but in actually watching the film, the black servant turns out to be the brightest character in the film. (Admittedly, the Mantan Moreland-portrayed character in that film is the stereotypical "scared negro servant" who happens to be working for a racist moron.)

And in both those supposedly racist films, the racist stereotypes are mild when compared to black characters in modern films, such as the over-sexed, loudmouth cop that Chris Tucker portrayed in the "Rush Hour" series, or just about any film you care to mention that has featured a rapper or former rapper trying his hand at acting. It seems to me that some commentators should actually try watching this movies instead at coming at them with preconceived notions.

Despite its flaws, "The Ghostbreakers" is an entertaining comedy in the "creepy old house" vein that lovers of that sub-genre would do well to check out. Bob Hope fans will likewise find the film interesting, as the character he portrays is a little different from what emerged later once his comedic film persona was firmly established. All in all, it's a movie that should bring extra fun to the Halloween season.

Mohammed Monday: Nightflight to Jerusalem

Today's act of soul-shattering blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed (may peat be upon him) originally appeared at The Whited Sepulchre.

The drawing portrays Mohammed on his trip to Jerusalem, riding a flying horse with the face of an man. Yes... today's torrid act of base blasphemy depicts a bit of magical weirdness that you believe to be absolute truth if you are to be a good Muslim. Yet, somehow, when drawn and posted to a blog, it becomes BLASPHEMY!

If you want to know what motivates "Mohammed Mondays," click here. I intend to keep this going at least through the end of the year, because the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing (to paraphrase a good man). Submissions are welcomed.

Karloff is 'The Man Who Changed His Mind'

The Man Who Changed His Mind (aka "Body Switch", "Doctor Maniac", and "The Man Who Lived Again") (1936)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Anna Lee, John Loder, Donald Calthorp, and Frank Cellier
Director: Robert Stevenson
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Dr. Laurence (Karloff) devises a method to switch the intangible elements that makes up a being's mind from one body to another, but snaps when he is mocked by the scientific establishment and a rich newspaper publisher (Cellier) pulls his patronage for the doctor's research. He decides to use his method for his own gain, up to and including switching bodies with the son of his former patron (Loder) so he can marry the beautiful and intelligent Dr. Clare Wyatt (Lee).

"The Man Who Changed His Mind" is perhaps one of the most intense horror films from the 1930s that I've come across. From the first time Boris Karloff's chain-smoking mad scientist crosses paths with Anna Lee's brilliant and independent-minded surgeon, you know things are going to end badly for more than one of the film's characters. But even with that knowledge, you're not going to guess how badly and for whom until the story is all but done unfolding. Even after nearly 75 years, this is a horror film that countless modern-day filmmakers need to study and emulate' their films would be far better for it.

The film is driven by a tight, expertly paced script that presents just the right mixture of horror and humor to make both aspects as effective as possible, especially given that most of the humor is of a pitch-black variety. The cast is also excellent and everyone is perfect for their parts and talented enough to bring depth to even the thinnest of characters. Dr. Laurence's assistant Clayton could easily have been just an obnoxious and unpleasant jerk, but Donald Calthorp brings enough humanity to the role that the viewer had a little empathy for him. The same is true even of John Loder's character who belongs to that most loathsome of 1930s comic relief characters--the wise-cracking, corner-cutting reporter; the superior script and dialogue makes even that character type bearable, and the viewer will actually fear for him when he becomes a target of Laurence instead of cheering the villain onward to success just to shut him up.

But the film's coolest--and most chillingly unexpected-- scenes is the one where Dr. Wyatt takes on the mantle of "mad scientist". The lighting, editing, and superior acting talent of Anna Lee all add up to the character going to a dark place that few heroic characters go even in the nihilistic modern horror movies.

There is a hard coldness on her face and in her eyes that would have made even the mad Dr. Laurence shiver in fear, as she works switches and buttons on the mind-switching contraption. It's a performance that puts to shame even the one that I until now considered Lee's best--her turn as another strong-willed woman in Bedlam (review here, at the Boris Karloff Collection). It truly is one of the greatest moments in horror films, and I don't understand why more critics who fancy themselves experts in Great Cinema don't include it on their lists of "Top Fifty Horror Moments." Heck, it might even belong in the Top Ten!

"The Man Who Changed His Mind" is one of the many under-appreciated films from the early days of the horror genre. It is superior to a number of the more famous movies--including the ones from Universal that everyone has seen--and I encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to give it a try.

Extra Picture Perfect Wednesday:What the Empowered Stars Are Doing for Halloween

I love Adam Warren's "Empowered" graphic novels. I'll be reviewing a couple of them next month for the Nine Days of the Ninja Blogathon. Meanwhile, here are Emp, Ninjette, and Thugboy getting ready for Halloween.

Picture Perfect Wednesday:Betty Grable and the Tome of Terror

If you want to be spooked like Betty Grable, visit the following short story collections at the Classic Fiction Archive (selected by Steve Miller, for maximum spookiness:

"The Brazilian Cat and Other Tales" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

"The Complete Re-Animator" by H.P. Lovecraft

"The Oblong Box and Other Tales" by Edgar Allan Poe

"The Valley of Spiders and Other Tales" by H.G. Wells

Universal's forgotten wolf man

Werewolf of London (aka "Unholy Hour") (1935)
Starring: Henry Hull, Warner Oland, and Valerie Hobson
Director: Stuart Walker
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

While in an isolated Tibetan valley searching for a rare flower that only blooms under moonlight, botanist Wilfred Glendon (Hull) is attacked and wounded by strange creature that is half-man, half-beast. Upon his return to London, with his valuable prize in his possesion, he discovers that he now himself transforms into a man-beast by moonlight. The only antidote for his conditition is found within the flower of the rare plant he brought back with them, but when another werewolf (Oland) steals them, will Glendon end up spreading lycanthropy throughout London, perhaps even killing his beloved wife (Hobson) in the process?

"Werewolf of London" was Universal Studios first attempt at making a werewolf movie, following on the heels of their vampire, Frankenstein Monster, and mummy. It is a solid, entertaining werewolf film that may leave some modern viewers scratching their heads. A weird Tibetan flower supresses lycanthropy? Werewolves remain in control of their mental faculties, but are dominated by a psychopathic need for bloodletting and killing? Werewolves may be strong and fast, but they can be killed as easily as anyone else... no silver bullets or special blessings needed?

What many modern viewers may not realize is that much of what we now consider "fact" about werewolves was invented with "The Wolf Man"--like immunity to any weapon but silver bit--so the absense of these in "Werewolf of London" is to be expected.

Although not terribly successful when first released, and long overshadowed by the run-away hit that was "The Wolf Man", "Werewolf of London" is in some ways superior to "The Wolf Man".

The plot in "Werewolf of Londing" is more solid by far, and the film has a firm grip on its view on werewolves and lycanthropy where "The Wolf Man" seemed to lose track of itself from one scene to the next and kept vacilating in its approach and explanations for lycanthropy. "Werewolf of London" also sports far cooler transformation scenes, despite the fact the werewolf make-up is somewhat minimalist when compared to Shaggy Larry six years down the road. The climax of "Werewolf of London" is also more suspenseful and emotionally impactful than that of "The Wolf Man", in part because this film has a villain seperate from the main werewolf--Warner Oland plays quite the despicable character in this film. (This is also one of the most rare of early horror films: The comic relief characters are actually funny, and they don't detract from the flow of the movie at all!)

On the downside, with the exception of the transformation scenes, "Werewolf of London" is pretty drab when it comes to cinematography. Compared to "The Wolf Man" (or earlier Universal horror efforts even), the sets and lighing are also somewhat dull and uninspired, with Glendon's "artificial moonlight machine" being particularly dissapointing. The biggest strike against this film when compared to "The Wolf Man" is the fact that the main character, Glendon, comes across as an unsympathetic jerk, where, Larry Talbot is basially a nice guy. A few minutes showing him as he was before becoming infected with lycanthropy would have helped a great deal in making us care a little more about him, and thus involve us more strongly in the film.

Although not perfect, "Werewolf of London" is a movie that remains entertaining 75 years after its release. It'll be time well-spent for any big-time fan of werewolf movies.

Mohammed Monday : Who Is the Next Molly Norris?

If you want to know why I'm posting oh-so-offensive cartoons of the Great and Powerful Prophet Mohammed (may pizza be upon him), I refer you to Aaron Goldstein. Writing last month on The American Spectator's website, he wondered, "Who Is the Next Molly Norris?"

Click on the link. You'll find the "why" there.

And here's this week's cartoon. It was originally spotted at Always On Watch. It demonstrates how delusional the Mohammedan idolators are, even more than their own insane behavior does.

Karloff Triple Feature: Frankenstein's Monster

Boris Karloff started the decade of the 1930s playing Frankenstein's Monster, and he ended the decade the same way.


Frankenstein (1931)
Starring: Colin Clive, Boris Karloff, Mae Clark, Dwight Frye and John Boles
Director: James Whale
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Henry Frankenstein (Clive), a true madman with dreams of "knowing what God felt like" when he created life, successfully animates a monster made from parts taken from several corpses. Unfortunately, abuse heaped on his creation by an idiot assistant (Frye) and Frankenstein's own missteps causes the creature (Karloff) to go bezerk and flee into the countryside. Soon, Frankenstein's Monster comes back to haunt him and those he cares about.

"Frankenstein" is one of the great monster movies that started the horror genre, so I feel a bit awkward about not liking it more than I do. I feel like I should be giving it a rating of 8 or 9, but all I feel it deserves is a low 7.

That is not to say that the film doesn't have some great moments. Boris Karloff gives a great performance as the creature who is clearly yearning for the sort of comforts every human being wants, but receives nothing but abuse. It's truly the only film portrayal of the Monster that made me feel sorry for it. The sets are also spectacular, the lighting and camerawork fantastic, and all the actors give excellent performances (but Karloff truly excels).

Where the film doesn't work for me is on the level of script and character interaction. I find it impossible to believe that Frankenstein's fiance Elizabeth (Clark) would want to go with a walk in the park with Frankenstein after the raw, total madness she witnessed when he brought his creature to life,and I find it even harder to believe that their mutual friend Victor (Boles) wouldn't be doing everything in his power to keep her from the marriage. I understand that horror movies Back In The Day tended to move rather swiftly along as far as characters go, but the lack of reaction to Henry's insanity really ruined the entire picture for me.

I think this movie is a must-see for anyone who considers themselves a film-buff or a fan of the horror genre, as it (along with "Dracula" and "White Zombie") set many of the ground-rules for horror films that persist to this day. However, as gorgeous a film as it to look at, as great as all the actors are, it suffers from some major story issues that may get in the way of your enjoyment.



Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger and Elsa Lanchester
Director: James Whale
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

As monster-maker Henry Frankenstein (Clive) is recovering from the near-fatal injuries he received at the hands of his monstrous creation, he is approached by the sinister Dr. Pretorius (Thesiger). Pretorius is a mad scientist, who, like Frankenstein, is obsessed with creating life. He has allied with Frankestein's creation (Karloff) in order to force Frankenstein to create a mate for it, so that Pretorius may learn Frankenstein's techniques. Frankenstein must create this other creature, or his own wife (Hobson) will be killed.

"Bride of Frankenstein" is presented as a direct sequel to the 1932 film "Frankenstein", but is somewhat divorced from that movie. First off, it's set up like a fictional story being told by Mary Shelley (Lanchester). Second, the film has a higher comedy element than the original. Third, a number of characters are somewhat different than they were in the first film, with Frankenstein being less of a complete lunatic, who actually wants to give up the whole monster-making gig until Pretorius and Frakenstein's Monster force him to make a mate for the original creation; and Frankenstein's Monster, who has grown in intellect while wandering injured in the wilderness.

What remains the same, however, is the tragic quality of the Frankenstein's monster. While the monster commits acts of genuine evil--where in "Frankenstein", he was mostly acting out of ignorance or self-defense--these are balanced by the presentation of the monster as a deeply lonely, unhappy creature who has no place in, purpose in, or connection with God's creation. The fundementally tragic nature of Frankenstein's creation, and the fact that the most evil players in the story are Frankenstein and Pretorius, has never been driven home in any other Frankestein film than in the final ten minutes of "Bride of Frankenstein." That final reel is one of the greatest horror sequences to ever appear on screen.

"Bride of Frankenstein" is also remarkable for the amazing sets and camera work. The fantastic use of lighting and quick cuts, and the twisted angles in the buildings serve to underscore both the horror and some of the scenes of absurd humor in the film.



Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Josephine Hutchinson, Edgar Norton and Boris Karloff
Director: Rowland Lee
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Wolf von Frankenstein (Rathbone) returns with this family to his ancenstral home in the hopes of rehabilitating his father's name. His high hopes soon turn to bitter ashes as the villagers refuse to give him a chance--except for the police captain (Atwill) who has more cause to hate the Frankenstein name than any of the others--and he is soon drawn into a sinister scheme launched by psychopathic former assistant of his father (Lugosi) to restore the Frankenstein Monster (Karloff) to life.

"Son of Frankenstein" is one of the true classics among horror films. As good as "Frankenstein' and almost as good as "Bride of Frankenstein", it features a top-notch cast, great camera-work, fantastic sets, and a story that's actually better constructed than any other of the Universal Frankenstein movies.

Particularly noteworthy among thge actors are Bela Lugosi and Basil Rathbone. Lugosi is gives one of the best performacnes of his career, and as I watched, I once again found myself lamenting that he didn't do more comedic roles than he did. He manages to portray the crippled Ygor as funny, pitiable, and frighteing, showing greater range in this role than just about any other he played. The funny bits show a fabulous degree of comedic timing that Lugosi only had the opportunity to show on few other occassions. Rathbone is also excellent, as the high-minded dreamer who is driven to the edge of madness by frustration, fear, and guilt. (He may be a bit too hammy at times, but he's generally very good.)

Lionel Atwill is also deserving of a fair amount of praise. I think he is better here in his role as Krogh than in any other film I've seen him in. In some ways, "Son of Frankenstein" is as much Krogh's tale as that of Wolf von Frankenstein so pivotal is his character to the tale, and so impactful is Krogh's eventual confrontation with the monster that tore his arm off as a chld. Atwill also manages to portray a very intelligent and sensitive character--perhaps the most intelligent character in the entire movie.

One actor that I almost feel sorry for in this film is Boris Karloff. The monster has very little to do... except lay comatose and go on mindless rampages. ANYONE could have been in the clown-shoes and square-head makeup for this film, because none of the depth shown in the creature in the previous two movies is present here. (While the whole talk about "cosmic rays" and the true source of the creature's lifeforce is very interesting, the monster isn't a character in this film... he's just a beast.)