Mar 171971
 

Willard (1971) three reels
Ben (1972) two reels


Willard (1971)

Neurotic weakling Willard (Bruce Davison) lives with his overbearing mother (Elsa Lanchester) and her equally overbearing friends, and works for sleazy Mr. Martin (Ernest Borgnine) who stole his father’s business. While failing to do his chores, he meets, and slowly bonds with some rats in his backyard. The bond becomes closer and closer, particularly with two unusually intelligent rats, the friendly and submissive Socrates and the more independent Ben. Willard begins to use the rats, first for pranks, then for a robbery, and finally for revenge. But the important word is “use” as Willard is selfish and petty and Ben in smarter than he realizes.

The Birds started the “animal horror” movement, but Willard set it blazing. However, Willard isn’t like The Birds or the films that came after. It isn’t really horror. In other films, the animals are either evil, or represent nature repaying man for his foolishness. The animals rarely have personalities. But here, the rats are the heroes. With the exception of the office temp (Sondra Locke), every human is scum. They are universally cruel and self-serving and most are cowardly. You want them punished. But no matter how horrible they all are, Willard is the worst. After all, Martin only hurts people in his way. Willard turns on his friends.

The rats are loyal and good. They elicit sympathy, and Ben is the best of them (it doesn’t hurt that he’s the one rat that is photographed well—I have to give credit to the animal handler and cameraman, though in most films I’d be lauding the great acting for the performance that ends up on screen). Ben is the one I cared about.

The development of the rats as characters, as well as the relationships between rats and Willard, play out better in the book, “Ratman’s Notebooks.” Such things need time and that isn’t available on screen, whereas the book could dig deep into Socrates, Ben, and Willard. But Bruce Davison is excellent as the sniveling man-child and the scenes with Ben work well enough to sell the idea.

The rest of the cast is good, and while the picture drags a bit, the big moments really work.

It was followed by Ben.


Ben (1972)

Ben, the lead rat from Willard, picked up tens of thousands of followers in the 10 seconds between it and its prequel. Now he has an army of rats to feed, which is hard work, and involves breaking into grocery stores and trucks. It’s made harder by the police who are dealing with the dead bodies left from the previous film. Ben runs into Danny (Lee Montgomery), a kid with a heart condition, who lives with his nondescript mother (Rosemary Murphy) and kind sister (Meredith Baxter before Family Ties). They become fast friends, with Danny diverting the police.

Ben is mainly remembered for the top 10 Michael Jackson theme song. You don’t hear many ballads to rats. In movie, Danny supposedly comes up with it while sitting at a piano early in the film, dwelling on how swell it is to have a rat friend.

It’s an odd movie. It dives into the killer rat concept, with lots of bodies and screaming people, but the rats are still where my sympathy lay. The humans are generic, only a few getting names. They aren’t evil like in Willard, so I didn’t want them to die, at least at first. The horror element doesn’t work with friendly rats and unknown victims. By the end I wasn’t against the humans simply on the basis that they were against the rats.

And I’ve no explanation for the odd crowds. Outside of Willard’s house, and by the supermarket, and by the truck crash, there’s large silent crowds. They come from nowhere and just stand there, watching. If this was an Italian film I’d assume they were meant to be ghosts or otherwise unreal. No one interacts with them. This would be a better film if they were surrealistic.

So it’s lacking the personal drama of Willard, as well as the frights of a flick with sympathetic victims and vicious monsters. But it is still entertaining. The child is far less annoying than is the norm in horror films, and I actually cared about the sister (she’s never a potential victim). And the rats are fantastic, particularly Ben. Once again, all the best shots and emotional moments belong to the big black rat.

I wish they’d have been willing to go the pure cult route, and make this a film where we could happily cheer as rats massacred people. But as it, there’s a bit of ratty fun, and Michael Jackson singing lovingly:

Ben, you’re always running here and there
You feel you’re not wanted anywhere
If you ever look behind and don’t like what you find
There’s something you should know, you’ve got a place to go

Oct 091970
 
one reel

In this sixth Hammer Films Dracula movie (the fifth with Christopher Lee as the Count), Dracula is resurrected again.  Through a serious of near-random events, a pair of brothers and a girl they both like end up in Dracula’s castle.

Are you a fan of rubber bats on strings?  Ones that bounce up and down as the string is plucked? If so, this is your film.  There are comically fake bats everywhere (sometimes they chitter). The film begins with one of these artificial critters spitting up blood on the remains of the good Count. Yes, Dracula is resurrected by a vomiting puppet. And to go with the rubber mammals, there is a blatantly false blade used in the most unbelievable stabbing scene I’ve seen in a film (I expected to hear the twang of the spring in the handle with each blow).

The script in on par with the bats. Townspeople set a few small fires in a stone castle, never see Dracula’s body, and think they’ve destroyed him. Carriages pop up whenever the plot needs someone to go from one point to another. Drac’s servant locks a victim in with the sleeping vampire; why doesn’t the guy just chuck the comatose Count out the window?

The low budget is evident in poor production values (the day-for-night shots just look like day) and any sense of artistry is absent (the bombastic music is fitting for a parody, not a horror film). Outside of a few lusty wenches and a hammy Lee, it’s hard to find anything entertaining here.

The other Hammer Dracula films are: The Horror of Dracula (1958), The Brides of Dracula (1960)—which lacked Dracula, Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966), Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968), Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970), Scars of Dracula (1971), The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973), and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974).

 Reviews, Vampires Tagged with:
Oct 091970
 
two reels

A four story anthology wrapped by a Scotland Yard detective’s investigation of the  disappearance of a film star who rented a house with a strange past.  The stories:

  • Method for Murder—a high strung horror writer (Denholm Elliott) begins to see his latest serial killer.

  • Waxworks—A man (Peter Cushing) visits a local waxworks and finds a bust that looks remarkably like a girl he once knew.

  • Sweets to the Sweet—A nanny is hired to look after the daughter of a man (Christopher Lee) who is both cruel to, and frightened of, the little girl.

  • The Cloak—An arrogant actor (Jon Pertwee), making a vampire movie with a beautiful co-star (Ingrid Pitt), finds that his cloak once belonged to a real vampire.

I’m both a fan and an advocate of short film.  I run the annual Dragon*Con Short Film Festival to promote the best in genre shorts.  But I understand the realities of the marketplace.  There is no money in shorts.  Anthology films are a way around that bit of reality by combining several shorts to create a feature length product that can be sold.  Unfortunately, they tend to make thin profits if any, so they are few and far between.

The House That Dripped Blood presents four short films with the biggest names in horror, for 1970 anyway.  Unfortunately, the selection is uninspired.  I’ve often said that a short film should have one idea (as opposed to a feature which should say more), but several of these tales have none.

Method for Murder and Waxworks have no supernatural elements at all.  Both are standard and very predictable thrillers.  Elliott is passable as a novelist losing his mind, but I would have liked to see him lose it in a more original way.  Cushing does his best, but is given hardly a character and no plot.  Robert Bloch (Psycho) is credited as the writer of the entire film, but rumor has it that Waxworks came from a different pen.  That’s easy to believe as I expect more from Bloch.

Sweets to the Sweet picks things up a bit.  While far from original, if any segment is going to evoke a chill, it is this one.  Lee plays the same stern, intense character he’s played in multiple films, and manages to be less sympathetic than when he’s a full fiend from Hell.  The child is unsettling and a source of evil, just like most children.

How you’ll feel about the fourth segment depends on how you felt about the other three.  Those who thought they included actual frights will be disappointed by The Cloak.  I found nothing unnerving in The House That Dripped Blood (well, except for the presence of a child…), so the last segment was more to my liking.  It drops all pretence of being horror and goes for comedy.  Pertwee, best known as the third Doctor in the long running Doctor Who series, plays a dandified horror actor with a wink and a nod to the audience.  He even gets a jab in against Lee, commenting on what a good film Dracula is: “The one with Bela Lugosi, not the new fellow.”  Ingrid Pitt (who became famous for her Hammer Horror vampires, as well as for a supporting role, with Lee, in the thoughtful The Wickerman) essentially plays herself, with cleavage and a smile.  It’s all for fun and works as light entertainment.

For a film titled The House That Dripped Blood, you might expect some dripping blood, or at least some evil from the house.  But the house isn’t much of a branching item for the stories, as bad location is about as evil as it gets.

 Reviews, Vampires Tagged with:
Oct 091970
 
two reels

At the estate of the wealthy Collins-Staddard family, Willie Loomis (John Karlen), an unstable employee, opens a sealed chest, freeing the vampire Barnabas Collins (Jonathan Frid). Barnabas takes the identity of a distant cousin from England and turns Carolyn Stoddard (Nancy Barrett) into a vampire. He also meets Maggie Evans (Kathryn Leigh Scott), who looks like Barnabas’s long dead love. After a few bodies are discovered with neck wounds, Dr. Julia Hoffman (Grayson Hall) figures out who the vampire is and decides to attempt to cure him. Professor Stokes (Thayer David) also deduces the identity of the vampire, but he plans to kill him.

There was a time when only Dracula was a better known vampire than Barnabas Collins, and discussions of the great fanged actors always included Bela Lagosi, Christopher Lee, and Jonathan Frid.  But time has not been kind to the residents of Collinsport, and while they deserved to fade somewhat from the public consciousness, it’s still a bit sad they have all but vanished.

A supernatural soap opera in the late ‘60s was an audacious concept.  Sure, the pacing was river-of-sludge slow (well, that hasn’t changed for soap operas), the dialog was less poetic than the phonebook and not nearly as realistic, the acting was somewhere between pre-school pageant and Paris Hilton, and the cinematography was inferior to tying the camera to a swing and just giving it a shove, but this was still a soap opera with a vampire, a werewolf, witches, and any number of things that would have upset my grandma.  You have to love Dark Shadows, in theory anyway.

If you want to see what the fuss was about, House of Dark Shadows is the way to do it.  It condenses multiple seasons of the soap into ninety-seven minutes, and adds color and passable production values as bonuses.  But outside of curiosity, there’s no compelling reason to take this trip.

The story follows the standard for vampire films, with little variation.  Barnnabas isn’t a bad vampire, and Carolyn is a better than average bride of the vampire, but Stokes is even more annoying than the usual Van Helsing, and the heroic male who comes to save the day doesn’t get enough screen time for me to remember his name.  With the brief running time, a lot of characters are given short shrift.  It is assumed that viewers will remember who is who from the series.  Perhaps a reasonable assumption in 1970.

There are plenty of flaws to pick at (like why does Stokes believe in vampires?  Why does everyone else listen to him?  What is the law in that section of Maine that allows the police force to replace their weapons with crosses and shove a stake through the chest of a girl in her underwear?), but the problem is deeper.  It is a low rent project, and everything about it is sub par.  That’s not surprising as this is a Dan Curtis production.  With works like Burnt Offerings and Scream of the Wolf  on his resume, it’s best to keep expectations low when his name appears.

 Reviews, Vampires Tagged with:
Oct 081970
 
one reel

Young Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) murders his father to inherit a fortune. After running into moral problems at the university, he uses his wealth and title to acquire body parts and make a man (Dave Prowse), which he brings to life. Along the way he dallies with his maid Alys (Kate O’Mara), is courted by his childhood friend, Elizabeth (Veronica Carlson), and is aided by his foolish friend Graham James (Wilhelm Kastner), and a grave robber (Dennis Price).

Just how devoid of ideas do you have to be to remake your own films (Hitchcock excluded)?  And remake them with no glimmer of wit or originality?  Hammer studios needed a hit, and felt that a new, young (at studio meetings, they undoubtedly said “hip”), Baron Frankenstein, replacing the aging Peter Cushing, would bring in the kids. So, they produced The Horror of Frankenstein, a new adaptation not of Shelley’s book, nor of the Universal classic, but of their own 1957 The Curse of Frankenstein. I’m happy to say that ’70s teen were not taken in by this farce, and the sixth Hammer Frankenstein flick went down in flames, resulting in Cushing’s return for Hammer’s seventh and final shot at the mad doctor.

Hammer had lost touch with its audience, and while it was innovative and shocking in the 1950s, it hadn’t changed since.  The Horror of Frankenstein is devoid of frights, suspense, and blood. The multiple cleavage shots are too gratuitous for a serious film, but too tame to titillate. With the Italians poised to flood the market with topless vampires, Hammer’s work looked like something grandpa would watch.

As for the story, if anyone cares, it follows Victor (not the monster) as he cruelly, and oh so slowly, makes his monster for no particular reason. The Baron doesn’t come off as evil, but as a deeply unpleasant child who never grew up. He only gets away with his deeds because all the other characters are deeply stupid. Hint: if you know someone is a cold blooded killer, don’t threaten to reveal him, then happily accompany him to a secluded room in a castle.

The monster has little to do in the film and doesn’t show up for over an hour. Hardly an object of fright (or pity, or any other emotion unconnected to ridicule), this monster looks like a guy with a bit of rubber glued to his head. He doesn’t speak. He just stomps around a bit, and dies.

I can’t complain about the camera work, sets, and acting, but neither do they excite me. The attempt to stick the thirty-year-old actors into a school room with only bad wigs to disguise their age works as well as you might expect, but happily, the film skips ahead seven years and that charade can be forgotten. Still, the notion that the bosomy Kate O’Mara (my father would call her a very healthy girl) was sixteen at the film’s opening flows into the absurd.

For its concept, I should denounce The Horror of Frankenstein as a foul swamp toxin, but it has a few redeeming features. How poor Dennis Price, the masterful star of Kind Hearts and Coronets, sunk so far as to end up here is beyond me, but he brings talent and comedy to his small role of the gravedigger. I’d cheerfully watch a film about him and his contentedly put-upon wife, who digs up the bodies as he sits and snacks. It is in those characters, and other touches that the film is confusing, as it appears that at least one draft of the film was a comedy.  There are quite a few almost-funny moments that make me wonder if it couldn’t have beaten out Young Frankenstein as a parody with a bit of work and altered direction. The demise of the monster should have been hilarious, but the mood is wrong; as drama, it fails miserably, but as a comedy, it had great potential. That’s true of the entire production.

But unfulfilled potential is that and nothing more. There are too many versions of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster for you to waste time with this one.

Back to Mad Scientists

Oct 051970
 
one reel

Wilber Whateley (Dean Stockwell), the last of a family that worshiped the old gods, plans to sacrifice Nancy Wagner (Sandra Dee) as part of a ritual in the Necronomicon, in order to open a gate to the other world. Sandra’s friend and teacher, Dr. Henry Armitage (Ed Begley) intends to stop him.

Ah, those wild seventies, where monsters were psychedelic lights, nightmares included nude hippies running across the hills, and evil warlocks permed their hair. What is more frightening than a disco sorcerer? How about a disco sorcerer who only speaks in a soft monotone? I have to wonder if that was a choice of director Daniel Haller (in which case, he should have found a job that he was competent at) or if Stockwell was popping a few too many downers. Sandra Dee was more of a ’60s girl, so she was tired by the ’70s. That could explain why she spends most of the film asleep (although she does tend to dream (of those nude hippies) and writhe about on alters, though don’t get excited as the picture blurs whenever her thigh is visible.

This adaptation of an H. P. Lovecraft story does at least follow the basic tenants of Lovecraft’s world. It doesn’t show the same respect for his plot. The Dunwich Horror just takes the basic Satanist-sacrificing-to-summon-the-devil story and replaces Satan with Lovecraftian ancient gods. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that story, or right with it; it’s just been done many times before. I can’t even be that charitable with the acting (which flips between being far underplayed to what you’d expect of children on a playground, the latter most noticeable when Stockwell plasters his hands against his ears to form upside-down antlers and nasally cries out “Yog-Sothoth”). The effects are worse, with the monster mainly being depicted from its point of view by tinting the pictures, but eventually being revealed as a bunch of non-animated plastic snake heads in red mist.

There are a few unintentional laughs to be had from the dialog of this amateur production. A prime example is when the local bumpkins find a murdered family and one informs the sheriff, “No man would mutilate the bodies that way.” Humans have shown themselves to be pretty open to all forms of perversion on corpses, and since these bodies are never shown, I’m left thinking that the results must have been too intricate a job for men. Perhaps they were woven into throw rugs? That would have been original and more interesting to see than this movie.

Back to Demons

 Demons, Reviews Tagged with:
Aug 181970
 
two reels

Three respectable gentlemen secretly form their own little hellfire club. Bored with prostitutes and drink, they ask Lord Courtley, a notorious libertine and dabbler in the black arts, to guide them to the next step. That step: To resurrect Dracula from his powdered blood and a few trinkets. When the attempt goes awry, the three men beat Courtley to death, but in the aftermath, Dracula does appear and swears to take vengeance for the death of his servant.

What do you do when you want to make a Dracula film but lack Dracula, and then suddenly get him at the last minute? Taste the Blood of Dracula was written assuming that Christopher Lee wouldn’t return to the title role, so Dracula was going to be a kind of lecherous plague that infects foolish Brits. But the investors wanted Lee, so we end up with a patchwork film. Patchwork, but interesting.

This is the fifth Hammer Dracula film and the fourth to include Lee. It is also the second in a row where the plot involves a pointless and petty vengeance. I like my masters of evil being a bit more evil. Also the second time in a row, we have star-crossed lovers.

Without Ternce Fisher at the helm (also for the second time in a row), the normal Hammer-theme of proper, sexually-repressive society overcoming the evil of rampant sexuality is gone—thank goodness. While sexual freedom is still sinful and repression the way of things, hypocrisy is the theme. Sexually-repressive society is home to perverts and the slime of the earth, masquerading as upright citizens. That’s about as progressive as Hammer ever got.

The cast is generally good, but with no real protagonist, no one gets a chance to shine, or do much of anything. Lee is criminally underused, as he is in every Hammer Dracula film, but he at least gets to be charming and commanding.

It all ends in a vague religious mish mash with the most important lesson being don’t scorn a woman.

The other Hammer Dracula films are: The Horror of Dracula (1958), The Brides of Dracula (1960)—which lacked Dracula, Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966), Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968), Scars of Dracula (1971), Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972), The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973), and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974).

 Reviews, Vampires Tagged with:
Apr 201970
 
one reel

After an extensive lesson on the World’s fair, we switch to Wester Island (yes, I said “Wester”) where Gamera attempts to interfere with the movement of a giant statue to the fair. Soon after, the monster Jiger rises from the local volcano and quickly incapacitates our superhero turtle. It will take two children, one Japanese, one American, to save the day by taking a mini-sub into Gamera’s body.

Japan was hosting the 1970 Worlds Fair and the nation was displaying a great deal of pride—or maybe they just wanted to sell tickets. World’s fairs used to be a big deal, a place to showcase technological advancements. So they made a Gamera movie about the fair, which is quite odd as the film repeatedly denigrates science in favor of superstition: If everyone just believed in curses likes they should, things would be fine. Though people are dying and the city is being destroyed, the first concern of the Government is non-ironically stopping any disruption of the fair. The World’s fair was really important.

Jiger is a unconvincing monster, which was true of all the quadruped daikaiju. He shoots a destructo ray from his back and darts from his horns. Daiei never had much skill in coming up with monsters, with Gyoas being the least ridiculous, and even he was built poorly. Jiger is average for a rotten bunch.

The monster fights, like in Godzilla before it, had become sillier. Gamera grabs a pipe to block the darts. They toss rocks back and forth, and Gamera uses phone poles to plug his ears.

I’ve no doubt that the trip inside Gamera was pitched to be like Fantastic Voyage, but it is just a few kids running around in a blanket-covered set. And don’t think about the size of things as Gamera would have to be a hundred times bigger for this to even pretend to be to scale.

Oct 291969
 
two reels

Charity Hope Valentine (Shirley MacLaine) is a naïve (really, really naïve…like pathologically…) dance hall girl who is seeking love. Her co-workers Helene and Nickie (Paula Kelly, Chita Rivera) are more realistic, dreaming only of rising a step on the economic ladder. Charity is robbed by a supposed boyfriend, and then forced to spend the night in a closet when the famous man who picks her up (Ricardo Montalban) is unexpectedly visited by his girlfriend. Things look up for Charity when she is stuck in an elevator with Oscar (John McMartin). It seems maybe this time she’s found true love.

The stage show Sweet Charity was based on Federico Fellini’s movie, Nights of Cabiria, with Charity’s job purified from prostitute to dance hall girl. Ah, gotta love American Puritanism—for the story to make any sense, she needs to be far more disreputable than a “dance hall girl.” It’s a second tier stage musical slipping toward third tier, with several memorable songs (Big Spender, If My Friends Could See Me Now, There’s Gotta Be Something Better Than This) and quite a bit of filler. It plays far too safe. It’s fine for a night at the theater, but it was never going to make a great film.

What it needed was filmmakers who knew how to cut things to the bone. But neither first-time director Bob Fosse nor screen writer Peter Stone had that skill, and the slight but still meandering plot goes on and on. Two and a half hours is an hour too long. Its intermission (yeah, it has one) should have been its ending. Every non-musical scene is too long, and even some of the musical ones could use a trim.

MacLaine is also a problem. She’s a good dancer and a good singer, but the lead in a dragging musical needs to be great at one of those. Great dancers do not need dance doubles (she has one), and are put into the major dance numbers (she isn’t). And great singers can elevate mediocre songs; good ones just display their mediocre nature. If everything else had been better, MacLaine would have been fine, but the movie needed a savior, and she wasn’t it.

Strangely, while Fosse lacked a skill that this movie needed (at this point in his film career), he’s also the reason to the see it. Fosse was an innovative choreographer, and if that field can have an auteur, he’s it. His dances were often brilliant, and always interesting. Sweet Charity is filled with his signature ensemble weirdness and wonder (although as mentioned, almost always with the title character sitting on the sidelines). Undulating or quick-snapping dancers are captivating in the routines for Big Spender, Rich Man’s Frug, and The Rhythm of Life, all hipper than the real ‘60s ever were. If you are a Fosse fan, you’ll want to check out Sweet Charity, though perhaps after Cabaret and All That Jazz. And perhaps at home with a remote control to fast forward though vast swashes. If you aren’t a Fosse fan, skip it.

Oct 091969
 
one reel

Jimmy Durante narrators the story of  Frosty, a snowman who is brought to life when a hat, thrown away by Professor Hinkle (voice: Billy De Wolfe), a bad magician, is placed on his head.  Frosty (voice: Jackie Vernon) realizes that he’ll melt unless he reaches the North Pole, so he sets off with little Karen (voice: June Foray).  But while the cold on their journey is good for the snowman, it is bad for Karen.  Plus, Hinkle wants his hat back.  25 min.

In the 1960s, we had very few animated Christmas specials, but those we had were really special.  Each year we would gather around the TV for A Charlie Brown Christmas, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, and Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer.  My mother was one for dinner at a proper table with all of us seated together, so it had to be an exceptional event to get her to OK us pulling out the seldom used TV trays.  But these three did the trick.  And there we’d be, focused on our 19 inch B&W television.  Well, I was anyway.  I can’t say for sure about my folks because…  Didn’t I say I was focused?

So, in 1969, the announcement that a new special was coming was grounds for celebration, at least for us kids.  And so, it was with all the glee of childhood Christmas that I sat to watch Frosty the Snowman.  My God, what a disappointment.  Horrible, simplistic animation, an insipid story, and empty characters.  It lacked humor and charm.  Who was this mess supposed to be for?  We were children, not morons.

The next day when I got together with friends, there was general groaning about the travesty of Frosty.  We were all fans of the song (somehow, it had more immediacy than Hark the Herald Angels Sing or The First Noel, and we were all pretty tired of being forced to sing Silent Night) and couldn’t believe what they’d done to it.  That thing on the screen was not Frosty!

Now, so many years later, with my Santa Claus-believing days lost in the fog of an aging mind, how does it stack up?  With a few hundred Christmas specials playing at almost any hour on our 180 channel system, is Frosty the Snowman so bad?

It sure is.  Poorly conceived and poorly executed, it has no redeeming qualities.  It does have an aging Jimmy Durante, but he needs to actually do something worthwhile for that to be exciting.  Because this is one of Durante’s last projects, I’ve heard people praise it.  Silliness.  The man died.  That was undoubtedly traumatic for his family, but does not imbue this with value.  If you want to honor his memory, great.  Go find one of his good movies.

Frosty the Snowman was directed by Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin Jr., who collaborated on an impressive string of atrocious cartoons.  Unless there is a reindeer’s name in the title, skip them all, and you’ll be giving yourself and your family a fine Christmas gift.

Oct 081969
 
toxic

Little Ichiro is bullied by older kids, including one named Gabara. His escape is his dreams, where he sees himself chatting to Minya, the Son of Godzilla. (Pause: Think about that for a moment. The Son of Godzilla talks.) Minya is being beaten up by a monster who also happens to be named Gabara. By watching Godzilla defeat opponent after opponent, both Minya and Ichiro learn that violence is the answer to all life’s problems, which allows Ichiro to finally join a juvenile gang.

This is why I’m paid the big bucks: To suffer so you don’t have to.  And Godzilla’s Revenge is all about suffering. Ichiro suffers from being picked on, and from being forced to wear inappropriately short daisy dukes. Minya suffers from having such a ridiculous looking bully as Gabara. Godzilla’s and director Ishirô Honda’s reputations suffer from their names being connected to this poorly conceived and executed failure. And of course the viewer suffers most of all. It does have go-go music.  I haven’t decided if anyone suffers due to that. It’s just an odd fact.

Most of the runtime is spent with Ichiro whining or hiding or hanging out with a guy in an incredibly fake lizard suit. Occasionally, this is broken up by fight scenes lifted from earlier Godzilla films. Sure, Toho wasn’t supplying much of a budget, but a little subtlety with the reuse of clips would have been nice, particularly since Godzilla changes his appearance from film to film. It does, however, allow for a drinking game; take a shot whenever Godzilla gets a new look.

Godzilla’s Revenge was intended for children, so it isn’t damning that it is imbecilic for adults. But it is also inane for kids. In fact, it is worse for them since a child wants to be proud of his or her taste and this film makes Godzilla fans look like morons. It is embarrassing. I saw Godzilla’s Revenge first as a child, and was repulsed. And I still am.  Perhaps I hate it slightly less now than I did thirty-five years ago, but there’s plenty of hate to go around. Only pick this up for your kids if you want them to hate Godzilla flicks.

It is also known as All Monsters Attack.

Oct 081969
 
one reel

A mad killer is sucking the blood out of young girls.  Simultaneously, an officer in a fascist country is killing everyone in his way, even his superiors, and a jogger is having his limbs amputated in a strange hospital.  Somehow, all of these events are connected to prestigious Dr. Browning (Vincent Price).

Playing like an unpleasant, and more than normally obtuse episode of the Avengers, Scream and Scream Again unfolds as a political espionage film, a crime thriller, and a distasteful vivisection piece, all to a mod, ’60s soundtrack.  Things come close to fitting together at the end, but not in a way natural to the story.

There’s no real main character.  More time is spent with the police superintendent than anyone else, but he’s gone for a substantial portion of the film.  A fascist officer and a doctor get a fair amount of screen time, but neither are developed.  Vincent Price plays another secondary character in search of a lead.  Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee pop in as well, but Cushing only as a cameo, and Lee has little more.  Cars driving down twisting roads and shots of unknown bands playing failed pop tunes could be considered the real stars, but that might imply that those are exciting, which isn’t the case.

It is hard to believe that the film was planned like this.  Maybe something went wrong during filming.  Maybe the second unit got lost and ended up in Eastern Europe.  Maybe the script was dropped on the floor with a pile of other scripts.  Perhaps several films were being shot at the same location and everyone assumed they were working on the same movie.  Perhaps the editor got really drunk.  But none of those hypotheticals explain the groovy, swinging music.

I have heard speculation that Scream and Scream Again wasn’t supposed to make sense, but was supposed to shock the viewer.  I can’t say what it was like first seeing it in 1969, but in 2005 (or 1985 for that matter), it is pretty humdrum.

Back to Mad Scientists