darius_m_klein

From Werner Herzog, one of my favorite directors, I would have expected so much more than this. The fake "mockumentary" set-up was extremely tired, lame, and unnecessary. The "acting" is absolutely atrocious, especially Zack Penn, Gabbie the cinematographer and what's-his-name the sound man. The conflicts are underdeveloped and seem contrived (we never learn, for example, just exactly why the locals become violently angry at Herzog's film crew at one point). If there was any director who could have created a beautifully poetic and darkly humorous account of an obsessed cryptozoologist coming to grief in the search for the elusive object of his obsession, it should have been Herzog. Instead, the purpose of this film seems to be the spinning of endless smarmy in-jokes concerning Herzog and his career - read: Herzog's gigantic ego. In the end, Herzog has nothing to say about cryptozoology or the inner longings that a belief in unknown creatures fulfills (some of his comments about cryptozoology and paranormal phenomena reveal an embarrassing ignorance of the subject matter).

Oddly, the only interesting part of the film was Kitana Baker, the drop-dead gorgeous model/faux sonar operatrix who ends up being the most intelligent and resourceful member of the crew.

Being a die-hard aficionado of prehistoric lost world flicks, I was willing to give "Journey to the Center of the Earth" a viewing, although I knew before I even began that it would be at best a lesser effort. Even so, I was surprised at just how bad it was. It was bad enough that I was unable to finish watching it.

Interestingly, the exposition was the best part of the film. I actually found myself liking the characters, and I began to entertain hopes that this would not be such a bad film after all. Sad to say, as soon as the three protagonists arrived at the center of the earth, the film became painfully dull. The subplot involving the love that Brendan Fraser and his nephew feel for their deceased brother/father really bogged things down. The prehistoric world was perfunctorily created, and evoked no sense of wonder in the viewer; the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures were not given enough screen time, and their presence did not generate any real drama (the characters predictably manage to outrun 40-foot tall tyrannosaurs and escape being eaten every time, sigh ...). The humor was lame, the "love interest" pointless ... the list of complaints could go on and on.

All in all, I got the sense that the filmmakers were just trying to make a buck on a quickly-made genre film aimed at a very undiscriminating juvenile audience. They clearly had no feel or respect for the kind of material they were presenting (in spite of all the faux-adulation aimed at Jules Verne). The special fx were the work of studio hacks, and the plot was really just a series of trite clichés strung together in a manner that bordered on cynical - there was no heart or soul anywhere to bring the story to life.

"The Devil's Rain" was released in 1975 to overwhelmingly negative reviews - but then, aren't reviewers usually hostile to low-budget horror flicks? There's no denying that the plot is incoherent, but in this case I think that the "incoherence" actually works, better allowing the viewer to enjoy the unsettling atmosphere and spectacularly disgusting imagery which are the highlights of this film (the nod to H. Bosch at the opening is apropos). An added bonus, as many have already pointed out, is the all-star cast: Shatner, Borgnine and Ida Lupino (one of my favorites) all ham it up with entertaining results. I was pleased to see from the reviews on this site that there are actually many fans of this unique and strangely poetic film, and that the elitist reviewers have not had the final say.

Fortunately, Ray Harryhausen's final film is one worthy of his talents (not quite true of the two preceding Sinbad films). While I wouldn't call it a masterpiece, "Clash of the Titans" is quite an impressive productions in many respects. This is particularly true with regard to the use of locations and painted backdrops (and, of course, the creature effects, it goes without saying). Compared to many other mythological films, this one sticks admirably close to the actual storyline as it's been handed down. I especially liked the depiction of the gods behaving crassly - it was Greek mythology rather than Hollywood.

My main complaint regarding "Clash of the Titans" (*SPOILER* aside from Hamlin's seventies' hairstyle and the fact that the final confrontation with the Kraken could have been more dramatic**) is the glaring influence of "Star Wars" (inevitable I suppose). This influence can be seen in the R2D2-like Bubo - a character obviously intended to be cute, but not one that really added much to the plot. The musical soundtrack is also very much in the "Star Wars" style - I thought that the "Clash of the Titans" was good enough that it really begged for a musical score that was intelligent, exotic, and dramatic (sadly, Bernard Hermann was no longer among the living at the time of production), not Laurence Rosenthal's saccharine fluff.

But even with these distracting elements, Harryhausen's talent as an artist carries the day in the end. "The Clash of the Titans", compelled as it was to make certain small concessions to a lesser commercial standard of fantasy film-making, still easily rises far above the average fantasy effort in its imagery, creature effects, and literate script.

Although this film is usually rated highly by Ray Harryhausen fans (of whom I'm one), it's always been one of my least favorite of his films - in fact, I even liked "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" more. Occasionally livened by exotic and evocative backdrops, sets, and - of course - the Dynamation creatures, "Golden" is otherwise hampered by an often juvenile script (with dreadful comic relief), and a cheap, made-for-TV feel to its production (especially objectionable and painful to watch are the montage of Sinbad's dreams near the beginning of the film and the goofy horned oracle). The premise of the storyline is initially compelling, but quickly runs out of steam as it fails to develop beyond the level of crude and perfunctory action.

The best parts of the film are the villain - Tom Baker is quite good as the unsettlingly intelligent and evil Koura (Baker is really a master of the cold-blooded smile), and he was so much more interesting than the heroes that I found myself rooting for him instead; and the Dynamation creatures - you can't go wrong with Harryhausen's creations, and the monsters of "Golden" are no exception. The only problem is that, unlike "The Seventh Voyage," there's not enough of them, and those that are there aren't given enough screen time to make the impact that they deserve (the one-eyed centaur in particular is wasted).

So, for its relatively scarce merits (and for the fact that anything Harryhausen ever did is worth at least one look), I give the film a 6, wishing that it had been better than it was.

When I was a kid, "Man-Beast" was one of my favorite Saturday morning TV low-budget "shockers" - at 67 minutes, it's not hard on one's attention span, and there's a fair amount of footage of the eponymous monsters. I also liked the exotic Himalayan locales (brought to cinematic life via loads of stock footage - probably half of the film is stock footage, in fact - and a somewhat ridiculous looking "village" in the first scene).

when view by an adult, "Man-Beast" is still fun for those reasons, even if one looks at it with more of a jaundiced eye. The acting ranges from laughable (the heroine) to surprisingly good (the villainous Varga), and the Yeti costume, while not exactly state-of-the-art, still delivers the requisite monster action. The stock footage of Alpine hikers is fairly seamlessly incorporated into the remainder of the film - it's no worse than the stock footage found in, say, "Lost Horizon", and better than the African safari stock footage of "Monster from Green Hell".

*SPOILER* The climactic scene in which Varga reveals the nature of his parentage to the professor is likewise more effectively scary than one might expect, although I didn't quite know what to make of his "half-Yeti" costume - it looked like his torso was wrapped in cellophane. (But then, goofy moments like these are one of the reasons that "Man-Beast" and its ilk are still legitimate entertainment after all these years ...)***

I first saw John Huston's cinematic version of Herman Melville's "Moby Dick" on Sunday afternoon television when I was a kid - I remembered enjoying it, but did not see it again for years. I finally saw it again last night, and was delighted to be able to revisit it again.

Firstly, the film is as faithful to the novel as could possibly be. This is definitely not a big-budget product aimed at a low common denominator of viewer intelligence! While it is obviously impossible to directly film much of Melville's long and discursive novel, consisting as it does of asides and Transcendentalist-style meditations, Huston more than adequately captures much of the content of the non-narrative content within the context of the novel's plot. He also remains faithful to the basic structure of the plot, in which the narrator Ishmael and his partner Queequeg appear to be the main protagonists at the story's outset, but fade into the background as the tale progresses, while Captain Ahab and First Mate Starbuck become the central characters. Given the fact that "Moby Dick" was the production of a major Hollywood studio, this is a daring use of an unconventional plot structure. Best of all, Huston and screenwriter Ray Bradbury faithfully preserve Melville's Shakespearean dialog (especially between Ahab and Starbuck) and really make it work on screen.

(What didn't make it to the screen is the novel's fairly overt homo-eroticism, but of course this was made in 1956.) The casting and performances are excellent, particularly by the leads Gregory Peck and Leo Genn (as Ahab and Starbuck, respectively). Peck makes the charismatic and tyrannical Ahab's monomania frightening and believable, and he is adept in his delivery of the poetic dialog. Genn's portrayal of the intelligent yet ineffectual and doomed Starbuck is quite moving. Not having heard of Genn elsewhere, I researched him on the site, and found that he had an interesting filmography; he's a very good actor, and it's a pity that he's not better known than he is.

The brief appearance of Elijah (Royal Dano) is also effective. Up until the point where he confronts Ishmael on the docks, the film - like the novel - had been mostly light-hearted, even sentimental. Dano's Elijah is genuinely creepy (like the captain against whom he prophesies), and marks a shift in the film's tone, which becomes increasingly intense and serious.

*SPOILER* Probably the portion of the film which will be most difficult for contemporary viewers to accept is the final confrontation with Moby Dick himself. It goes without saying that Moby Dick is a mechanically animated model and the Pequod and her crew are miniatures - to many contemporary viewers who are used to CGI, the special effects are going to seem antiquated. I'm not a big fan of CGI, so this wasn't a problem for me. I felt that the direction and cinematography in the final scenes were of such quality that the whale's assaults were intense enough to have me on the edge of my seat, and Huston & Co. successfully imparted the sense that Moby Dick really was not just any whale, but a kind of malevolent or demonic intelligence.

Now if only there could be more literary adaptations of this caliber in the movies ...

Although the consensus seems to be that "Cannibal Holocaust" is the apogee of the cannibal-gore genre, and that "Cannibal Ferox" is an inferior copy, "Cannibal Ferox" has always been my favorite. This is due to a more believable (or rather, relatively more believable) premise, and more interesting characters and dialog. Unlike "Cannibal Holocaust", which overwhelms the viewer with violent gore early on and continues to dish it out until the viewer feels numb, "Cannibal Ferox" refrains from bringing out the heavy gore-and-latex effects until the drama has reached its natural climax (and then it brings them out in very generous helpings indeed). Thus the sadistic, gruesome aspect of the film carries more an emotional punch.

Still, to paraphrase a reviewer of "Mommie Dearest", truly it is staggering how much unintentional humor can be found in "Cannibal Ferox". While one can expect some awkward and amusing moments in any poorly dubbed low-budget Eurohorror film, "Cannibal Ferox" really takes the cake. It begins ridiculously with a very poorly acted plot setup in New York (terrific disco soundtrack, though), then becomes increasingly funny when an anthropologist - with no apparent institutional backing - goes into the backwoods of the Amazon jungle to disprove the myth of indigenous cannibalism for her doctoral thesis with her vacationing brother and a blonde bimbo whose motives and presence are very obscurely presented. However, when Giovanni Lombardo Radice shows up as the villainous coke addict Mike Logan, the film becomes completely hilarious, with Radice fulminating and spewing one absurd, over-the-top line after another ("You know, I could you leave you here to die - but I like you kids!"). His performance is truly a masterpiece of exploitation ham-bone histrionics.

However, "Cannibal Ferox" does manage to be more than a low-budget object of derision. In spite of - or perhaps because of - the camp dialog and humor, the story is actually quite gripping. *SPOILER* The scene in which a coked-up Mike and Pat first attempt to rape a native girl and then succeed in killing her brother is disturbingly realistic and sordid. And as the anthropologist and her friends realize that there will be no escape, the film generates a truly claustrophobic and terrifying atmosphere. The climactic orgy of vengeful sadism well deserves the notoriety that the filmmakers have never failed to capitalize on. Director Umberto Lenzi demonstrates that he has considerable talent as a filmmaker as he quite masterfully - even artfully - brings the film to its stomach-churning denouement and haunting anticlimax. For these reasons "Cannibal Ferox" well deserves the ten stars given here.

"When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" is Hammer Studios' sequel to/remake of its "One Million Years B.C." After such an outstanding film as the latter, the sequel is bound to be a letdown, such as this one is. Fortunately, it does have some decent prehistoric monster stop-motion creations (only one of which, incidentally, is actually a dinosaur in the technical sense) - brought to life by Jim Danforth, they don't have quite the excellence of Ray Harryhausen's creatures, but are still well above average. Their presence here accounts for about five of the six stars attached to this review. The problem is the rest of the film. The prehistoric world is fairly bland and boring, and none of the "stars" has Raquel Welch's screen charisma. The plot itself is a rather lame rehash of the first film's love story. But the most objectionable feature is, oddly, the "language" invented for script by British speculative fiction writer J.G. Ballard. One would have expected so much more from a writer of the calibrate of Ballard, but the "language" consists of about five words repeated over and over again ("akita" being the most repeat offender); this is indescribably irritating. All in all, fans of palaeo-cinema should find the dinosaur sequences worth a look, with the remainder of the film being dispensable.

"One Million Years B.C." is arguably the best caveman movie ever made, and one of the best films in special effects artist Ray Harryhausen's oeuvres. It is one of the few examples of the remake surpassing the original. Mr. Harryhausen's stop-motion dinosaurs are the highlight and real star of the film (yes, more so than Ms. Welch's famous bosom), and are a big aesthetic improvement over the original's (somewhat notorious) usage of real animals with glued-on frills and horns. The allosaurus raid on the Shell People's village and the abduction of Loana by the pteranodon are justifiably considered as high-water marks in the history of palaeo-cinema. And there are other aspects of the production which are also outstanding. The filmmakers made excellent use of their locations to create a forbidding, bleak, but also beautiful primordial world - a perfect backdrop for a story that heavily features human savagery and brutality. Welch and co-star John Richardson manage to emote effectively within the context of their proto-verbal characters, and generate some real screen chemistry. *SPOILER* The climactic volcanic eruption is quite well done - frighteningly intense, in fact; and the aftermath, in which the survivors, including members from both of the warring tribes, band together as they begin a trek to find a more congenial place for habitation, packs an emotional punch as well.

And then there are those dinosaurs ...

"Zontar: Thing from Venus" is a straightforward, seemingly slavish remake of Roger Corman's drive-in sci-fi classic "It Conquered the World". However, famed schlock director Larry Buchanan has such an inimitable touch that he makes the film his own. "It Conquered" has more of a potboiler feel to it, while "Zontar" is something more for the head. Basically, if you're a Larry Buchanan fan, you'll love "Zontar" for its usual Buchananesque features: surreal use of locations, dreamlike cinematography, cheap but effective monster costuming, offbeat characters that one can somehow identify with (those who lack an appreciation for Buchanan's art will probably not find much to like, however). My only complaint with "Zontar" vis-a-vis the original film is that Susan Bjurman is no Beverly Garland, and her final confrontation with her husband's extraterrestrial buddy doesn't pay appropriate homage to what must be one the most stunning scenes of exploitation cinema history.

It's a bit difficult for me to write a completely accurate review of this film, as no dubbed or subtitled copy exists, and my Spanish is not good enough for me to really follow the dialog. Luckily, the plot is simple enough for a non-Spanish speaker to get the gist of it without understanding the (probably silly) interactions between the characters. The plot concerns a group of scientists who have an interest in human evolution journey beneath the earth through a series of picturesque caverns where they endure hardships, betrayal by one of the expedition members, and some deadly encounters with humanoid monsters, some of them sporting big bat wings on their shoulders. There's also a giant spider. The monster make-up and effects are, on the whole, excellent.

This hauntingly atmospheric monster flick was one of my favorite creature features on Saturday afternoon TV when I was kid. It was known as "Invasion of the Animal People" (a great title, in my opinion - sleazemeister distributor Jerry Warren deserves credit). The talky and inane tacked-on beginning, while unnecessary, doesn't take up enough time to detract from the film's crude, grainy, and ultimately mesmerizing beauty. A UFO lands in the snows of Lappland, and its bald, telepathic (?) occupants accidentally unleash their twenty-foot tall hairy humanoid pet. The latter then terrorizes the local Sami as well as Swedish cross-country skiers. The on-location Arctic locales give the film a look and feel which is unique in drive-in horror history.

What do you get when you put middle-range American stars in the leading roles in a peplum film? Pretty good peplum, that's what. Contrary to what one might expect, "Esther and the King" is not a lavish Hollywood historical spectacle in the mode of DeMille, but is an Italian production using Joan Collins and Richard Egan to play the eponymous characters. For this reason the film is often characterized as a bargain-basement epic, whereas it is actually a peplum with a slightly higher than average budget. Appealing performances by the leads, a delightfully schlocky musical score, a good story, and atmospheric sets and cinematography makes this an enjoyable sword-&-sandal effort.