horrorfilmx

Which isn't to say it's better (or as good as) the original KONG, which is a film that will never be equaled (as De Laurentis and Peter Jackson spent millions proving). But as sequels go this one is just right. When modern film makers produce a sequel to a hit movie they essentially remake it only bigger. If the original had ten explosion the sequel has a hundred, if the original had one big angry monster the sequel has five. In other words they take a good idea and turn it into something tedious and overblown. The producers of SON OF KONG shrewdly realized that they could never top the original so they gave us a pleasant little followup instead. As another reviewer aptly noted, SON is a light dessert after a steak dinner, which is just what you want. The effects and action are good, the humor is excellent, and I for one prefer Helen Mack's spunky gal to Fay Wray's insipid heroine. So sue me.

I'm referring to Guy Williams, not the movie. The movie itself, though not up to Harryhausen's SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, is nonetheless a lot of fun and far more entertaining that either GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD or the awful SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER. Williams is excellent in the title role, physically perfect and far more dashing than any other actor I can think of in the part. And those who carp about the cheap special effects are (as usual) totally missing the point. Aside from the absurdity of using CGI as your yardstick (does anyone actually think the effects in AVATAR or LORD OF THE RINGS look real? Come on...) the manifestly theatrical menaces in CAPTAIN SINDBAD are part of the fun. The villain's pulsing disembodied heart, like a big satin pillow, is a clear tip-off: none of this is MEANT to be real! It's like an elaborate Christmas pantomime. And that giant mechanical hand is terrific. A cross between this movie and SEVENTH VOYAGE would have been the perfect Sinbad movie. Or Sindbad. Take your pick.

You have to be a die hard monster movie fan to enjoy this movie, but I'm guessing if you are you'll like it a lot. I certainly did. That's not to imply that GODZILLA & OTHER MOVIE MONSTERS is particularly well done. It's crude and the footage from myriad monster movies is grainy, scratchy, and faded, but the sheer volume material, going all the way back to beginning of movies, is a pleasure in itself. Some of the clips here I'd never seen before, and I've spent a lifetime in front of the tube enjoying these kinds of films. Not a lot of scholarly research is evident, but again so what. And to correct what another reviewer wrote, this movie does not claim that BEGINNING OF THE END was the first giant insect movie --- although it shows clips from the giant grasshopper flick first, it goes on to cite THEM as the original monster bug movie --- and then treats us to an entertaining montage of giant scorpions, ants, spiders etc. to the tune of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Flight of the Bumblebee"! All in all this movie is a treat for un-discriminating B movie monster fans.

Let me say right from the start that I am a big, big Morecambe and Wise fan and have been ever since I was a kid. I'd heard that their features were but pale shadows of their TV work but even thus forewarned I was shocked by the total lack of humor in this film. THE MAGNIFICENT TWO is clearly meant to be something like the Hope and Crosby ROAD movies and I can't think of two comics who could have carried it off better than Eric and Ernie --- like Bob and Bing, they relied much on spirited ad-libs and spontaneity to earn their laughs, but this movie saddles them with a dreadfully humorless script which they seemed to follow like leaden zombies. Let me give you an example of what this movie's creators thought was funny: Eric and Ernie have an argument with their mouths so stuffed with food you can't hear what they're saying. Laugh? You'll never start. The only reason I gave THE MAGNIFICENT TWO two stars instead of only one is out of respect for the boys. Check out their stuff on YouTube. They were funny, funny men.

Probably not. Most likely (and I mean this in all seriousness) this movie just went over the heads of most reviewers. They were expecting a DUKES OF HAZARD romp and instead were presented with a scathingly accurate portrayal of the good ol' boy lifestyle in all it's Neanderthal glory. Also they saw a movie made on the cheap in the 70s, two very big strikes against it in the eyes of contemporary viewers. Sure, the garish colors and harsh lighting scream "cheesy" to audiences weaned on the kind of multi-zillion dollar Hollywood crap that lost touch with reality decades ago. The verisimilitude of this movie is stunning (again, no irony intended). The characters are dead on representations of their type, a very real type I assure you, and the cheap location shooting only adds to the realism. Even the girls in the wet tee-shirt contest don't look like models or actresses, they look like the kind of women you'd really find in a red-neck bar shaking their hooters for the amusement of a bunch of drunks (no offense to these ladies, wherever they are). And the most surprising thing about THE BOYS/Texas LIGHTNING are the occasional subtleties, the little nuances of character. The whole scene where they hunters are stopped in their pick-up truck (complete with gun rack, of course) by a black policemen is nothing but a small but revealing character aside. It's great. I never thought I could say this about a movie called Texas LIGHTNING but it's really an art film. It should be appreciated by more discriminating movie fans. Unfortunately I suspect most people only watched this movie hoping to see Marcia Brady naked. (Possible spoiler: they must have been sorely disappointed).

Few films have ever captured the feel of a fantasy world better than this one. The opening sequence alone (no, I'm not talking about the Hugh Downes intro) is absolutely masterful, presenting us with a seemingly unending series of striking images done using a technique (described at length by other reviewers) I don't think has ever been used again in a feature. Fantastic planes, trains, and airships soar past evoking a sort of "steam-punk" atmosphere of retro technology before that term was ever coined. Film fans, Verne fans, fans of pure hand-crafted cinema artistry and imagination must do themselves a favor and check this movie out.

I have to reluctantly join the majority who gave this film a thumbs down. I rented it fully expecting to enjoy it so it's not like I didn't give it a fair shot --- I gave it a more than fair shot, sticking with it all the way to the end, but it wasn't easy. There's a great deal of talent on display but it doesn't add up to much. I find the frequent references to WITHNAIL'S "hilarity" truly baffling. I laughed exactly twice during the whole movie, and now I can't remember why. Certainly it's possible to make a good movie about obnoxious losers --- TRAINSPOTTING did it beautifully --- but WITHNAIL reminded me of nothing so much as being trapped on a long bus ride next to an obnoxious bore who won't shut up. You don't want to be rude but man do you want that ride to be over.

I'd be mildly interested in knowing a little more about the background of this movie. It's supposed to be a comedy but I found nothing vaguely amusing about it. It looks more than anything like a portfolio piece designed to showcase the talents of Watts and/or the director and open a few doors, and the fact that it seems to have been a short expanded to feature length makes this all the more likely. At any rate, from what I can tell (to be honest I lost interest after the first fifteen minutes or so and skimmed it on fast forward) it has all the hallmarks of a credit card movie, that is a movie put together with little more than a maxed out credit card and the good will of the people involved. The image looks shot with a consumer grade camcorder although the lighting was respectable. The sound is awful but I get the sense this was intentional, to give the movie a more "cinema verite" feel. To top it off Watts' performance is all overwrought angst --- I have never seen more huge close-ups of an actress sobbing uncontrollably in any one movie. This is the kind of thing that performers expect will really impress producers, reinforcing my idea that ELLIE PARKER was intended as a promotional tool for its star. Good luck. I hope she makes it.

I rented this movie expecting, at best, an hour and a half of mindless fun, and the first few minutes seemed to confirm this. Some of the jokes fell flat, the whole thing had a limp, directionless feel. Just goes to show how wrong I can be. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. The satire of 60s/70s exploitation film making is dead on. Jerry Stiller is hilarious. The line-up of cameos is amazing. And Jeannine Garafolo is superb, not underused at all but used with subtlety and humor. She holds the movie together and makes it more than just a bunch of gags, and it's largely thanks to her (and Stiller) that the ending is not only funny but, amazingly enough, touching as well. For fans of bottom of the barrel film-making and for aspiring movie makers everywhere this is a must-see.

Taken for what it's intended to be this movie isn't nearly as bad as most others have said. Unfortunately many people are quick to criticize a film for not living up to their preconceptions, and even more just like to slam movies to make themselves feel superior to the film makers, as if mocking a film were somehow a greater accomplishment than creating one in the first place. People like that should limit their opinions to two words --- "It sucks" --- and let it go at that. Anything more is a waste of time.

Getting back to MONSTER ISLAND: First the good points. It's well produced and quite well photographed. The sets look good and the locations, while limited, are beautiful. And despite the rather violent opening it is clearly intended for children, and rather young children at that. It reminds me more than anything of the old BANANA SPLITS ADVENTURE HOUR. I'm quite sure if you sat a bunch of six year olds down with this movie they'd be quite entertained, and a kid's film that entertains kids can hardly be called a failure. Regarding the much maligned monster effects, granted they're not convincing but this is explained away in a reasonably plausible manner, and bad as they are they're integrated into the film with clever and reasonably successful perspective shots. The seaweed creatures are simple but initially impressive even if they lose something in the full shots. And the "French" castaway is certainly cute.

On the debit side: Well, crappy monsters even plausibly explained still look like crap, and the comic professor becomes just unbearable after a while. And the action is staged very poorly.

Final verdict: watch it with a bunch of little kids before you pass judgment. Smug frat boys and MST3K fans are worthless when assessing a movie like this.

Interesting Universal programmer from the late Fifties. This would be a standard heist (or should I say "post heist") movie if it weren't for the fact that the gang of crooks is all female. U-I contract player Mara Corday plays the hardened gang leader undone by her feelings for her naive younger sister, the sort of part Bogart or Raft might have played in an old Warner Brothers crime film of the thirties, except for her slightly more lascivious edge --- Corday wants what she wants whether it's money or the new delivery boy. Directed by Paul Henreid, best known as Ingrid Bergman's husband in CASABLANCA. All in all an interesting little thriller with some neat twists, definitely worth checking out.

I have to side with those who find this version of Woody Allen's play much inferior to the remake by Allen himself which, ironically, has a greater right to be called the original since it was Allen's attempt to show the story as he envisioned it. I think much of the problem lies in the fact that at the time this version was made Allen wasn't yet a respected director and no one worried much about preserving the "Woody Allen touch" --- except Woody Allen, of course.

Interesting note on the comparison between Jackie Gleason's take on the lead character with Allen's own portrayal years later. If you were to combine the physical bellicosity of Jackie Gleason with the sardonic Jewish humor of Woody Allen you might get someone like the recently deceased Lou Jacobi --- who originated the part on Broadway and who was, in Allen's opinion, largely responsible for the success of the play.

(By the way, I stole the line in my summary from Harpo Marx, who used it to describe the phenomenally successful Broadway production of ABIE'S IRISH ROSE.)

Although supposedly a remake of the James Whale film (and the J. B. Priestley book on which it's based) William Castle's OLD DARK HOUSE really has nothing in common with either except the titular domicile and a few character names. This movie starts out very promisingly, with Charles Addams' delightful credits complimented by Benjamin Frankel's lovely score, both eerie and lyrical. The opening scenes remind one of the darker Ealing comedies (KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS, THE LADYKILLERS), what with the great cast of British character actors led by the wonderful Robert Morley, and the production values are up to the usual Hammer standard. Then about halfway through, starting with the scene where Tom Poston is "menaced" by a stuffed hyena, the movie goes downhill and never recovers. Now, I understand the difficulties of making a movie with limited resources but how anyone ever thought they could pass off this refugee from a taxidermist's as a real animal boggles the mind. And the Ark sequence, while promising in concept, is very badly executed. The miniature work is just too obvious to pass muster and the interior of the ark looks like it was shot at a broken down zoo somewhere, with little effort made to transform it into a boat interior. And so it goes, right down the toilet. A big disappointment.

I had no particular hopes for this show. Of all the sitcoms on ABC's new "Wednesday Comedy Night" this is the one I expected to like the least, so it came as quite a surprise how funny and entertaining the pilot episode was. It moves along nicely and the cast is excellent. I always thought Heaton was talented but could never really enjoy her on EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND because her character was, quite frankly, an unendurable bitch. Here she has a chance to project a little more warmth and likability and really shines. The real charmer in the cast is Eden Sher as the teenage daughter, a marvel of gawky authenticity. I fear THE MIDDLE may be just a shade too subtle for audiences who tastes run to fart joke and similar crudity, but more discriminating viewers should definitely check it out.

There are no bad ROAD movies, and I do not except this one from that statement. As someone once said of the Marx Brothers film AT THE CIRCUS (and I paraphrase) in the career of any other comedy team this picture would be considered a classic. It not only holds its own with the rest of the series but I actually prefer it to ROAD TO RIO, which (while still adhering to the Road Rule stated above) always seemed like the weakest of the series to me. It's funny the reasons some other posters have given for not liking the film: It looks like it was made in the Sixties (it was), the stars looks like they're nearing their sixties (they were, and so what?), it's not as funny as the others in the series (in any given horse race one horse will come in last, but he still had to be pretty damn good to get into the race in the first place). And nobody seems to much like Joan Collins. Well, she was gorgeous and a competent enough actress and in a movie like this who cares anyway? It's Bob and Bing's movie and despite what anyone says they prove they've still got the goods and deliver them with ease. I say quit carping and enjoy.

This movie is the equivalent of a satisfying trip to your favorite fast food restaurant. Let's face it, if you're in the mood for a quarter pounder with cheese than the most delicious sirloin steak isn't going to satisfy you --- only that greaseburger will do. By the same token if you're looking for some low-brow Stooge fun then Ernst Lubitsch at his peak ain't gonna do it for you but this film will. Sure, it's not even the Stooges at their best, their glory days were almost twenty years in the past, but they still had some of the old zip and all the old shtick is trotted out like it was brand new and mixed with enough fifties sci-fi clichés to provide a satisfying junk meal. In fact a straight sci-fi movie like QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE could have used some of this movie's imagination and energy. I particularly liked the giant fire spewing tarantula, an effect pulled off quite well I might add, at least as well as Universal's "classic" TARANTULA. And I have to admit I find the title song kind of catchy. So sue me.

I rate A DAY AT THE RACES a 10 only compared to other non-Marx comedies (as critic James Agee remarked, the worst the Marx's might do would be better worth seeing than almost anything else). As a Marx Brothers movie it's bogged down by long, pointless musical numbers (I'll contradict myself in a moment) and a sappy romantic subplot (remnants of the formula Irving Thalberg devised for the boys in NIGHT AT THE OPERA, but with Thalberg dead it's all formula now and not much else). Then about two thirds of the way through something nearly miraculous happens. The brothers cut lose with the fabulous examination scene, exhibiting all the anarchic genius that made them great, and then following Allan Jones' cloying rendition of "Tomorrow is Another Day" Harpo grabs a flute and goes tootling off to some sort of African American shanty town where he encounters Ivie Anderson, The Crinoline Choir, and Whitie's Lindy Hoppers and the movie just explodes with energy. Many people, as has been pointed out, would consider this sequence "politically incorrect" but since political correctness is mostly the knee-jerk application of 21st century standards to earlier eras that the critics know nothing about I say screw 'em. For maybe ten minutes or so the screen is filled with so much warmth, talent, and exuberance that it nearly brings tears to my eyes. Sure it's got nothing to do with the story and little to do with the Marx Brothers but it is greatness unto itself and it may be the best scene in the movie. And by the way, for those who insist on judging this movie in racial terms the message seems to be that rich white men (Douglas Dumbrille and his flunkies) are evil and heartless and poor black people know that life is about singing and dancing and having fun. Sounds good to me.

Quasi-remake of the 1950s film of the same name directed by Edward ("Fast Eddy") Cahn. I was impressed to see Samuel Fuller's name in the writing credits but disappointed by the results. There are lots of Fuller-style quirky lines and off-beat twists but they come off more like someone imitating Fuller than Fuller himself. Parts of this movie (especially the truly unbelievable climax) defy belief. Other parts simply make no sense at all. I think the main problem is a director who doesn't actually get the jokes in his own movie, never a good thing. Ione Skye gets top billing but actually has little more than a minor supporting role. She gets to do a bush league version of James Cagney's mad scene from WHITE HEAT but she's no Cagney. The other girls come off a little better. Bahni Turpin is charming and attractive and does a pretty decent job but the movie really belongs to Anne Heche. She plays a stereotypical film noir femme fatale/whack-job (at one point even adopting the alias "Gilda") and carries it off with style and assurance. And yeah, you get to see her boobs in the shower scene. They'e very nice.

Up until the very end this movie was flat out terrific. Those who expect an action filled caper film will be disappointed (until the climax, that is) because this is, more than anything, a character study and an exceptional one at that. The acting by the three leads is outstanding, especially Ryan as an aging, oddly pathetic tough guy. Belafonte (who also produced) is as close to a hero as the movie can claim and plays his part not only with charm and appeal but also considerable skill. The gradual, almost inexorable way in which he and Ryan are sucked into a bank robbery neither wants to do is engrossing and convincing. Complaints that Ryan is too old for his part are ludicrous, since his fear of the weakness and impotence that old age will bring is crucial to his character (and those who find his beating a much younger soldier in a bar implausible are simply wrong. It happens. I once saw a 60 year old man put a 28 year old ex marine in the hospital in about two seconds). The movie is impressive in so many other ways as well. The black and white photography is frequently stunning and the use of actual locations grounds the movie in a sense of reality that only falters at the end when, frankly, it all goes to pieces. The last scene is arbitrary and heavy handed and nearly undermines everything that came before. I can still recommend the movie highly but (as with HUCKLEBERRY FINN) I only wish the ending were more worthy of such an exceptional piece of work.

This is clearly one of the great animated features of all time. How it squeaks by with a mere 7.4 voter average while all sorts of contemporary crap does far better is a mystery and a tribute to the downward spiral in cinematic taste. DUMBO is my favorite of all the classic Disney films (a group which ends with JUNGLE BOOK, completed after Walt's death). Nothing since then has been able to recapture the magic. Walt may have been, according to some people, a fascist and an anti-Semite, but he was also a genius.

Things that make this movie great:

The animation (I used to work at a zoo, and while the real elephants did little talking or singing the animators captured their body language incredibly well.)

"Pink Elephants on Parade".

Effective but not over-the-top heartstring tugging.

The musical crow number ("When I See an Elephant Fly"). I'm disappointed to discover the voice actors (Including Cliff Edwards, "Ukelele Ike" and the voice of Jiminy Cricket) were white guys playing black --- I was hoping they were some cool unknown black combo --- but it's a terrific number anyway.

The 64 minute running time. It starts, tells it's simple story, then knows when the hell to get off the stage. I wish more film makers had that ability.

I first saw this movie as part of a late-night Alec Guiness film festival when I was a teen. I was totally blown away by it. Among other things it inspired in me a love of Prokofiev and it also impelled me to seek out the book on which THE HORSE'S MOUTH was based. Sad to say once I got into Joyce Cary's novel my opinion of the movie went down several notches. The movie is very good but the book is brilliant. In fact it's only Guiness' deviations from the original novel that hurt his screenplay. There are depths to Cary's work that are rarely approached here and the addition of broad slapstick humor and the slightly cop-out ending are not improvements.

Having said that, a book is a book and a movie is a movie and this movie is still very good. In addition to the excellent score we're given a fine cast. Guiness himself is so good that I can't read the book without picturing him as Gulley Jimson, and horror film fans will enjoy seeing Michael (HORROR OF Dracula, etc.) Gough as a rival artist and Ernest (BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN)Thesiger as Jimson's one-time patron driven past his limit by the eccentric artist.

Enjoy the movie (but check out the source).

Most of the commenters for this film seem to be reviewing its budget rather than the film itself (hence the typical overuse of the empty headed all-purpose cliché "cheesy") but in fact this is one of the most intelligent and thoughtful science fiction films of any era. Anyone with sophistication enough to look past the obvious budget limitations will see a fairly solid study of human reactions to an unknown menace. BLOOD BEAST really has more in common with British science fiction of the time, especially the Quatermass films. Those who lump it in with other Roger Corman movies have, of course, the wrong Corman --- this was produced by brother Gene, who later went on to a successful career producing major studio films (TOBRUK, etc...). Gene Corman tended to inject a little more substance into his drive-in genre films that his more illustrious sibling. ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES, in addition to the expected cheap scares, also delves into Tennessee Williams territory with its low rent Big Daddy trying to deal with his unfaithful Baby Doll wife. BLOOD BEAST likewise devotes much attention to character development, presents several intriguing plot points, and ends on an enigmatic note almost unique in this type of movie. It's ironic that a cheap 50s drive-in movie like NIGHT OF THE BLOOD BEAST should ultimately appeal only to more sophisticated viewers. MST3K fans should look elsewhere for their cheap yucks.

I love the way everyone who reviews this movie feels compelled to point out the fact that there were no dinos in the caveman era, as if they were expecting a pat on the head and a gold star from their science teachers (These are presumably the same geniuses who can't help patting themselves on the backs because they figured out that the giant shrews in KILLER SHREWS are dogs in suits). I want to establish an award, which I would like to call either the DUH! or the NIETSNIE, to be given once a year to the bonehead who makes the most stunningly obvious observation under the impression that he's being clever as all hell (maybe I should name it after my own dad, who trashed the old FLYING NUN TV series on the grounds that nuns with big hats are not capable of independent flight, as if no one before him had ever realized that). Now here's the big irony that these MENSA candidates seem to overlook: in all of the reviews I've read of KING KONG. THE LOST WORLD, LOST CONTINENT, etc., one criticism that I've never seen leveled at these movies is that dinosaurs don't live in modern times. Dinosaurs living in modern times is apparently acceptable whereas dinosaurs existing 100,000 years ago is just ridiculous! So what do they think, that dinosaurs all went extinct 65,000,000 years ago then magically popped up again around 1912? Think about it, people!

Oh, about the movie itself? I find it kind of a bore whenever the Harryhausen monsters aren't on screen. Raquel Welch and Martine Beswick help make up for it a little but not that much. The scene where the allosaurus attacks the camp of the Shell People is terrific.

An earlier poster commented that this movie contains the worst dinosaurs in film history. I love it when people who obviously know nothing about film history make sweeping statements like that. It illustrates one of my prime laws of human nature: the less a person knows, the quicker he is to offer his "expert" opinion. In fact the dinosaurs in the film aren't the worst ever made (see THE MIGHTY GORGA or even Bert Gordon's KING DINOSAUR) although they are pretty poor. HOWEVER: Those more informed about such things know that considerable effort went into making these dinosaurs as scientifically accurate as they could be considering the budget involved. Many of the dinosaur designs and even some of the set-ups (such as the first sight of the brontosaurs in the distance) were taken from illustrations in a magazine article (I think it was National Geographic) on prehistoric life. The producers deserve kudos for at least trying to go the extra mile.

And how is the movie itself? It's a great example of old-fashioned pulp adventure and certainly beats the hell out of anything being produced by the Sci Fi Channel. And the cast is good, especially Barton MacLane as the two-fisted, hard drinking, womanizing sea captain. Those who enjoy nostalgic adventure could do worse than check it out.

This is a pretty unusual serial. It took me two tries to get into it, but then I was hooked. The plot is no more than perfunctory and seems like it was stitched together out of random clichés as the writers went along, but a few episodes in things take a truly delightful turn into the bizarre. It feels as if the writer, director, and/or cast began to feel bored by the tripe they were enacting and decided to have some fun with it. The supposedly diabolical mastermind suddenly seems like the headmaster at a school for painfully inept crooks, constantly bemused but tolerant of his incompetent charges, and the cliffhangers and action sequences begin to feel like big jokes. My favorite shot: the hero is trapped in one of those rooms that slowly fill with water and the villain, after setting the trap in motion, turns to his cohort with a shrug and a wry grin that seems to say "The old flooded room trick again --- well, what're ya gonna do?" Unfortunately the serial runs out of steam towards the end and falls back on the usual tired hi-jinks, but for a while it's a delight.