Halloween 2012: October 23

Dead Man’s Eyes (1944)
List of careers Lon Chaney has held in the Inner Sanctum series: Neurologist, professor of folklore, portrait painter. It’s a good things these movies are unrelated, isn’t it? Otherwise that shit would get super convoluted. Anyway, after “Calling Dr. Death” and “Weird Woman” were surprisingly good, “Dead Man’s Eyes” is the first dud in the series. As is the standard for this series thus far, two different woman are in love with Chaney: His fiancé and his model. In an act of jealousy, the model switches the artist’s eye-wash out with acid, burning his corneas. The only man willing to give Chaney the corneas he needs is his girlfriend’s rich dad. Naturally, the dad is murdered, and other murders follow. Once again, a hard-ass police detective gets on Chaney’s case even though he is, per the series’ rules, totally innocent.

“Dead Man’s Eyes” is a snore. The direction is, compared to the first two films, bland. Chaney actually starts out as a very happy man but, as soon as he’s blind, he falls back into his typical angsty mode. The movie notes briefly the recently blinded man’s tendency to drink, possibly touching on Chaney’s real-life alcoholism. This story thread is dropped quickly as the movie focuses on the murder-mystery. Unlike the last two, the murder-mystery is the only horror element in the film, placing this one on the margins of the genre. There’s fewer voice-overs too and covering Chaney’s eyes takes away a major acting factor of his. It’s fairly easy who the murderer is and far too much of the movie is spent discussing the location of a pair of eyes or character’s condition. Acquanetta plays the jealous model and it’s easy to see why she didn’t have any lines in the Paula the Ape Woman movies. Her performance isn’t very good. Chaney has some okay chemistry with Jean Parker, the actress playing his girlfriend and Thomas Gomez, as this entry’s hard-ass detective, is fun as well. The super-happy ending wraps everything up way too cleanly. Hopefully the remaining Inner Sanctum films will be more like the previous two then “Dead Man’s Eyes.” [4/10]

The Mummy’s Ghost (1944)
For a change, “The Mummy’s Ghost” doesn’t start with stock footage from the previous movie. Instead, it starts with a college professor giving an exposition filled monologue about what happened in the last movie. I don’t know if that’s an improvement or not. “The Mummy’s Ghost” is the first mummy movie since the original to bring up the issue of resurrection. While it wasn’t mentioned much in the last two, apparently the mummy of Princess Ananka was brought back to a museum in Mapleton, MA. At it once again are the priests of Arkam (Pronounced AH-Kam, not like the asylum or the town), apparently taking over for the Priest of Karnak even though George Zucco is back as the aging high priest with a broken arm. John Carradine heads to Massachusetts and boils himself some Tana leaves tea under a full moon. Despite being burnt to ashes in the last movie, the tea ritual apparently summons Kharis magically out of thin air. Meanwhile, a young female student at the college is experiencing a strange connection with the mummy. When the priest try to perform a ritual over Ananka’s mummy, she dreams Kharis is floating over her. She sleepwalks when he is about. And her hair is slowly turning white…

I’d compare “The Mummy’s Ghost” to “Son of Dracula.” Oh, that movie is much better then this one but both films share a dark streak, both visually and in their story. Amina, the resurrected Princess Ananka, provides an interesting angle. Not only is she unambiguously the reincarnation of the dead princess, she seems to be becoming a mummy as the film goes on. I wish actress Ramsay Ames was giving a little more to do besides look fantastic in a tight nightgown and pass out on a slab, because she shows some talent. I suspect if Universal had wanted to, this could have been a Val Lewton-style story of a girl realizing her own strange, and frightening, legacy.

But “The Mummy” sequels have much more modest goals. “The Mummy’s Ghost” is content to be the same-old-same-old story of a dusty old mummy rampaging across New England. The last movie tried to make the slow, shambling mummy frightening by suggesting a supernatural influence on his environment. This one emphasizes his strength. The first thing Kharis does upon resurrection is smashed through a wooden fence. Later, he crashes through a barn wall and destroys a museum display. Once again, Lon Chaney does he best to act under the ungainly make-up. John Carradine does his thing and, once again, the High Priest character falls in love with the girl in peril at the last minute. Kharis proves to be the jealous type. The movie is infamous for its downbeat ending. I’m not quite sure why they went in that direction, though it is surprising. Weirdly, the movie ends with one of the “God punishes though who meddle” message but this time it’s talking about the Egyptian Gods. Dogs also featured prominently in this one for some reason. If it wasn’t for that ending, “The Mummy’s Ghost” would probably be utterly unremarkable. With it, it suggests a much more interesting film could have been made from these reliable, schlocky stock parts. [5.5/10]

Intruders (2012)
Here’s a thriller from just this year that’s been overlooked. Juan Carls Frensnadillo is one of those Spanish genre directors that rode into the American film industry in the early 2000s on a wave of interest in Spanish. Like a lot of those directors, he quickly fizzled out. “Intruders,” similarly, starts out extremely promising before being derailed by a kind of lame ending.

The film is rooted in childhood fears, which is extremely fertile ground for horror. A girl, while visiting with her grandparents house, pulls a matchbox out of a tree. In the box, is a fold-up piece of paper telling the story of a boogeyman named Hollow Face, a creature that snatches children’s faces. Soon, the girl is haunted by the spectre. Despite this juicy premise, the film actually focuses on her father, played by Clive Owen, and how he deals with the mysterious intruder in his home, violating the privacy and sanctity of the child’s bedroom. With the focus on childhood fears, the girl’s twelve birthday, her desire to grow up, her relationship with her father, and some growing animosity with her mom make me think this was going to be a story about childhood, coming of age, and night terrors. It’s not really about that. There’s a parallel story about a Spanish child similarly being haunted by the same entity, his single mother helpless to do anything about it. The film ties these two story threads together in the least interesting fashion position.

As I said, “Intruders” has so much potential in that premise and set-up. As the two frightened, hapless parents, Clive Owen and Pilar Lopez de Ayala both give excellent performances. Sequences of a black, shadowy figure, intentionally recalling the shadow people concept, emerging from a closet proves deeply creepy. The subtle score helps builds these thrills, even if they are sometimes undermined by some sketchy CGI effects. The mystery and intensity of the situation builds to a high pitch… To the middle of the film. At which point, the story is revolved in a really uninteresting manner. I mean, it tries to be interesting. The film handles the trite twist in a way that builds into the story’s themes. But it still can’t overcome the inherent lameness of the twist. Especially when we get to the story’s proper climax, which keeps playing it for supernatural thrills even though we know the truth now, feels a bit tedious.

All of this is a real bummer because the beginning really is promising. There are the building blocks here of a thrilling, original horror film playing on real life fears and tensions. Faceless people are almost always creepy and this movie plays into that well. So I still don’t know what to make of Fresnadilo as a talent, since “28 Weeks Later” also left me with a mixed reaction. Maybe eventually he’ll make an awesome horror movie that doesn’t compromise its own premise. [6/10]

Halloween 2012: October 22

The Climax (1944)
Well, that was kind of a drag. As I previously mentioned, “The Climax” was originally intended as a sequel to the Claude Rains’ “Phantom of the Opera.” With Rains’ exit, the film was retrofitted into a stand-alone film, keeping Susanna Foster and the opera setting. Instead of a phantom terrorizing the opera, Boris Karloff plays a doctor obsessed with a certain singer. So obsessed that he strangles her to death. Years later, a girl that is the spitting image of the dead singer shows up at the opera company. Karloff stalks the girl, hypnotizes her to loose her voice. Oh no, an opera won’t be performed! As far as stakes go, those are fairly low. It doesn’t help that, like ‘43’s “Phantom,” this is primarily focused on music, dancing, and romance.

The Technicolor sets certainly are beautiful. I’m sure fans of opera and ballet will find plenty to enjoy here. As for the rest of us? Man, this one drags. Susanna Foster isn’t a bad actress but she spends most of the movie fretting and fussing, sitting around in her dressing room, anxious. Turhan Bay has yet to impress in any of this films and the script doesn’t give his romantic lead much to do. Foster and Bay are mostly defined by their mutual love for one another. Gale Sondergaard is wasted in a supporting role as Karloff's maid. When music and romance aren’t the focus, the movie is about the drama behind the scenes at the opera. June Vincent pretty much reprises her Carlotta role in “Phantom” and the opera runners and owners are constantly clashing with her. The boredom peaks when Bay and some other guy convince the king of a command performance. And, Christ, there’s a lot of opera in the movie.

About the only time the film works is when Karloff is on-screen. He’s always done well in roles that allow him to play both a sweet old man and a wicked murderer. He looms over Foster, his intimidation seeming quite genuine. The hypnotism provides more “Mummy”-style close-ups of his eyes. The conclusion reveals that Karloff’s villainous doctor has being keeping his beloved soprano’s body in a secret room in the opera house. The last scene of him clutching the body as the room goes up in flame is the film’s sole stirring, poetic moment. It’s a shame that Karloff’s first color feature had to be such a bore, especially since it was clearly a big budget affair. [5/10]

Weird Woman (1944)
The Inner Sanctum movies are proving surprisingly consistent. “Weird Woman” has more overt horror themes then “Calling Dr. Death.” The story revolves around a college professor of folklore who, on an expedition to a village of voodoo practitioners, falls in love with a girl and brings her back to America. Being a believer in logic and reason, the professor convinces his wife to cut it out with all the voodoo and white magic business. This turns out to be a bad idea. Rumors swirl around him. A colleague kills himself, the dead man’s wife casting blame on Chaney. Upon rejecting a young girl’s romantic advances, her boyfriend attempts to murder him.

Like “Calling Dr. Death,” “Weird Woman” gets a lot of mileage out of close-ups on Lon Chaney’s face while, in voice-over, he talks ominously about his situation. Here, the monologue revolve around wither or not he can believe if something supernatural is at play. This proves to be surprisingly entertaining. Maybe it’s just me. “Weird Woman” does have a dynamite cast. In one of its best casting choices, Evelyn Ankers for once plays a villainous woman, the femme fatale actually responsible for much of Chaney’s lousy luck. Ankers supposedly wasn’t real fond of Lon in real life and you can’t help but wonder if some real life animosity added to her fantastically mean-spirited character. The film’s climax shows the supernatural bad vibes being turned against Ankers, generating some actual suspense, and her character has a fantastic exit from the film. Anne Gwynne and Lois Collier as the two wives are also very good and Elisabeth Risdon is nicely feisty in a supporting role. While the camera angles aren’t as clever as the first in the series, I really like the scene where Chaney working a sandbag in the gym slowly becomes the beating of tribal drums.

One of the oddest bits in the film is that Lon Chaney Jr. is supposed to be such a lady man. Most of the plot revolves around him spurning the advances of two young women. Potential female readers, is this guy handsome? When a curse starts hanging over Anker’s head, she sees numbers counting down to her doom everywhere. This is both hilariously melodramatic but also kind of brilliant, since she is applying her own paranoia to normal, everyday things around her. Most of the movie walks this fine line, generally effectively in my opinion.

“Weird Woman” is an adaptation of the novel “Conjure Woman” by Fritz Leiber, which has proven a surprisingly popular source material. It was adapted as “Burn Witch Burn” in 1962 and “Witches’ Brew” in 1980, with a new version in development. If the Inner Sanctum series was meant as Universal’s answer to the popularity of Val Lewton’s films, I have to say this one, at least, stands up to Lewton. [7/10]

House of Frankenstein (1944)
The first proper Monster Mash movie. You get the impression that Universal lost confidence that any of the monsters could stand on their own. Or maybe once Frankenstein met the Wolfman, adding Dracula, a mad scientist, and a hunchback to the mix was just the next natural move. There’s some fun ideas and good performances to be had in “House of Frankenstein” though I wish the screenplay was better constructed.

My biggest issue with all the Universal Monster rallies is that none of the creatures interact much, if at all. I mean, “Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman” eventually got the two big guys fighting, at the very least. “House of Frankenstein” confines each of the major monsters to basically ten minute (or less) vignettes, using traveling mad surgeon Dr. Niemann and his hunchback pal as the linking element. This probably made the story easy to assemble but I can’t help but think budgetary reasons was the real motivator. Dracula, who I needn’t remind you is just a dude in a suit and cape, takes up the most screen-time, while the Wolf Man only gets two brief sequences and Frankenstein, as was sadly the status quo by 1944, spends almost the entire movie tied to slab before finally getting a little action at the very end. Even as I kid, that bummed me out.

Watching this movie now, all the continuity errors had me spergin’ out. In the beginning, Dr. Niemann claims that his assistant was the brother to Frankenstein’s assistant. Okay, which assistant? Henry’s? Wolf’s? Ludwig’s? Did Fritz or Carl have a brother? Or was this guy the brother of Lionel Atwill’s character in “Ghost?” The story thread that holds the movie together is, after Niemann shanghai a traveling company of horrors, they go on a tour of Universal’s Monsters’ Europe. They stop by the village of Frankenstein… Which is home to the castle from “Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman.” Uh, wait a minute movie, “Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman” took place in Visaria. It’s not that the movie is retconning Visaria and the village of Frankenstein as the same place, because the last act of the movie is set in Visaria. And it is absolutely the same castle as the one from the last movie because there’s two fresh monster-sicles in the basement, Lon Chaney and Glenn Strange waiting for their cues. At first I figure maybe the movie had placed Ludwig Frankenstein’s asylum (and the castle/dam combo it magically became in the next movie) on the borders between the two towns. This would make sense, since Ygor and the Monster walked there on foot in “Ghost.” But, nope, the motley cast of characters spent three days traveling from Frankenstein to Visaria via horse-drawn carriage. If all of this wasn’t driving me nuts, Larry Talbot uncovers Frankenstein’s journal for Niemann and it says Henry Frankenstein on the cover. Despite the last three movies going out of there way to retcon the Frankenstein Colin Clive played in the first movie as Heinrich Frankenstein. Was Henry a nickname? A middle name? In the last movie, Visaria had a mayor. Now it has a burgomaster again. Maybe all the monsters caused a backslide in local politics.

Then there’s the whole issue of who the hell John Carradine’s Dracula is meant to be. The movie claims he’s the original Dracula, straight from the Carpathian Mountains, right with the stake in his heart. But Dracula’s staked body was burn to ashes in “Dracula’s Daughter!” And in England! And where the hell does Count Alucard/Son of Dracula/actually Dracula(?) fit into all of this? In order to maintain my own nerd sanity, I pretend that Chaney’s Alucard and Carradine’s Baron Latos are just vampires pretending to be Dracula or a relative of Dracula’s. I mean, in the vampire world, every vampire probably claims to be related to Dracula. Just like how everyone from Virginia had ancestors on the Mayflower, right? All of this ignores the real reason: In a pre-VHS world, there weren’t any way for writers to double-check this stuff. Or, more likely, they just didn’t give that much of a shit. But I do. I give a shit.

This is a convoluted way of saying the entire film is kind of hastily assembled. The pacing is all over the place. Niemann resurrects the fake Dracula and sets him out to murder the former burgomaster that convicted him. The movie, for the next twelve minutes, becomes a Dracula movie. Latos does murder the guy he was sent for but, mostly, he’s preoccupied with seducing his granddaughter-in-law. Which he mostly accomplishes with a magic ring, an interesting touch. Niemann screws over the vampire before finding out if he followed through on his end of the deal. No mention of Latos regenerating his tux and cape when resurrected. Once in Visaria, Niemann abducts his assistant that ratted on him and some other guy. He threatens to put their brains in the Wolf Man’s and Frankenstein Monster’s bodies. Once the brains are extracted, these two guys are totally forgotten about, with Niemann deciding he’s putting Larry Talbot’s brain in the Monster’s body. Why does Talbot agree to help Niemann and stick around with him when it’s apparent very soon that he has no interest in actually helping him? In Frankenstein (the village), our traveling band picks up a gypsy girl because Daniel the Hunchback has a crush on her. She immediately falls in love with Larry Talbot upon meeting him and, at the end, sacrifices her life to put the bad dog down. All of this for a guy she’s known for exactly three days. A sad hunchback being infatuated with her immediately at least makes sense. At the very end, the obligatory pitchfork/torches crowd notice lights in Niemann’s old lab and decide this is reason enough to investigate. These crowd of characters are horribly underdeveloped. The movie actually has too many characters, way more then was necessary. You can’t tell me getting all the ingredients together required that much work.

All of that wracks my brain. Yet I still can’t dislike the movie, totally. I don’t know if Universal was intentionally assembling a cast full of horror veterans or if everyone one just happened to be on contract at the time. Either way, “House of Frankenstein” is front-loaded with established horror players. Boris Karloff is a professional, like always, playing Dr. Niemann as a cold, calculated villain, well aware of what he wants and willing to do anything to get it. I’m actually a fan of John Carradine’s Dracula. His seduction of Anne Gwynne, herself a vet of the studio’s B-horror pictures, is actually surprisingly sexy. Carradine wasn’t Lugosi but he brought style and intimidation to the part. J. Carrol Naish, previously seen in “Calling Dr. Death,” actually gives the movie’s best performance as the hunchback Daniel. He’s certainly a pathetic figure, as sad but full of rage as Frankenstein’s monster should be. Lionel Atwill plays a role very similar to Inspector Krogh from “Son of Frankenstein,” minus the wooden arm. George Zucco stops by for a brief part as the barker for the traveling house of horrors. Glen Strange’s Monster is never well respect but he gives it a good try. There’s a lot of face-acting and emotion in his eyes. If nothing else, he’s less stiff then Lugosi and Chaney’s take on the character. Speaking of which, I wish Chaney had a little more to do here. Isn’t it weird that Larry Talbot never does anything to restrain himself when he knows he’s going to transform? We only get one proper Wolfman transformation scene too. The first one happens off-screen. He does remember to walk on his tippy-toes as a werewolf though. Generally speaking, there’s very little Wolfman action in this one. Last, Elena Verdugo as the gypsy girl isn’t great. Her cutie-pie voice is even a little annoying. But she certainly looks good, especially when dancing around.

I guess that’s my main issue with “House of Frankenstein.” It promises so much but delivers so little. The Dracula chase scene is exciting. I like the violence-filled ending a lot. There’s some clever elements to the direction. Plenty of shadows. There’s just not enough monsters. Even then, this movie is a classic of the Friday night creature feature. I remember staying up to watch it with a bowl of cheesy salsa and nachos. [6/10]

Halloween 2012: October 21

The Mad Ghoul (1943)
How did screenwriters back in the forties pick their sci-fi/horror film MacGuffins? “The Mad Ghoul” is about an evil chemistry professor who discovers the poison gas that the ancient Aztecs used to create zombies that feed on human hearts. Naturally, he immediately uses it on of his students, a medicine major. As far as ways to create heart eating zombies go, poison gas seems a smidge impractical. Was electricity and black magic both old hat by 1943? It’s a good thing the atomic bomb would drop in a few years and B-movie screenwriters the world over could just use that as an excuse for anything.

Anyway, the character dynamics in “The Mad Ghoul” are so simple you could figure them out with the sound off. Evelyn Ankers plays the fiancé of Ted, the protagonist and titular ghoul of questionable sanity. It’s fairly obvious that the evil professor desires her, which is why he picks on poor Ted, and that her pianist (She’s an obviously dubbed stage singer, by the way) is her back-up love interest, the guy who is going to be there for after her boyfriend-turned-monster bites it in the last reel. All of this is okay though, since Ankers is totally over Ted. The cast is full of Universal Monster veterans. Aside from Ankers, you’ve got George Zucco as the evil professor, Turhan Bey as the back-up love interest, and Rose Hobert from “Tower of London” and “Jekyll and Hyde” ’31 in a bit part. A cast like that still can’t make-up for leading man David Bruce, who is incredibly stiff, and not just when playing an undead ghoul. For a fact, he’s a far better undead ghoul then he is a normal person.

I’m being pretty down on “The Mad Ghoul,” which isn’t totally fair. Yeah, the script is super hacky. There’s the required speech about how Zucco’s science is meddling in God’s domain. The shambling, monosyllabic Ghoul is decidedly unthreatening and the make-up consist pretty much of a streak of dark face paint. This doesn’t mention a few unintentionally funny moments, like the often referenced Miracle Monkey. Despite that, the film still has a moment or two. The grave robbing scenes, which are what make the Ghoul a Ghoul, are all fairly atmospheric, especially the one heavy on the fog. Shadowy silhouettes are used fairly well throughout. There’s a clever scene were a police officer tries to get the drop on the grave robbers by hiding in a casket. It doesn’t go well for him. The monster is something like a cross between Jekyll/Hyde and Frankenstein, since Ted is a normal guy until his new heart transplant wears off and he becomes a shambling corpse in a suit again. The climax, which has the monster meeting his end on a stage in front of hundreds of people, is at least memorable and the evil professor’s fate has a nicely ironic tone to it. These are probably the reasons why “The Mad Ghoul” has something of a following even if, otherwise, it’s not particularly notable. [6/10]


Phantom of the Opera (1943)
A lot of opera in this. That might be a retarded statement but… Damn. Andrew Lloyd Weber wasn’t the first guy to shanghai this gothic horror story for romance and gaudy spectacle. It’s a big budget affair, in color, with huge sets, elaborate costumes, and a rich score. The studio was looking less for chills and more for Oscars, two of which it got. Considering the previous version was silent, and this is a story about music, that makes sense. But this film sets up the future adaptations that downplay horror in favor of elements friendlier to housewives.

The story is jiggered around with. Characters have names changed. The Phantom is given a tragic back-story. He doesn’t start out as a murdering, obsessive psychopath. Instead, he’s a kindly, aging violinist. When he, rather abruptly, comes to believe that his music has been stolen, he flies into a homicidal rage. A splash of acid and a trip down the sewers later, the Phantom as we know him takes shape. The Phantom is still obsessed with Christine but, probably owing to the age difference between Rains and Sussanna Foster, isn’t grooming her as a lover or a singer. Instead, the movie implies subtly that the Phantom might actually be her long-lost father. Because the year was 1943 and this was a crowd-pleasing film, a love triangle is still necessary. Raoul, reimagined as a Paris police detective, now has competition for Christine’s hand from the Opera Company’s baritone, Anatole.  

The focus is definitely heavy on music and comedy. There are lengthy opera sequences, all presented in their original language, with quite a bit of fancy costumes and choreography thrown in. The movie comes close to being a musical, especially once the characters sing even when they aren’t on stage. Raoul and Anatole’s vying for Christine results in the two saying words at the same times or trying to go out a door at the same time. That element is kind of funny, especially during the tacked-on happy ending where Christine picks the adoring crowd over either man’s affection. A clownish opera attendant is more forced comic relief. Having the Phantom start out as good instead of insane is another softening element. There’s less in the way of murder and madness. 

Claude Rains is excellent. There are problems with the character as written. His transition from gentle old man to homicidal maniac is out of nowhere, especially since Erique seems less passionate about his music. Once Rains gets his scratchy voice behind the mask, the movie and character improve. He certainly cuts a sinister figure. The scarred face, though technically closer to what an acid-burn might look like, is underwhelming. The chandelier drop is a standout and an improvement over ’25. The film threatens to undermine the sequence when it takes so long to saw through the chain. Once it comes down, it’s shot in exciting, multi-angle quick cuts. 

The film was a big success and a sequel was greenlit. The ending delicately sets up the possibility, with something rustling under the climatic pile of rubble. After Rains backed out due to scheduling conflicts, the sequel, “The Climax,” was filmed as a stand alone film with Boris Karloff in the vaguely-Phantom-like part. I gotta say this version of “Phantom” isn’t as exciting or interesting as the previous adaptation or a few of the future ones. [5/10]

Son of Dracula (1943)
“Son of Dracula” has a couple of things going for it. First and foremost is the direction from Robert Siodmak, Curt’s brother. Robert would become better known later for directing noirs like “The Spiral Staircase” and “The Dark Mirror.” He brings that same handle of atmosphere to this flick. This could easily be classified as a horror-noir. The New Orleans setting emphasizes this even more. The swamp gas, old houses, dark basements, and tree branches makes this, visually, quite a dark trip. There are several really clever shots too, like a close-up of a bat cutting to a close-up on the back of Dracula’s cape. The scene I always remember from this film is when a vampire’s casket is in a police station and mist begins to rise from under the lid.

It’s morally ambiguous lead characters add to the noir tone as well. Robert Paige as Frank Stanley spends most of the movie in a nervous sweat. Nobody believes him when he starts talking about vampires, he is wrongly accused of his girlfriend’s death, and can’t quite believe the situation he’s in himself. Covered in mud and grime, he’s a unique Universal Monster protagonist. Louise Allbritton as Kay is almost a femme fatale herself. She’s not well liked by the other characters in the film for her unhealthy interest in the supernatural. As the film goes on, we find that she’s intentionally manipulating two men. (Including Dracula!) A woman intentionally becoming a vampire for the power it affords wasn’t a common sight in the 1940s. Both actors give good performance too. In the Van Helsing role is J. Edward Bromberg, who with his frizzy hair and distinctive accent, at least cuts a memorable figure.

What the movie gets criticized the most for is Lon Chaney’s performance as Dracula. It’s true that Chaney’s blue collar American voice, style, and build didn’t make him an ideal Dracula but let’s give the guy some credit. Chaney was good at using his size and presence for intimidation. When convincing Dr. Brewster that he’s just a normal guy, or when he finally reveals himself as a vampire, are Chaney’s best moment. The sequence of someone shooting a gun directly through the vampire and into the person behind him is a classic, for sure. This is the first movie to show a vampire transforming into a bat, which it actually does quite subtly, mostly in long shots. I’m a bigger fan of Lon Jr. then most. Perhaps that’s why I like his Count Alucard more then most do.

Speaking of which… While I like the script a lot, the continuity nerd in me can’t help but have some questions for this one. The film says the last Dracula lived in the 12th century and, at one point, a character seems to be reading from the original Bram Stoker novel. That raises some interesting, frankly baffling questions. The film never answers the question of who Chaney’s character is exactly. He is blatantly referred to as Dracula at one point. Is he meant to be the same Dracula Bela Lugosi played? Is he that character’s son, as the title blatantly suggests? Is this film even meant to be a sequel to the Lugosi Dracula? I’m probably thinking about this more then the people who made the movie did. Of course, the movie did contribute the “Alucard = Dracula” trick which has been used numerous times since then. While I can understand why this movie isn’t well liked by everyone, I’ve got to say I’m a “Son of Dracula” fan. [7/10]

Halloween 2012: October 20

Calling Dr. Death (1943)
So here’s the introduction to one of the more atypical series to be slapped with the Universal Horror label. The Inner Sanctum radio series, with its famous guest stars, campy comedic host, and horror-heavy stories, was something like the “Tales from the Crypt” of its day. The series was popular enough to spawn a film series. Six movies were made, all starring Lon Chaney. While none of the films are monster movies, rewatching this one, it’s surprising just how much of a horror picture this is.

Chaney plays a neurologist and a hypnotist, Dr. Mark Steel. Dr. Steel has got some problems. His wife is cheating on him, and he’s stressed out about it. He’s in love with the nurse at his office but can’t bring himself to make a move, which causes a lot of guilt. Things get worse for him when he goes on a weekend drive, blacks out, and wakes up to the news of his wife brutal murder. Evidence piles up, like his missing coat button being at the crime scene. Despite one detective being convinced Chaney is the culprit (and badgering him constantly over it), his wife’s boyfriend is pinned with the crime and put on death row. This causes Dr. Steel even more guilt. That he is now free to pursue a relationship with his nurse causes him guilt. Generally speaking, he’s a super guilty guy, even if he truthfully can’t remember what he did that weekend.

This is a good example of psychological horror. There’s a heavy noir atmosphere. The movie goes out of its way to put the audience in Chaney’s heads. Whispery voice-overs are frequent throughout the early half of the movie, vividly describing Dr. Steel’s constant of mental anguish. There are several eye-view shots from Chaney’s perspective, further cementing our need to relate with him. It’s actually a really good performance from Chaney. Why “The Wolf Man” proved that nobody does guilt and anguish better then him, the professional and educated Dr. Steel is a very different character then Larry Talbot. The noir tone is furthered by the shadow, dark visual style. There’s never much doubt that the doctor is innocent but his constant threatening is highly involving and entertaining.

The supporting cast is solid too, most notably Patricia Morison as the object of Chaney’s desire and J. Carrol Nash as the overbearing detective. The film is definitely a mystery and you are kept guessing over who is actually responsible for the crime. The overly grisly nature of the murder, which involves a bashed-in head and a splash of acid, adds to the horror elements. When the perpetrator of the crime is revealed at the end, it’s done through a hypnotism sequence. The flashbacks are overlaid at the entranced person’s dozing face, another example of the movie’s clever visual style. The film wraps up on an odd note, the detective talking about how there are always more crimes to investigate and then straightening the plaque of the Hippocratic Oath on the wall. I suppose those expecting a traditional Universal Monster movie would be disappointed in this one, but I actually found it fairly fascinating and rewarding. [7/10]

Captive Wild Woman (1943)
Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Gill-Man: These are the legends. The Mummy, the Invisible Man, the Phantom of the Opera: Not as well known but still influential and iconic. Paula the Ape Woman? Not Universal’s most famous character, to be kind. The studio would crank out three movies featuring the character, two of them starring exotic Acquanetta, all of them strictly on the B-movie level.

Anyway, “Captive Wild Woman.” The premise is purely ridiculous. An animal tamer brings a batch of new animals to his circus after a trip around the world, among them a huge female gorilla named Cheela. His girlfriend has a sister who is currently being treated for some glandular condition that isn’t named or elaborated on. Bad luck for her that mad scientist John Carradine is the one of the case. He steals the gorilla, pumps her full of the girl’s blood and, in the process, creates a beautiful ape woman named Paula. Paula soon finds work at the circus and, despite never speaking and having an uncanny sway over the rest of the animals, nobody stops to question just who the hell this girl is. Predictably, Paula develops an attachment to the animal tamer and doesn’t appreciate him continuing to love his girlfriend. This mad scientist/gorilla movie officially becomes a monster flick when Paula, in her rage, transforms into a were-gorilla of some type, briefly.

The most uncomfortable thing about “Captive Wild Woman” is all the animal footage. Large portions of the film are built around real life animal tamer Clyde Beatty dealing with lions and tigers. Beatty is thanked in the opening credits and it’s really obvious whenever he swaps out for leading man Milburn Stone. Because this was 1943, there’s no doubt that when you see lions and tigers wrestling, biting, and clawing the hell out of each other, those animals were really hurting each other. Naturally, in all of the animal tamer footage, you get the uncomfortable impression that you’re minute away from seeing a guy mauled to death by a wild animal. And no wonder the big cats are so pissed off. They are stuck in tiny, cramped cages. Stuff like this usually doesn’t bother me much but it’s impossible not to notice here.

The cast is the main reason to stick around. Carradine effortlessly plays the mad scientist with glee. Evelyn Ankers seems happy not to be working opposite Lon Chaney for once. You can’t get much of an impression of Acquanetta’s acting ability, but her intense stare is certainly captivating  and she looks great in the revealing circus outfit they stick her in. The brief were-ape make-up is actually excellent and I wish it wasn’t confined to one sequence. Gorilla suit aficionados will probably enjoy Ray Corrigan’s performance as Cheela. The plot is totally ridiculous and the ending hugely anti-climatic. After that disappointing conclusion, the movie caps it off with a utterly ridiculous voice-over message talking about how the scientist, more or less, “meddle in God’s domain.” I’m really surprise this movie didn’t end up on “Mystery Science Theater 3000” during the Sci-Fi era. It would have fit in perfectly on that show. [5/10]

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)
At the time, “Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man” was a hugely novel idea. Now, any setting with at least one of the classic monster inevitably becomes a monster mash. In 1943, suggesting that all these characters shared a universe probably blew a few minds. While obviously on the B-movie level most of the Universal Monster films were at this time, there’s still a lot to enjoy about this one.

“The Wolf Man” didn’t actually feature a shot of the full moon nor did it discuss the moon’s sway over the werewolf much. This one makes up for that. The first shot in the film is of the full moon. The first scene of the grave robbers breaking into the Talbot tomb, which makes use of a beautiful graveyard set, is fantastically creepy. Larry’s body reviving in the rays of the moon is a bit of a cheat but it’s as good an explanation as any. At least the film doesn’t explain away his head wound from the end of the first movie. Resurrection doesn’t make Larry real happy and he starts out on a (fruitless) suicide quest. After an energetic Wolf Man scene that sees him jumping around boxes, acting very lupine, Larry travels across Europe seeking Maleva the gypsy. She recommends Dr. Frankenstein, and we’re off.

The film goes a long ways towards establishing a timeline and location. It’s been four years since the first “Wolf Man” and Sir John has died of grief. The setting is established as Wales while Vasira, the primary setting in the latter half of the film, is now on the mainland, obviously somewhere near Germany. The film honestly avoids too many continuity errors from the last two flicks. Maleva remembers Dr. Frankenstein, the one played by Cedric Hardwicke, as a great doctor famous for helping sick minds. The villagers are less kind, remembering him as a creator of monsters. (Even though Ludwig Frankenstein never created any monsters.) Its never explain how the Monster got from the burning asylum at the end of “Ghost of Frankenstein” to frozen in a block of ice in this one. The layout of Ludwig Frankenstein’s laboratory is totally different, now next to a dam with electric turbines underneath. Still, considering how fast and loose the continuity would be in later sequels, it’s nice to see that someone was still paying attention at this point.

Universal assembled a horror all-star cast for this big crossover movie. Lon Chaney’s characterization as a death obsessed sad sack started here. The guy is super serious the whole time. He’s still fantastic as the Wolf Man and, heck, Larry Talbot is still lovable. Bela Lugosi steps into the Frankenstein Monster’s make-up. I really don’t think Lugosi was a good choice for the Monster. His face is all wrong for the part and he is incredibly stiff. It doesn’t help that this film starts the sad trend of the Monster spending most of the movie tied to a slab, motionless. Thank God they edited out the Monster talking with Ygor’s voice. That would have been ridiculous. (You really don’t notice it unless you’re looking for it, either.) Ilona Massey steps in for Evelyn Ackers in the role of Elsa Frankenstein and I, honestly, think she’s an improvement. Massey is utterly gorgeous, of course, and seems appropriately conflicted about her dad’s legacy. (Though, once again, it’s really her grandfather’s legacy, isn’t it?) Lionel Atwill plays Vasira’s mayor. I guess by 1943, not even a village in the middle of no where didn’t have Burgomasters anymore. It’s a rare good guy part for Atwill, since he is the one holding the villagers back from rioting. (And not really succeeding either.) Patric Knowles plays a different part from his “Wolf Man” character a rationalist doctor who, when confronted with the inert Frankenstein Monster, can’t help but revive the creature. This is something else the further sequels would pick up on. I wish Maria Ouspenskaya was given more to do. Once she is reunited with Larry, a funny, touching scene, she is mostly resigned to sitting around and looking nervous, disappearing somewhere before the end. And, hey, the movie even throws Dwight Frye into a small role. Good to see him again.

Of course, the main attraction here is seeing the Wolf Man and the Monster tussle. Naturally, this doesn’t happen until the very end. The movie is mostly focused on Larry’s quest to cure himself, the Monster just kind of lumbering around, being an asshole. The film is mostly a Wolf Man sequel, which is okay since he never got a stand-alone sequel of his own. When the fight finally happens at the end, it’s fairly brief. Which isn’t to say it isn’t totally awesome. The Wolf Man and Frankenstein are natural enemies for the same reasons Freddy and Jason are. One is big, tall, and lumbering. The other might be smaller but he is agile and quick. The fight scene exploits this dynamic fully. Of course I wish it was longer, and I wish the movie didn’t cop out and declared a proper winner. But what do you want from a nearly seventy year old movie? As far as classic monster bashes go, this one is irresistible and the best of the creature feature mash-ups Universal would make. [7/10]

Halloween 2012: October 19

The Mummy’s Tomb (1942)
Seems to me, out of their monsters, Universal always gave the least shits about the Kharis the Mummy. Two films in a row, both start with extensive stock footage. Truthfully, one of the things to like about “The Mummy’s Tomb” (which features no actual tomb) is that it's a direct sequel to “The Mummy’s Hand.” Picking up 30 years after that film, “Hand’s” hero Stephen Banning regales his sister, son, and son’s fiancé with the events of the previous film. Cue recycled scenes. Kharis and his evil caretaker are both presumed dead. In what is quickly becoming a trend with these sequels, both characters are retconned as alive, with the excuse that the previous injuries were less fatal then they appeared. (The bullet simply wounded Andoheb’s arm while Kharis seems wholly intact.) The care of Kharis is given to a new baddy, played by Austrian actor Turhan Bey, who does not look even a little bit Egyptian. With Tana leaf tea and a full moon in hand, the Mummy’s dusty, slow-paced wrath is unleashed on the remaining survivors of the expedition.

Like I said, I appreciate that “The Mummy’s Tomb” follows the same characters as the last film. Dick Foran, Wallace Ford, and George Zucco all reprise their parts, each in surprisingly convincing old age make-up. The one major casting change is Lon Chaney Jr. stepping into Kharis’ bandages. Chaney was always open about how the Mummy was his least favorite of the monsters to play. It’s not hard to imagine why, since it was the most extensive make-up and the least interesting, character-wise. Chaney still does his best, providing little bits of character here and there. One of Kharis’ legs drag along the ground while his left hand is bandaged to his chest. The make-up is also above par. The Mummy is now missing an eye, his empty socket recalling Lucio Fulci’s "Zombie." The movie also shifts locations from Egypt to Mapleton, Massachusetts. Setting a distinctly Egyptian threat in an urban environment always works for me, somehow, and predates Hammer doing the same thing in their 1959 version of “The Mummy.”

The movie does its best to sell the Mummy as a creditable threat, even though he remains incredibly slow and shambling. While marching through the city, he disturbs a teenage couple necking in a car (naturally), upsets a horse, and freaks out a kennel of dogs. The film makes fairly good use of shadows. Tree branches and Kharis himself casts some fairly ominous ones. Like the slasher killers it would influence, The Mummy is highly determined, taking bullets, torches, and smashed chair to the head, never slowing down. (Not that he was going fast to begin with.)

Despite being explicitly warn not too, Turhan falls in love with Isobel, the fiancé of the movie’s default hero, Banning’s adult age son. Granted, Elyse Knox is absolutely lovely but the way Turhan just happens to be hanging around whenever the Banning and Isobel are getting romantic is slightly ridiculous. Naturally, the mummy kidnaps the girl. When the raging, torch wielding mob shoots Turhan to death in cold blood, completely unprovoked, the Mummy walks off with the girl into some random hall. Once again, the threat is killed with fire, the town is saved, and the young lovers marry. Too bad about the three folks that got murdered, I guess.

The Mummy series continues to be highly unambitious. This one is about as routine as it gets. As a monster fan, I still can’t totally dislike “The Mummy’s Tomb.” It’s probably the best of the sequels, faint praise that might be, with its shadowy atmosphere, decent performances, and above average script. [6.5/10]

Invisible Agent (1942)
Just as applying “The Invisible Man” premise to comedy in “The Invisible Woman” was a natural move, adapting the concept for an action/adventure spy film seemed inevitable. The same conclusion led to four different TV series. Invisibility is, after all, a superpower. A product of wartime propaganda, “Invisible Agent” more or less entirely abandons the horror genre in favor of fantastic special effects and good ol’ fashion Nazi-bashin’.

A script from the always reliable Curt Siodmak makes this, perhaps, the best of “The Invisible Man” sequels. Retconning the dates of the first two films into the 1890s and 1900s, “Invisible Agent” follows Frank Griffin, the invisible man’s grandson who still has the formula for the invisibility drug. The Axis Forces, represented by Cedric Hardwicke’s Nazi general and Peter Lorre as the least convincing Japanese man this side of Mickey Rooney, attempt to steal the formula from Griffin, in a tense interrogation sequence that involves a paper cutter at one point. Escaping the Nazis, the United States quickly puts Griffin to use in Germany, an invisible spy. His quest to prevent a planned bombing of America attract the romantic attention of double agent Ilona Massey and has him fighting the insanity-causing side-effects of the drug.

This entry has the best special effects of the series, easily. The invisibility effects are practically seamless and, unlike in the previous films, it’s never obvious that an actor has been removed from the frame. A few of the effects set pieces includes the Invisible Man dissipating while parachuting out of an airplane, taking a bath, applying cold cream to his face, slipping into a down Nazi’s uniform, setting fire to an office, sliding down a ladder with a book in hand, getting a fish-hook covered net draped over him, and carrying Massey around an airplane field.

All of this wouldn’t be worth much if the writing and acting wasn’t strong. The film is doubtlessly a piece of propaganda. Siodmak was a German-Jew who fled the country in ’36, so his hatred of the Nazis is well-earned. This is never more obvious then a scene where the invisible agent berates an imprisoned officer for the entire country’s sins. Unlike a lot of wartime films, the movie doesn’t get bogged down in jingoism. The Germans and Japanese are villains but never cartoonish. The movie moves along at a fast pace and has a lot of exciting action.

Jon Hall, a matinee idol and star of swashbucklers, does well enough, acting mostly with his voice. It’s a good thing the movie focuses less on the Invisbile Man’s insanity, since Hall can’t quite sell it. With the exception of personal favorite Julie Adams, I think Ilona Massey was easily the most gorgeous woman in any Universal Monster movie. She gets to parade around in a number of fancy, tight dresses, and even a slinky nightgown in one scene. She’s a good actress too. Cedric Hardwicke and Peter Lorre are both great villains. Hardwicke is slithery and sinister while Lorre imbues quiet dialogue with a murderous intent. The only actor who doesn’t work is J. Edward Bromberg as the buffoonish Nazi who features into several scenes. For the record, not a single person attempts a German accent. All of these factors and more make “Invisible Agent” my favorite of the sequels, even if it’s horror elements are light. [7/10]

The Strange Case of Doctor Rx (1942) Some of the movies I’ve watched this October, like “Tower of London” or “Mystery of Edwin Drood,” were never intended as horror films and instead got labeled as such incorrectly over the years, mostly due to who starred in them or a macabre element here and there. Others, like “Night Key” or this film, were intentionally marketed as horror films even though they are most assuredly not. “The Strange Case of Dr. Rx” is about an unseen vigilante who is offing criminals that have been acquitted by the court. Defense attorney Dudley Crispin hires would-be PI, played by “The Wolf Man’s” Patric Knowles, to investigate the case. Despite seeming to be a mystery, most of the film actually revolves around Knowles bantering with several different people. There’s his newly married wife, played by Anne Gwynne, a pair of bumbling detective, Edmund MacDonald and Shemp Howard (Yes, that Shemp Howard), and, most embarrassingly, his black manservant, played by Mantan Moreland. Moreland originated the catch-phrase “Feets don’t fail me now!” and brings all the cringe-inducing tomfoolery to the part you’d expect. He has to leave notes to remember the most basic chores and likes to nap an awful lot. Dial it back some, 1942. Yeesh.

Anyway, aside from the murders, only one of which we see on-screen, the film has one other major horror element. Near the end of the film, Knowles is abducted by the mysterious Dr. Rx who… Threatens to surgically implant his brain into a gorilla’s body? While the gorilla suit action and mad scientist cackling is the movie at its most entertaining, it is as exactly out of place with the rest of the film as it sounds. According to IMDb, the movie’s script was made-up on the spot. No shit. Knowles and Gwynne have decent chemistry and the movie’s over with quickly enough, but you can safely skip this one. And don’t believe the box cover either. Lionel Atwill has maybe four minutes of screen time and barely ranks as a red herring. [4/10]

Halloween 2012: October 18

The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)
With the success of “The Wolf Man,” Lon Chaney Jr. was officially a horror star. Near weeks after that film wrapped, most of the same cast and crew were assembled for “The Ghost of Frankenstein,” the fourth film in the increasingly long in the tooth series. If “The Wolf Man” showed what was possible if Universal put some money behind one of their monster movie, “Ghost of Frankenstein” is a very typical example of the studio’s horror output at the time.

I’ve never much warmed up to Lon Chaney as the monster. He should have been perfect, right? No one could bring pathos to a monster like Chaney and Lenny in “Of Mice and Men” was just a few levels removed from the Monster. And yet Chaney’s Monster is robotic. It seems he found the make-up constraining. Lugosi and Glenn Strange are traditionally credited (Blamed?) for the cliché of the Monster shambling around, arms out, legs stiff. Turns out Chaney did that first. His interpretation of the creature is stiff and blandly murderous. Karloff was right to drop out when he did. The make-up is still good, for what it’s worth, even if Chaney’s round, saggy face is very different then Karloff’s thin, bony structure.

After the events of “Son of Frankenstein” the villagers have had enough. They decide to dynamite what remains of the castle. Despite seemingly dying in the last film, Ygor lives. The explanation for this sudden resurrection?: Ygor dies harder then John McClane. A couple of bullets ain’t taking him down. Silly, but in keeping with what we know about the character. Anyway, there’s a reason the villagers in these old movies aren’t well known for their intelligent decision making. Blowing up the castle releases the Monster from his sulfur prison. The first major continuity error in this series comes when a lightening bolt, what stuck the Monster in a coma in the last movie, recharges his battery here. The duo wander off to Visaria, the village where the rest of the Universal Monsters cannon will largely be set. It’s also the home of Ludwig Frankenstein, Wolf Frankenstein’s previously unmentioned older brother. One of the film’s few legitimately clever aspects is that, in Visaria, the name Frankenstein is associated with a beloved brain surgeon, not a man who made monsters. The monster goes about causing chaos, Ygor generally hangs around threateningly, and Frankenstein’s daughter has some light romantic banter with some guy. Ludwig’s assistant is played by Lionel Atwill whom, I don’t suppose will become increasingly sinister as the story progresses, hmm?

“The Ghost of Frankenstein” is fairly by-the-book, though not totally without its moments. Erle C. Kenton’s direction is quite strong. There are several creative camera angles, such as a little girl’s eye-view of the Monster towering over here or a brain in a jar wheeling directly into the camera. We get a few moments of weighty atmosphere, such as Ygor and the Monster’s face peering into a window at the daughter, lightening casting their shadows on the wall. Similarly, the Monster’s shadow looms huge on the small girl’s bedroom wall. Speaking of which, the movie links with the first film by having a little girl befriend the Monster. She isn’t afraid of him, seems unaware of his murderous steak, but at least knows when to ask to go home. The sets are fantastic. Despite the modern setting, Visaria still has more in common with the village in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” then actual Germany. The doctor’s laboratory is all domed ceilings and half-moon arches. The Monster’s final, fiery rampage through the lab is satisfying and the shots of his face slowly burning in the flames are cool. Chaney’s ramping physicality is his best contribution.

The movie is also the series’ first slide into silliness. The villagers try to put the creature on trail, which goes about as well as you’d expect. When he breaks his chains, the wittle girl calms him down. The title lending sequence of the ghost of Frankenstein’s father appearing to him, convincing him to carry on the family experiment, is more melodramatic then mythic. Ygor’s voice coming out of the Monster’s mouth at the very end is horribly unconvincing. It’s not the cast’s fault. Cedric Hardwicke does okay as the doctor, Lionel Atwill gets to play a little more then a crazy villain, Evelyn Ackers is awfully pretty, and Lugosi hams it up fantastically as Ygor. “Ghost” is just one of the weaker entries in the series, if you ask me. [6/10]

Night Monster (1942)
Going into “Night Monster,” I was expecting a typical old dark house flick. It certainly has the hallmarks of the genre. You’ve got a group of people gathering in a mansion in a spooky location when a few bodies piled up, with secret passageways naturally being used at one point. At the very least, Ingston Tower has a staff of maids and butlers that keep the place from getting too dusty. While the movie is never hugely surprising, and certainly doesn’t deliver on the monster promised in the title, it at least deviates a bit from the established formula.

The movie’s main problem is that there are a few too many characters. The mansion belongs to a quadriplegic millionaire. He blames his paralysis on the three doctors who botched the surgery. For reasons I can’t remember, the three doctors (Among them Lionel Atwill. Man, that guy didn’t suffer for work in 1942.) along with a female psychologist are invited to stay at his home for the weekend. That would probably be enough for most films, but “Night Monster” also throws in a swami, a love interest for the lady shrink, a bumbling old detective, the millionaire’s mentally ill sister, a high-strung maid, a handsy groundskeeper, and Bela Lugosi in another small butler role. There might be a few more as well. The movie does an okay job of balancing this extended cast. The handsy groundskeeper is at least memorable, Irene Hervey makes a decent heroine, I like the maid and the mentally ill sister, and Lugosi does his best to distinguish what he’s given. The best performance in the film belong to Ralph Morgan as the crippled man. It’s obvious how bitter he is yet he never gets overt, instead letting his resentment and bitterness simmer under a mask of civility.

This poster is mostly unrelated.

The swami and his mysticism provide most of the film’s horror elements. An early scene has him materializing a skeleton and a bleeding ruby into the middle of the room. That was cool. There’s some decent foggy atmosphere in the beginning, though we could have used more. There’s plenty of talk of a monster living in the swamp. The police study the foot prints. In probably the best scene, the sister talks about seeing the creature, the shadows of the fireplace dancing over her face. The three attack scenes are also nicely handle, making further good use of shadow. Whenever the night monster stumbles through, all the frogs in the swamp stop croaking, which helps builds tension very well at the end. The movie reuses both of the opening credits sequence and snippets of the score from “The Wolf Man.’ I suspect “Night Monster” started out as a fairly routine old dark house script when someone decided to spruce it up. Well, congratulations on that. While only partially memorable, “Night Monster” has a few creepy or clever moments. [6.5/10]

The Mad Doctor of Market Street (1942)
After playing so many supporting roles in Universal horror movies, it was nice that Lionel Atwill got to star in one. It’s just a shame that “The Mad Doctor of Market Street” isn’t much better. It’s an odd hybrid of a film. While there’s a mad scientist obsessed with putting people in a state of suspended animation (a horror/sci-fi element) and a group of detectives hot on his trail (a mystery element), the movie is mostly a jungle-adventure flick. So, no, the mad doctor isn’t on Market Street for very long.

Atwill plays Dr. Ralph Benson, one of the more unassuming names you could give a mad scientist. After doing great with the “creating a death-like state” but less well with the “bringing them back to life” part of suspended animation, Benson flees onto a cruise ship headed for the north Pacific. His brilliant disguise involves shaving his beard. After killing one of the cops onboard, Benson causes a fire, somehow wrecks the ship, and gets himself along with a selected group of characters stranded on an island. Once he pulls off his reanimation trick, Dr. Ralph is treated as a god by the hilariously stereotypical island natives, forcing the other white folks to put up with his mildly threatening reign of terror.

There’s a lot of stuff with the island natives, none of whom look particularly ethic and all of them talking in stilted, broken English. In the one of the movie’s best moments of unintentional comedy, Atwill parrots the native’s style of speak. Maybe I’m the only who thought that was funny… What prevents the movie from being a totally snore is the comic relief, Una Merkal as the primary love interest’s wacky aunt. She gets top billing and it’s no surprise since her absent minded aunt character, fond of pokadot dresses and saying the wrong thing at the worst time, proves far more entertainment then anything else in the movie. Claire Dodd is beautiful as the female lead, but doesn’t have much personality. Certainly not enough to justify the cliché of the villain falling in love with her, a subplot that takes up way more time then it should. Even worse is the two-fisted hero, Red Hogan (the kind of name that only exist in 1940s B-movies), who doesn’t do a single interesting thing throughout the whole picture. He doesn’t even save the day at the end. When the Mad Doctor Less of Market Street then Some Random Island doesn’t bring a native girl back to life as promised, the islanders toss the guy (off-screen) on to a bonfire. Which is honestly a pretty gruesome way to off the main baddie, even if it is totally off-screen. For what it’s worth, Atwill is as consistent as ever. Good to know the character actor who does great playing villains even in shitty movies is by no means a modern phenomenon. (There, I just linked Lionel Atwill with Michael Ironsides.) For some reason, I’m get the impression that this movie was done very cheaply to make use of some old jungle movie set and fill the ass-end of a double bill. [4.5/10]

Halloween 2012: October 17

Hold That Ghost (1941)
“Hold That Ghost” is frequently called a precursor to the Abbott and Costello Meet the Monster series. And it is, sort of. But, at the same time, every comedy duo of the era made an old dark house comedy. The clichés and traditions of that genre were as ingrained in the culture in the 40s and 30s as the rules of the slasher film are to today’s world. So parodying them was natural. Anyway, the point: Is “Hold That Ghost” funny?

Yes. It’s very funny, in spots actually. The film takes some time getting to the not-quite-haunted house. Abbott and Costello are waiters in a fancy night club, featuring plenty of screen time for dancer/singer Ted Lewis and the Andrews Sisters. (And Lewis doing a rendition of “Me and My Shadow,” with a black guy dancing behind him. Ouch.) Cue skits involving grouchy customers and food orders, cummerbunds, and tumbling over dishes. The two quickly get fired, get work at a gas station, and, through some typically contrived circumstances, end up by a dying gangster’s side. Gee whiz, turns out that the gangster’s will gives his fortune and creepy old mansion to the people who just happen to be next to him when he dies. In the old dark house tradition, a group of other characters wind up at the dusty mansion with our bumbling duo. There’s a vitamins obsessed young scientist, a spunky young radio actress, and soon-to-be-scream-queen Evelyn Ankers as a woman who appears to be going blind. Hijinks, many of them involving people dressed as ghost, secret passageways, and dusty rooms, ensue.

Since pretty much all of my exposure to Bud and Lou comes from their later, monster mash flicks, it’s interesting to see how different their style is earlier in their careers. Abbott is solely a straight man. Aside from smacking Lou around a few times, he doesn’t have much back-and-forth between his stouter buddy. Some notable gags include a sudden dance sequence between Costello and Joan Davis, which quickly falls apart into slipping around in puddles, and a bedroom that transforms into a casino through a secret switch. Naturally, nobody believes Costello when he sees this because it changes back just in time. Another stand-out skit includes a pair of moving candles and, once again, no body believing Lou when he sees them moving. The movie seems to parody “Cat and the Canary,” perhaps, when a monster-claw hand reaches out through a curtain above a sleeping Lou. I also like the guy in the ghost sheet sneaking into beds. The story is almost total nonsense and all the horror/supernatural elements end up being unimportant. “Hold That Ghost” isn’t exactly a comedy classic and I don’t think he had much to down with the later monster pictures. But it is still fairly amusing and got several big laughs out of me. [7/10]

Put some pants on him.  His wolf dork will show

The Wolf Man (1941)
“The Wolf Man” is an actor’s film, a sophisticated affair. During a period when the studio was relegating horror to B-picture status, it’s a surprisingly classy film. Lon Chaney Jr. received considerable critical acclaim for his star-making role in “Of Mice and Men” while Claude Rains, Ralph Bellamy, and Maria Ouspenskaya were all Oscar-nominated actors. George Waggner’s direction is surprisingly atmospheric and classy, considering his previous efforts. (Among them the previously reviewed “Man Made Monster” and “Horror Island.”) The musical score was widely considered ground-breaking and influential. All of these factors contribute to making “The Wolf Man” a classic. I personally believe no factor was more important then Curt Siodmak’s screenplay.

Like all of the best horror films, there’s a level of subtext and themes that resonate deeply. Larry Talbot is one of the most human protagonist out of all the Universal films. He comes back to his home town for the first time in years. I’m not sure if this was intentional but, despite being born in the Welsh village the film is set in, Talbot has spent so much time in America there’s no sign of an accent at all. It’s tempting to say the relationship between Larry and his father is the emotional backbone of the film. Any one who has had a tense relationship with their own father can find a lot to relate to here. Sir John and Larry shake hands, talk tensely, desperately trying to forge some kind of bond through years of separation and estrangement. As the story and their relationship evolve, they come close to something resembling a proper father/son connection. The scene were Sir John decides to tie Chaney down in a chair seems to be the father’s own, strangled way to reach out to his son, whom he sees as a very sick individual. Still, the finale, when father beats his own son to death, can’t help but be read in a tragic text. Sir John is so unable to connect to his own son, he becomes a wolf in his father’s eyes. Oddly, compared to his reaching out but still cold father, Maleva the gypsy cuts a clearly maternal figure. She seems much more caring and nurturing then his actual parent.

What really struck me about the film upon this watching was the romantic subplot. The writing and acting here rises above the genre and time period, were the love interest were usually little more then shrieking victims. Chaney and Evelyn Ackers have real chemistry together. She’s a small town girl, working in a business owned by her father. You get the impression she hasn’t travel much outside of her home town. Meanwhile, Larry Talbot is an exciting man who has traveled the world. He must seem highly exotic to Gwen. What makes the relationship truly unusual for the time period is that Gwen is a kept woman. She’s engaged to Frank Andrews, a detective and ruggedly handsome traditional leading man. Andrews is a good man and never shows any jealousy or resentment towards Talbot, something improved upon from the original script. But Gwen has difficult resisting Larry’s charms. The two even kiss, quite passionately. Like the Russian Wurdulac, the Wolf Man is compelled to seek out and kill the person he loves the most. It’s inevitable that the creature turns his claws towards the lovely maiden. The genuine chemistry Chaney and Ackers share makes up for the somewhat unseemly fact that Larry starts the relationship as a peeping tom.

After years of absence, the heavy English Fog makes a strong comeback with this film. The scenes of the Wolf Man roaming the moors, stalking a grave digger, are so singularly atmospheric. The forest is dark and deep, indeed. The town the film is set in is very much alive. The townspeople quickly ostrasize Larry, realizing he’s a bad omen. When he enters a church during the grave digger’s funeral, the entire congregation turns to stare at him. In another surprising scene, the mother of the first werewolf’s victim blame Gwen for her daughter’s death. After watching “The House of Seven Gable” so recently, you can’t help but feel there’s something Hawthorne-ian about this location. Rumors and guilt are certainly enough to bring a person’s reputation down.

Chaney’s performance truly is fantastic. In the first script draft, the film was more of a psychological horror story. Like the later “Cat People,” it was kept deliberately ambiguous wither Larry actually turned into a wolf or just thought he was a wolf. The movie actually spends a lot of time talking about psychology, self-hypnotism, and mass hysteria. While all of this adds depth and verisimilitude to the film’s world, what really holds it together is Lon Chaney. So care-free, chummy, and relaxed at first, Larry Talbot is shaken apart by guilt and doubt following his transformation. It’s easy to imagine that suppressed guilt is the real monster of the movie. Though the iconic make-up helps a lot, Chaney plays the Wolf Man as a totally distinct character, a feral, striking animal. His body language says a lot.

The musical score is very good and seems to intentionally invoke a wolf’s howling. (In addition to featuring a slight musical motif rather reminiscent of Danny Elfman’s “Batman” theme that has cropped up in several of these studio films.) On his audio commentary, Tim Weaver spends a lot of time deconstructing the film’s various continuity flaws and plot holes. Some of them you can’t help but notice as well, like Larry changing into a work shirt before becoming a wolf-man. However, the prestige cast and powerful story makes the film a true classic. It’s not wonder why the Wolf Man quickly ascended to the same echelon of horror icons like Frankenstein and Dracula, in addition to mostly forming the popular conception of the werewolf. [9/10]

The Wolfman (2010)
When I first saw the remake of “The Wolfman,” I was frustrated. Many of the sequences were fantastic. Everyone knew the movie went through a troubled production. While I admired many of the things it did, a much better film obviously existed in the editing room at some point. So I was looking forward to Joe Johnston’s extended director’s cut… Though only enough to wait until the DVD hit the five dollar bin.

The director’s cut is better, though barely. Over ten minutes are inserted. It expands on Lawrence Talbot and his relationship with Gwen. Max Von Sydow’s excised sequence, which introduces the famous silver cane, is reinserted. The new scenes add a half an hour to the first act, moving the first transformation to almost an hour in. After that, the film plays more or less the same.

The edit doesn’t fix the major problems. The jump-scares are maintained, as is the ramping. The over-the-top fantasy scenes in the asylum are even more protracted. The most incredulous element, the father-son subplot, is still here. The werewolf kung-fu fight, against the grain of the film’s gothic Victorian atmosphere, is just as goofy. Sure, that expands on the daddy issues present in the original but the whole thing is handed in an obvious, ham-handed fashion. It weakens the entire film. You could cut the entire subplot without changing the story much at all. (These changes should have taken place during the scripting stage.)

Benicio del Toro should’ve been great, given how animalistic he can be while having the same sad sack quality Chaney had. It’s such a gruff, unsatisfying performance. Del Toro is… Off. Anthony Hopkins does his scenery chewing villain shtick. It’s horribly out of place and gets worse as it goes on. Emily Blunt does all right while Hugo Weaving is the only one that really acts here. He has a lot of fun.

I maintain there are some awesome sequences. Larry Talbot’s werewolf coming out is great and features a wonderful decapitation but it’s not as good as the rampage through London, which starts with a fantastically gory asylum tear-up. It’s a shame so many of the awesome moments are undermined by half-baked CGI. I don’t like the bounding wolfman and there’s too much computerized playing around. Rick Baker’s practical make-up is extremely good and rightfully won an Oscar but we don’t get to see a lot of it. The CGI bear and deer are inexcusably bad. If nothing else, the film gets the foggy English atmosphere down successfully.

It’s not the best remake of “The Wolf Man” we could have gotten. Moving the story into the Victorian era was smart but I object to lessening the role of the gypsies and Maleva. I object to removing the pentagram and other mythological elements. I think the romance in the original was more entertaining. Overall the remake is too somber. It doesn’t work all the way and, on second viewing, the flaws start to overshadow the good moments. [6/10]