Film Review: Life Begins In College

 "Life Begins In College"

 *** (out of ****)

Although forever unfavorably compared to another sibling comedy team - the Marx Brothers - the comedy trio of the Ritz Brothers were by no means a poor man's imitation of the more celebrated comedy offspring threesome. 

Much like the Marx Brothers, the brothers Ritz (Harry, Jimmy, and Al) found success on the vaudeville circuit prior to finding their way on the big screen. With an act built around singing and dancing to novelty songs, the brothers would begin their movie careers playing comic relief in many 20th Century Fox musicals, making their feature length movie debut in the Alice Faye picture, "Sing, Baby, Sing" (1936). As their popularity grew, the boys were given the opportunity to headline in their own vehicle, a college campus setting comedy, "Life Begins in College" (1937), perhaps a reference to the popular expression at the time, life begins at forty.

The college setting wasn't anything new for the Ritz Brothers since one of their earliest acts was called The Collegians, which may explain the choice for this to be their first headlining effort. And while "Life Begins in College" is referred to as "starring" the Ritz Brothers, in all honesty the situation isn't so far removed from the musicals they appeared in prior to starring Sonja Henie and Alice Faye. The brothers are still comedy relief to a love story.

Depending upon your perspective, that may make "Life Begins in College" slightly disappointing. The brothers aren't really the driving force behind the plot. The premise largely concerns itself with Lombardy College's star football quarterback, Bob Hayner (Dick Baldwin) and his attempts to court the coach's daughter, Janet (Gloria Stuart, best known for a role she would play 60 years later in "Titanic" (1997) as the old lady). The situation becomes tricky for Bob when the college tries to force Coach O' Hara (Fred Stone) out and replace him with a younger man. In an attempt to win favor with Janet, Bob claims the college will changed its mind. All of sudden, wouldn't you know it, Janet quickly warms up to Bob, after a rather chilly introduction between the two.

Further complicating Bob's life is a new student, Little Black Cloud (Nat Pendleton), the college's first Native American enrollee, despite the school allegedly being founded as an institution meant for the higher educational advancement of Native Americans (!). Little Black Cloud tries out for the football team as a quarterback, as a type of retribution for a prank Bob and his friends pulled on him. Janet was caught in the middle of it, causing her and Bob's initial friction.

Harry, Jimmy, and Al are also students at the college, working their way through school by running the Klassy Kampus Kleaners. Proving to be inept at their jobs they screw up the only customer order they have ever received, a request for a tailored made suit. Being the outsiders they are, the boys befriend Little Black Cloud - of course only after they con him out of $100 - by inviting him to join their fraternity, which the brothers are currently the only members of.

It is soon revealed Little Black Cloud is very wealthy - his tribe's land produces oil - but wants to keep his finances a secret. He wants to be liked for who he is and not for his money. However, he wonders if a large donation might change the school's mind about Coach O'Hara. The brothers decide they will make the donation to the school in their name, allowing everyone on campus to believe they are rich.

Already we can see "Life Begins in College" will ever so mildly touch upon discrimination between whites and Native Americans, while engaging in stereotypes itself. The movie will also be a commentary on the corrupt nature of colleges and the influence donations can have. Not only does the school agree to keep Coach O'Hara but the brothers get the college dean to force the coach to allow them to play on the school's football team. This fits into a running motif among the characters that they only begin to act nice to one another after they discover what someone can do for them - Janet and Bob, the brothers and Little Black Cloud, the school's dean and the brothers....etc. 

The college setting with its sports activities has usually provided ample comedic possibilities for comedians - Harold Lloyd in the silent comedy, "The Freshman" (1925), the Marx Brothers in "Horse Feathers" (1932) - and so it is for the Ritz Brothers. One of the gags being while the coach must allow the boys to play, he only does so during the last two minutes of each game. By this point in time Lombardy's lead is so commanding even the fumbles of the Ritz Brothers can't jeopardize the outcome. In one scene, as the Ritz Brothers make their way to the field, one of the scorekeepers begins to award points to the other team. When the second scorekeeper points out, there hasn't been any score yet, he's told, there will be, the Ritz Brothers are just going in.

But my favorite sequence with the boys may be a song and dance they do just before the big game. Dressed as the famous paining, the Spirit of '76, it is meant as a kind of pep rally invoking patriot pride that goes into a medley of tunes from Yankee Doodle Dandy to the Merry-Go-Round Broke Down.

One glaring flaw of the movie is none of these actors look young enough to play college students. For example, by the time this movie was released Nat Pendleton was 42 years old. Between the brothers, Harry was the youngest, at a mere 30 years old. Gloria Stewart and Dick Baldwin were the youngest actors of the main cast, respectively 27 and 26.

Perhaps one of the main reasons the Ritz Brothers and their shenanigans are completely forgotten today may be because younger, college aged audiences - whom I do not recommend this movie to - will view the brothers' humor as corny and dated. As will more intelligent adults, if we are being honest. Take for example the first song and song routine in the movie to showcase the brothers, a Latin inspired number with Harry Ritz dressed as a woman. It takes great talent to dance in unison as the brothers do but that talent will take second place for those who won't be able to get pass the broad comedic antics of the boys, in particular Harry, with his rubber face and wild exaggerated cliché homosexual gestures. The team almost seems to be breaking the cardinal rule of comedy, don't act silly just for the sake of being silly. And yet I find their behavior amusing. Than again, I also find it funny when someone slips on a banana peel or has a pie smashed in their face.

 

Younger more politically motivated viewers may be offended by the movie and offer the tiresome tripe, the movie doesn't reflect the values of today. In another song and dance routine the Ritz Brothers dress in Native American costumes to sing a song. I can just hear the liberal hysteria about insensitivity. Granted you wouldn't find this in a movie today but why lean into these issues and make everything so divisive?! Harry's singing in drag may be another issue for activists. I'm sure some they will interpret this as some kind of attack on transgenderism or the concept of gender fluidity - what's so funny about a man dressed as a woman! God help these poor kids if they ever discover Bob Hope or Milton Berle!

Of course what these viewers are (purposely) missing out on is the positive liberal - yes liberal! - messaging of "Life Begins in College". The white man and the Native American do become friends. There is respect between them for each man's athletic ability. A white female student (the funny and sadly forgotten Joan Davis) is even attracted to Little Black Cloud, completely unphased by their cultural differences. Compare this attitude and acceptance to the one presented in the Eddie Cantor comedy / musical, "Whoopee!" (1930), which also dealt with white and Native American characters. There the white woman could have only dated the Native American after finding out he had "white blood". This time around it isn't even presented as an issue of how white society would react to them being together. This is to say nothing of the commentary on the negative influence of money.

And still I wouldn't call "Life Begins in College" a great comedy or even a great Ritz Brothers comedy. Too much of the movie doesn't focus on the brothers. They are kind of a side show attraction, popping up every now and then with humorous musicals numbers to perform. While the songs are fun to listen to, it isn't side-splittingly funny. The best Ritz Brothers comedies were the ones that focused a bit more on them like "Straight, Place and Show" (1938) and "The Three Musketeers" (1939), often thought of as their best. Heck, I'll even take them in the horror / comedy movie, "The Gorilla" (1939) which has been universally panned.

It may seem odd to some for me to include the Ritz Brothers in my "year of me" celebration - a year long tribute to my favorite artists in honor of my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog - but I've known of the trio since I was a child and first saw them, appropriately enough, in their big screen debut, a two reeler comedy, "Hotel Anchovy" (1934). Even as a child I initially thought, what are these guys, a knockoff of the Marx Brothers? Each brother seemed to cancel the other one out as all three of them were engaged in silly antics. There wasn't the typical straight man / comedian set-up. You would be forgiven for not knowing which brother was Harry, Al, or Jimmy. Still there was enough comic anarchy to keep me interested. That more than anything appealed to my sensibilities, even at a young age. Proving I never stood a chance of becoming a real life normal boy. Pinocchio had better odds. I was inundated with the comedy of the Marx Brothers, Olsen & Johnson, Ernie Kovacs, and the Ritz Brothers before I was old enough to go to school. It left a lasting impression on me and only continued to grow into a love for Mel Brooks comedies, "Airplane!" (1980), and the "Naked Gun" (1988).

Of the three brothers Harry was the standout, considered to be the only one that possessed any comedic ability. It has been implied Harry was offered a solo contract but refused to break up the act, leaving his brothers behind. What some viewers may not realize however is Harry Ritz inspired many of the great comedians that followed him - Mel Brooks, Sid Caesar, Jerry Lewis, and Danny Kaye among them. Brooks even went as far as to call Harry Ritz the "funniest man ever".

If you've never seen a Ritz Brothers comedy, I'm not convinced this is the best place to start. On the other hand, since they aren't the stars of the movie, you will only see them on-screen when they have something funny to do. "Life Begins in College" only works because of the brothers and some funny moments with Joan Davis. This is what makes the movie worth watching. The Ritz Brothers deserve a place in the history of comedy, if for no other reason than the influence their work hand on those that changed the landscape of comedy. The brothers were talented though and should not be forgotten. "Life Begins in College" provides some glimpses of what made them so special.

Film Review: The Christmas Toy

 "The Christmas Toy"

*** (out of ****)

Do children have a universal suspicion that when they leave their bedrooms, their toys come to life? What exactly would their toys be up to, if they did come to life? Director Eric Till and renowned puppeteer Jim Henson explore such a scenario in the 1980s television Christmas movie, "The Christmas Toy" (1986).

It is Christmas Eve in the Jones house. The children -  Jamie (Marsha Moreau) and brother Jesse (Zachary Bennett) - head off to bed, in eager anticipation of Santa's arrival and all the new toys he will bring them. The wise old Teddy Bear in the playroom however needs to remind the toys of what Christmas means for them. Not only the presence of new toys but the sad consequence that some toys may be disregarded and no longer a child's "favorite toy".

The two toys considered Jamie's favorites are Apple (voiced by Kathryn Mullen) - a kind of cross between Kid Sister and a Cabbage Patch doll - and Rugby (voiced by Dave Goelz) - a stuffed animal tiger. Rugby was the favorite toy last Christmas, replacing Apple. That Christmas, the happiest day of Rugby's life, was the saddest day of Apple's. Apple understands the concept each Christmas the children receive new toys, Rugby however believes each Christmas repeats itself and he will always be wrapped up and opened each year by Jamie, thus remaining forever her favorite toy. Rugby must find a way to get back under the Christmas tree and wrapped up. He leaves the playroom, putting his own life in danger, as well as the other toys that try to rescue him. You see, in the toy world, if a toy is found by a human. and not in the last place the human left them, the toy becomes "frozen", never coming to life again when humans aren't around.

After Rugby makes his way to the Christmas tree, he realizes there is no empty box waiting for him. Instead he opens another box, with a different toy inside, that immediately comes to life. Meteora (voiced by Camille Bonora), a kind of futuristic She-Ra action figure, doesn't realize she is a toy but has landed on another planet. This crushes Rugby, who has come to the realization he too will be "replaced" and most likely Meteora will become the new favorite. Somehow Rugby, Apple, and the rest of the toys, must convince Meteora to go back in the box to be opened by Jamie in the morning.

Through this experience the toys, Rugby in particular, come to learn valuable lessons in friendship, love, and acceptance. The toys will always be loved and around for a child to play with. No toy is really forgotten.

Of course many viewers will notice similarities between this movie and the Disney / Pixar animated movie, "Toy Story" (1995). Obviously "Toy Story" stole, er, I mean was inspired by "The Christmas Toy". There are too many connections for it all to be a mere coincidence. "Toy Story" is the better movie however if for no other reason the running time of the movie allows more opportunity to flesh out its story and create characters that become enduring to the audience. None of the characters in "The Christmas Toy" - with a 50 minute running time - are memorable and made a positive impression on me.

Rugby is going to be the character to go through the biggest arc, becoming a different character than at the start of the movie. There are times I found the character insufferable. Even after the lesson is learned, Rugby wasn't lovable to me. I believe a lot of this was due to the constraints of the running time for a TV movie. A lot in Rugby's growth feels rushed. The conflict with Meteora, which should have been central to Rugby's development, ends too abruptly. It also gets side tracked by Meteora's delusions, which could have inspired a lot more comedic possibilities, as we saw with Buzz  Lightyear in "Toy Story". The motivation for Meteora to return inside the box, felt out of character.

Apple is meant to serve as the movie's conscience, and fares better than Rugby on the annoying meter, but gosh does  Apple look slightly creepy. Appearances aside however, it is the supporting characters that are the most enjoyable to watch and provide most of the movie's humor. In addition to Apple, the best character in the movie is Mew (voiced by Steve Whitmire, the distinguished voice actor behind such famous Muppet characters as Ernie (of Bert & Ernie), Rizzo the Rat, and in later years Kermit the Frog). Mew is a cat toy, that isn't really recognized as a real toy by some of the other characters, Rugby included. For whatever reason, Mew wants to believe Rugby is his friend and is the first toy to go after him after he leaves the playroom, and remains by his side until the end. Mew will be the character children will get the most enjoyment watching.

I also must mention what an odd choice to make Rugby the lead character. Why on earth would a stuffed animal become a young girl's favorite toy? Especially when compared to the much more interesting toys she has. I should also mention, Jamie is about an 8 or 9 year old girl. Maybe its been too long since I was a child but stuffed animals never had much appeal for me. Although I admit as a child I did love my Popples doll. But I was younger than the Jamie character. 

Despite the word "Christmas" in its title, "The Christmas Toy" has not endured as a classic Christmas movie. Growing up I personally had no connection to it. Because it was a made-for-TV movie, it must have went unseen for years. In the days before DVDs and Blu-Rays, made-for-TV movies were usually not seen again after their initial TV airing. Although some years later - 1993 - this movie was released on VHS.

I would also be reluctant to call this movie a "Christmas movie", again, despite the appearance of the word "Christmas" in its title. However it does offer a nice message about togetherness that the best Christmas movies make a commentary on.

The real reason to watch "The Christmas Toy" is for the work done by Jim Henson's puppeteers. Despite a few slip ups here and there - the appearances of strings, and some shots of Mew - everyone does nice work. I wouldn't however say this ranks among Henson's best movies. "Labyrinth" (1986) - released in the same year - for example is for more impressive, just on the puppeteering work alone. And although it received mixed critical reviews, "The Dark Crystal" (1982) has some stunning moments. Even episodes of "Fraggle Rock" were far more exceptional. Because "The Christmas Toy" was produced on a smaller budget it can't really compete with these other Henson efforts.

I hate to sound too critical of "The Christmas Toy". It can be a pleasing and mildly amusing movie for children. Unless you are an adult that watched this as a child, I don't believe it has that universal appeal the best family movies do that can entertain both parents and children. Still this is a moderately entertaining movie considering the limitations of made-for-TV movies. Some years later this movie was spun off into a TV show, "The Secret Life of Toys", one year before "Toy Story" was released.

Film Review: At the Circus

  "At the Circus"

*** (out of ****)

One of the first Marx Brothers comedies I saw growing up was a later effort, "The Big Store" (1941). My grandmother bought it for me on VHS. Even in the hands of a lesser endeavor such as "The Big Store" there was a frenetic silliness that delighted me. I may not have been able to understand anything Groucho was saying - his barbs about wanting to marry Margaret Dumont for her money went well over my head - but the screwy antics of Harpo and Chico kept me entertained.

During the momentous "year of me" - a year long celebration of my favorite artists, in honor of my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog - I would have to take time and review a Marx Brothers comedy. "The Big Store" would have been an obvious sentimental choice but quite frankly, it isn't particularly good. I have already reviewed my two favorite Marx comedies -  "Duck Soup" (1933) and "Horse Feathers" (1932). Forced to take a look at some minor excursions, this leads us to the M-G-M comedy production of "At the Circus" (1939) - a middle tier exercise that plays out like a retread of prior M-G-M Marx Brothers comedies - "A Night at the Opera" (1935) and "A Day at the Races" (1937). "At the Circus" was the fourth M-G-M comedy for the boys, after leaving Paramount and the disappointing box-office of "Duck Soup". M-G-M did a makeover of the Marx Brothers comedy, interjecting romantic sub-plots and music. Unfortunately (?) the revamp worked and comedies like "A Night at the Opera" and "A Day at the Races" were financially successful. You can only go to the well so many times however before the formula starts to become a bit stale. It's not just because I'm a cranky old Hungarian I feel that way, others have expressed a disappointment with "At the Circus" too. In the original New York Times review written by Frank Nugent, he wrote "For, in all charity and with a very real twinge of regret, we must report that their new frolic is not exactly frolicsome; that it is, in cruel fact, a rather dispirited imitation of former Marx successes" as he continues to state, "a matter more of perspiration than inspiration and not at all up to the Marx standard of daffy comedy."

Why waste time and review the movie at all? Well, it's not a complete dud and has moments to cheer. Namely Groucho's musical rendition of the tune, "Lydia, the Tattooed Lady", a song dedicated to an old flame of Groucho's character. He sings about the various tattoos that cover her body with suggestive lyrics like "She has eyes / That folks adore so / And a torso / Even more so". The songs in the movie were composed by Harold Arlen with lyrics by E.Y. Harburg, the same team behind the score to another movie released in 1939, "The Wizard of Oz". Then there is some wonderful word play between Chico and Groucho, a sequence involving a train is a standout, and most exciting for me, audiences get to see a young Eve Arden, one of the truly great comediennes of all-time. She even gets to verbally spar with the great Groucho himself in one sequence.

Kenny Baker - a well known singer - stars as Jeff Wilson. He comes from a family of great wealth but has decided to give it all up just so he can run a circus. During the course of events Jeff has fallen in love with one of the circus performers, Julie (Florence Rice), she is a singer with a horse act. Jeff would like to marry Julie but she is reluctant, fearing the allure of the circus will wear off and Jeff will soon regret relinquishing his wealth. Mr. Carter (James Burke) may make Jeff question his decision when he demands a $10,000 loan payment sooner than expected. If Jeff can make the payment it will mean he owns the circus but for reasons never explained in the movie, Mr. Carter doesn't want Jeff to be able to make the payment. To his surprise, Jeff informs Mr. Carter he will be able to pay him later that night.

This scenario has hints of Great Depression era comedies revolving around women placed in romantic triangles and must choose if they should marry for love or money. It also recalls "A Day at the Races". In that movie the owner of a sanitarium faces financial hardship and the prospect of losing it. Sadly in "At the Circus" the audience never comes to understand the appeal of the circus for Jeff. What was so terrible about his old life that he doesn't mind being disinherited from his aunt's (Margaret Dumont) fortune? 

On the night Jeff is going to pay Mr. Carter, his money is stolen, after two other circus performers working with Mr. Carter - the strongman Goliath (Nat Pendleton) and midget Professor Atom (Jerry Maren, best known as one of the Lollipop Guild members in "The Wizard of Oz") - attack Jeff. Before this incident occurs, Jeff's friend, Antonio (Chico) hires his best friend, a lawyer named Loophole (Groucho) to help Jeff with his troubles. After the money is stolen however, Antonio, Loophole, and Punchy (Harpo) agree to help recover the money.

Why isn't Jeff more actively involved in the hunt for his money? Why isn't there a scene with Jeff confronting Mr. Carter? Why isn't there a scene with Mr. Carter demanding his money from Jeff after Jeff's promise to pay? Why is a lawyer playing detective? These are all good questions that the movie never addresses. My hunch is there was a lot edited out of this movie to keep it at a 90 minute running time. A more logical and consistent narration would have made "At the Circus" a very delightful Marx Brothers comedy.

"At the Circus" doesn't turn into a comedy / mystery. There is never any doubt who is responsible for stealing Jeff's money. There is only a question of finding where it is hidden, which Loophole, Antonio, and Punchy prove to be completely inept at. One of the funnier comedy sequences nonetheless has the trio interrogate the Professor in his tiny house. Loophole would like to trick the Professor into giving him a cigar, which can then be compare to one found near where Jeff was hit. Unfortunately, every time Loophole asks the Professor for a cigar, Antonio repeatedly offers one of his own. It results in one of the more humorous quips from Loophole after the Professor and Antonio light their cigars. Loophole declines their light stating it would be bad luck, "three on a midget". Younger audiences may not catch the joke but the expression is three on a match. It is believed to be bad luck if three people use the same light for their cigarette.

After all else has seemed to fail, Loophole gets an idea. Once he learns Jeff has a wealthy windowed aunt, Mrs. Dukesbury, Loophole travels to meet her. One way or another he believes he can get the $10,000 from her to give to Jeff. Even if it means he has to romance Mrs. Dukesbury. This plays into some of the movie's lightly pressed upon themes concerning wealth and social class and its relationship to love. Not only is there a difference in social class between Jeff and Julie but between Loophole and Mrs. Dukesbury. In true comedic fashion the movie will position Loophole among others in high society to further exploit this contrast.

This leads to another issue I have with "At the Circus". Eventually Jeff finds out about Loophole's plan and seems to accept it. Why would a man, who had such a strong conviction, agree to accept the help of an aunt who disinherited him? If Jeff wanted nothing to do with his old life, why agree to take his aunt's money? And why isn't there a scene between Jeff and his aunt discussing this? More inconsistencies in the movie's logic.

Although the movie's screenplay was written by Academy Award nominated writer Irving Brecher he was not a comedy heavyweight. His Academy Award nomination was for "Meet Me in St. Louis" (1945). To make matters worst uncredited writers included Laurence Stallings, who wrote westerns like "Northwest Passage" (1940) and "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" (1949). Who would expect these men to know how to write comedy? It may be why Buster Keaton was also brought in uncredited as well. This was during a very low point in his career. His humor did not mesh well with the Marx Brothers style of comedy. Even the movie's director, Edward Buzzell, was an uninspired choice. Groucho publicly didn't care much for the directors at M-G-M, most notably Sam Wood, who directed "A Night at the Opera". 

One of the great joys of any Marx Brothers comedy is watching Chico at the piano and Harpo play the harp. This time around Chico plays the Beer Barrel Polka, which seemed like an unusual choice. Sometimes Chico would play a song that corresponded to the subject of the movie. For example in "Horse Feathers", which had a college setting, Chico plays Collegiate. Because of the circus theme why didn't Chico play "The Man on the Flying Trapeze"? Harpo also makes a bizarre musical choice, "Blue Moon" and participates in a musical number called Swingali. 

For me the greatest Marx Brothers comedies were the ones at Paramount - "Animal Crackers" (1930), "Monkey Business" (1931), "Duck Soup". These were zany, cock-eyed, anti-authoritarian comedies solely focused on the four brothers (Zeppo was part of the act). The M-G-M comedies brought class and refinement. But who wants class and refinement? There are moments when "At the Circus" has sparkles of brilliance but the movie never amounts to a comedy masterpiece.

Despite a Harold Arlen score, I didn't care much for the music in "At the Circus" either, except for the "Lydia" number. I am familiar with Kenny Baker and his singing but younger audiences may not see the appeal. By no means was he as good an actor as other singers of the era like Dick Powell or Bing Crosby. The best moments in "At the Circus" involve the Marx Brothers and one scene between Eve Arden and Groucho. Fans of the comedy team I am sure consider this a lesser effort. Perhaps only if you are not familiar with the Brothers would "At the Circus" be a more entertaining and rewarding experience. On the Marx Brothers scale I place this above "Love Happy" (1949) - their final movie, "The Big Store", "Go West" (1940) and maybe "Room Service" (1938). But well below the Paramount comedies, "A Night at the Opera", "A Day at the Races", and even "A Night in Casablanca" (1946).

Film Review: Elvira's Haunted Hills

 "Elvira's Haunted Hills"

*** (out of ****)

Elvira ("playing herself") and her maid, Zou Zou (Mary Jo Smith) are awaken from their sleep when an innkeeper (Theodor Danetti) aggressively pounds on the door asking for his money. The two become frantic as the innkeeper begins to smash the door down with a ax. He peeks his head through the door and announces "hereeee's Johan!" - a la the famous Jack Nicholson scene in Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" (1980) - the camera speed is sped up as the two women quickly collect their things and jump out of the window, while a poor imitation of Romanian gypsy folk music plays in the background.

This scene immediately establishes the tone and the humor of the rest of the movie which can best be described as "campy", "juvenile", and "bawdy". I would also call it - surprisingly - infectious! 

"Elvira's Haunted Hills" (2001) was a direct-to-video movie made on a modest budget and shot on location in Romania. It was dedicated to Vincent Price - the movie's title recalls the William Castle horror movie, "House on Haunted Hill" (1959) starring Price - but actually owes a lot, aesthetically, to the Edgar Allan Poe movie adaptations directed by Roger Corman, nearly all of which starred Price as well. 

Set in the Carpathian Mountains in 1851 - the same year Mary Shelley died and Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote The House of the Seven Gables - Elvira is an entertainer trying to make her way to Paris in time for the opening of a new revue she is starring in, "Yes, I Can-Can". Broke, hungry, and tired, the two ladies are rescued when the coach of Dr. Bradley Bradley (Scott Atkinson) passes by. He is on his way to the castle of Lord Hellsubus (Richard O'Brien, writer of The Rocky Horror Show) where the ladies can spend the night and head off to Paris the next morning.

It is at the castle events begin to take a strange turn. It is believed the castle is haunted by the spirits of the Hellsubus family. These spirits may have been the cause of Lord Hellsubus' first wife, Elura (Cassandra Peterson) committing suicide. Could it be she was driven mad by the spirits? Although he is now remarried to Ema (Mary Scheer), Lord Hellsubus is still tortured by the death of Elura, on what is the eve of the 10th anniversary of her death. The situation becomes further complicated for Elvira after she learns she is a dead ringer for the deceased wife. 

Traces of this story can be seen in several of Corman's Poe adaptations including "The Tomb of Ligeia" (1964), "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1962), "The Fall of the House of Usher" (1960), and "The Haunted Palace" (1963).

Where "Elvira's "Haunted Hills" goes wrong, in the realm of the comedy / horror genre, is by not taking the horror portion of the story serious. Comedy / horror is really two movies in one. The horror element of the plot needs to be strong enough to stand alone as its own feature film. The scarier the premise the easier the infusion of comedy should be. The comedy will naturally lend itself to the situation instead of feeling forced. The audience will be laughing at the irrational behavior the characters engage in as they are consumed by fear.

"Elvira's Haunted Hills" had enough material to constitute a decent enough storyline able to elicit some chills however the comedy dominates the horror aspects of the movie. Despite the appearance of Elvira, the dedication to Vincent Price, and the borrowing of Edgar Allan Poe and Roger Corman, the movie primarily views itself as a comedy. The other problem with the movie is everything is a wink and smile. Everyone knows they are in a campy movie and rather than play against the impulse to ham it up the actors speak with silly accents and express themselves with wild facial and hand gestures. The worst offender is Mary Scheer. It is amazing none of these performers know playing comedy straight would have been much funnier. The great filmmaker Howard Hawks later critiqued his own comedy, "Bringing Up Baby" (1938) stating the flaw of the movie was every character was crazy, "there were no normal people in it" as he put it.

While everyone in the movie is cranking their performances up to an 11, the humor in the movie is playfully raunchy, placing a great emphasis on Elvira's large bosom. There are a lot of breast jokes in "Elvira's Haunted Hills". After Dr. Bradley offers the ladies a ride, they end up going over some bumpy roads, causing the coach and the passengers to bounce around. Of course their actions are greatly exaggerated and as Dr. Bradley and Elvira bounce around, he somehow always ends up with his hands on her breasts or in one moment, with his face in-between them. Another reoccurring gag revolves around how much Zou  Zou is able to stuff between her breasts, from a pocket mirror to a blood sausage! 

The rest of the humor in the movie is self-referential, again going back to that wink and smile mentality. As one character is having an emotional break down, Elvira smacks him, declaring what is he trying to do? Go for an Oscar! At another moment she comments on one of the special effects, delighted the movie was able to accomplish it on its small budget. And finally, they even poke fun at some of the bad dubbing found in horror movies, especially the Italian ones directed by masters like Dario Argento and Mario Bava. One character's mouth is never in synch with his words, which Elvira comments on.

The true objective of the movie is to showcase Cassandra Peterson's alter ego Elvira. It's no surprise Peterson co-wrote the script (along with John Paragon, whom you may recall from TV's "Pee-Wee's Playhouse" as Jami the Genie). A pot-boiler like this would be fine and dandy if Elvira was an established and beloved comedic character. Perhaps in some circles she is. In the vain of the great comedians of the past, the concept here is to place the well known personality in an unusual setting juxtaposed against their contemporary humor. Think Laurel & Hardy in "Way Out West" (1937), Woody Allen in "Love and Death" (1975), or Bob Hope in any number of comedies like "Casanova's Big Night" (1954) or "Alias Jesse James" (1959). While I hate to compare this movie to something far superior like a Bob Hope comedy, "Elvira's Haunted Hills" takes that similar approach in its use of anachronistic humor.

As in the case of the western genre, where a comedian plays a cowardly wimp, serving as contrast to the machoism presented in the genre, so too is Elvira playing against the social norms of the time period, the Victorian era. Elvira is not a prim and proper lady. She is not what I would call a seductress either but rather an adolescent flirt, or as Cassandra once described the character, "a horndog". We see this play out in Elvira's attraction to Adrian (Gabriel Andronache), an employee at the castle. Any commentary on Elvira's behavior contradicting Victorian views of femininity could have been better accentuated into the story if every other female character wasn't such a kook.  As such this aspect of the movie may be completely ignored by audiences.

One of the best compliments I can pay "Elvira's Haunted Hills" is it does a rather commendable job creating the look and feel of Corman's Poe series of movies. Production designer Radi Corciova, art director Ioana Corciova and set diretor Raluca Ioanovici all deserve praise for their work. And cinematographer Viorel Sergovici duplicates the same color scheme from those movies, casting a hue-ish mist in the air.

Movie buffs will be able to pin-point the other light touches the movie makes to draw comparisons to the Corman movies. Notice the opening credit sequence, with the credits placed over tie dye colors in the background. It recalls the credit sequence from "The Pit and Pendulum". Lord Hellsubus (seen above) is dressed just like Vincent Price's character in the "Tomb of Ligeia"

I didn't find "Elvira's Haunted Hills" to be as inspired a comedy as "Airplane!" (1988) or the "Naked Gun" movies but I did like its spirit. I sometimes have a penchant for this kind of broad comedy. The movie I thought of most while watching this was "The Silence of the Hams" (1994), a completely forgettable comedy starring Dom DeLuise. I may be the only person that remembers that movie. It is not available on DVD or Blu-ray and has become a rarity on VHS. When I saw it as a kid, I absolutely loved it! "Elvira's Haunted Hills" gave me that same giddy feeling while it throws in its titillating humor.

One reason "Elvira's Haunted Hills" may not work as well as it could might have to do with the source material - Corman's movies. I am reminded of something the film critic Roger Ebert wrote when reviewing the Mel Brooks comedy, "High Anxiety" (1977). Brooks' movie spoofed the films of Alfred Hitchcock, Ebert felt the movie as a whole didn't work because the films of Hitchcock were already funny themselves. "Almost all of Hitchcock's fifty-three or so films have their great moments of wit" Ebert stated "And wit - the ability to share a sense of subtle fun with an audience - is not exactly Brooks's strong point." Roger Corman's movies on the other hand are pretty campy to begin with. "Elvira's Haunted Hills" can't out camp something campy to begin with.

If you are unfamiliar with the Elvira character, she was a very popular figure to my generation (80s babies) as the host of a TV show called "Movie Macabre with Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" which would air "B" horror movies. In-between the movie she would tell jokes. Here in Chicago we have had our own version of this for decades, Svengoolie, which airs on Me-TV and has gone national. The Elvira character reached such a level of pop culture fame, she eventually starred in her own movie, "Elvira: Mistress of the Dark" (1988). Cassandra Peterson developed the character while part of the improve comedy group, The Groundlings, which is where people like the late Paul Reubens and Phil Hartman got their start.

"Elvira's Haunted Hills" is a mixed-bag comedy / horror movie. It doesn't have much in way of horror, despite ample opportunity, but its comedy is silly and infectious even though the actors allow their worst comedy instincts to sometimes take over. In its own way it is a fitting and charming tribute to the movies of Roger Corman.

Film Review: Blood and Black Lace

 "Blood and Black Lace"

*** (out of ****)

Mario Bava's "Blood and Black Lace" (1964) is a scintillating giallo tale of greed, deception, secrets, blackmail, drugs, and murder told against the world of high fashion.

Giallo, the Italian word for yellow, derived its name because of the color of cheap paperback novels revolving around mystery stories with supernatural elements. In cinema giallo - a subgenre of horror - has come to be associated in the U.S. with stories combining extreme violence and sexploitation - "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh" (1971) as an example. That would explain the posh backdrop of a haute couture salon in "Blood and Black Lace" and why it is the perfect setting to use as an excuse to watch beautiful young women being killed one by one.

"Blood and Black Lace" isn't a movie I found particularly titillating however but can see the ways in which the movie needlessly reminds us of sex. The female victims for one reason or another always end up having their bras and / or panties exposed during or after their gruesome death. It creates an almost perverse dichotomy between beauty and brutality. 

And that may be one of the only themes to be found in this movie which is routinely considered by film historians to be one of the most influential giallo movies and one of filmmaker Bava's most definitive works.

Bava's movie nonetheless is one I believe that doesn't concern itself with plot and themes. "Blood and Black  Lace" is a movie focused on atmosphere, visually arresting cinematography, and color schemes casting everything in a hue. In spite of the grizzly nature of the movie, it is the aesthetic maestro Bava is most interested in. It is a classic example of style over substance.

Christian (the lovely Hungarian actress Eva Bartok. Her life would make quite the screenplay!), a recent widow - her husband died in a car accident - is the owner of the salon bearing her name. She has a close relationship with Massimo (Cameron Mitchell) who is either a co-owner of the salon or something of a manager. Events quickly take a deadly turn when one of the fashion models, Isabella (Francesca Ungaro) is found dead. While going through Isabella's belonging, a fellow model, Nicole (Arianna Gorini) discovers Isabella kept a diary. This causes a wide-spread panic among those working at the salon.

Soon the diary switches possession as the movie attempts to make the audience suspicious of each character. First there is Nicole who has been sneaking around with Franco (Dante DiPaolo), a cocaine addict who was Isabella's boyfriend. Then there is Peggy (Mary Arden) a friend Isabella once loaned money to so Peggy could get an abortion. This detail has found its way into Isabella's diary. Another prime suspect is Marco (Massimo Righi) he is in love with Peggy and works at the salon. He always exhibits nervous behavior and is constantly taking pills. One of these people may have been responsible for Isabella's murder. It will be up to Inspector Sylvester (Thomas Reiner) to find out.

One problem I have with this high body count movie - the original title translated into English was "6 Women for the Murderer" - is we never get to know the characters. The movie wastes no time immediately setting up the plot with the first murder happening within the first five minutes of the movie - and that includes the opening credits. Again, Bava has little concern for pesky things like character development. These women are merely pawns in the plot. I believe Bava acknowledges as much in his use of mannequins, which appear throughout the movie and appear in the color red.

And yet the first death scene is a sequence of visual splendor - beauty and brutality - shot in an extreme long shot as Isabella approaches the camera, appearing to us as if coming out of a foggy mist, as the screen is dominated by a blueish hue. The sequence also foreshadows a reoccurring motif among the death scenes, physically obstacles obstructing the camera's view and the character's path. 

Perhaps the most effective of the death sequences is one that takes place at an antique shop. The lights are off and once again there are lots of objects around the store hindering our view. In this sequence the camera switches POV from the killer's to a more neutral one. When it is from the killer's POV, the camera takes on a leering quality, only allowing us to see the bare essentials in the frame. Whereas when the camera is in a neutral POV the foreground is always in frame, suggesting the possibility danger will come out of the darkness at any given moment. Within a sequence like this we see Bava's craftsmanship in being able to create suspense.

While "Blood and Black Lace" does revolve around murder, I didn't find it to be excessive and gory in its details. The most gruesome death scene involves a woman having her face pressed against a hot furnace. Another memorable scene has one of the models - already drowned by this point - laying in the bathtub with water filled to the top. The killer slits her wrist with a blade as the water now changes to the color of her blood. 

By the time "Blood and Black Lace" ends we of course learn crime doesn't pay and the love of money is the root of all evil. The movie's ending, recalling its beginning image of a swinging sign of the salon, has been open to interpretation. What does the final image of a swinging red telephone represent? When I was in college we learned of a period of Italian cinema in the 1930s and 40s known as "white telephone" movies. The label was applied because of the status symbol associated with characters owning a white telephone. Could the red phone be making an opposite social commentary? In Peter Bondanella's book, Italian Cinema: From Neorealism to the Present he discusses how "postwar Italian cinema has managed to invade Hollywood's most typical moneymaking product: the genre film". Initially Bondanella focuses on the western but does go on to address the Italian contribution to horror films. Is the red phone and "Blood and Black Lace" signifying a shift in Italian cinema and a potential impact not just on the horror (or giallo) genre but American cinema?

I first fell under the delirious spell of giallo cinema after I submerged myself into the world of Italian filmmaker Dario Argento. That exploration began 15 years ago, around the same time as the start of this blog. I reviewed one of Argento's later films, "The Stendhal Syndrome" (1996) with great trepidation. Argento's reputation proceeded him and quite frankly intimated me. His notoriety for making ultra gory movies wasn't something I relished delving into. Quickly however I grew into a fan and from there I became curious to discover other notable filmmakers in this genre. Eventually I caught up with the name Mario Bava.

Despite an annual tradition of dedicating the month of October to horror movie reviews, the horror genre is not my favorite. As a child I avoided scary movies altogether. Because of this I knew this year's theme on the blog, the "year of me" - a year long celebration of my favorite artists and filmmakers, in honor of my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog - would present challenges and more than likely the theme would have to be paused. I really don't have a list of favorite horror directors and over the course of 15 years, whatever horror movies I have enjoyed, I already reviewed. I have almost completely gone through the entire cannon of films  Argento directed for example. But there was one bright spot I could take advantage of during the "year of me" and review one of the movies from the Italian maestro, Bava.

Over the years I have displayed my affection for Bava's work by reviewing a few of his movies - "Black Sabbath" (1963), "Shock" (1977) - his final movie, and "Kill, Baby, Kill" (1966). His importance to the genre is recognized by some film historians who credit him with having directed the first giallo movie, "The Girl Who Knew Too Much" (1963), earning him the title, the "Master of Italian horror". 

If you are intrigued to learn more about Bava and his work, "Blood and Black Lace" may be the best place to start thanks to its influence on the genre and its importance in Bava's cannon of films. The movie has the characteristic visual style you will find in his later movies. I am reluctant to call this Bava's best movie because of a personal involvement I found lacking as well as any big scares. I am however fully capable of seeing the technical craft which went into this movie and appreciate it on that basis alone. 

"Blood and Black Lace" is an atmospheric, visually arresting giallo movie worth watching this Halloween.

Film Review: House of Dracula

 "House of Dracula"

** (out of ****)

Universal Pictures'  "House of Dracula" (1945) made me ask myself what is horror? Here is a movie about tortured men and damaged souls instead of jump scares and sounds that go bump in the night. Is that what we expect a horror movie to be? Does that sound scary to you?

The classic Universal horror movies - "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932), and "The Wolf Man" (1941) - were on some level addressing these very same inner conflicts. In one way or another these men were cursed. From a psychological perspective the conflicts these men confronted were horrific. Characters such as Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man are almost sympathetic figures. The Monster didn't ask to be created and Larry Talbot didn't ask to be bitten by a wolf, having an unfortunate fate placed upon him. Talbot in particular had to find a way to deal with the duality within him - man and beast, good and evil. However this description may make "House of Dracula" sound like an interesting, worthwhile movie. Lets dispense with the niceties before we go any further, "House of Dracula" is a bad movie!

"House of Dracula" treats this material in a melodramatic fashion to the point I found the movie to be dull and was actually bored. I fully understand walking into any 1940s horror movie I am not going to be scared but I am still capable of enjoying the movies and appreciating the eerie atmosphere they created. "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" were visually ambitious movies drawing inspiration from German Expressionism. They set a creepy and macabre tone. You watch "Frankenstein" and you can almost feel a chill in the air. "House of Dracula" by contrast is a dismal failure. It is not anywhere near as aesthetically bold or atmospheric. 

That's not necessarily a knock against "House of Dracula" but a criticism of Universal Pictures. Rarely does one see a studio ruin a franchise as quickly and needlessly as Universal did with its horror movies. Pre-code horror movies like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" helped Universal cement a reputation as the horror movie studio. Because of a combination of the strict enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code and an oversaturated marketplace, horror lost not only its edge but its audience. Universal moved its horror movies to its "B" division and as a result top talent was no longer assigned to these projects. The genre went from movies directed by visionaries like Tod Browning and James Whales to "House of Dracula" director, Erle C. Kenton, whose career was primarily spent in comedy - he directed several Abbott & Costello comedies and worked for pioneering comedy producer Mack Sennett. The studio created several sequels and reboots driving an entire franchise into the ground by releasing movies like "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), "Son of Dracula" (1943), "The Mummy's Hand" (1940) - the beginning of an unnecessary reboot of "The Mummy" franchise, "Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942), and "She-Wolf of London" (1946) among others. All pale efforts, unworthy of carrying the names of their predecessors. Among the worst of Universal's cash-grabbing, money hungry creations was the monster mash-ups, featuring many of the famed monsters in one movie - why kill these franchises one movie at a time, lets kill them in one big swoop! Which brings us to "House of Dracula" released on the heels of  "House of Frankenstein" (1944). So lazy and uninspired was the Universal marketing team, that they essentially duplicated the poster from "House of Frankenstein" with the same promises of sensationalism for "House of Dracula".

Our movie begins with Count Dracula (John Carradine, playing the character for the second time) flying (he has taken the form of a bat) into the home of Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens), a renowned doctor whom Dracula hopes can cure him of his vampirism. Being a man of science Dr. Edelmann is not a believer of vampires but after Dracula shows the doctor his coffin, Edelmann agrees to help. This "help" is shown to us in the form of the doctor taking samples of Dracula's blood.

Dracula, it turns out, wasn't being honest and doesn't want to be cured of vampirism. His real intention for finding Dr.  Edelmann was to reconnect with Edelmann's nurse, Milizia (Martha O' Driscoll) whom, we assume, he wants to turn into one of his brides. How did they meet? When did they meet? Where did they meet? The movie provides no satisfactory answers to these questions, leading me to declare, who cares!

More than one Universal monster it turns out wants to be cured of their curse for later that night Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) comes to the doctor's home, on the night of a full moon mind you, seeking help for his lycanthropy (the ability to turn into a werewolf). Upon witnessing Larry's transformation, Dr. Edelmann promises to find a cure.

I am a firm believer any story, if properly told, can be entertaining. "House of Dracula" is no exception to this rule. If the screenwriter, Edward Lowe, had bothered to add more scares and flesh out these characters, the movie could have worked or at the very least been more interesting than what we see on-screen. Then it would have been up to director Kenton and cinematographer George Robinson to have a vision and create the correct aesthetic and atmosphere.

However, I have my suspicions Universal never had any desire to make a truly effective horror movie. The original plan for this movie was to be called "Wolf Man vs Dracula", which the best I could hope for would have followed in the tradition of  "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (1943), possibly the last serious and effective movie dealing with these characters. It appears at this point Universal was primarily interested in cheap sensationalism and no longer concerned with giving these characters their due respect.

The storyline involving Dracula and the Wolf Man should have been enough for one movie but "House of Dracula" has more twists and turns up its sleeve. For no worthwhile justification whatsoever Dr. Edelmann and Talbot discover the body of Frankenstein's Monster (Glenn Strange, in his second outing as the character). By this point we are approximately two-thirds into this 66 minute movie. There isn't enough time to develop a meaningful sub-plot for the character essentially reducing him to little more than a throwaway character. What a waste!

The Monster, I suppose, was meant to serve as an inciting incident to turn Dr. Edelmann into a "mad scientist", hitting on the familiar theme in Universal horror movies, the corruptible nature of science. This foolish attempt to turn Dr. Edelmann into a Dr.  Frankenstein or Jekyll & Mr. Hyde character is too abrupt a transition. Before this transition can happen however the movie must make Dr. Edelmann a sympathetic character. In order to accomplish this the good doctor is given a second assistant, Nina (Jane Adams). She is a beautiful woman that we (shockingly) discover is a hunchback. Dr. Edelmann hopes to one day remove her hunchback. Her deformity is also meant to make her a sympathetic character for why would God do such a thing to so lovely a woman. That, I think, was suppose to be the reaction a 1940s American audience would have. Bad things shouldn't happen to good looking people. 

But the best parts of "House of Dracula" are the scenes revolving around Talbot. Every Universal movie featuring this character has always been able to get the most out of his storyline. Credit must be given to Lon Chaney Jr for consistently turning in thoughtful and compelling performances. Dracula's name may be in the movie's title but it's the Wolf Man's show.

If anyone ever doubted the acting in these movies and the performances given by actors like Lon Chaney Jr or Bela Lugosi, all someone needs to do is watch John Carradine play Dracula in movies like "House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula". Yes, it would be the "curse" of any actor to walk into the role after being so iconically play by Lugosi but Carradine strips the character to nothing. Everything that Lugosi brought to the role vanishes in the hands of Carradine. Of course different actors have different ways of interpreting a character. I'm not suggesting Carradine copy Lugosi but after watching Carradine play the part ask yourself, how do you think Carradine interpreted the character and how did he project that on-screen? Carradine's Dracula is not menacing, suave, or seductive. It is one of the most inferior performances I have seen in a serious movie portraying the character.

The last character of significance in the movie is Inspector Holtz, performed by the actor that has played more inspectors than any other actor in Universal's horror movies, Lionel  Atwill. His character this time around is similar to the character he played in "Son of Frankenstein" (1939), the last good movie to feature Frankenstein's Monster and make the character an integral part of the plot. Inspector Holtz must control the villagers who begin to wonder what Dr. Edelmann is up to especially after some of the townspeople are found dead. Atwill give his usual stiff, heavy-handed performance, which suites this type of character well. The Inspector is a man of great respect and importance, in his mind. This would unfortunately be one of Atwill's final roles. He died the following year.

"House of Dracula" is an uninspired "horror" movie devoid of big scares and an eerie, unsettling atmosphere. It also feels like a hastily slapped together rehash of previous movies like "House of Frankenstein", "Son of Frankenstein", and "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man". Additionally the ending wasn't satisfying either because of the hastily, rushed nature of the movie. I suspect much of this movie was left on the cutting room floor to trim it down to a roughly hour long feature, typical for "B" movies, so they could be part of a double-bill.

Horror has never been one of my favorite genres. I knew October, when I devote the month to horror movie reviews, was going to cause obstacles for this year's theme - the "year of me". My year long celebration of my favorite artists and filmmakers in honor of my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog. I scared easily as a child which is why the horror genre had no great importance for me. But, the Universal Monsters were something my friends and I were interested in. I would try to watch these movies without the aid of a pillow in front of my face but was usually unsuccessful. As I got older I developed a fondness for these characters and over the last 15 years have reviewed practically all of the movies featuring them. That is what makes movies like "House of Dracula" so disappointing to me. I enjoy watching these characters and hate to see them in second-rate offerings like this. 

Sadly my opinion of "House of Dracula" isn't an isolated one. The movie was nearly universally panned by critics upon its release. Although some modern "critics" try to create a positive spin on the movie. "House of Dracula" would be the last serious attempt by Universal to combine the famed monsters together in one movie until three years later when it was done for comedy in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948). Strangely this would revitalize these characters. Though Universal would release no new horror movies featuring these characters. They would however create a new and final monster, the Gill-Man.

Film Review: Revenge of the Creature

 "Revenge of the Creature"

** (out of ****)

"We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

President Dwight Eisenhower - Farewell Address (1961)

When Americans think of former President Eisenhower's Farewell Address they quote his comments regarding the "Military Industrial Complex" but Eisenhower also warned the nation about science. The 1950s saw a great skepticism around scientific research thanks to the Atomic  Age. It may seem like a stretch but "Revenge of the Creature" (1955) makes a similar commentary, albeit in a less eloquent manner, while drawing a connection between commercialism and science. 

Universal Picture's "Revenge of the Creature" is a sequel to "The Creature From the Black Lagoon" (1954), which was also a cautionary tale rallying on the dangers of scientific exploration. Both movies follow in the grand legacy of Universal's Monster movies - "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), and "The Mummy" (1932) - which admonished society's scientific curiosity, man's desire to play God, and a lack of respect for different cultures and tradition. The Gill-Man is often credited as being the last creation in Universal's Monster franchise.

Unfortunately, by the time Universal released the "Creature" movies - a final sequel followed this movie, "The Creature Walks Among Us" (1956) - Universal had regulated its horror movies to their "B" division which saw a dramatic decline in production and costume design as well as visual aesthetic. It's a sad story how quickly Universal ruined their franchises by creating needless sequels and reboots - they created a completely unnecessary "Mummy" reboot and three additional sequels - to desperate marketing gimmicks such as creating Monster mash-ups where several Universal Monsters would all appear together in the same movie. By the time the Gill-Man and the 1950s came along, the Monsters were a tired and old entity that had been Abbott & Costello-ed out. Somehow the Gill-Man has gained popularity but the movies are poorly made and forgettable. I hate to sound like a politician but throwing some money at this problem would have gone a long way. There is tremendous potential for this series if it were done correctly.

Like so many other sequels, "Revenge of the Creature" is an unoriginal retread of the original movie, establishing the same predicaments around similar characters. This time however an element of "King Kong" (1933) is added to the story with the new twist being, the Gill-Man is brought into the modern world, where he / it is put on exhibit at a SeaWorld like attraction. The absurdity of this situation, while perhaps somewhat likely, must be a critique of commercialism and science. Why on earth would the Gill-Man be captured and brought to America, just so it could be a theme park attraction. Wouldn't such a discovery be kept hidden from the public and isolated in a lab where scientists could perform studies on it?

The story begins a year after the events of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon" with Joe Hayes (John Bromfield) and George Johnson (Robert Williams) traveling to the Amazon on the behalf of an institution called Ocean Harbor. Their orders are to capture the Gill-Man and bring him back to America. The wisdom of this idea is challenged by one of the locals, their guide (Nestor Paiva) reprising his role from the first movie. While informing the men of the incidents from the prior year, the sequence also serves as a commentary on outsiders (Americans) showing no respect for mythology, history, and science. What is the point, the guide ask, of capturing this creature? "To please some crazy scientists?" he suggestively mocks. Even if it will cost them their lives? But the question must also be asked, if the guide knew of the danger, why would he agree to ever take anyone back there?

After catching the Gill-Man and bringing him / it back to America, we are introduced to Professor Clete Ferguson (John Agar), who has been conducting research comparing the intelligence of apes to humans, and ichthyologist Helen Dobson (Lori Nelson). She will play "beauty" to the Gill-Man's "beast". As in "King Kong" and the first "Creature" movie, the Gill-Man has an eye for the ladies and becomes attracted to her, creating a kind of love triangle between Clete, Helen, and The Gill-Man.

The Professor and Helen work together performing conditioned behavior experiments on the Gill-Man by zapping him with a cattle prog for each incorrect response. These sequences are tedious at best and could have been displayed in a montage sequence instead of multiple scenes. We learn the Gill-Man is an intelligent creature that is almost human-like. Eventually, as the movie's poster tagline reveals, the Gill-Man gets loose and begins to terrorize the city. Although that is a slightly misleading interpretation.

One of my problems with the Gill-Man character is its appearance. It doesn't look scary to me and lacks the visual artistry of Frankenstein's Monster for example. It looks like an actor wearing a cheap rubber costume. My other issue with the character is it has way too much screen-time. The character makes an appearance approximately eight minutes into the movie and remains onscreen practically for the remainder of this 81 minute movie. By making the audience so accustom to the sight of the character it stops being a menacing, scary figure. This was the same mistake made in the first movie. The best example of how to handle something like this is found in Steven Spielberg's "Jaws" (1975), also about a terrifying creature in the water. Spielberg does a lot of build-up for the shark but waits nearly an hour into the movie to show us. That delay not only creates suspense and anticipation for the sight of the shark but also allowed the audience time to identify with the human characters. The "Creature" movies just want to go for the shock early on. 

Also, because this is a "B" movie, the performances aren't very good. John Agar, who was briefly married to Shirley Temple, is a rather stiff and dull actor and not my idea of a leading man. He primarily worked on "B" movies throughout his career. He has no chemistry with Lori Nelson, whose performance is somewhat better, expressing a more natural quality.

Finally, and perhaps the most significant flaw of the movie, is the cinematography by Charles S Welbourne. The cinematography does practically nothing to create an eerie mood. The movie needed to be shot in the dark more - the last half of the movie is - and more needed to be done with lighting and shadows. The movie is too brightly lit. The heavy burden of creating the movie's atmosphere is all placed on the shoulder's of the movie's composer, who strangely goes uncredited. Online sources suggest the composer was Herman Stein. The movie only gives credit to "Music Supervision" by Joseph Gershenson.

Mind you none of this is to excuse the movie's screenplay by Martin Berkeley, who spent a lot of his career writing westerns. He awkwardly attempts to interject science into the dialogue, explaining the action of the characters. Like the performances, it is not natural and comes off as forced. One of the more interesting dialogue exchanges occurs when the Professor and Helen are discussing their possible future plans together. It hits on the social attitudes of the era commenting on how women must choose between starting a family or a career. The Professor, in a matter-of-fact way, states he's a man and doesn't have to worry about such things. Fittingly, Berkeley's next screenplay would be for another "B" horror / science-fiction movie, "Tarantula" (1955) also starring Agar and directed by this movie's director, Jack Arnold. 

To further impress upon you the downfall of Universal's treatment of its once acclaimed horror movies, both "The Creature From the Black Lagoon" and this movie were shot in 3-D, which as is the case now, was a cash-grabbing exploitive gimmick. The movie has many underwater sequences, showing the Gill-Man swimming. You will notice at times, the character swims directly into the camera, this was done for 3-D purposes, which is lost on an audience watching the movie in 2-D. It looks like bad camera work to us today.

And yet despite the lousy cinematography, bad acting, and weak dialogue, the Gill-Man endures. These movies were successful at the box-office and have seeped into pop-culture. That makes it all the more disappointing to me. Since this is the "year of me" - my year long celebration of my favorite artists and filmmakers, in honor of my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog - I will share with you, growing up my friends and I "loved" the Universal Monsters. Personally they scared me to death! But we collected action figures and other merchandise of the characters and would watch (or try to in my case) the movies repeatedly. The first movies introducing characters like Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy, and the Wolf-Man are pieces of wonderful entertainment. "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" in particular were made with great artistry and artistic merit. It is so unfortunate and maddening to me the Gill-Man couldn't receive similar treatment. Countless remakes have been hinted at over the years only for the productions to fall through. In the only time I will ever suggest such a thing, I must admit a modern retelling of these movies could be spectacular, as long as they keep modern day social identity politics out of it.

A lot of younger viewers probably became curious about these movies after Guillermo del Toro released the ridiculous "The Shape of Water" (2017), which embarrassingly won the Academy Award for best picture. It was heavily influenced by these movies but made the tragic mistake of turning the material into a love story, all so it could make a social commentary on illegal immigration (!). Naturally the sheep (AKA movie critics) ate it up. But it goes to prove how the original character and elements of the original story are still with us today and remain an influence, whether or not viewers are aware of it.

"Revenge of the Creature" is a goofy, cheap and exploitive movie. It is your typical "B" movie comprised of bad acting and forced dialogue. Its attempts at a social commentary are interesting but half-baked. It is doubtful this movie could scare modern day audiences. The most entertainment you can get out of this movie would be to get friends together and give it the old "Mystery Science 3000" treatment, where you talk over the movie and make wise-crack jokes. Spot Clint Eastwood in his uncredited movie debut as a lab assistant. He'd be back with much of this same gang in 'Tarantula".

Film Review: The Bat Whispers

 "The Bat Whispers"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

The shadow of the bat lurks in the wings, instilling fear in those that see it. He appears to be a menacing figure eager to demonstrate his prowess and mental superiority.

From that description you might have thought I was referring to the famous DC comics superhero, Batman, when in fact I was describing the villain from "The Bat Whispers" (1930), a criminal known only as "The Bat". It's no accident than that Batman creator Bob Kane cited the character The Bat as his inspiration for the creation of Batman.

Based on the 1920 Broadway play The Bat by Mary Roberts Rinehart and Avery Hopwood, which was an adaptation of Rinehart's novel, The Circular Staircase, "The Bat Whispers" is one of Hollywood's earliest examples of the haunted house sub-genre of horror movies. And was itself a "talkie" remake of the silent movie "The Bat" (1926).

Although some movie critics (AKA sheep) were dismissive of "The Bat Whispers" when it was initially released - NY Times critic Mordaunt Hall described the movie as "a waste of time" with the original movie still fresh in his memory - "The Bat Whispers" is actually an influential movie featuring arresting cinematography and like the best movies of this genre - "The Cat & The Canary" (1927) and "The Old Dark House" (1932) - is an exercise in style, pacing, and atmosphere. Unfortunately, it remains a forgotten movie - it was even believed at one time to be a "lost movie" - though I have always championed it when given the chance. Back when I wrote for the website Third Coast Review for example, I included it among a list of lesser known horror movies audiences should seek out.

Directed by Roland West, himself an overlooked though once vital filmmaker, "The Bat Whispers" begins by establishing police have been unable to capture a theft known as The Bat. Testing his abilities, The Bat gives warning to his next victim, a wealthy jewel collector, that he plans to steal a priceless necklace at midnight from the man's home. The police believe they finally have the break they need and have completely blocked off street access to the home, which they have surrounded both inside and out. While it seems The Bat's luck has run out, he is nonetheless able to pull off the heist and give the police one last taunt, informing them he is headed for the country to give them a rest.

The sequence helps to create the tone, look and feel of the rest of the movie. The entire movie will take place a night, deal with shadows, have characters on high alert and in a constant state of suspense, and place the viewer in a state of anticipation, suspecting the motivates of each character introduced. The cinematography techniques used by Robert H. Planck, a four time Oscar nominee, and Ray June, a three time nominee, in this sequence and throughout the movie is commendable. If the movie is known for anything it may be its cinematography, which creates the illusion of flying around by placing us in The Bat's POV while the camera appears to be swooshing. 

In what may have been the following night - the timeline is never properly explained - The Bat, spying from the rooftops, is witness to a bank robbery. It just so happens the bank's president, Mr. Fleming is out of the country on vacation. Prior to his leaving, he leased his house to Cornelia Van Gorder (Grayce Hampton) and her maid, Lizzie (Maude Eburne). His servants however have all left the two ladies alone. Lizzie suspects because they were afraid of The Bat or ghosts. Lizzie believes the house is haunted. The only servant to remain is the caretaker (Spencer Charters) who scares Lizzie almost as much as The Bat does.

As is customary in these kind of movies, the objective is to gather a large group of highly suspicious individuals in the house and allow the circumstantial evidence to fly. "The Bat Whispers" has no shortage of characters of questionable behavior. First there is Cornelia's niece, Dale (Una Merkel) and her fiancé Brook (William Bakewell), whom she hasn't told her aunt about. Then there is Dr. Venrees (Gustav von Seyffertitz) who always happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And Fleming's nephew (Hugh  Huntley) who may have been the one to rent out his uncle's home without his permission. Plus two men from the law, Detective Anderson (Chester Morris) and a cowardly private eye Cornelia has hired, Detective Jones (Charles Dow Clark). One of these people may be The Bat or know who The Bat is.

Once all of these characters are under the same roof "The Bat Whispers" becomes a story of murder, greed, corruption, and false identities. Director West and his cinematographers cultivate a demonstration in style over substance. The movie creates an eerie atmosphere through its use of lighting and shadows and sound effects (thunder and lightening). Sadly some modern "critics" often fault the movie for these techniques describing them as "creaky" and "outdated". They seem to lack the knowledge and understanding that what we are seeing in movies such as "The Bat Whispers", "The Cat and the Canary", and the silent version of "The Bat" were setting the standard for the haunted house genre, which had come a long way since the days of George Melies' "The House of the Devi" (1896). Rather than dismiss the movie's techniques as "cliché" they should be applauded for their innovation for the time period and their lasting contributions to the genre. 

One unique thing about these early haunted house movies was their reliance on comedy. In addition to the frights "The Bat Whispers" tries to produce it also attempts to get as much comedy mileage as it can out of this material through Maude Eburne's performance in particular as well as Charles Dow Clark's. "The Cat and the Canary" for example was even remade as a Bob Hope vehicle in 1939. Although I don't find "The Bat Whispers" very funny. Its humor is manifested in Eburne's whining and squawking which after a while I simply found grating. Give me Bob Hope's cowardice over this any day!

The most interesting character in the movie might be Cornelia. In "The Bat" it was explained she was a writer, this time around her occupation is not mentioned but she turns into a no non-sense amateur sleuth, unfazed when the lights go out and things go bump in the night. She seems to be one step ahead of every character, just waiting for each person to make a mistake. Sometimes, surprisingly, she even calls out characters directly to their faces. Even more surprising, they never have answers to her accusations!  

Despite the laden "comedic" performances of Eburne and Clark, the actor that seems to be giving the most consciously aware performance is Chester Morris, who worked often with Roland West. He too is playing a no non-sense character determined to figure out who The Bat is. His performance is typical for the time period in the ways it is meant to exude masculinity and authority. The performance seems slightly out of place and more deserving of a gangster movie.

During a relatively short career, lasting only 15 years, Roland West did achieve great success and made some promising movies. He made further contributions to the horror genre with a movie that proceeded "The Bat Whispers" and "The Bat", a mad scientist / haunted house movie, "The Monster" (1925) starring Lon Chaney. He also made contributions to the gangster genre, directing the influential movie "Alibi" (1929), also with Morris, which might explain his performance. If you happen to doubt West's talents, all one needs to do is watch the remake of this movie, "The Bat" (1959) with Vincent Price. It is a movie that lacks the wit and visual style of either of West's Bat adaptations. Unfortunately, some film historians may only associate West's name with actress Thelma Todd, who starred in his final movie, "Corsair" (1931). The two were romantically linked and some say he played a part in her mysterious death.

Maybe because of issues in the editing room, "The Bat Whispers" falls just short of greatness. At 83 minutes too many little details are left out of the movie. One would have to combine "The Bat" and "The Bat Whispers" to get a full understanding of the story, which I prefer not to do. Each movie should stand on its own and offer its own explanation of events.

Given the age of the movie, nothing in "The Bat Whispers" is going to scare modern audiences. You would watch a movie like this if you have an interest in film history, horror movies in particular, and want to see the evolution of the genre. I would seriously doubt the casual viewer would get much enjoyment out of this movie, which is unfortunate that movies like "The Bat Whispers" can't be enjoyed in today's day and age. For those adventurous souls however that are willing to watch movies from this time period, "The Bat Whispers" is a treat!