The Tell-Tale Heart (1960)

The Tell-Tale Heart
Starring: Laurence Payne, Adrienne Corri, Dermot Walsh
Director: Ernest Morris
Writer: Edgar Allan Poe (original), Brian Clemens (adaption), Eldon Howard (adaption)
Genre: Horror
Year: 1960
My rating: 

It must be an ambitious undertaking for a film production to tackle Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart". After all, it is one of Poe's most famous and chilling works. If the film falls flat on its face, then the director can't simply blame the original text for being underwhelming. And much of the horror is based upon Poe's prose which is not the easiest thing to convey in film. 

However, the most challenging aspect must be the fact that Poe's original story is a little more than five pages long. It works as one quick effective jolt, not as a long sustaining opus. While The Internet Movie Database lists an astonishing 22 attempts at filming this story, I was hesitant to see how this particular instantiation (a low-budget 1960 British full length film) would attempt to pad the length.

Writing additional material into Poe's classic work is something that should only be attempted by experts. Surprisingly, there was a writing team up to the challenge. The most famous of this pair is Brian Clemens who is now more known for having written for and having produced The Avengers, The Professionals and other British television programs. At this point in his career, he was churning out a lot of B-movie crime/thriller scripts with his writing partner Eldon Howard. 

As one would assume, quite a lot of story has been added to flesh out this production to a standard movie running time. In this telling of the tale, the main character is a fellow called Edgar (not much of a stretch). Edgar is a troubled, lonely and strange man who has a very odd manner in dealing with the fair sex (again, they aren't going very far for material). I'm not sure exactly what connection (if any) the producers where attempting between Edgar the character and Edgar the author, but it is notable that he is a much weaker character than the brash central figure of the original story.

Betty, a pretty young woman, moves in across the street, and Edgar is soon painfully infatuated. Despite the lady's obvious unease with his advances, Edgar's mind quickly escalates the relationship far past where it exists in actuality. Within the span of a few chaste dinner dates (and one uncomfortable groping session), he's buying jewelry for her and imagining the two of them in a fantasy of wedded bliss with a long and happy future together.

Of course, reality must intrude, and it does so in the form of Edgar's best friend, Carl. Carl is a charming and handsome man who Edgar insistently invites to a few of his outings with Betty. One thing leads to another, Carl and Betty become very close, and given the original story you can see where this is going to end up, can't you?

The new material not taken from the original story is rather simplistic and wholly predictable. But this actually works in the film's favor. While the film's approach is more conventional in plot, it retains the Gothic feel of the original. The straightforward nature of the storyline allows the tension and the atmospherics to rise. There's no mystery for the viewer, everything is predictable. The audience therefore can focus on the journey rather than spend time worrying about the destination.

The recreation of the 19th Century is very good and the effective black and white cinematography reminded me of more than one Sherlock Holmes film. It did take me a while to realize that the action was taking place in France and not (as I originally assumed) in London. Why the story was set there is a question I can't immediately answer, but the outdoor cafes and florist shops are a nice touch.

The film production has a nice feel to it and there are a few moments where the atmosphere becomes very dark indeed (and probably appeared even more close to the edge in 1960). The cast does a very good job; the overall performances are more theatrical than cinematic in scope, but that acting decision makes a lot of sense within this context. Laurence Payne has the always difficult task of making a psychotic character appear realistic yet he manages quite well. Dermot Walsh and Adrienne Corri (known for roles in A Clockwork Orange and Doctor Who) do an admiral job as the ill-fated romantic pairing. 

For overall quality, it doesn't really come close to Poe's original work, but then, few things do. For a low-budget adaptation from the early 1960s, this is surprisingly decent.

Good Against Evil (1977)

Good Against Evil
Starring: Dack Rambo, Elyssa Davalos, Richard Lynch, Kim Cattrall
Director: Paul Wendkos
Writer: Jimmy Sangster
Genre: Horror
Year: 1977
My rating: 

GOOD AGAINST EVIL is an odd film whose structural strangeness is only partially explained by the fact that it's actually a failed television pilot and not a standalone film at all. Theoretically, this should have been a decent film: the director (Paul Wendkos, GIDGET) and writer (Jimmy Sangster, multiple Hammer horror films) both have many successful credits to their name. However, it's the limitations in the pilot format which prevent the film from being viable as a standalone work and the inherent problems within the idea itself which presumably prevented the film from ever progressing beyond a pilot.

The film begins in the New York City of 1955. A baby is born, and Satan is all over it. Appearing in the form of a black cat, he kills the mother (after first messing with her mind via jerky camera work, strange intercutting and spooky incidental music) and then oversees a weird Satanic ritual, the subject is, of course, the newborn.

We then jump forward to the present day (the present day circa 1977). The tainted child has grown up, but is oblivious to the evil that lurks either within her or very near to her (we're a little vague on the exact theology here). She is now is a successful designer in the California fashion industry (one of the morals of our story is that the fashion industry is filled with Satan worshipers). As she joins our story, her parked car is sideswiped by the film's hero and his deliberately ramshackle van. 

Since this is a movie, this minor traffic incident results in a continuing stalking situation, which only relents when the Satan Lady (Elyssa Davalos) agrees to date our hero (Dack Rambo) after several long instances of his Not Getting The Hint. After a long and painful courtship (which must take about half of the film's running time) the romance takes a wild turn when -- just before their marriage -- the Satan Lady is hypnotized, kidnapped and taken to New Orleans. Rambo's attempt at rescue involves an exorcism, a vandalized church and a young Kim Cattrall.

It's difficult to judge GOOD AGAINST EVIL as a standalone piece of television because it was originally supposed to be only the first chapter in a continuing story. That possibly explains why the main conflict isn't even hinted at until halfway through. One has to make allowances for the fact that the last twenty minutes appear to come from nowhere (it's all setup for the series). The courtship takes longer to establish because the producers need to have this initial meeting and romance to drive the action -- not just for the remainder of the film -- but for an entire TV series. While these pacing issues are understandable, they do not make for an enjoyable viewing experience. The totality of what we have is mostly a mess.

While one could see some small potential in GOOD AGAINST EVIL as a series, it's not difficult to see why the pilot didn't set the world on fire. Foremost of its sins is that there is an hour in the middle that is intensely boring. Given that this was supposed to air on broadcast television I was beginning to wonder if the producers were relying on advertising breaks and news updates to liven up the action. We're halfway through the film before any kind of urgency is implemented; I can't imagine many in the audience simply having the required patience.

And while its an intriguing premise, it isn't immediately obvious to how a series would proceed. Would every episode begin with Richard Lynch moving his victim to another city and end with Dack Rambo teaming up with a bad-tempered priest to perform an exorcism on Kim Cattrall's daughter? Would the Satan Lady be catatonic in every scene? Would Satan's army of house cats be a recurring element?

Questions, alas, for which there are no answers.

Night of Bloody Horror (1969)

Night of Bloody Horror
Starring: Gerald McRaney, Gaye Yellen
Director: Joy N. Houck Jr.
Writer: Joy N. Houck Jr., Robert A. Weaver
Genre: Horror
Year: 1969
My rating: 

Given the incredibly over the top title, I was half expecting NIGHT OF BLOODY HORROR to be an ironic, deliberately silly film in the style of ARMY OF DARKNESS. Then I read the back cover summary which I shall quote in its entirety: "A string of horrible murders haunts the consciousness of a disturbed young man, including his brother shot, his girlfriend gored, and a hospital nurse bludgeoned to death." Well, that's sufficiently cheerful sounding, isn't it? (It's also slightly inaccurate. The hospital nurse is not bludgeoned to death. She simply takes an axe to the chest. Just so you know...)

In case there's any doubt as to what is to follow, the first shot of the film is a closeup of a cross on the top of a church. The first full scene takes place inside that church. I forget if this means that the director is trying to be ironic or trying to make a point, but I do know that the end result will be a very graphic and bloody movie. A good rule of thumb for horror films: the more religious imagery there is, the more buckets of red paint the director is going to fling around.

NIGHT OF BLOODY HORROR was produced in 1969 and is a horror movie very much of that time. Gritty realism is the film's modus operandi: the gore factor is turned up to eleven; the actors are mostly un-made-up and relatively unpleasant to look at; the film stock is washed out and the colors are extremely dreary.

The story is vaguely depressing, often boring, and more than a little inspired by Hitchcock's PSCYHO. Our main character, Wes, is a troubled young fellow. As a child, he accidentally shot his brother and subsequently spent 13 years in an asylum. He's now been released, but has an annoying habit of being stricken by blinding headaches while strange spinning rectangles appear in his point of view shot. When he awakens from these attacks, he has the misfortune to discover that his latest girlfriend has been horribly killed, spindled and mutilated. Eventually, the local police get fed up with bodies stacking up all over the town and decide to involve themselves.

The script, like the people it depicts, is more than a little schizophrenic. Incredibly violent and gory sequences are buffered by tediously long and boring talky scenes which make the 74 minute running time fly by like it's only a week and a half. And despite the direction's insistence on overly realistic visuals, the script itself is utterly unbelievable. 

Take, for example, the scene where Wes first meets the nurse. He's in a bar, drunkenly threatening his buddy with the sharp end of a broken bottle of vodka. Thrown out into the street, he's beaten, robbed and left for dead. A nurse happens to drive by, stop and assist him, taking the unconscious man back to her home. She tends to his wounds, strips him naked and puts him to bed. In the morning, he's hungover and confused as to how he got there and who this woman is; she's wandering around blithely -- as only a horror film character could -- in a see-through nightie. Who on Earth behaves this way?

The ending is also completely ludicrous once the viewer gives more than a moment's worth of rational thought to it. It's a shock ending, but one which can provoke nothing except stunned laughter once the implications of it are thought through.

The production team clearly had no money and therefore many of the scenes suffer, particularly the scenes which do not involve people being hacked to pieces. The romantic subplot is probably the biggest victim. A quick montage of still photographs of two dates running over sappy music represents the totality of a couple's extensive courtship.

In fact the best thing about this film is something that I didn't even notice while I was watching it; only after messing around on the Internet Movie Database did I realize what I had missed. Wes is played by a very young Gerald McRaney. If that name means nothing to you (as it initially did to me), I have two words for you: Major Dad. That's right, Major freaking Dad is playing a psychotic schizophrenic. When I found this out, I immediately went back to rewatch some of his more over the top scenes (of which there are plenty, have no fear). This knowledge led to a much more enjoyable way of experiencing the film.

Apart from such unintended hilarity, there isn't much else to recommend. There's a cameo appearance by a late-1960s rock band called The Bored who, all things considered, aren't a bad group. I could not find any information about them other than this gig; I'm slightly curious as to what became of them. Unfortunately, putting a band with a name like The Bored into your film invites an obvious joke, which I will only allude to and not actually make. (See what I did there?)

So, with Major Dad plus The Bored plus some bloody horror, what does that all add up to? Not a whole lot. If you like scenes of insane young men falling over and battling mental polygons, or sequences of people being cut violently into smaller pieces of person, then you may have yourself a good time. But even so you'll need to keep the fast forward button warm.

Nancy Drew... Reporter (1939)

Nancy Drew... Reporter
Starring: Bonita Granville, Frankie Thomas, John Litel
Director: William Clemens
Writer: Kenneth Gamet
Genre: Comedy, Crime, Drama, Family, Mystery
Year: 1939
My rating: 

Before firing up the DVD player, I knew I would have a bit of a problem in my encounter with this work. Mostly because I am not in the demographic that this film was initially aimed at. In short, I am not a 13-year-old girl living in the late 1930s. I mean, I'll try anything once, but I just doubt my ability to physically manage this one.

Prior to viewing, I did some basic research to determine if there were any familiar touchstones in connection with this film that I could cling to (translation: I wheeled around the Internet Movie Database for a couple of minutes, looking for names I recognized). The director was not someone familiar to me. William Clemens seems to have directed virtually the same film multiple times, with many of his movies having a similar plot summary to that which is described in his 1942 feature, SWEATER GIRL (the title sounds filthy, but the content probably isn't): "College students attempt to solve a series of murders on campus while also trying to put together the school's big show." I didn't get much of a sense of Clemens' body of work, but I did get the impression that he was good at picking appealing titles for his movies: LADY BODYGUARD, THE CASE OF THE STUTTERING BISHOP, SHE COULDN'T SAY NO and THE FALCON AND THE CO-EDS, to name a few.

The information for the screenwriter was similarly unilluminating. So turning to the actors, I looked up Bonita Granville who plays the eponymous character. I was initially disheartened to see that her final filmed performance was as the uncredited role of 'Woman' in 1981's THE LEGEND OF THE LONE RANGER. But further investigation revealed that she'd been nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar just two years before NANCY DREW... REPORTER.

Slightly cheered by this information, I placed the DVD into the player, settled down on the loveseat and pressed 'play'. 

It was only a few minutes in this movie featuring teenagers of an indeterminate age when I realized that this was indeed going to be silly enough to be enjoyable. During a high speed chase sequence in front of an obvious rear-projection, Nancy spends as much time concentrating on the road as she does holding onto her hat.

The story concerns Nancy Drew becoming a reporter, as you no doubt have already guessed from the title. The editor of the local newspaper has been talked into allowing a group of young people (each one with a massive floppy hat) to work for an unpaid stint of three days. Whoever has written the best story at the end of the time will get a fifty dollar prize and a gold medal (although no promise is made of the article actually getting published). Nancy doesn't have the biggest or the floppiest 1930s hat, but she's a young and plucky determined kid. So she ditches her cheesy human interest assignment and shows up at an inquest.

After the results of the autopsy are broadcast, Nancy is the victim of a seemingly unconnected hit-and-run accident. The conclusion of the subsequent chase sequence is the film's most shocking moment, in which it is revealed that fixing a broken bumper will set Nancy back three dollars and fifty cents.

At this point, we meet the three other main-ish characters: Ted Nickerson, her amiable, but dopey platonic boyfriend; Mary Nickerson, Ted's kid sister; and a child allegedly named Killer Parkins who is Mary's partner-in-crime (presumably his parents named him during Prohibition when they thought a henchman's life would be something positive that their baby could grow into). I should admit now that I'm not extremely well versed in the Nancy Drew mythos so I'm not sure if these characters are from the books or are original to the film. Further, I'm not sure if it really matters.

Also, I should take the opportunity to mention that because of the era's hair and clothing styles, all the kids look like they're in their early thirties including the children who are clearing counting their years in the single digits. (This can be simultaneously humorous and creepy -- case in point, the scene where Nancy's father joyfully wrestles his daughter into bed.) The hairstyles are so full that in one scene Nancy Drew successfully smuggles a 1930s camera into a jail in her hair.

The rest of the movie is full of the pleasant silliness one would expect from a teen-oriented mystery movie of the era. There are dumb police officers, slow-talking heavies, blond molls and clueless adults. At one point Nancy accidentally sends her hapless boyfriend into the ring with a professional boxer. Later, Nancy, Ted and the two troublemaking kids are forced to sing for their dinner when they run short of funds (for some reason, a Chinese restaurant cheerfully accepts the customers singing jazzed-up nursery rhymes in lieu of cash). There's even a police officer in drag, which had me scrambling back to the Internet Movie Database to fruitlessly search for a young Ed Wood in the credits.

If you're in a frivolous enough mood, then this is a decent, enjoyable film. The thing to keep in mind is that it's very much of its time. I'd recommend it if you enjoy eager, non-mentally taxing movies of this style and from this era. On the other hand, if this description has you rolling your eyes in annoyance, then just stay away.

Thrill Seekers (1999)

Thrill Seekers
Starring: Casper van Dien, Catherine Bell, and -- as (only) seen on TV -- Martin Sheen
Director: Mario Azzopardi
Writer(s): Kurt Inderbitzin & Gay Walch 
Genre: Sci-Fi, Action
Year: 1999
My rating: 

The cover of my copy of THRILL SEEKERS features the title in a appropriately scary font. Directly above it appear the words: "Your passport to danger." But the picture the DVD company chose to use was one of a bored-looking Casper Van Dien taking a phone-call. Perhaps this is not quite conveying the thrill that the filmmakers were seeking.

Actually, despite the dull cover, THRILL SEEKERS is actually a decent little made-for-TV movie. The story is predictable, but fun. The actors do a decent job. And the direction is of a slightly higher caliber than one would reasonably expect.

Casper Van Dien stars as a former hot shot TV reporter who is now reduced to working for a World News Weekly style tabloid. While researching a story about famous historical disasters (the Titanic, the Hindenburg, etc), he happens to notice the same man appearing in different file photographs who looks exactly the same regardless of how many decades separate the events (the revamped Doctor Who would -- six years later -- use the same plot point and the same bad Photoshop technology).

Taking this knowledge with him on a flight to D.C., Van Dien is rather disturbed to see the same man sitting across the aisle. Putting two and two together and managing to avoid a horrific air-disaster, he finds himself on the run from a pair of threats. One is the law enforcement of his own time who aren't quite buying his explanation of "Sorry, officer, I had to hijack the plane in order to save it." The second is from two assassins of the future whose very existence depends on Van Dien not using his new-found knowledge to alter their timeline.

Along the way, he teams up with the tabloid's chief archivist, Catherine Bell, who I was most familiar with from her role as the woman in the uniform on that show about fighter jets and courtrooms. Martin Sheen also has a part to play in Earth's apocalypse. Literally videophoning-in his performance, he is an angry CEO from the future seen only on a small screen barking technobabble at his time agents.

I will complain about a certain plot point which is all too common in these types of time travel movies. If the plot involves changing history and then you kill off one of the main characters, I am not going to be especially surprised if somehow the dead person gets brought back to life. Stop trying to shock me like this. The bigger surprise would be if you killed off the person, and then left them dead. 

I find myself with not much to say about THRILL SEEKERS. It's predictable, the production values reflect its made-for-TV status, and it takes itself a little too seriously. But I sort of liked it. The pacing is good -- swift enough that you don't really notice any of the story oddities. Some of what I enjoyed I'm hesitant to describe for fear of providing spoilers, but it's a diverting enough way to spend an hour and a half.

Row Your Boat (2000)

Row Your Boat
Starring: Jon Bon Jovi, Ling Bai, William Forsythe, Jill Hennessy
Director: Sollace Mitchell
Writer: Sollace Mitchell
Genre: Drama, Crime, Romance
Year: 2000
My rating: 

When looking at the cast list for this film, I originally intended to construct my review entirely from lyrics of Jon Bon Jovi songs. Unfortunately, it turns out that I don't know any Jon Bon Jovi lyrics. But I suspect that even if I did, no one reading this would recognize them anyway.

In any event, in ROW YOUR BOAT Jon Bon Jovi plays a guy recently released from prison. He isn't quite ready for the path to the straight and narrow in the newly found freedom he has in New York City. His hobbies include breaking into people's apartments, drinking their wine, stealing their peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and then jumping out the fire escape when the owners come home.

However, a chance encounter with his brother pushes him towards improving his lot in life. You see, the brother he went to prison to protect is still mixed up in crime and Mr. Jovi resolves not to follow in those footsteps. Exactly what kind of crimes his brother commits are left a little vague. His antics include breaking into empty Chinese restaurants at night, having a crummy apartment full of boxes and boxes of CD players, and getting pushed around by an Asian gangster with bleached hair. (The Asian gangster, incidentally is named Tony Lo Fat. Which I presume is what you get when you put a Soprano on a diet.)

While sleeping in a homeless shelter, he happens along a US Census official, and gets the bright idea of working for that government department. In one of the movie's unintentionally fun moments, the frustrated and over-worked federal employee is played by Thomas Lennon – better known as the cop in the really small shorts in RENO 911.

So Jovi begins his life as a census-taker, which puts him in all manner of apparently funny situations. At one point, he is forced to shout "No, I'm not crack-head! I work for the United States government!" at people who refuse to take his clipboard seriously.

Eventually, his job causes him to cross paths with the Chinese immigrant (played by Ling Bai) he will be forced to share awkward and unwieldy romantic dialog with for the rest of the movie. Yes, apparently, not only will censor-takers count the number of baths and bedrooms you have, they'll also scope you out and presumably take their research back to the big babe-o-meter database back in Washington, DC where they and their decedents will plan generations of inappropriate questioning. 

Now, to understand the next bit, you must realize that ROW YOUR BOAT is the kind of romantic movie set in a world very similar to, but ultimately completely different to our Earth. Using his job, he gains access to her house. His position allows him to as Bai all kinds of personal questions (none of which are on the official forms, of course). Using his creepily-gotten information, he then sets himself up as an English teacher (something he has zero experience with) and offers to give her lessons in linguistics for virtually no money.

Is this behavior charming? Well, apparently it is in movie land. However, I suspect that the kind of guy who does this sort of thing in real life will one day find himself in a model home full of hidden cameras with Chris Hanson asking him if he wouldn't mind explaining himself.

I digress, but the rest of the film is relatively ordinary anyway. The main sources of conflict are between Jovi and his brother and also between Bai and her husband. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention above that Jovi is pulling this stuff on a married woman. I suppose the fact that it's an unhappy marriage to a high ranking member of the Chinese Communist Party gives Jovi a free license to creep.

The film is slightly difficult to watch in places. I'm honestly not sure if the Digiview Productions version of the disc is edited for content, or the director had a dose of narcolepsy in the editing room. Scenes (particularly in the first half of the film) tend to jerk around randomly. In one notable portion, it's unclear whether a shoving match takes place inside or outside.

This odd editing is representative of the film as a whole, particularly the script. This leaves the actors with very little to work with. Jill Hennessy has nothing to do as the girlfriend of Jovi's brother. We can't seem to figure out whether the gangster bother is really playing in the big leagues or not (or just in over his head in a very small racket). By the end of the movie, Jovi and Bai actually display some romantic chemistry, but the script has no idea what to do with it.

ROW YOUR BOAT is pretty much a waste of time. The romance is unsure of itself. The gangster scenes are never as tough or gritty as they need to be. The film as a whole seems to take itself much more seriously than it has any business doing. While it's sometimes funny to watch a high-flying movie take a flop, I had very little fun with this train wreck. 

(On a personal note, I'd like to extend my condolences to the career of William Forsythe. This is how he is mentioned on the back cover of the DVD: "[...] his brother, played by William Forsythe (DICK TRACY, THE ROCK, DEUCE BIGALOW: MALE GIGALO) [...]" Can you imagine how you'd feel if that was your career trajectory?)

The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961)

The Beast of Yucca Flats
Starring: Tor Johnson, Douglas Mellor, Bing Stafford
Director: Coleman Francis 
Writer: Coleman Francis
Genre: Sci-Fi/Horror
Year: 1961
My rating: 

I am somewhat proud of the fact that I am so familiar with the works of Coleman Francis that even watching this for the first time, I was very easily able to spot Francis and producer Anthony Cardoza in their (multiple) cameo appearances. I'm also tickled that I was able to spot the guy who played "Cherokee Jack" in RED ZONE CUBA without even trying. This may not get me into Mensa, but gives me a warm sensation on this cold spring day in all the parts of my mind and body that crave bad moviemaking.

This film runs for two and fifty minutes. It has just about enough plot for the two, but the fifty is left oddly hanging. It's difficult to believe that a film that's eight minutes short of an hour could feel like a lifetime, but believe me it does. 

The story is about Tor Johnson (PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and THE UNEARTHLY) as a defecting Soviet scientist. This bit of casting is probably the film's first mistake. If you're going to have someone believable as an intelligent, reputable man of science, it would perhaps be better to stay away from the Swedish ex-wrestlers. 

In any event, the scientist heads towards the Yucca Flats nuclear testing grounds. On route, he is attacked by Soviet agents (look, it's Tony Cardoza!) who want to kill Tor and destroy the information he carries. Tor escapes their gunfire simply by walking very quickly away from them. Unfortunately, he wanders onto the proving grounds themselves and is hit by a nuclear bomb. Rather than blasting him into his component atoms, the effect is merely to turn this notable scientist into the eponymous Beast.

The Beast now has an unquenchable appetite for death. To satisfy his cravings he begins a killing spree out on the wastelands. This is not, it must be noted, the most efficient location for a killing spree. Fortunately for Tor -- thanks to movie logic -- the abandoned wastelands seem to have a fair number of great fools willing to go into them and be knocked over by Tor.

"Flag on the moon," intones the narrator. "How did it get there?" How indeed. The film's narration is littered with these apparent non sequiturs (the previous question arrives unannounced in the middle of a car chase sequence). The narrator is by far the most entertaining portion of this film, interrupting the action with bad poetry about human progress related in a bland monotone. 

Sounds like a fun, cheesy sci-fi/horror film right? 

Well, if you haven't seen it, it would be difficult for you to believe exactly how mind-numbingly dull this film is. It's less than an hour, but during my second viewing I kept finding excuses to walk about of the room. The problem is that there isn't enough action in it. Tor Johnson needed to do more killing. Almost all of the film seems to involve either two police officers wandering around the wasteland looking for Tor or two young boys blinding stumbling around the location shoot. Tor's is the slowest rampage you'll ever in your life see.

I find myself rendered mentally immobile enough after two viewings to have much of anything left to say. The dialog is stilted. The direction is dizzying in its utter lack of a breakneck pace. The plot -- as I indicated -- would have trouble fleshing out a two minute trailer. I would almost recommend this as a way of turning an ordinary metal and plastic television set into something that most humans cannot bear to look at for more than a few minutes at a time. This is definitely a film that only a bad movie lover could endure, but even with previous bad movie experience, you should approach this one with caution.

One-Eyed Jacks (1961)

One-Eyed Jacks
Starring: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Slim Pickens
Director: Marlon Brando
Writers: Charles Neider (novel), Guy Trosper, Calder Willingham
Genre: Western
Year: 1961
My rating: 

The story behind ONE-EYED JACKS appears to have been almost as interesting as the plot which unfolds on the screen. Rod "The Twilight Zone" Serling wrote a rejected treatment of the book this film was based on. The original director attached to the project was none other than a young Stanley Kubrick. Eventually, the star and director ended up being the same person -- Marlon Brando. The film reunited him with co-star Karl Malden; the pair having had worked together before in the classic ON THE WATERFRONT.

So dark is this story, that even Slim Pickens is playing a manipulative bastard with few redeeming characteristics. ONE-EYED JACKS is basically a story of betrayal -- a topic it explores right from the film's opening set piece. Trapped, and with only one person able to escape, Karl Malden's character promises to seek help quickly and return to save Marlon Brando from the law. Instead he takes their stolen loot and makes a run for it.

Brando spends the next five years in prison because of this and most of that time he broods over his betrayal at the hands of a man he nicknamed "Dad". No doubt the fact that Brando himself manipulated the game of chance which sent Malden off as the one to find help ate away at him. Once escaping prison, he quickly meets up with another band of outlaws. But their plans of more bank heists are secondary. Brando is more interested in revenge. He quickly catches up with Malden, but instead of exacting his vengeance quickly, he picks a more protracted method. Favoring to pretend there are no hard feelings, he bides his time in order to heighten his former partner's suffering.

It's almost wearying to watch this unfold. Brando cheerfully proclaims that he bears no malice, but covertly plans his revenge. Malden swears he trusts Brando, but has machinations of his own. The audience must simply watch as these two men get deeper and deeper into their own games.

What's delicious about this movie is that you can connect a line between every individual character and each person they encounter. And almost every single one of those lines draws a deceitful relationship. Brando deceives Malden, Malden's daughter and every woman he meets. Malden lies to Brando and his own family. Malden's daughter hides the truth from her father. Slim Pickens tries double crossing everyone he meets. It's dizzying to keep up with what the actual reality of the film is.

As far as revenge films goes, this is good, but not great. The vengeance is interesting to watch from the point of view of the audience, yet it's not quite as engaging as it could have been. I felt simultaneously intrigued and removed from the action.

Where the film does get a boost though is from the performances of the two stars. This shouldn't be a surprise. Even in places where the script drags, watching Malden and Brando as they plot and scheme with each other while also trying to figure out the other guy's motivation is always fun.

The Digiview Productions edition of this film is presented in widescreen. The picture and sound quality are more than adequate, although they could definitely benefit from some digital cleanup.

If you like movies where the only characters with redeeming qualities are given less than half a dozen lines each, then ONE EYED JACKS should be right up your alley. But you might want to draw a flow-chart while watching so that you can keep track of everyone's ulterior motives.

Heaven's Fire (1999)

Heaven's Fire
Starring: Eric Roberts, Jürgen Prochnow
Director: David Warry-Smith
Writers: Rob Kerchner, Charles Philip Moore 
Genre: Action
Year: 1999
My rating: 

If Dave Matthews tried to teach us that the afterlife is a nice house with central heating, then HEAVEN'S FIRE would have us believe that heaven is a large Federal building in Seattle, Washington.

The plot of HEAVEN'S FIRE is slight, even for an action movie. A gang of nasty scallywags have decided to hijack a helicopter, land on the roof of a United States Treasury building and steal a set of metal plates used for printing money. They didn't count on two things. The first thing they didn't anticipate was their helicopter crashing and setting the building on fire. The also didn't count on Eric Roberts who happens to be present during the heist and who also happens to be a former Federal agent. 

The band of outlaws is led by Jürgen "Waiter, I'd like my proch now" Prochnow. He's German, which means that his accent sounds really cool when delivering his bad-guy action movie catch phrases, but is almost indecipherable when attempting actual exposition. This isn't much of a problem though, as one should be able to follow the story even with the sound turned down to zero.

Of course, every story of good vs. evil needs its group of utterly helpless innocent bystanders. In this case, it's a tour group that was visiting the Treasury when the armed robbery began. Once the helicopter crashes into the side of the building, the easily panicked, multi-ethnic group morphs into the cast of THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE who must be led floor-by-floor away from the various dangers.

Rounding out the cast is Eric Roberts' girlfriend who is the leader of the tour group. She has a daughter from a previous marriage, and Eric Roberts has a son. He's a moody, introspective loner. She's an all-American Valley girl. Can these two people share an action movie without driving each other crazy?

Maintaining the connection to the outside world is the standard action movie Useless Authority Figure. In this case, it's someone very high up in the Treasure Department who bullies his way into being in charge of disaster recovery (you can make your own FEMA jokes here). In my mind, I deleted this actor and replaced him with Alan Greenspan. To demonstrate his stupidity, his first scene features his asking if the two fires burning independently in different parts of the skyscraper will cancel out each other. 

So there you have it. Burning building. Good guy. Bad guys. Cannon fodder.

This is all standard stuff for a cheesy action movie. But this actually is a good cheesy action movie. It's entertaining. It's fun. It's good harmless escapism. It's exciting when it needs to be. The dialog is just goofy and silly enough to be enjoyable.

It must be said that the film is extremely predictable (apart from one genuinely good twist near the end), but this is where the film's short running time (80 minutes) comes to its rescue. The pacing is pretty good. No scene outlasts its welcome and the action keeps going to prevent the story from becoming stagnant. 

Of course, the film can't escape the fact that it's a relatively low budget affair. Take, for example, the scene where the civilians are trapped in a stairwell which is slowly collapsing. Eric Roberts' son has an entire flight of concrete stairs fall on his head. This results in a small cut on his forehead and minor bleeding. I laughed. And I give the film credit for this, because at the end of the day, I don't care if I'm laughing with or at a movie. If I'm entertained, I'm happy.

Stanley (1972)

Stanley
Starring: Chris Robinson, Alex Rocco, Steve Alaimo
Director: William Grefe
Writers: William Grefe, Gary Crutcher 
Genre: Horror
Year: 1972
My rating: 

STANLEY is one of the more repugnant films I've seen a long time. What the producers lacked in technical prowess, they more than match in their ability to create utterly loathsome and unappealing characters. I didn't like this film from the beginning, but the longer it went on, the more I was appalled that anyone would think this was a story worth telling or that it featured characters worth sharing. There is very little to recommend about this film.

The plot is very thin. Tim Ochopee is a Native American recently back from army service in Vietnam. The experience has left him a broken man, shunning all human contact (including the Indian tribe he formerly lived with) and existing purely to improve the lives of the local snake life, his only friends in the world. As the film progresses the snakes become his hit men, taking the lives of all the people he perceives have wronged him in the past.

One of the movie's moral lessons is that where the white man goes, he brings nothing but pain and misery. It is difficult to argue against this when one realizes that the white man created the film industry which in turn produced the film STANLEY. Of course -- to be fair -- the black man is not exactly given the most flattering portrayal either. Nor does the Indian come across very well all things considered. In fact, watching this film makes one feel a little worse about all of humanity. I myself felt a little less than civilized after sitting through this, and I hadn't even been born when the movie was first released.

Tim has many snakes living in cages in his shack. His favorite snake is named Stanley (presumably for the sole purpose of allowing the graphics department use a cartoon snake to represent the "S" in the film's title card). He takes his snakes on field trips to seedy nightclubs where the two of them watch a particular stripper who dances with a snake. I get the impression that Tim was checking out the lady's snake, while his snake was checking out the stripper.

An odd subplot involves the use of the snakes in the strip act mentioned above. The manager of the shady strip club is convinced that an animal-cruelty stunt will be a great boon for business. Apparently he is unaware that he is the manager of a shady strip club and that no one cares about snakes. At least, not the two-eyed snakes on the stage.

The costume department presumably intended to make everyone look absolutely up-to-date and modern, and consequently everyone looks incredibly 70s. Everyone seems to be wearing their shirts unbuttoned to their navels, have gaudy gold medallions around their necks and have been poured into their hideously colored bell-bottoms.

Now, reading the description, one may wonder why I was so averse to this film. It certainly sounds like cheesy fun. Low budget filmmaking, bad 1970s fashion, snakes visiting strip clubs. But trust me, there's little fun to be had. The problem is not merely that the plot is paper thin, uninspired and predictable. It's also that everyone in this film is particularly and overwhelmingly loathsome. 

And I don't mean the people are merely "bad guys". Movie bad guys can be perfectly watchable, entertaining and enjoyable. Think of the questionable morality of the characters played by Lee van Cleef, Malcolm McDowell or Vincent Price; you want to watch them, not because they're "good", but because they're interesting. Yet the characters here are utterly lacking in charisma, they're purposelessly sadistic and are fundamentally banal.

You can't even cheer their bad behavior, because it's virtually impossible to feel any sympathy for their point of view. Take the scene where the protagonist brutally kills two heavies. Up until this point in the film, the pair have been portrayed entirely as stock comic relief characters. Yes, they try to capture some snakes for nefarious purposes, but they're played as total incompetents. For example, one of their raids ends in disaster as one one guy gets bitten on the backside and cannot sit down on his ride to the hospital. And we go from this to a sequence where the two slowly and painfully drown in quicksand while Tim throws a poisonous snake on them. It as disconcerting as it would be to watch the Road Runner submitting Wile E. Coyote to waterboarding, or Bugs Bunny violently ripping out Elmer Fudd's fingernails. 

By about the halfway point, I started wishing the venomous snakes would immediately bite every character so I wouldn't have to look at them anymore. While I eventually got most of my wish, the film took way too long to kill off its unpleasant cast. I usually watch these films twice before writing a review, but this time I decided I wasn't going to do that to myself. I can't recommend this film to anyone but the snakes in the audience who wish to assert their moral and artistic superiority over bonehead human film producers. And I cannot at the moment say I disagree with the snakes.

The Snake People (1971)

The Snake People (a.k.a. Isle of the Snake People, a.k.a. Isle of the Living Dead, a.k.a. La Muerte Viviente)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Julissa, Ralph Bertrand, Tongolele
Directors: Juan Ibáñez, Jack Hill
Writers: Jack Hill (screenplay), Juan Ibáñez, Luis Enrique Vergara 
Genre: Horror
Year: 1971
My rating: 

I have no idea what THE SNAKE PEOPLE was all about and I suspect no one involved with the production knew either. Least of all was probably poor old Boris Karloff who made this film very near the end of his life. While the large majority of the film was shot in Mexico (in a neat reversal for anyone who has seen Charlton Heston in TOUCH OF EVIL, here several Mexican actors and actresses are playing Caucasians), Karloff never left a sound stage in California. As disjointed as it sounds for a movie to take place with its star far removed from his surroundings and his co-stars, even the non-Karloff scenes add up to a lot of nothing. I've seen many low budget films, but it really is rare to see one that so blatantly throws random images and sequences upon the screen with so little regard for order, logic or reason.

For starters, let's take the opening scene. A witch doctor and what I assume to be his follower are performing a voodoo ceremony. The witch doctor is a dwarf. He's wearing a very neat, black suit jacket, a blue Hawaiian shirt, a black top hat, white opera gloves and some seriously nice bling around his neck. He wears his sunglasses at night. He raises a woman from the dead. Costuming aside, it's a fairly standard scene for a voodoo movie. Except that there is no context here, nor does the film ever reveal any. Why does the witch doctor affect a James Bond villain style cackle throughout the entire ceremony? Why does he start sobbing and rubbing his companion's hand across his face?

My guess is that the only reason this film has even the relatively low status associated with a One Dollar DVD release is the inclusion of Boris Karloff. As noted above, he is far removed from the action. Even before I consulted the Internet, one could tell that Karloff was not a well man when he made this. Not only was he not able to travel to Mexico for filming, most of the scenes he is in feature him sitting down. When he does stand it is with use of a cane, and his only relatively strenuous sequence requires that he lean heavily on a table. It's actually depressing, especially if one is used to seeing a younger, more robust Karloff holding his own with various monsters and heroes.

In the scenes where Karloff would have to interact with his fellow cast members in Mexico, the character helpfully dons a black, face-covering ski-mask and sunglasses. But don't worry, he'll still be smoking his cigar, so you won't miss that it's him. Although actually the double looks more like Groucho Marx ready to hold up a liquor store than he resembles Boris Karloff. I couldn't help but whistle "Hooray For Captain Spaulding" whenever he appeared.

The story begins with Karloff's niece coming to visit him on the remote Pacific island where he makes his home. The niece is an rabid prohibitionist and is hoping her uncle will support the organization to which she belongs. What actual support he could provide from his remote bachelor pad/island is not obvious. Of course, once she catches up with Karloff all thoughts of continuing the cause are forgotten (apart from a few scenes where she lightly admonishes her love interest's drinking habits). 

Naturally, this being a remote colonial island, there are all manner of cultists and so forth. Now here is where the story begins breaking down. The island contains a voodoo cult, a roaming gang of cannibal woman (who hide in the shadows and suddenly leap out at their victims and eat them raw) and a religion of people where somehow snakes are involved in their ceremonies. I paid close attention both times I watched this film, and I'm still not sure what all these groups have to do with each other. The snake people are killing folks with snake venom. The voodoo people are raising them up again. And the cannibal woman are eating the living. I'm not sure how they are related. Are they all the snake people of the title? Are the voodoo people and cannibals merely a subset of the snake people? Are they allies? The cannibal women seem completely on their own, and I simply could not work out the relationship these groups had. I suspect the cannibal woman escaped from some other movie set and spent their time running in and out of the shooting script for this film.

The niece isn't the only newcomer to the island. The land is a French possession, and a French captain of police has arrived in order to suppress the local witchcraft because of concerns on "the mainland". The movie is very vague on its moral message. It jumps repeatedly back and forth between arguing that the Europeans shouldn't be interfering in other people's religions and saying that the natives' religion is nuttier than squirrel poop and of course it should be stopped.

I had a very difficult time tying enough of the plot strands together to present it to you in a coherent fashion. Then I figured that if the producers didn't care, then I won't either. I'll simply list some of the more notable sub-plots:

1. Karloff and his maid are doing some sort of experimentation in telekinesis and pyrokinesis. He claims that moving small mirrors on a table and the ability to light grass on fire will rid the world of disease, war and even death. Good luck with all that. As you may imagine, the experimentation/scientific aspect of this disappears after its initial scene. I have no idea if this plot point is something he learned from the voodoo people, the snake people or the cannibal people. (See above. Maybe Karloff acquired it from all three.)

2. A random filthy white guy on the island attempts dancing with -- and later seducing -- a reanimated female corpse. This is just as icky as it sounds. I can't figure out who this guy is supposed to be. He's shown in one scene to be a Karloff's friend, but there's no explanation as to what he's doing. Is he a fellow scientist? Was he shipwrecked? Is he a traveler? Is he a witch doctor? Is he a voodoo practitioner? Apart from admiring his panama hat, I could find no purpose for his inclusion in the film.

3. Karloff's maid (who looks shockingly like Fergie from The Black Eyed Peas) keeps belly-dancing with a snake. I'm sure this is supposed to demonstrate something about the snake people's religion, but I have no idea what that could be.

4. If you thought the "belly-dancing with a snake" line above was just overflowing with tawdry innuendo, then wait until you get a load of the niece's dream sequence. All I say is that she dreams that there are two of her and one keeps putting a snake in her mouth.

That disparate list should give you some idea of the mental gymnastics your brain will have to undergo to follow the story. And it's a good indication of what the movie feels like as a whole. Not only are random plot points brought up and immediately thrown away, on the visual side, images and shots are handled the same way, with apparently random pictures being indiscriminately hurled at the viewer. The niece's dream sequence is typical. Apart from being loaded with strange sexual imagery and cheap camera tricks (apparently, if you stop film, you can make people blink in and out of existence!), what is the point of it? It doesn't seem to reference any other part of the film. It doesn't affect the way she acts afterwards. It's random imagery for the sake of random imagery.

Now all that being said, I can't say I didn't like it. Usually I get annoyed when a director or writer throws me ninety minutes of surrealism because he finds coherency too hard. But for some reason I found this vaguely appealing. I'm sure most of this sprung from the fact that I was staring at the screen with my jaw in my lap unable to believe that anyone thought they could get away with this. The movie is relatively coherent through the first third, but it was about at that point that I mentally pictured the director throwing his hands in the air and deciding that anything goes ("We have footage of snakes popping in and out of existence on a coat rack? Yeah, let's go with that!"). I have to admire the sheer audacity involved.

I feel that I have somewhat cheated in this review by simply relating things that occurred and following that by saying that I didn't understand what it was about. But at least I'm being honest. Most of this film simply defies rationality. I dare anyone to watch this film and not be entertained by the sheer randomness of the experience. Although I should warn anyone squeamish that I think the filmmakers really did chop the head off of a live chicken in the opening scene. Viewer beware.