Re: Recently Watched Movies
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:48 am
by Jigsaw
First-time views are bolded.
The Cat and the Canary (1927)
A classic of silent cinema for a reason, The Cat and the Canary is a wonderfully-made dark house horror-comedy mix that stands up to this day.
Directed by Paul Leni (Waxworks, The Man Who Laughs, and The Last Warning being his greatest additions to horror besides this), The Cat and the Canary is a very well-done and atmospheric movie, which certainly feels as though it possesses the artistic flair of Leni's previous Waxworks. The comedy isn't too pervasive (though one gag does run a little long), and it's even moderately welcomed at times (the line "I thought I had an appointment, now I'm sure of it" still got a kick out of me).
This silent flick has a lot of flair to it. The inter-titles are cleverly used to indicate mood (shaky text when one is scared, all caps when someone shouts, etc.), and the setting of an old, dark mansion was fun. As was the plot - who doesn't like a good will-reading old, dark house mystery, and a killer known as The Cat? Toward the end, when everyone was running around doing their own things, it's amazing how much action a silent movie was able to emulate. And I do mean silent. The print I happened to see this time around had no score, but unlike most silent films, that didn't really seem to take anything away from the movie. It was still suspenseful when suspense was called for, so it worked out well.
The cast was pretty solid throughout. Laura La Plante (who is also in Leni's 1929 The Last Warning) did fantastic as the main woman, who everyone thought was going insane. Creighton Hale (who starred also in Seven Footprints to Satan, 1929), who started off a comic relief character, slowly became the hero of the film, and held his own against the killer toward the end of the movie is a show of bravery. Though Tully Marshall wasn't onscreen for that long a period of time, he also stood out positively.
Martha Mattox, who played a grim housekeeper to great effect, was another solid performance. Mattox, coincidentally, appeared in a couple of early 30's films I really liked (Murder by the Clock from 1931 and The Monster Walks from 1932) before her early death at 53 in 1933. George Siegmann, like Marshall, only appeared a handful of times, but was also pretty solid. Siegmann, like many of the others I've mentioned, has a history with silent horror, not only appearing in Leni's next movie, The Man Who Laughs from 1928, but also appeared back in 1914's The Avenging Conscience (which has been previously review). As it turns out, Siegmann died in 1928, so The Man Who Laughs would be his final movie.
Lastly, playing a seemingly-sinister doctor, Lucien Littlefield did fantastic. Unfortunately, he only appears toward the tail-end of the film, but it's still solid enough to stand out.
The Cat and the Canary is a silent horror flick with style, and while I admit I didn't care for it much the first time I saw it (many years ago, when I was something like 14 or 15), it certainly comes across a far more enjoyable movie now, and is a highlight of the 1920's. 8.5/10.
Satan's School for Girls (2000)
This television movie is a remake of a 1973 television movie of the same name. In fact, the Dean of the college in this movie is played by Kate Jackson, who played a girl in the original version. I'm suspecting, by-and-large, that the only reason they chose to remake a Satanic 70's television movie was due to the moderate recent success of The Craft (which came out in 1996). I've not seen the 70's movie myself, so I can't compare them, but I can attest to my feelings that this one is sort of fun.
Now, make no mistake - this is not a good movie. But perhaps due to the lower-quality (if you've seen one early 2000's television movie, you know what I'm talking about), or the utterly silliness of some of the special effects (wolves turning into humans, killer lightning bolts striking and lighting girls on fire, and crows/ravens with glowing red eyes), I found that Satan's School for Girls has some charm.
The cast was okay for a television production. Shannen Doherty did fine as the main character, I guess. I sort of got the sense her heart wasn't in the movie, but given what the movie is, I think that is moderately forgivable. Daniel Cosgrove (who has appeared frequently in soap operas in the past) played his character a bit generically, but still had a surprise up his sleeves. The aforementioned Kate Jackson did decently well until the end, when she had to deliver some rather cheesy dialogue during the *cue dramatic music* ultimate showdown.
Perhaps my favorite actor was Richard Joseph Paul, who played a sleazy college professor. I mean, this guy dated multiple students (in an all-girl school), and more so, did it openly. He would literally go to parties the students throw and show up with his student squeeze, not even trying to hide it. Paul's character was a hoot and a half, and if you watch this movie, keep your eye on him, because he's good fun.
Many aspects of this movie aren't great. The music is exceptionally weak, the special effects were horrendous (as you'd expect from most TV movies), and very little suspense is ever really felt. Still, though I've seen this movie before (I suspect it's been at least ten years), a few things caught me pleasantly by surprise, and a twist or two took me for a ride. Nothing spectacular, but when I finally figured out where the movie was going (a testament to how much I remembered about it), I thought to myself, "Damn, that's cool."
This remake is a goofy, cheesy movie. The epilogue was laugh-your-ass-off awful. But it still had some charm to it, so while I definitely think it's a bit below average, I do think it's close. Satan's School for Girls is far from perfect, but damn it, I still had fun. Take that to the bank. 6.5/10.
The Man Who Laughs (1928)
Directed by Paul Leni, The Man Who Laughs is a masterfully moody, occasionally tragic, piece of melodrama, with a few spices of horror thrown in.
The historical nature of the plot did the movie well, as the set pieces and costumes all looked rather authentic. The brooding nature of the story was well-done too, helped by the score, which, while not perfect, felt as though it could have been the score when first this movie came out, ninety years ago.
It's the actors who should get the most accolades, though; Conrad Veidt, Mary Philbin, Brandon Hurst, Cesare Gravina, and George Siegmann all make this movie a film well worth watching.
Veidt, by this point, may need no introduction. He was in a plethora of silent horror classics, including Furcht (or Fear, from 1917), Unheimliche Geschichten (Eerie Tales, 1919), Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 1920), Orlacs Hande (The Hands of Orlac, 1924), Das Wachsfigurenkabinett (Waxworks, 1924), Der Student von Prag (The Student of Prague, 1926), and The Last Performance (from 1929). That's not even counting the unfortunately-lost Der Januskopf (The Head of Janus, 1920), which was an unauthorized version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (much like Nosferatu was to Dracula).
Conrad Veidt got around, and it's clear, from this movie, to see how. He possessed an extraordinarily emotional range, and his character, the tragic figure of Gwynplaine, was very well-acted. Throughout the film, Veidt's performance is truly a treat to watch.
Philbin wasn't in all that many films, but she did co-star in the 1925 Phantom of the Opera, with Lon Chaney, and again, with Veidt, in the 1929 The Last Performance. Here, she plays a beautiful blind woman, named Dea, who is deeply in love with Gwynplaine, despite never having seen his disfigured face. Playing her role convincingly, Philbin stood out strong.
Brandon Hurst, who had small roles in various early horror flicks (such as 1932's Murders in the Rue Morgue, 1923's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, 1920's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and 1932's White Zombie) gets credit for playing one of the slimiest silent characters with his portrayal of Barkilphedro. Sinister, yet suave, Hurst did well in showing the sleaziness of his character throughout the whole of the film, and from his very first scene, you can't help but hold Barkilphedro in abhorrence.
Gravina isn't much known outside of this movie. He had a few uncredited roles in classics like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Phantom of the Opera (1923 and 1925), and mainly dabbled in early Italian shorts. Here, he doesn't get a whole lot of screen-time, but during one scene in particular, his performance broke my heart. Such sad, moving scene generally aren't what I'd expect from silent films, but that one just killed me.
Siegmann, who I spoke about also in my review for The Cat and the Canary, isn't that big a name insofar as horror is concerned, though he did appear in the 1909 short The Sealed Room and 1914's The Avenging Conscience. Here, he played Dr. Hardquanonne, a rather sadistic individual who disfigured Gwynplaine. I wish that he got more screen-time than he did, because like Hurst, he was a dark force to be reckoned with, but still, this being his final role before his early death, Siegmann did quite well.
The cast of this movie is amazing, and the film, as a whole, is an atmospheric, moody piece of art. While it would be unfair to call it a horror film in the purest definition, The Man Who Laughs is a dark classic, and while the ending is not nearly as tragic as one might expect, there are plenty of sad scenes throughout. I didn't really appreciate this when I first saw it, and even now, it makes a better drama film than a horror film, but even so, this Leni classic is one that any movie fan should look out for. 8.5/10.
Nightmare Sisters (1988)
This movie is wholly too goofy for me to get into. I'm not entirely averse to silly horror movies - when I saw Terror Toons (2002) perhaps five years back, I sort of liked it. But there's a line to how much I can take, and Nightmare Sisters went far, far past it.
There's some appeal to the movie, to be sure. Linnea Quigley's a big name in horror, for good reason, having appeared in such classics as Graduation Day (1981), Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984), The Return of the Living Dead (1985), and Night of the Demons (1988), and she's a treat to see. Some of the other actors/actresses were decent, such as Brinke Stevens (perhaps the most attractive of the three girls) and William Dristas.
But Nightmare Sisters went overboard with it's comedic style. The beginning fortune-teller portion overstays its welcome ("Hokey smokes, that's a lot of ashes," I admit, did get a slight chuckle), and then it takes something like fifty minutes until we're given something resembling suspense. The somewhat famous bubble bath scene was okay, but again, after a few minutes, it doesn't really add anything to the movie aside from more skin, which we really didn't need.
I first saw this October 2017 during the movie challenge, and I was looking forward to it. What exactly I was expecting, I'm not sure, but I was disappointed then, and with a second viewing, I'm disappointed still. It may be a piece of 80's cheese, but it's far too cheesy for me. 4/10.
The Devil's Candy (2015)
This is a simple, digestible, yet highly intense and enjoyable, horror flick.
Directed by Sean Byrne (his first full-length movie being 2009's The Loved Ones, another very solid movie), The Devil's Candy is pretty straight and to the point, with a moderately short run-time and not all that many characters to play around with. Luckily, this low-fi approach doesn't much hinder the movie, and in fact, makes the whole thing play out much more intense than I suspect it otherwise would have.
Music, be it heavy metal or deafening ambient, is used to fantastic effect throughout the film. Early on, the metal that daughter Zooey (played by Kiara Glasco) and her father, Jesse (Ethan Embry) bond over really humanizes them as characters, and who can't help but smile at the mother's (Shiri Appleby) amusement at the scene? It's a good way to introduce the main characters of the film, and I think it gives them strong characterization from the off-set. Heavy ambiance is used to additional fantastic effect, especially toward the end - a loud boom, a few seconds pause, another loud boom. That alone assisted in ratcheting up the intensity.
And make no mistake, this movie is intense. While not all that gory, The Devil's Candy certainly possesses a brutality to it, but also isn't afraid to throw in some subtle, uncomfortable scenes. Much of the success of this is due to the actor's fantastic performances.
Ethan Embry and Shiri Appleby both do a really good job, especially Embry during his more intense scenes when he's spaced out. While both are solid, though, despite not having played all that many noteworthy roles, the true stars are both Kiara Glasco and Pruitt Taylor Vince. Glasco has had some roles in a few television shows (Bitten and Copper, though I've seen neither one), and does amazingly here, as we feel her urgency and desperation toward the end. She's a lovable kid, her love of metal fun, and is a very memorable character. Glasco did very well with her portrayal. Vince is a known quantity, perhaps best known for his role in 2003's Identity, and here, he's appropriately creepy, menacing, and brutal.
What helps The Devil's Candy out the most is the solid cast, and because that cast does so well, what on the surface might seem a simple movie is really an intense ride from start to finish. Because it's a bit on the shorter side, nothing seems out of place or slow, and everything is paced well. Like I said, it's a digestible movie that deserves all the praise it can get. One of the best horror movies I've seen from the last five years or so. 9/10.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
I've seen this movie so many times, it's really hard to take a step back and look at the whole picture. Portions of this movie are really cool, and the special effects are amazing (Freddy popping out of Jesse's body, Freddy's melting face at the end, etc.), but the movie, as a final product, is rather nonsensical.
There were subplots that weren't really expanded on (such as why the house was hot, why things kept catching fire or exploding), elements of Freddy's abilities that weren't touched upon the previous movie, and the fact that almost all of Freddy's appearances toward the end seem to be in this reality, not a dream world, was left completely alone.
The movie is a mess. But as much a mess as it is, I still think it's fun and rather unique, which makes sense as it's probably the black sheep of the original series (the first film to Freddy's dead).
Despite having a bunch of no-name actors, I think things work out okay. Mark Patton, Kim Myers, Robert Rusler, Clu Gulager, and Marshall Bell are all pretty memorably characters (especially Bell, who dominated as a gay gym coach). The acting isn't great, and sure, sometimes Myers' got a bit much, but still, I think it worked. Robert Englund, of course, did well as Freddy.
Somewhat related, while it doesn't really make sense to me, I did like the whole poolside massacre sequence. Solid stuff, including one of my favorite lines of Freddy's, being, "You are all my children now." Again, it doesn't make sense, but it's a fun scene.
The original movie is a beloved classic, so any sequel would come as a disappointment, and given that this one is so far removed from the first, it hits this one even harder. And without a doubt, the third movie blows this one out of the water. But still, I've seen this movie multiple times, perhaps seven, eight times now, and Freddy's Revenge is fun. Wish they tried tightening the story, or doing more with Grady, or even touching more on what is obviously Jesse's battle with his sexuality, but still, it's a fun mess. And it's still better than the god-awful fifth movie. 7.5/10.
Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009)
I sort of wanted to like this movie, if for no other reason, to erase the taste of the first from my mouth. But while this movie had some pretty decent effects and disgustingly heavy gore, I felt extraordinarily lukewarm toward it as the credits began to roll.
Let's get the good out of the way, which won't take too long. I liked both Noah Segan and Alexi Wasser in their roles. I thought they played a cute couple, despite not really being a couple until perhaps the end. Neither one has been in much I've particularly seen, but they did well here with what they had. The idea behind the film, in which contaminated water spreads the skin-eating disease past the perimeters of the original, was fun. I just don't think it was executed well.
Lastly, the gore was moderately top-notch. There were too scenes that were frankly difficult to stomach (keywords being “fingernail” and “prick”), and though I felt repulsed, I can't deny those scenes efficacy. The problem is, I expected a bit more during the prom sequence. Sure, every other person was throwing up blood, but come on, that's it? No body parts falling off? No grisly face melts? It just felt toned down, which could probably be explained by the fact they hadn't been exposed to the disease long enough for those extreme effects to be seen, but even so, it was disappointing.
Also disappointing was the pretty unexciting first half of the movie. I don't mind a little high school drama, but come on, get to something good. Occasionally showing us the party cop from the first movie investing doesn't do it for me. And while we're at it, I was pretty disappointed in Giuseppe Andrews' story-line in the movie. I was hoping for some type of redemption from his actions in the first, but instead, he sort of goes nowhere.
Speaking of useless sequences, though, the final ten minutes, starting in the strip club, didn't strike me as necessary at all. What did we learn from that? The disease is spreading still? As if that was supposed to take us by surprise...
The animated beginning and ending was sort of interesting, but this movie didn't do much at all for me. I was hoping (though not seriously expecting) a more serious tone, but again, it wasn't to be. Did I enjoy Spring Fever more than the first movie? Probably, yes, but it's not by much, and much like the first movie, I really can't see myself deciding to give this one a re-watch for the enjoyment of it. 5/10.
The Last Warning (1929)
Much like Paul Leni's previous mystery/horror, The Cat and the Canary, The Last Warning takes a moderately cliché plot (even for the time) and dresses it up in a way that makes the movie a special and enjoyable treat.
While this film contains some comedic portions (just as The Cat and the Canary did), I feel it's noticeably toned down, and for most of the film, I think the plot's played pretty straight. Which is only a positive, as this mystery, boasting no less than something like ten potential suspects, has a lot of potential from the beginning, and too much comedy would bring it down. Luckily, that didn't happen.
The cast of this film is rather large, all the more to make the mystery identity of the killer more fun to figure out. It wasn't uncommon to see five, six, as much as ten or eleven, characters all in a single shot. Of course, trying to keep track of everyone throughout the film is close to impossible, but it still helped out the feeling of pandemonium, especially toward the end (during a deeply enjoyable chase sequence).
Laura La Plante (who also starred in The Cat and the Canary) didn't get as much screen-time as you might hope, but still played her character sympathetically (which, given how unlikable she was at the beginning, was sort of necessary). Her love interest, played by John Boles (who later appeared in Frankenstein), was quite competent in his role. As most of the cast members were. In fact, all of the follow actors and actresses stood out positively as their roles: Montagu Love, Margaret Livingston, Roy D'Arcy, Burr McIntosh, Mack Swain, Bert Roach, and Carrie Daumery. Perhaps, out of all these names, the true standouts are Love, Livingston, and McIntosh.
Perhaps one of the reasons I like this film as much as I do (when I first saw it years back, I was quite happy, and luckily this rewatch hasn't changed that) is because of the large amount of suspects. True, given the film is only an hour and 17 minutes, there's not enough time to flesh out every single character and potential motivation (which, while in theory would be welcomed, it more likely than not would come out dull), but still, it's the thought that counts. The mystery was fun, more fun than many old dark house flicks (since this film takes place in a dilapidated theater house, the setting made it even more unique), and certainly still comes across as strong.
The most common print for this movie is far from perfect, with a very scratchy feel, and general lack of great preservation, but at the same time, in this case, I think it helps give the movie additional character. It does help, though, that the score is mostly solid, without any real issues.
The Last Warning is a favorite of mine from the silent era, and sadly, I think it's mostly overlooked. The Cat and the Canary and Waxworks are both far more widely-known Leni films, and how many other silent flicks are more well-known than this one? From Nosferatu to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, from The Phantom of the Opera to The Bat, The Last Warning has sort of been overlooked (not as badly as 1926's Midnight Faces, sure, but The Last Warning is a Leni movie), which is a great shame. Leni died in 1929 due to blood poisoning, and did fantastic things for the genre, and his final movie is no less a great addition to horror. 8.5/10.
The Fog (1980)
John Carpenter's Halloween is a true classic, and one of my favorite horror flicks of all time. The Fog is not far behind.
An almost flawless movie, there's very little to gripe about when talking about The Fog. The score is fantastic, there's a plethora of great actors and actresses, you get a fun story, great visuals, and often a feeling of claustrophobic suspense.
It's amazing how well-done some of Carpenter's early horror work is (Halloween being his first horror movie, and The Fog being his third, the television film Someone's Watching Me! popping up between them). This film had an atmosphere to kill for, and the score ranks up there with the Halloween theme as one of the creepiest scores around.
Of course, the highest awards, as far as the cast goes, are awarded to Adrienne Barbeau, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Tom Atkins. Barbeau hadn't really done horror before this (she was in two television horror films, one being the aforementioned Someone's Watching Me! and the other being The Darker Side of Terror), but she does wonderfully here. Her silky voice is certainly soothing and memorable, and just as memorable, her line, “There's something in the fog.” Always a chilling scene.
Curtis, of course, was in Halloween (and in 1980, not only was she in this movie, but also appeared in both Prom Night and Terror Train), and does pretty fair here, though it's worth noting her character doesn't really have that much to do. Still, she's a nice presence. As for Atkins (aside from this one, his biggest additions to the genre are Halloween III, Night of the Creeps, and Maniac Cop), his persona is fun, and again, while he's not all that consequential to the plot, it's still enjoyable seeing him run around trying to save people from the fog.
Even some of the smaller actors and actresses stand out, though. Janet Leigh (from, of course, Psycho) did her character extremely well, and despite never having much screen-time, was always a pleasure to behold. Nancy Loomis (also from the first three Halloween's) got some good lines in, playing Leigh's sardonic assistant. And Hal Holbrook (who I recognize most from the fantastic, yet underrated, Rituals from 1977, along with a few appearances in The West Wing) does beautifully as the often-drunk Father Malone.
Much like Halloween, gore wasn't this movie's strong point, but then again, it really didn't need it. The atmosphere alone is worth much applause. The slow, creeping fog covering the whole of Antonio Bay is always good fun to view. Combine that with the score, and the lack of gore goes by pretty much unnoticed.
Really, aside from a few of the characters not having much to do, I'm having difficultly finding flaws to this movie. From the atmosphere to the acting, most everything about this movie is solid. Seen this plenty of times before, and I'll see it plenty of times in the future. 9.5/10.
Crazy Eights (2006)
I saw this movie once before many, many years ago, and there was only a single scene I remembered. In the scene, a recently blinded woman is given a stick to defend herself against what amounts to little more than a ghost.
That's a microcosm of his much sense this movie makes.
Which isn't to say that, based off the plot and some of the ideas touched upon in the movie, it didn't have potential. Crazy Eights could have been, despite it's moderately low quality, a cult classic if done right. But instead of really tying things together, what does the ending do? Gives us some none-sense scene which I couldn't make head or tails of, and based off what others online have said, I'm not at all alone.
For the most part, the movie's fine. It's not really good, and I had very little fun watching it, but for it's budget, it was somewhat well done (how's that for tepid praise?). The problem is, because the plot wasn't fully formed and there's still plenty of questions in our heads after the credits start rolling, things just feel sort of incomplete.
The cast was a mixed bag. With six main characters, we weren't over-inundated with new faces, but it did take a little bit for each of the individuals to really stand out from the crowd (and one of them never really did). Gabrielle Anwar (who, despite have about 60 credits on IMDb, hasn't really been in much of note), due to the nature of her character, seemed to be drugged out 95% of the movie. Frank Whaley may have a more impressive resume, but his character was a whiny, annoying bitch throughout all of the film.
Dan DeLuca (who appeared a bit in The Wire) never really had much to do, and ended up being one of the more inconsequential characters. Traci Lords, much like Whaley, played a pretty annoying character, and due to that, was pretty unlikable. George Newbern, who played a priest, was pretty fun overall, though pulled a potential solution to the problem out of his ass near the end. Slightly less consistent was Dina Meyer (Starship Troopers and some of the Saw flicks being her biggest works), as she sort of lost it at the end (as did the film), but she was still mostly solid.
The thing is, even the better cast members, being Newbern and Meyer, didn't make the film fun. I chuckled a bit at some of Whaley's ridiculous lines, but I felt just sort of 'there' when watching this, not at all interested in what was unraveling on the screen.
For what little gore we got, it was okay. I felt that, as multiple deaths were off-screen, we could have been thrown a bit more in that department, but apparently the creators hoped the story would stand up for itself, which was a bit of a failure on their part.
In all honesty, though I've not said many nice things about it, Crazy Eights isn't a terrible movie. It really did have a somewhat interesting idea that they just failed to realize, and they had some themes they failed to pull together when it counted. It's not a good movie, but it's not awful either. I'd give it at least one go, and maybe you'll end up liking it. For me, it had a shot, but didn't quite make the hoop. 5.5/10.
Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)
This will be a shorter review than usual, as there's not much to say about this film (in this case, it's a positive).
If you don't know much about this bloody comedy-horror flick, it might sound a bit dumb at first. And sure, in same ways, it is overly ridiculous. But at the same time, I do think the theme of miss-communication is done pretty cleverly throughout the movie.
There are only four actors who matter. Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) have an amazing chemistry as two hillbilly friends, and play their roles fantastically. Dale has a lot of heart in him, and it's nice to see his story end happily. Katrina Bowden played Allison, an aspiring therapist caught in the middle of this giant misunderstanding, extraordinarily well also. She has a fresh, attractive college look to her, but also has the brains to figure out what's going on. Jesse Moss (who was in Ginger Snaps ten years prior) plays a great villain, and gets the utterly psychotic act down pat.
The movie is about average length, but still comes across as pretty digestible, and at no parts throughout the film are you really bored. The gore and related special effects are pretty damn good, lending this movie the right to probably be called a splatter film. Solidly funny, surprisingly clever, Tucker and Dale vs Evil is a good film that's worth seeing. I think you'll enjoy it. 8/10.
The Manster (1959)
I know, I know, this movie has a terrible title, but really, it's not that bad. In fact, while it's not a favorite of mine from the time period, it's a rather serviceable flick.
The plot's not too far removed from other flicks you might find from the late 1950's – a mad scientist injects an American man with a serum, and the man slowly turns into a monster. Certainly not overly special, but it is done decently well.
The cast all did a pretty okay job, despite most of them not really being all that well-known. Peter Dyneley played the desperate, possibly going crazy, main character very well. Playing the mad doctor, Tetsu Nakamura (who was also in the classic Bijo to ekitai ningen, or The H-Man, from a year earlier) did fantastic, and even though throughout most of the film, his character was one of a cold heart, he had a good emotional scene toward the end. Jerry Ito (who was in Mosura, or Mothra, in 1961), did a good job playing a police superintendent.
Perhaps the surprising standouts, though, include two individuals who never have never before or again acted: Norman Van Hawley and Terri Zimmern. Hawley, playing a friend of the main character, really came across as a deeply concerned friend, and pretty much shined throughout the film. Zimmern did great with her role, as a hesitant accomplice to the mad doctor's plans. Why neither acted before or again is beyond me, as I thought both did pretty well.
Special effects were pretty well-done, including a legitimately creepy scene about 45 minutes in, and a disfigured woman who appears every now and again (her story itself is pretty tragic, once we hear it). We even get a little splatter of blood at the beginning (sure, it's black-and-white, but it still looked decent). I won't deny it got a bit hokey toward the end (and by a bit, I mean a lot), but I think it still sort of mostly worked.
Some of the pacing was a bit off. The first chase sequence was fine, but a second and third? Come on, guys. There was some decent suspense in the movie, but the ending felt rushed (which isn't really that different from many movies around the same time period). Still, overall, I think The Manster (god, I hate the title) is still a decent movie, and I can easily see myself watching it a third time if I'm ever in the mood for a decent 50's flick. Not amazing, but like I said, it's serviceable. 6.5/10.
The Bat Whispers (1930)
One of the earliest-surviving full-talkie horror movies (assuming one doesn't count 1929's The Thirteenth Chair, or another oddball choice), The Bat Whispers stands up incredibly well, and ends up being a very enjoyable entry into the old dark house style of movie (despite being a remake of the 1926 silent The Bat, directed also by Roland West, as this film was).
First off, I have to talk about something I generally don't, being the cinematography. There are some simply amazing shots and sequences throughout the movie. Just watch the first five minutes, and you'll see what I mean. These pop up multiple times over the course of the film, and I've never seen something quite like it. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it, but it really makes this movie more unique than it otherwise probably would have been.
The story, about a master criminal trying to scare a bunch of people out of a house in order to look for some hidden money, isn't overly unique, but it is done well. We have plenty of suspicious characters, and as the movie drags on, we find no less than three different parties contesting each other to find the money. Only a few people aren't suspects, so the whole film have a fun vibe because of that.
Plenty of actors and actresses stand out. Gustav von Seyffertitz, playing a suspicious doctor, does well, though his character sort of becomes less important later on into the film. Chester Morris does pretty well playing Detective Anderson, a character with a few secrets himself, and really commands respect when on scene. Unfortunately, two of the characters, played by Charles Dow Clark and Maude Eburne (who did not have an unsubstantial role in The Vampire Bat, from 1933) were thrown in purely for comic effect. Luckily, one of the main characters, the lady of the house, played by Grayce Hampton, did fantastically. Her character never seemed to lose control or her cool, and was consistently solid throughout the whole movie, especially near the end.
I do wish the tone were a bit more consistent. As I mention above, there's a few characters who's only purpose is comic relief, which is more than a little disappointing. That said, there's plenty of more creepy scenes also. The Bat, with a sort of cloak that went on to influence Batman's design, was pretty well-done, and his whispering (as the title alludes to) was moderately effective.
At the end, we have an actor from the film talking to us, the audience, about how The Bat would be disappointed if his identity got out, and implores us to not tell our friends, so that when they see the film, they too will find out with the surprise that we did. Is it corny? Sure, but is it fun? Hell yes.
The Bat Whispers is a very solid movie, especially for a talkie this early. Does it occasionally drag? Perhaps, but if you're into old dark house mystery flicks like me, it's no more or less than any other flick. Also worth mentioning, as I said, this is a remake of the 1926 The Bat, which was also pretty decent (though I'd need to rewatch it before really comparing the two). Also, in 1959, Vincent Price starred in a movie titled The Bat, which is another version of this story. That, of course, was very enjoyable (as almost every Price movie is). That said, I sort of doubt it could stand up to this 1930 adaptation.
If you're into older horror and mystery flicks, I don't think you'd be disappointed with this one. A solid rewatch all around, and one of the shining lights of the 1930's, especially with those unique camera angles. 8.5/10.
I also saw a film that has not yet been released, so I'll hold off on posting my review for that one until it's available for purchase.
