Beast of the Yellow Night (1971)

Introduction:

Straight from the Philippians and the 100 Sci-fi Classics boxset comes one of the most jolly and jovial portrayals of satan I’ve seen in film. Well except for Pitch from Santa Claus, but he’s in a class by himself.

Summary:

Philip Rogers (John Ashley) awakens to find himself in the hospital and with a different face! His wife Julia (Mary Charlotte Wilcox) is disturbed by this, but sleeps with him anyway. Maybe because he has an unearthly charm brought to him by Satan (Vic Diaz). You see Phil has been taken over by the evil Joseph Langdon, a horrible mass murderer who is out to recruit more souls and minions for Satan. But this new body just isn’t working out, so Satan uses his black arts to turn Joe/Phil into a monster at inopportune moments. Will our anti-hero get his act together, or will a mysterious blind man (Andres Centenera) hold the secret to his salvation?

Good Points:

• Satan is hilarious in this movie
• Actually has a couple creepy moments
• Has a bit of skin on display

Bad Points:

• Does not deliver on the concept
• The monster is not scary… at all
• Takes too long to really decide what it wants to do 

Overall:

Kind of a mixed bag here. I love the idea behind this movie: a minion of Satan stealing a body so he can work evil. But the movie just doesn’t really do anything with the concept. It gets mired down in the whole turning into a monster problem, and if you’ve seen any werewolf movie ever, then you know what to expect. There’s some awesome psychedelic scenes (the love scene in particular) and Diaz is hilarious as Satan (unintentionally and intentionally). The wheels come off near the end, but if you’re riffing this one, it makes it more fun. A good pick for a bad movie night (as long as you don’t mind a couple topless scenes).

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 3

Music: 3

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

In Depth Review

If the movie had just stuck to it’s guns and given us a story about one of Satan’s most wicked minions corrupting others, than this could have been a lot of creepy fun. The beginning of the movie sets things up well enough, even if the whole plot point of Langdon becoming Rogers isn’t fleshed out very well. It really appeared that Langdon was going to corrupt his best friend and wife fairly quickly. But then he starts having a conscious (must have been the psychedelic love scene) and Satan disapproves.

Once that happens we get the whole werewolf subplot. But the creature that Langdon changes into is really odd. He’s kind of a werewolf/vampire thing, reminding me a bit of the man-bat from It Lives By Night. Most of the scenes with this creature are pretty silly, because the mask and makeup are ridiculous. But a few times director Eddie Romero manages to build a little tension for the victim, using the darkness effectively enough.

Eventually the whole redemption plot takes over with the blind man trying to help Joe/Phil escape the police. It’s not terribly interesting and bogs the movie down quite a bit. But the big finale featuring a squad of pissed off cops, flamethrowers, the old blind man running in circles and a burning field make for some great riffing fodder.

As I mentioned Vic Diaz steals the movie as Satan. He’s pudgy, jolly and loves to sneer a lot. The first time we see him, he’s nearly nude in a tree and taunting a dying man. He’s like Puck from hell! Later he appears in various disguised, but he has some really stupid lines, and says them with gusto. The movie really could have used a bit more Satan in it to make it more fun. He vanishes around the halfway point, only to appear at the very end. Disappointing to say the least.

Still this is a fine pick for bad movie night. The costumes, music and hair are oh so ‘70s. You’ve got a cheesy monster, a little bit of sex and a lot of murky photography. The ingredients are in place for a good time.

The Brain Machine (1977)

Introduction:

Let’s dive into an actual sci-fi story from the 100 Sci-fi Classics boxset. This one comes from the 1970’s and stars that guy from Simon and Simon. It also features a government conspiracy. Hey, wasn’t this the same plot as an X-Files episode?

Summary:

Dr. Portland (Barbara Burgess) and Dr. Morris (Gil Peterson) have created an amazing new computer. Feed enough information into it and it can predict what a person will do, and figure out what secrets they are hiding. To test their device, they bring in four test patients with several skeletons in the closet. Reverend Neill (James Best) obviously has serious issues, but Willie West (Gerald McRaney) seems to be the most normal of the group. Unfortunately none of them are aware of a government plot to not only control the test itself, but figure out a way to use the computer for nefarious purposes.

Good Points:

• Interesting core story
• Some of the acting isn’t too bad
• Hey, I know that mansion…

Bad Points:

• The direction is really bad
• Some of the acting is laughable
• Your eyes might roll out of your head when you see the ending

Overall:

You know, they could have had something interesting going here. Sure the main story is a bit hackneyed, but the ‘70s paranoia could work well. Instead director Joy Houck Jr. has no idea how to pace the movie. This sucker drags, and with poor editing, a million establishing shots, and boom mics all over the place, the end result is a pretty boring film with some average riffing potential.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 2

Sound: 3

Acting: 2

Script: 2

Music: 3

Direction: 1

Entertainment: 2

Total:  2

In Depth Review

This movie is nearly impossible to get through as a straight viewing experience. The biggest issues all fall on the director’s shoulders. I already mentioned the snails pace, but what really kills this are the numerous establishing shots. Every time (and I’m not exaggerating here) we switch from one local to the other, we get a shot of the building. Most of the time, it’s the same shot. The testing facility got lucky with two angles, but it doesn’t help. Who thought all these shots were necessary? The interiors of the buildings look completely different. Did Houck Jr. think his audience would get confused?

The movie also spends an extremely long time setting up the whole government conspiracy angle. It’s not terribly interesting, and the key figure, “The General”, played with absolutely zero skill or interest by Thomas Hal Phillips. His performance is so lackluster that he manages to slow all his scenes down even more. He has some extended phone conversations (always good to throw these in your thriller), and they are just painful to sit through. While the conspiracy delivers a payoff at the end, they did not need to spend so much time on this.

Honestly the best scenes are the ones where the scientist and the computer quiz the test subjects. Here is where the acting really shines. Some folks aren’t too bad, and actually deliver a solid performance (McRaney). But other just go over the top (Best) chewing scenery with gusto and providing lots of unintentional humor.

It isn’t a spoiler to say at the end of the film the computer goes out of control (any sci-fi movie about artificial intelligence is required by movie law to do so!). When this actually happens, the film really becomes entertaining as the doctors and the test subjects attempt to escape. The histrionics go into overtime and you can’t help but laugh. The ending is your classic 1970s sci-fi film finale. If you’ve seen Parts: The Clonus Horror you may have an idea of what I’m talking about.

One thing that was pretty funny about the production (other than the numerous boom mic shots) is that the huge mansion featured in the film has also appeared in another bad 1970s flick – Angels Revenge. It was the home of the evil crime lord played by Peter Lawford in that fine flick. Not only do we get to see the extended driveway, but also the pool area and backyard. It’s a lovely mansion, but having been featured in two moronic movies, I wonder who kept renting it out?

With that said the film might make for a bit of fun on bad movie night. You may need to have some skilled jokesters around for the dull scenes with the General, but the test subject scenes provide plenty of riffing gold. But avoid it if you’re not in the riffing mood.

King of Kong Island (1968)

Introduction:

The description on the 100 sci-fi classics actually got me excited for this one. It promised mad scientists creating gorilla warlords. There was to be adventure on a mysterious island, and best of all – a descendent of King Kong in the finale. I knew it would be low budget, but hey that would make it for fun, right.

Summary:

Burt Dawson (Brad Harris) is out for revenge against the men who set him up during a payroll robbery gone bad. Along the way he runs into Forrester (Mario Donatone), his old pal who may have a job for him. Forrester’s daughter, Diana (Ursula Davis) has been seized by a man named Turk (Paolo Magalotti) and the diabolical Albert Muller (Marc Lawrence). They are holding her hostage to get at Burt. But Burt is no slouch he jumps into the jungle and tries to find the kidnappers, doing battle with zombie apes and meeting Eva “The Savage Girl” (Esmeralda Barros). And because it’s a jungle movie there will be a ton of stock footage and lots of walking scenes. Can you stay awake long enough to discover who is the King of Kong Island?

Good Points:

• Want beefcake or cheesecake – this movie’s got both!
• A fun and funky late 60’s vibe
• The killer gorilla/zombies are hilarious

Bad Points:

• Lots and lots of walking scenes
• The entire middle portion is duller than dirt
• How does this relate to King Kong again?

Overall:

I think this movie was made to show off the assets of Brad Harris, Esmerelda Barros and Adriana Alben. Because it wasn’t for the plot or the creating anything really entertaining. Some comedy can be mined from the oh so 60’s party at the beginning or the bad monkey outfits, but really this one’s a dud.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 2

Sound: 3

Music: 2

Acting: 2

Script: 1

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 1

Total: 1

In Depth

I don’t expect much form these movies. I just want some cheesy entertainment. So when you promise some giant apes, I just expect to see some giant apes. Instead the King of Kong Island is one let down after the other.

The basic story about Burt wanting revenge on the men the betrayed him during a robbery is dull. We never get a good look at the traitors, and so it actually took me a while to realize these were the same men. Then Burt behaves like such an ass, that I don’t care what happens to him, and hope that Kong comes and squishes him like a grape. Alas, Burt gets to wander around the jungle, take his shirt off and splash around (for the ladies) and then come to the rescue, kinda, at the end. So our protagonist is worthless.

Our villain fares a bit better. Muller is your typical mad scientist type who wants to conquer the world with radio-controlled apes. You know the type. He chews the scenery, threatens the hero, laughs like a loony and makes gross advances on his captive Diana. I think Mr. Lawrence knew just what kind of a dumb movie he was in and just went for it. He played two different mafia toughs in two different Bond movies with the same bit of zeal (Diamonds are Forever and The Man with the Golden Gun).

Then there’s Eva the jungle goddess person or some such stupidity. She basically wanders around the jungle topless (with her long hair in front of her chesticular region, calm down boys), and talks to a chimp. Yeah I guess the chimp is supposed to be the descendent of Kong. She does some stuff to save Burt, but mostly I think she supposed to be a combination of titillation and comic relief she doesn’t do very well with either. Adriana Alben steams up the screen a bit more in her shower scene, but she’s doesn’t really have a point in King of Kong Island other than to have the shower scene and get beaten up by Forrester.

Yeah the nice movie has a scene where a woman gets slapped around and an scene where the villain threatens to rape his captive or have his zombie apes rape her. Jeez! Some movies have no class.

Really that’s what this stupid movie boils down to. It has no class, and no point of really existing. It’s dull in the middle with endless walking scenes and stock footage of African animals. The thrilling scenes make you snore and only the ludicrous apes (and horrific dubbing) provide any laughs. But they honestly aren’t worth it. Stick with any other version of King Kong  or Tarzan if you are in the mood for jungle fun. Or heck even watch Queen of the Amazons over this stupid turd. You’ll be glad you missed this one.

Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women (1968)

Introduction:

Last time the 100 Sci-fi Classics gave us “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet”. This time there are women involved. Ok, but last time the woman had a beehive and looked sedated. What? We get Mamie Van Doren this time? Sign me up!

Summary:

A rocket expedition to Venus ends up crash landing. Little hope is given for Dr. Kern (Georgi Tejkh), Allen Sherman (Yuri Sarantsev) and the robot named John (John Bix). Still a rescue expedition is sent out to find them comprised of Andre (Gennadi Vernov), Hans (Georgi Zhzhyonov) and Commander Lockhart (Vladimir Yemelyanov). Little do they know that the inhabitants of the planet are women who worship a strange reptilian god. They are lead by Moana (Mamie Van Doren) and she doesn’t like Earthlings much. Can our heros survive the “Voyage to Planet of Prehistoric Women”.

Good Points:

• Is filled with all kinds of adventures
• The special effects range from “not bad” to mind-bendingly goofy
• Mamie and the girls wear “interesting” outfits

Bad Points

• Some of the characters are aggressively annoying
• A confusing dub script renders logic useless at times
• Rendered even more dull by the new sequences with the ladies

Overall:

Ouch, did this one hurt. Ok, it’s basically reused footage from “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet” but edited even worse than before. New footage with a half naked Mamie and girls adds visual interest, but makes the movie plod even slower than it originally did. All the fun of the previous film is sucked away leaving a husk of a film. Need a Mamie Van Doren fix – don’t bother with this.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Acting: 2

Music: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 1

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

In Depth

You know I really don’t have much to add. Check out my review of “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet”. I’ll wait till you read that over.

Ok, now that you know what that film was like imagine the movie cut up with a chainsaw. Then imagine someone adding a horrible voice over providing inane narration. Then imagine a long opening montage about space travel over models of spacecraft done just to pad the film. Finally imagine Mamie and her girls wandering around a rocky beach looking bored, high or bemused.

Having watched this so close to the previous film, I found this extremely boring. Maybe if a few months had passed, I would have enjoyed it a bit more, so I gave it better scores than I really felt. The Russian portions of the film are still pretty impressive, but the editing really butchers this one. I say avoid it.

Wasp Woman (1959)

Introduction:

Time for another crack at the 100 Sci-fi Classics, and this time it’s another trip to Roger Corman’s filmography. Will we get the competent Roger, who can make low budget but entertaining films. Or do we get the Roger who’s editing and execution renders even a potentially interesting script lifeless and dull. Maybe somewhere in between.

Summary:

Oh that nutty scientist Eric Zinthrop (Michael Mark) is at it again. He has taken the royal jelly from wasps and is using it to create an anti-aging serum. Janice Starlin (Susan Cabot) is looking for a product to stop the slide her cosmetic company is taking, so she jumps on this invention, no matter how shady Zinthrop appears. At first her secretary Mary (Barboura Morris) and one of her execs Bill (Anthony Eisley) are concerned that she is being conned. But when Janice uses the serum on herself and becomes younger and younger, they begin to wonder if the serum has been thoroughly tested. Well it wouldn’t be called “Wasp Woman” if it was, and soon employees start dying in the building and it looks more and more like Janice is experiencing some horrific side effects.

Good Points:

• Solid acting, especially by Susan Cabot
• Tries to have some social points in the script
• The Wasp Woman costume is hilarious

Bad Points:

• The opening scenes at the bee farm are too slow
• Long scenes of characters walking and a bad montage pad the film
• The Wasp Woman costume is hilarious

Overall:

Not as bad as it could have been, but the first twenty minutes or so are slow going. Once Janice starts shooting the royal jelly into her veins things get interesting and move quicker. Depending on your tolerance for silly costumes, the Wasp Woman will ruin or make the movie for you. This ]makes for a fun time with some friends, but as a solo view – not worth checking out.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 2

Sound: 2

Acting: 3

Music: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 1

Total: 2

In Depth Review

I have to be in the mood for Mr. Corman and his brand of goofiness. I think I was in the mood for this one. It was just that Corman started his movie with a long slog of a sequence that seemed to go out of its way to bore you. For the first segment of the film we end up following Mr. Zinthrop around as he tends to his wasps. We get to visit a few beekeepers as well. These scenes are filled with characters walking… slowly. The dialogue is poor and the acting is some of the worst in the film. According to rumor this sequence was added later after it turned out that the original film was too short. That explains quite a bit, because while we get to see where Zinthrop was working before he was picked up by Starlin Cosmetics, it really doesn’t add much to the film. You don’t want to start your monster movie with long shots of men walking slowly.

Things pick up a little once we get to the cosmetics company mostly because Susan Cabot makes Janice Starlin an interesting character. The script offers some ideas about public perception of women’s beauty and how age relates to it. During the board meeting some of the execs feel that because Janice removed herself from the advertising the company has been doing poorly. Janice feels she looks too old to be the face of a company that promotes youth. Both counts may be correct, and Cabot does a good job making Janice feel frustration that her age and people’s perception of her age is affecting her success. Is she vain? A little, but her concern (at least in her first scenes) is for her company. In a way I’m making this sound a lot more interesting than it turns out to be, but I want to give Cabot credit for a performance went beyond the necessity of the script.

Still things meander along with Cabot dealing with her suspicious coworkers and a very long montage sequence of Zinthrop experimenting and checking on the experiments and of meetings and floating heads. I know it’s supposed to represent the passage of time, but it really slows the already slow movie down even more. An unexpected side effect is that all the montage material is made up of sequences we have seen already or end up seeing later – it’s Frankenstein’s montage! I’m guessing this little moment was used to pad out the run time a bit more.

So by the time we get to the good stuff it feels like a drop of water in a dry land. This occurs when one of the test subject cats grows tiny furry wing-like things on his back and attacks Zinthrop. It’s hilarious stuff and is injection of fun the movie needed. After that we see Janice in her mutated form, which is really some fuzzy gloves and a extremely silly looking mask with bizarre compound eyes and antenna. When she attacks anyone she basically rubs them with the mask and they secrete what looks like strawberry preserves. Great stuff for the B movie fan. But it’s so little so late it really doesn’t do much to elevate the entertainment. You could make a fun little short film out of the material here, but Corman’s final cut is around 73 minutes long and with nearly 20 minutes of it as meandering padding – well it’s a serious blow.

Visually and sound wise there is some basic competence but there are a few scenes where the dialogue it tough to hear but as the actors move closer to the camera (and the boom) they get louder. There are also a few dark scenes where it is difficult to discern what is happening. The print wasn’t very good and some of these issues may be related to that. The music is fairly limited and in a few moments distracts from the film.

In the end, the movie is a bit of a slog to make it through. A few bright spots of Corman style humor involving the secretaries actually has some interesting dialogue, but mostly the movie just doesn’t have enough of a plot to make carry longer than 20 minutes or so. This could have been a fun episode of a television series, an extremely goofy version of the “Twilight Zone” maybe. However, if you enjoy watching low budget monster flicks with some friends there is a lot to work with here. Fans of “Mystery Science theater 3000” can seek out the “Cinematic Titanic” release of this film which features commentary by cast and writers for MST3K. I’m sure they had a blast with it. Otherwise, those looking for a good monster movie with bug women should look elsewhere.

She Gods of Shark Reef (1958)

Introduction:

When I opened the 100 Sci-Fi Classics and saw this title I thought, we've got some kind of island queen who has power over the sharks and she uses it to defend her village from pirates. Sounds like a fun film, right? I thought so. But when I saw that the director was Roger Corman, I knew he wouldn't have the budget for that type of movie. So I set my expectations a bit lower. You should too.

Summary:

Jim (Don Durant) finds himself in a bit of trouble with Hawaiian law enforcement, so he and his brother Chris (Bill Cord) hop on their little boat and try to escape. A tempest destroys the boat and they are saved by the hula dancing/pearl diving woman of a small island. Queen Pua (Jeanne Gerson) wants them gone as quickly as possible. But Mahia (Lisa Montell) falls for Chris. Meanwhile Jim decides that he wants those pearls for himself. Things quickly devolve into kidnappings, sacrifices, sunken tiki idols and sharks. Will the brothers be able to escape the wrath of the "She Gods of Shark Reef"?

Good Points:

• Really and truly filmed in Hawaii
• A beach movie without any lame songs
• None of the actors are really bad

Bad Points:

• Moves really slowly at times
• The shark scenes are kinda funny
• None of the actors are good either

Overall:

You know, for a Corman film this isn't too bad. Sure it moves slowly and has some serious budget limitations, but at the same time the script accounts for that. It's really the story of two brothers caught in a jam and having to figure a way out of it. Look at it as more of a thriller filmed in Hawaii on a shoestring budget and you might enjoy some of it. But don't let the title fool you into thinking there is anything fantastic going on.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Music: 2

Acting: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Overall:2

After watching a few Roger Corman films on Mystery Science Theater 3000, I know what to expect from him. He used his small budget as best he can. He'd stretch that dollar with long scenes of people walking, and talking and walking some more. He'd hold out shots a little longer than they needed to be, and sometimes include questionable edits. Its drive-in material. No one was expecting the teens in the audience to really be paying too much attention. For the record, Corman could make some fun and entertaining films, especially if his budget was a bit larger. But for something like this, you just gotta expect the usual suspects.

Take the acting for one thing. Actually no one in this movie is horrible. Corman will often cast based on looks and sex appeal as opposed to actual talent. Sometimes he got lucky, but most of the time you end up with some nice looking folks that are out acted by a wooden sets. In this case, everyone is just below average. Bill Cord makes Chris a likable guy if a bit on the bland side. Don Durant plays his brother Jim as a mercurial hot head. One minute he seems like he's got it together, the next he's thirsting to steal something or beat someone up. He provides some of the color to the film, so I can't fault him to much.

Lisa Montell as Mahia makes a very alluring island gal. She plays up the innocent angle a bit too much, but it works in context of the film. Jeanne Gerson as Queen Pua is more like the cantankerous old gramma who will not let her daughter date those boys! It's a funny performance. I' m not sure if she did it on purpose or not, but she's not commanding or threatening. She just seems cranky.

The script is an odd beast, starting off with Jim and very disturbing looking old man sneaking onto a peer and killing some guards. They seem to be looking for guns, but things go wrong when they are discovered. This starts the movie with a moody and dark sequence, making me wonder if this was going to turn into something more chilling or closer to a horror film. This sequence in style and tone is nothing like the rest of the movie. All it does is show us what kind of man Jim is, and that becomes apparent quickly enough.

The rest of the movie has Chris and Jim relating to each other and to the women of the island. The two brothers obviously have some issues with each other, but Chris seems to genuinely care for his brother. Jim seems a bit more sociopathic. The rest of the dialogue is your typical islander warning the outsiders kinda stuff, "You anger the shark gods!", "You bring bad fortune!", "Only a sacrifice can appease the Shark Gods!" "You leave now, you're not wanted here!". Queen Pua gets these gems and says them in her crankiest voice.

Part of the problem is that the Shark God is never really a threat, and neither is Queen Pua. The whole movie has a real laid back feel, and it just doesn't work to create any momentum. Most of this is probably the direction, but some work on the script should have been used to make a real threat for the brothers. Instead they just seem like they are hanging around the island because it’s populated with woman who hula dance regularly.

The sound is really off in this film, with the boom mic not nearly close enough in some scenes and other times being overpowered by the sounds of wind and surf on the island. Quite a few lines of dialogue are lost because of this. Then there's the music. It goes for authentic island feel, but it is placed at some very inopportune times, becoming distracting in many scenes.

The movie does have one thing in its favor, beautiful scenery. Filmed on the island of Kauai, the cliffs and mountains of the island are wonderful to behold. Even Corman was able to grab some breath taking vistas in this film. The beach looks wonderful and even the underwater moments are impressive. It's a real shame that the print is so faded, I can imagine that this movie looked great when it was first released in 1958. Some of the budget limitations appear during the shark attack scenes. Corman uses a mix of stock footage and what appears to be a dead or drugged shark for some close up scenes. The whole thing is actually pretty funny looking and takes away any threat there may have been.

As I mentioned, I was expecting this movie to be a lot worse, but it had its moments. Things move slowly in places, with dancing sequences and walking sequences padding out the film. On the other hand it moves a lot quicker than some of the more dreary of Corman's films. If you're looking for a good riffing movie with some friends, this fits the bill. But if you're looking for an entertaining island girl film - um, move along, nothing to see here.

Moon of the Wolf (1972)

Introduction:

Werewolf movies can be pretty fun. You’ve got your guy running around with fur on his face. You’ve got the terrified populace. You’ve got the full moon and unearthly howls. It’s kind of hard to screw that up. But as the MST3K episode “Werewolf” proved, it is possible. How will this offering from the 100 Sci-fi Classics stack up?

Summary:

In a small southern town Sheriff Whitaker (David Janssen) has a problem. A body of a young woman is found torn to shreds in the bayou. Soon suspects begin to surface. Was it her love Dr. Druten (John Beradino)? Perhaps her brother Lawrence (Geoffrey Lewis) had something to do with it. Or maybe the ultra rich and ultra snobby Andrew Rodanthe (Bradford Dillman) is hiding something. To complicate matters, Louise Rodanthe (Barbara Rush) comes back to town and takes a shine to the Sheriff. But she holds secrets as well, and do they have anything to do with the “Moon of the Wolf”?

Good Points

• Most of the cast is fairly good in their roles.
• The werewolf scenes create a creepy mood.
• Figuring out the identity of the werewolf was fun.

Bad Points

• The made for TV roots show.
• Some of the interpersonal drama goes on too long.
• The werewolf make up is silly looking

Overall

You’ve got your basic made for television werewolf movie from the 1972 here. You know what the entails. It goes on a bit long with the talking, and the scares are strictly of the “Night Gallery” variety. That said, it’s an effective film with some creepy undertones. If the mood strikes you, it’s an entertaining little movie.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals – 3

Sound – 3

Acting – 3

Music – 3

Story – 2

Direction – 2

Entertainment - 3

Overall - 3

Film Review

Once you get past the bad day for night filters in the first couple of scenes you’ve got a pretty solid movie here. As I mentioned above, it very much reminded me of “Night Gallery” in tone and style. That can be a good thing, because “Night Gallery” had some solid episodes. Of course it had some bad ones too.

Visually it looks like a made for TV production. It lacks the glossy look of a theatrical film, or the trashy look of a drive in quickie. Instead it’s got that television look, hard to describe but immediately identifiable when you see it. The clothes are oh so 70’s, especially the gowns that Barbara Rush wears. Most of the men sport sideburns of various shapes and sizes. There is nothing too innovative with the camera work, but when the creepy stuff comes down in the last fifteen minutes or so, its framed well. The chase in the mansion is handled with some skill. On the audio side, everything sounds just like you’d expect, from the howling wolf to the night sounds of the bayou. The music isn’t intrusive either, just enough of it to raise tension. Interestingly it avoids some of the more funky stuff you could get in 70’s movies (listen to the music in “Mitchell” for a sample of what I’m talking about).

Acting-wise everyone is effective. No one stands out as either too good or too bad, just the right balance is achieved. David Janssen plays the southern Sheriff as the type of man who knows and likes everyone in town. He’s a protector of sorts and sees the murders as an affront to his skills. He gets a bit of romance with Barbara Rush, and it works well enough. Rush plays her character as a woman who is caught under the oppressive hand of her family. She doesn’t live up to their expectations and so they look down on her. She seems a bit too old for the part, but she is closer to Janssen’s age, so it works out fine.

Things get a bit wobbly in the story and direction department. These are tied together because the story itself is pretty thin. The sheriff discovers the murder, searches for clues, determines that it might be a werewolf and hunts down the suspect. It’s not quite enough to fill in the needed 75 minute running time, so the story is padded out with interpersonal drama. Some of it is between the Rodanthe family, some of it is between Dr. Druten and the Sheriff, some of it deals with the brother of slain woman and her father’s superstitious take on the werewolf. Parts of these story lines could be interesting, but they feel like padding.

Director Daniel Petrie does his best but it’s the padding scenes that do him in. There is only so much you can do to make long talky scenes work. For a while the movie stops being a horror film, or a murder mystery and turns into a small town drama. It breaks the momentum and keeps the movie from really talking off. I think Petrie was working in television constraints and did his best, but the movie could have used a tighter script and a bit more time in development.

That said, when the movie is focusing on the mystery elements and the horror elements Petrie pulls it off. The finale at the mansion is well done, and even if some of the characters make the typical dumb horror movie mistakes, it never becomes a true groaner.

“Moon of the Wolf” was much better than I hoped. 70’s movies can really bog down in the pacing department – and TV movies even more so. But the mystery of the werewolf identity was fun enough to work. And even when things got too talky there are plenty of 70’s cloths, furniture and sideburns to enjoy. Gather a few friends over and the movie is good for your own riffing session. But on it’s own it’s solid entertainment.

Queen of the Amazons (1947)

Introduction

Ok guessing time. Is the movie Queen of the Amazons , from the 100 Sci-fi Classics collection, a mythical adventure film featuring the Greek tale of Theseus and the Amazon Queen Hippolyta? Or is it a safari film featuring a white woman ruling over black Africans and featuring lots of stock footage? What do you mean that was too easy?

Summary:

Alas, poor Greg Jones (Bruce Edwards) has been lost while on safari. His fiancé Jean (Patricia Morison) and his father Colonel Jones (John Miljan) head off to find him. Along the way they pick up Gary Lambert (Robert Lowery) a safari guide who doesn’t like women and Gabby (J. Edward Bromberg) a cook who won’t shut up. Little does the group know that Greg is in the hands of Zita the Amazon Queen (Amira Moustafa) and that he’s doing very well thank you. Will Greg return to civilization, and can Jean and Gary keep their hands off each other long enough to figure out who’s trying to kill them all?

Good Points

• Some decent acting for this kind of movie
• The stock footage is interesting
• You get a bit of India in your safari movie

Bad Points

• The comic relief isn't very funny
• The stock footage use is endless
• The plot isn't too interesting or new

Overall

This movie is an odd bird. It’s got lots of stock footage of Africa and India, but not much of a story. I could have been a travel log, except it’s got bad comic relief in the form of monkey and crow shenanigans. The acting is passable but the script barely makes any sense. And then there’s the Amazon Queen, a weird character who is set up as a mystery and ends up dull. The movie never gets rolling and it leaves you wishing a little more time was spent coming up with a better script.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 3

Music: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 2

Directing: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

In depth review

I haven’t seen too many safari movies in my day. When I was a kid, the local station used to show the 1950 version of King Solomon’s Mines, and this movie kinda reminded me of that, you know without Deborah Kerr and Stewart Granger. Still I was hoping it would be more fun, along the lines of the 1985 version of King Solomon’s Mines with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone. Ok, I knew it would be more like Jungle Goddess with George Reeves.

Talking about the visuals in Queen of the Amazons makes it impossible not to mention the stock footage. Director Edward Finney does his best to work with the stock footage and make it a part of the plot. Sometimes it’s successful, other times it’s painfully obvious that not a single actor from the film is in the footage. But you get all kinds of interesting stuff to see, from an elephant parade during the India sequence, to a lion hunt about half way during the film. Some location shooting (probably in California) helps things a little, and keeps the movie from looking too studio bound, but all in all it’s a wash. The stock footage is interesting at least, even if some of the dialogue that accompanies it is inane or condescending.

The sound and music work well enough creating a typical jungle movie sound without really standing out in a bad way. A few of the music tracks in Queen of the Amazons seem odd, but this score wasn’t composed – just pieced together. It was kinda funny to hear Wagner’s “Die Valkyrie” during a scene where a lion chased down a native.

The acting isn’t too bad for a low budget film. My favorites were Patricia Morison playing Jean. She makes her a tough gal who’s a good shot with a pistol and clever enough to play Gary along till he accepts her as a key member of the group. J. Edward Bromberg makes Gabby a typical annoying character, but hiding a secret. Once the secret is revealed he plays his character differently and it’s an effective turn. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 will get a kick out of seeing John Miljan as Colonal Jones. Mr. Miljan played the drunken and grouchy father from I Accuse My Parents. Here he’s just superior and condescending toward the natives, instead of toward his essay-writing son.

Things go badly with Roger Merton’s script and Finney trying to make the whole thing work. I’m not sure if the stock footage was found first and a script was pieced together around it, but that’s what it feels like. The first part of the movie is the most interesting with the group heading to India (for reasons I never caught). While they are in India an attempt is made on the life of a man who saw Gary last. This all plays like a low budget thriller and is actually pretty well done.

But once Queen of the Amazons slips into African safari mode it losses steam. The stock footage isn’t well integrated. Much of it just seems like an excuse to pad out the film. When the footage isn’t being used, you get lots of walking scenes. Things pick up with a lion attack and warring tribes, but it’s a little too late.

The whole Amazon Queen angle is just as silly as your typical white woman ruling over African tribes can be. But the difference here is that her whole tribe is white women who were lost during a boat accident. She has a pet lion and Gary is her pet as well (and not sad at all!). Once the group arrives at the camp of the Amazons (all four of them) the whole thing turns into talky scenes. The climax where the amazons fight off another tribe and a ivory poacher is nonsensical. The wheels come off and never get righted. But everything ends happily with all our heroes getting the girl they want.

It’s hard to condemn the director. He probably did the best with what he could, but without a better budget Queen of the Amazons just never takes off. The first few minutes are interesting, but once you arrive in Africa, all the comic relief and monkey footage isn’t going to save the movie. I think a bigger budget would have made all the difference.

Incredible Petrified World (1957)

Introduction

Sometimes you know a movie’s not going to be good. I mean, I’m not expecting much from these 100 Sci-fi Classics. I just want some fun, simple and cheesy entertainment. They are usually pretty short and even if the movie is a little dull I’ll stick it out. But sometimes a movie comes along that just does absolutely nothing – nothing at all. The Incredible Petrified World may be just such a movie.

Summary

Professor Wyman (John Carradine) has perfected his diving bell technology. He is ready to test it in extremely deep waters. For reasons never explained, Wyman can’t go himself, so he hires a crew of four to test it for him. Craig (Robert Clarke) and Paul (Allen Windsor) are both scientists who helped work on the bell. Lauri Talbott (Sheila Noonan) is also related to the project. Dale Marshall (Phyllis Coates) is a plucky reporter with some anger management issues. The four a lowered into the depths, but when the cables snap they are sent hurtling into the abyss. Wyman blames himself but prepares another expedition to rescue the stranded folk. Meanwhile the four explorers escape the bell and find themselves in a strange series of underwater caverns with breathable air. But what secrets does this Incredible Petrified World hold?

Good Points

• The idea of combining Journey to the Center of the Earth and deep sea exploration has potential.
• John Carradine is his usual entertaining and craggy self.
• Some of the stock footage is mildly interesting

Bad Points

• There is some seriously bad acting going on in this movie – seriously bad.
• The movie doesn’t actually start for nearly 10 minutes – instead you get a dull documentary on the ocean.
• The plot and pacing are inert – making the 70 minute film feel 3 hours long

Overall

This is a painful film. It’s not bad enough to be funny. It doesn’t do enough with its barely interesting premise to make anything fun. It just lays there like a cold dead fish. And I dare say that watching it could turn you into the Incredible Petrified Audience.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals – 2

Sound – 2

Acting – 2

Script – 1

Music – 1

Direction – 1

Entertainment -1

Overall – 1

In Depth Review

This movie is a real toughie. It’s gotta be one of the most dull and brainless exercises in film making I’ve seen in a while. And yes I’ve seen some doozies. What really makes this one tough to even review is the fact that I felt nothing but apathy for it during the bulk of it’s running time. I barely cared enough to even review it. But hey, I felt it was a challenge, and I should take it up. Even if means trying to remember a movie that my brain was eager to forget.

You can tell from the scores that this movie is poor. It’s highest scores were for basic technical items and even those were below average. For visuals I give it a two because some of the stock footage (and there is a ton in this movie – Ed Wood would be proud) is interesting. Also the movie’s cave sequences were filmed in an actual series of caves in Arizona. Sure the director managed to make them look boring, but they didn’t look like sets and that’s a good thing. The sound follows the same boat. It’s functional, but at times bizarrely off. My favorite was what sounded like someone blowing bubble through a straw to mimic the sound of a boat churning through water. Wow.

The acting ranges from horrid to bland. John Carradine turns in the best performance, but even he looks bored. He is more interesting to watch than our two male leads who are of the 50’s block of wood variety. The women offer a bit more, since they are allowed to show emotions. Of the two Sheila Noonan is the more likable, but her character isn’t all that interesting to begin with. Then there’s the patented Crazy Old Man with Bad Fake Beard. Maurice Bernard gives some life to the character, but honestly this movie needed more scenery chewing and that would be the perfect place for it. Bernard only nibbles gently at the scenery.

The rest of the film is pretty much a failure on a grand scale. The idea of ocean exploring and finding a hidden world with oxygen could lead to some fun if silly adventures. But the budget must have been blown on the Arizona caves, because nothing of real interest happens. Lots of walking scenes. A few scenes of tension (or yawn filled) in fighting. The crazy old man appears and you get some hope that there might be some fun to be had. But it’s all in vain. The most action we get is a volcanic eruption that causes fake boulders to come crashing down and stock footage of what look like mud slides to occur.

The movie’s construction is what baffles me. As I mentioned after a credits sequence with some promising storm footage and full throated music, we dive right into a series of oceanic stock footage and with narration. It goes on for what feels like forever, telling us things we don’t know or care about. I was reminded of The Mole People where a scientist goes on and on about Hollow Earth Theory as if trying to justify the goofy movie you’re about to watch. In both cases this does nothing but start your ADVENTURE movie with a dull speech. Really bad move.

Then you’ve got the dull office scenes and John Carradine on a boat talking to dull people. This is all intercut with the actual ADVENTURE part of the story. So instead of creating excitement or tension in those exploring scenes, they are actually made duller by jumping to these dull talky scenes of men talking really bad pseudo-science. Some of the dialogue is funny, check out Carradine’s reasoning for why the diving bell failed in the first place. But most of it is lifeless and limp.

Structuring an ADVENTURE movie this way is contrary to anything that makes an ADVENTURE movie fun. Why am I shouting the word ADVENTURE? Because the stupid screenwriter and director obviously forgot what kind of movie they was attempting. Now I’m sure Jerry Warren had a small budget. I’m sure he was just trying to make a drive-in cheapie for 1957. But if you’re gonna make this kind of movie, you’ve got inject something of interest into it. And I’m sorry but Mr. Warren (who made the equally abysmal Wild World of Batwoman) made a movie that just lays there. Even Mystery Science Theater 3000 would be extremely hard pressed to turn this dull flick into an amusing episode.

And while the film didn’t actively hurt me, I’m sure that if you ask me about it next week, I won’t remember a thing. This is only worth one petrified star.