|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#4571
09-03-2023, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Think of it this way, Sculpt-at least there is a good throw down in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. Dracula and the Wolfman are truly going at it  ! Also, the interaction between Dracula and the Monster is pretty tough as well ("Mas..ter". "Yesssss").CORRUPTION (1968)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SPOILERS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Cushing is terrific in here, playing an established Doctor with a hot Model girlfriend. When the girlfriend is badly injured (on the face, which is no good for a model), Pete tries to help with skin grafts to restore her looks. But to be honest, how the accident happened is sort of her fault and honestly, despite the good looks (Sue Lloyd, who was in a lot of British TV/film, including the Joan Collins vehicles THE STUD and THE BITCH resembles a slimmer Jill St John), the girlfriend is really not worth the aggravation she puts Peter through. While the first skin graft (from a corpse) works quite well, of course it doesn't last and Peter has to resort to more nefarious means to obtain what He needs. The poor guy is a wreck! While there is a EYES WITHOUT A FACE element here, some pre-STRAW DOGS elements emerge towards the end. Sleazy throughout, but worth seeing, although the final wrap-up is completely ridiculous and not needed. Also, an early performance by Kate O'Mara (THE VAMPIRE LOVERS and HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN) and she is pretty good as the concerned sister and not the sexpot she usually seemed to play. *** 
|
|
#4572
09-07-2023, 02:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
DR GOLDFOOT AND THE GIRL BOMBS (1966). I'm a big fan of Vincent Price, but this Mario Bava directed film (not his best by any stretch) is absolutely wretched. I've read there was a lot of overlapping schedules, filming for different markets (ie; the two painfully UN funny Italian comedians for the European market) and just a rush job. Vincent is good, as alays, but the plot of starting a war by making Bikini clad women into bombs to kill Generals just isn't enough to justify the 90 minute running time. Only other interesting point is an appearance by Laura Antonelli, who became in the 70's/80's for European "Art Films" ( in other words, for Nude scenes). 1/2
|
|
#4573
09-11-2023, 05:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mr. Sardonicus, 1961. 7.5/10
Director: William Castle 
__________________
|
|
#4574
09-13-2023, 01:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
5/10 Just a quick hit on this iconic film... it's really hard to watch Costello seeing something "scary" and calling to Abbott to rescue him... Costello then stumbles through describing the experience and Abbott expresses disbelief and leaves... and then repeat that one hundred times. Once was funny.  The other half of the film is one of the monsters/villains nearly miss touching Costello, and Costello running from them and hiding... and then repeat that one hundred times. This near-miss-run-chase-hide running gag was reminiscent of the same gag the Three Stooges did often in some of their comedy short films from 1932 to 1946, and also The Monkees TV series in 1966 for that matter. If you like those two gags a lot... you'll love this film. I like Lou Costello and Bub Abbott. Costello is funny and Abbott is the classic straight man. Their 'Who's On First' comedy routine is brilliantly written, performed and funny. But they did not write the script and were against the film, with Costello specifying he didn't like the script. The team did improvise some dialogue. I have to echo the thoughts of Gary Rhodes and Bill Kaffenberger in 2016 when they said the story was a grand idea "but it was too bad that it could have been attended by persons capable of satire rather than pie-throwing comedy only". There are certainly a mix of reviews. The film was a bankruptcy-saving hit for the studio. This film, like other Abbott/Costello films, Nick Pinkerton properly described as an all-or-nothing proposition. As New York World-Telegram wrote, if you don't have a palette for Abbott/Costello, you're in for a painful experience. I think that's partially true. My objection is the lack of satire and second level situational comedy, and the unnecessary repetition, not Costello's humor. The film is nice looking with a quick pace by director Charles Barton. And has a good score from Frank Skinner.
__________________
. . . .  
|
|
#4575
09-14-2023, 08:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Peeping Tom 1960 ★★★★
Time to revisit an old classic. A movie so reviled at the time that it efefctively broke the director's UK career. And for what? If anything, it now holds up as a very well crafted psychological thriller. One could even see a prototype for what later became Maniac. As the movie progresses, we get deeper into Mark's disturbed psyche and how he became the man he is in this story. The product from all the experiments his father put him through. A killer who executes his victims with a camera while filming them in their utterly terrified last moments. Making not only for what can be considered as a precursor to what later became found footage, but also for some very disturbing scenes. Not in the least in the scenes with Helen, where we see how he still has a small connection with reality. Or how he takes his own life in the end. Since he feels he has nowhere else to run, he ends it all. In the only way he knows how. Great horror. Four stars. Spider Baby 1967 ★★★½ A fifties horror that kind of drew from Freaks. I like how the makers tried to shift our sympathies back and forth between their innocence (he will hate us) and the start where one of the girls made no bones about mercilessly killing the mailman. The bad people were the right kind of cartoony (with Schlocker resembling Oliver Hardy, but with a bit more of an explicit Hitler-stache), wanting the children and Bruno to leave. I also got the feeling this was the type of family that (partly) inspired the Deetzs in Beetlejuice. Bruno (aka kind Walter Matthau) is the right kind of gentle and protective. And while it's sad, he takes the right decision at the end. A fun watch for fans of fifties stuff.
__________________
|
|
#4576
09-14-2023, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dr. No 1962 ★★★★
A classic Bond, should be in the overall top 5, if not top 3. With the classic scene introducing our hero at the card table (where else?). That's a Smith & Wesson and you've had your six. With his cool and his dry wit delivery, Connery is the ultimate Bond. A bit of Schwarzenegger before Schwarzenegger was a thing. Though I'm sure does the banter with Moneypenny and Q better than Arnold would. Add a callous, evil main villain – who meets a suitably cruel demise – and a group of well established characters... and boom, you're of to the races. House of Wax 1953 ★★★★½ Time to revisit one of the all time icons. I cannot help but love Vincent Price. His iconic look, his captivating voice,... He makes Jarrod a villain for the ages. Hurt, charming, callous and cold,... Even while instructing his protégés, among whom a very young Charles Bronson, he still stands out as a kind and patient teacher. The special effects still hold up to this date and the reveal of Jarrod's true form is still as timeless as ever. With a suitably dramatic score backing it up.
__________________
|
|
#4577
09-15-2023, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE (1959). Despite Absurdity and very low budget, TFOS, while not a good flick by any means, has aged decently and I was able to get through it without too much pain.
Some aliens (30 something appearing teens) land on Earth to use it as a Harvesting grounds for "Gargans" (which resemble lobsters) ; one of the crew feels that the intelligent life shouldn't be threatened by the monsters and makes his escape. While the ship takes off to bring more Garages, another crew member-Thor- with a serious anti-social bent goes after him, almost hell bent on using his pistols which turns victims into skeletons. I do have fond memories of seeing this- in the early 70's; how my brother was scared to death by all the skeletons that fell after the blasting and in the mid 90's, I had gotten this on VHS and after food from Subway, my daughter asked what movie I put in (she had just turned 8) and the "You gotta be kidding !" look she gave Me when the title flashed on screen was quite humorous, We get to see Bronson Cave again in a 50's movie, some great dialogue (my favorite being "I SEE You do not VALUE Your LIFE!") and how so much of the score was used in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Goofy, but fun. **1/2
|
|
#4578
09-25-2023, 01:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
War-Gods of the Deep (1965)
AKA City Under the Sea 4/10 I think the film was supposed to be a sci-fi adventure, but it's on rather short supply of either. The script painted on the shoestring plot demonstrates no interest in said plot. And as an excruciatingly long underwater chase scene without establishing shots makes clear, suspense is also not on display. It is a nice-looking film. A woman gets abducted by a gillman under orders of a group of undersea dwellers, that includes Vincent Price who was once boat captain of the group. They used a secret passage in an old mansion to grab any new books that may have information to help them stop an undersea volcano from erupting. Sadly, no book has been published on how to do that. Why did the gillman take the woman? We never find that out. But it does lead some dude and another dude with a chicken in a basket to find the secret passage and go down into the caves to rescue her. That's when the dudes find the group of seamen who have discovered the place about a hundred years ago and decided to stay there. Be amazed that their aging process has slowed down. And if they go to the surface, they will immediately die of old age. It's an ancient underwater city where all the dwellers died off except for a few gillman that do what the men ask them. Why did the seamen originally stay for decades? Not a very good reason. Cap. Price insinuates he keeps the city pumps going that provide air and heat, but the gillman breathe underwater and swim "outdoors" eating fish. Also, they are guilty of smuggling, so living in these caves eating fish is better than being busted for smuggling. Why did the seamen decide to hold the woman? Besides the fact that she looks like a woman in a painting that captain Vincent Price used to know, we don't know. The dudes are afraid of the seamen, so they lie and say they can probably figure out how to stop the volcano from erupting. So, the captain holds all of them there. But they better hurry up, cause with all the earthquakes you can tell, like the film, she's about to blow.
__________________
. . . .
|
|
#4579
10-01-2023, 10:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thunderball 1965 ★★★½
A solid spy action film, timely because of the nuclear threat that loomed over the world at the time. Hiroshima was still in people's memory, Bay of Pigs was only a few years ago,... so why not have Bond save us from a nuke? Sean Connery proves here why he is the definitive James Bond. He effortlessly finds just the right mix between cheekiness and dry wit. Having the right voice for that does not hurt either, mind you. This is also the time where the audience gets used to the banter with Q and the flirting with Moneypenny. The sixties action may not look as big as in the CGI laden Dwayne Johnson days, but seein the airplane land on water is still pretty spectacular. And the pov shot from the shark's point of view seeing the water color red is a nice idea. Also, this was the Bond who spotted Russian spies because they drank the wrong color wine. Or, in this case, because of how they opened the car door. The villain looks a bit cartoonish and cliché and I believe that the electric chair scene is being parodied in the first Austin Powers. Or second, can't remember. Three and a half stars. Fun watch.
__________________
|
 |
|
|
