Change Your Image
xnet95
Reviews
Sea Hunt: The Aquanettes (1961)
Horrid!
This one is so bad on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. Even the title is stupid and makes no sense. The women being trained are supposedly going to Venus and are called "astronettes" instead of astronauts, BUT the title is Aquanettes. Why?
In 1960, why are they training an all female crew to go to Venus? I suppose it's because Venus is the goddess of love, so only women can go there. This shows the mentality of this episode. It's beyond ridiculous...
Most of the show is like a soap opera where the women act catty and squabble over who gets Mike's attentions. There's even a cat fight! It's really rough to sit through.
Then there's the whole shark thing. To be nit picky, the shots don't match up at all. The group shots show White-tip reef sharks, but single shots show black-tips or sharks with no color on the tip. I've snorkled with black and white tips, and they don't eat people. This episode spreads misconceptions about what kind of sharks are dangerous to people. Then, we get the "pleasure" of seeing a real shark killed by a spear gun. We even get to see it thrashing in agony on the sea floor after it gets shot. Now, there's some good ole family entertainment for ya! Maybe in the next episode they'll beat some baby Eskimos to death like baby seals...
The whole episode is just one white power trip, where the white guy saves the white women and destroys nature. Maybe when Trump stops Tweeting and starts to make America great again, we can have more family shows like this on TV. Can't wait...
Land of the Lost: Tar Pit (1975)
Really lame episode
It's shocking how boring and useless this episode is. They had months and months to prepare the first show of season two, and they totally blew it! You would think the first episode would be a blockbuster, but this is just a snoozer.
First, who is Margaret Armen? She wrote this one, and I don't remember seeing her name in season one. The writing here doesn't advance the storyline of being trapped in another dimension. It's just kind of a mundane day in the lives of everybody until Dopey gets trapped in the tar pit. There's no thought-provoking metaphysical concepts here, just a bunch of Pakuni-speak. It's really boring.
Second, the lighting in the opening scene in front of the cave is totally inappropriate. It doesn't look like outside at all. I thought they were INSIDE the cave. It looks like soap opera lighting - it's horrible and amateurish. Did Gordon Wiles direct episodes from season one? I don't ever remember lighting this bad from season one.
Third,it's BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If this is the best they can do for a season opener, I don't have much hope for the rest of season 2.
The Mole People (1956)
Classic movie with big themes
I am consistently saddened by the shallow reviews people give 50's monster movies here on IMDb. Sci-fi is a vehicle for making comments about problems in our society, so that we can grow into a better, more tolerant race.
This movie deals with slavery, intolerance, monarchy vs. democracy, and a pagan religion that uses human sacrifice. Those are some pretty big issues to deal with, and nobody is talking about them in their reviews! I think the problem is that Mystery Homo Theater attracts the kind of people that are like Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons. They are losers, they've been picked on their whole lives, and they have absolutely no chance of having sex with another human - EVER! These people have no depth and don't understand the big ideas dealt with in these old sci-fi, horror films. For once in their sad lives, they unite with a group and get revenge for everything they've had to endure from "cool" people. They take out their frustration by attacking these movies, but in the process they fail to see the deeper meanings and make themselves look like unintelligent, under-educated fools.
The ending (even though it is sad) is totally consistent with the theme of this movie. This race should've been erased by the Great Flood. God was trying to get rid of a humanity that had lost its way, but these guys cheated death. They should not exist. In 5,000 years, they didn't grow into kinder people. They were the same morally bankrupt society that used slaves and worshipped false idols with human sacrifices. They were living on borrowed time and they had to go. ALL of them, even the girl at the end.
I think this is an awesome movie for its budget. Watch it like you were watching Citizen Kane, and try to appreciate what the producer and writers were trying to accomplish.
Spider-Man: Phantom from the Depths of Time (1968)
Huh!?! Did I miss something...?
I've been watching the DVD set in chronological order. Season 1 was OK, but when I started watching the season 2 Bakshi episodes, I got really excited. The backgrounds, the music, the new villains all had me really interested. Then I watched this train wreck and knew something was up.
The writing in these Bakshi episodes is the big problem. The stories are thin to non-existent, and there's so much padding (Spiderman swinging through the air monotonously forever)that it's excruciating to watch.
This episode starts off really promising, with some kind of insectoid villain that has captured human slaves and is forcing them to mine for him. After a great set-up, the story devolves into non-sensical garbage with tons of errors and plot holes that would insult even a five year old.
The problems: 1) Spiderman flies some kind of plane/rocket to an island where the action is taking place. Giant insect robots tear apart his ship, but he escapes. As I watched this, I was wondering how he would get back to NYC. Well guess what? At the end of the episode, the ship is in perfect condition and he uses it to get home. WTF!?! The robots tore the ship in half! I can just see a whole generation of children watching and scratching their heads as they were being dumbed down. 2) Spiderman continuously refers to the villain as "He". The problem is that Spidey has never seen the villain and doesn't know what's happening on the island. Spidey has been running around the island and battling monsters. The villain could be he, she, it, them, whatever! It's just another example of a lack of attention to detail by the writers. 3) The villain keeps talking about the place as being an asteroid. Huh!?! I thought it was an island... 4) When Spidey finally confronts the villain, he decides to run off and stop a rocket ship full of ore. He leaves the villain behind in the castle with his henchman, Igor. Spidey blows up the ship and comes back to the castle where he is calmly talking to a freed slave. Huh!?! Did I miss something? What happened to the villains? They were in the castle, where are they now? How did the slaves get free? We never see the villains again and get no explanation about what happened to them. All we get is a re-hashed montage of Spidey's previous exploits.
I read somewhere that another series called Rocket Robin Hood was also produced by Bakshi, and he decided to use a lot of footage from that series on Spiderman. He must've done it with this episode because it "just don't make sense"!
Malaya (1949)
Surprisingly good!
I'm an American ex-pat living in Malaysia, so I thought I'd watch this to see if there were any old scenes of life in Malaysia in the late 40's. Well, as I expected, there weren't, BUT the actual movie and story were really well done and interesting.
I thought the dialog in this movie was the best I have heard from this era. I watch a lot of "noir", and this dialog was more realistic with a flair that wasn't overdone. For example, the interaction between Spencer Tracy and his girl wasn't flowery or sappy, it was kind of hip and snappy without being too "40's". Also, every line out of Greenstreet's mouth was sublime.
Casting was awesome! It seemed like everybody was perfect for their role. Greenstreet was fantastic as an almost omnipotent bar owner. Tracy was rough and rugged. Stewart was convincing as a sort-of-drifter that finally finds purpose in his life. Plus, you get a cameo of Lionel Barrymore, which is worth it's weight in gold.
This is a "feel good" movie about losers and dregs of society helping to win the war. It's tough, violent, and not everybody gets out alive. And, it's patriotic without being sappy. Watch this one on the Fourth of July, and you can't go wrong!
Lorna (1964)
Very disappointing.
After seeing Faster Pussycat a couple years ago, I was so impressed that I decided to hunt down and watch all of Russ Meyer's movies. Well, it's been quite a disappointing quest, and Lorna is just more of the same.
First of all, the script is very amateurish. You can tell Mr. Meyer is still groping his way as he tries to tell an effective and engaging story. The characters are one dimensional. They're almost caricatures of themselves. The only time one of them seems real is when Luther apologizes to Lorna near the end. Also, the rape scene is totally unbelievable. Lorna tries to fight this guy off for a few minutes, and then gets turned on by having this guy force himself on her? It just doesn't happen that way. Talk to any woman and see what they say about it. Plus, this guy had been on the run, and brushing his teeth would've been the last thing on his mind. I seriously doubt anyone would want to suck face with him!
Second, is unlikable characters. NOBODY in this film is likable, and most are detestable. Luther sounds like Russ Meyer's alter ego - a sexist, over-sexed, low class loser. The preacher is just annoying, and it doesn't make sense why he's even in this film. Jim, the husband, is completely useless. Lorna is an unappreciative, stupid jerk. The convict was a completely heartless, murdering, raping smack-off. Maybe Mr. Meyer was trying to convey something with their unlikableness, but I haven't figured it out yet and I don't really care at this point.
Third, is Lorna Maitland. This woman has nothing going for her except HUGE hooters. I love boobs, but hers look kind of strange. You can tell Mr. Meyer was trying to turn her into the next Marilyn Monroe or Jane Mansfield, but she just didn't have what it takes. Her face was definitely not attractive. The extreme close-ups of her face were scary. And her acting skills weren't very good or believable. It's just another case of Russ Meyer's obsession with giant breasts clouding his judgement (kind of like Vixen).
Last, is the ending. When Lorna dies at the end, Jim runs over to her and falls to his knees begging her to "Forgive me. Forgive me." Forgive him for what!?! He was out working in the salt mines all day, while she was at home screwing some dirtball on their one year anniversary. Lorna was a miserable bitch. I don't understand why Jim would want her to forgive him.
All-in-all, this movie doesn't have anything going for it in 2012. There's not much nudity, Lorna isn't very attractive, and the story isn't very interesting. To be fair, this was made a couple years before "Faster Pussycat". I guess Russ Meyer just needed more time to hone his craft.
Hawaii Five-O: Diary of a Gun (1975)
Really bad
I usually don't review TV shows, but this one was so bad, I just had to. First of all, the script is atrocious. It feels like it was written by a high school student. The writer definitely didn't know much about human nature and how real humans act in the world. The reason this episode is so stupid is because of the writing.
For example, the fat father who gets shot by the teenager is really stupid. He should be given a Darwin Award. He's a lost tourist (I assume because if he isn't, he's even more stupid than I thought), and he pulls his car, with his family, into some lonely, isolated spot and asks a bunch of punks for directions. That's just plain stupid! Go to a gas station or a public area with lots of people around.
Another example is the mother of the boy that shoots himself. When he ran into the bathroom, why didn't she follow him in there and grab the gun? I thought the kid locked the door, but after she hears the shot, she runs over and opens the door. I don't think any "real" mother would be wasting time on the phone while her child was in the bathroom with a gun.
The last example is the "heavy-set" greasy guy that goes on a shooting spree with the hot chick in the halter top from the bar. This sequence is so unbelievable it made me cringe. He shoots the janitor over $7.50! WTF?!? Just punch the guy and run away, it's quieter. Then he goes to rob stores and runs out shooting the gun for no reason at all. This makes no sense. Why bring all that attention to yourself? Remember, this guy had been in jail before, and if he gets arrested again, his jail-time will be worse. He has a lot of motivation to lay low and play it cool. Lastly, he tries to fight the entire police force of Hawaii with a tiny, little pea-shooter. Yeah, right... It's all so stupid, it's insulting. Plus, if you count all the shots in this episode, there are more shots than bullets in the clip.
Another problem is the way these 70's cop shows always have fat, dumpy, middle aged men with hot, young wives. There's no way in hell that the postman could ever get his wife to talk to him, let alone marry him! If he was fabulously wealthy, I could buy it, but obviously he wasn't because of the way she was bitching about money so much. Plus, what about the "heavy-set" guy hooking up with the hot chick in the bar? This guy looked awful and had no money. Any woman that looked that good wouldn't give him the time of day.
I absolutely love 5-0. I think it's head and shoulders above any cop show from that era, but this is the worst episode from the first 7 seasons.
Orgy of the Dead (1965)
I love REAL boobs - NO Apologies!
I thought this movie was 1,000 times better than I was expecting. You actually get to see real women with real boobs dancing around in color from the mid-sixties! What more could a man want!?! I grew up watching Ann Margaret, the Gold Diggers, and Batgirl running around in sexy outfits. I always wanted them to drop the skimpy outfits, but they never did...what a frustrating youth!
ALL of the women in this movie have nice bodies that are very physically fit. They're not like those corn-fed dames from the 50's burlesque films that look like they could play pro football. The Volcano girl was outstanding, with a perfect body. Any man that whines about this film has to have zero testosterone in his system.
I actually read all 81 reviews trying to get some leads on other films like this from the 1960's, and I was shocked by all the apologists and whiners. Have we really gotten to the point as a society where the naked human form is to be ignored and scorned? It's unbelievable how many people panned this movie! It's a titty movie people! Wake up!! Maybe the problem is that Ed Wood's name is attached to it, so a bunch of asexual geeks that watch MST3K came to this movie expecting "horror". Sorry guys, all we have are T&A - sorry to disappoint you. Now I know how Austin Powers felt when he woke up in the asexual 90's. Give me the swingin' 60's anyday! (I know Rob Zombie would like this movie because he always had naked women from this era playing on the screen behind the band during White Zombie shows. Rob Zombie hates all you little homo's that couldn't appreciate the sublime beauty of Orgy of the Dead.)
Theremin: An Electronic Odyssey (1993)
OK, but not really...
I was disappointed with this "film" for many reasons. First, it was impossible to understand the interviews with Leon Theremin. The version I watched had no English subtitles, so most of the last third of this "film" was useless. Also, they interviewed a woman with short, brown hair that spoke Russian with no subtitles. Another problem is that most of these people are not introduced or have their names on the screen. I had no idea who these people were and why they were being interviewed. (My opinion is the director didn't know why these people were being interviewed either.) Anyway, the last third of this "film" just drags on and on because you don't who the people are, and you can't understand what they're saying. It's so bad, it's really annoying.
Another problem is the look and feel of this "film". It was made in the early 90's, but has the look and feel of a 70's documentary. It appears that the director had no preconceived plan of what he wanted, so he went out and filmed all this footage and then tried to make a story out of it when he got back to the editing suite. I've worked on documentaries, and that's NOT how you should do it. The director had 15-20 years to improve upon the look of his "film", but did not. This leads me to think that he was very inexperienced. The "film" looks very amateurish and dated.
Is it all bad? No. The first 2/3 are fairly interesting and tell a good (if disjointed) story of Theremin and his inventions. I loved the performances by Clara Rockmore. They were moving and beautiful. All the archive footage was pretty cool. And Brain Wilson's interview is something you just have to experience for yourself - it's classic! I also enjoyed the interviews with Robert Moog - very enlightening.
All in all, this is a decent "film" (God, I hate it when they say "A Film by ______" in the credits. It sounds so pompous!) But, it suffers from a lack of direction which makes the last third so bad, it's painful. Plus, we can't understand what happened after Theremin was kidnapped and brought back to Russia. It's really frustrating.
Tarzan and the Lost Safari (1957)
Too British for me...
This film was made in England and it shows. It opens with a plane full of filthy rich snobs flying back to Europe after attending some grandiose wedding. We have the "pleasure" of meeting Diana Penrod, who is unhappily married to the pilot. This miserable, ungrateful wench does nothing but complain about her husband, who has done nothing wrong. Her main complaint is that he ignores her because he's too interested in flying. Oh my, how horrible! The poor little darling has to be married to a millionaire, go to weddings of the elite and royalty, and fly to exotic places. Maybe she should go see a psychiatrist to help her deal with such a terrible and unfair life. I was really hoping that they would feed this jerk to the lions, but she becomes the heroine of the movie! In 1957, this would only happen in Britain. She's too independent and unsupportive of her husband. It's this kind of attitude and mind-set that has led to present day British women being the worst women in the world - completely useless and deluded, stomping around trying to prove they can do anything a man can do, but failing miserably. If British women are so wonderful, then why are there so many British men living in Thailand married to Thai ex-prostitutes?
Anyway, some of the good things about this movie: 1) The location footage of African wildlife looks great in color and was probably a real treat for viewers back in the 50's before documentaries became so prevalent. 2) No Jane, so there is no Ozzie & Harriet in the jungle story-line. 3) The native dance scene at the end was awesome! The music sounded like recordings I've heard from Africa, and the costumes were great. 4) A superb ending that features mysterious caves, an isolated and evil village located on the top of an unreachable karst, native dances, white sacrificial victims, and Tarzan playing the bongos! The ending almost makes up for the first hour of the movie (which really wasn't that bad).
Pitfall (1948)
This is a chick flick, not noir
I don't care how many times people repeat it, this is not film noir. It's a love quadrangle - the kind of movie my mom used to watch in the afternoons back in the late 60's during "Dialing for Dollars". Basically, it's trash. It's a melodrama. It's about unrequited love. It's about being bored with your wife and family life. There's no sinister femme fatale here, just a young model who is alone and just wants a guy who is nice to her. Raymond Burr is pretty creepy as a stalker, but does his character make this noir?
This film is OK at best, but it just isn't noir. If you like melodramas, soul searching, and flat, even, MGM-style lighting, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're looking for a shadowy, sinister, back-stabbing film noir, you'd be better off with Murder My Sweet, Criss Cross, Detour, Kiss Me Deadly, and about a hundred others.
Night of the Blood Beast (1958)
The danger from within
As I read reviews of old sci/fi-monster movies on IMDb, I am consistently sickened by the vapid, surface assessment of the movie's worth by a HUGE percentage of people. Many times these low-budget efforts have powerful statements to make if you look deep enough. For those of you that enjoy trying to figure out what kind of message a movie is communicating, please read on.
Night of the Blood Beast was made in 1958, and it needs to be viewed in that CONTEXT. This was a time when America was still reeling from McCarthyism and communists were everywhere. During this era, there was no greater threat! So, in that CONTEXT, I offer the following: The babies growing inside the astronaut represent communism. If we accept communism/the monster for even just a minute and listen to it, it can grow and fester inside all of us. After gestation, communism/alien babies will hatch and destroy our way of life. Communsim/aliens will take over, and there will be no turning back.
The monster is the voice of communism. He/she's the one that planted the seeds in the astronaut the same way that the seductive message of communism planted the seeds of a socialist paradise into the minds of weak, susceptible, and naive Americans. Accept their offer and all is lost! Everything we hold dear will vanish because our open mindedness will allow these seeds to germinate and take root. And like a weed that takes root, it is almost impossible to eradicate once it has done so. It must be stopped now!!! What's worse, this monster from outer space or communist rule!?!
Actually, I should've written "What's worse, this movie or the coterie of pathetic pseudo-snobs that consistently fall all over each other trying to trash a movie based on childish and superficial assessments of that movie's value!?!" Yes, I mean you Michael Elliott, bensonmum2, classicsoncall, and Hitchcoc. You're all pathetic losers that need mental help. Why even watch and write about a movie like this if you're going to judge it by today's standards? You people need to get out more and enjoy REALITY. It's pretty sad when a casual IMDb user like me starts to recognize and remember these loser's names after a while because they write THOUSANDS of superficial, lame reviews. Get a life!
When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (1970)
44 reviews and they ALL miss the point
I actually sat here and read through all 44 reviews chronologically to see what people had to say about this movie. Why? I wanted to see if anyone else had been as deeply affected by this movie as I had been. When I sat down to watch this flick, I just wanted to see some dinosaurs and have a light-hearted evening of mindless entertainment, but what I saw shocked and sickened me. This movie isn't about dinosaurs, it's about man's inhumanity to his fellow man (and obviously women - blond women). This film shows how ignorance, intolerance, and belief can (and many times do) lead to cruelty. If you look at the history of the human race, you can see this time and time again. Didn't the Catholic Church force Galileo to face the Roman Inquisition because his view that the earth orbited the Sun (and not vice-versa) threatened their BELIEF system? Weren't women burned at the stake in Salem hundreds of years ago because those in control BELIEVED they were witches (and not hallucinating because they ate grain fungus)? How often do we read about Islamic fundamentalists today strapping bombs onto themselves and blowing people up because they BELIEVE they'll get 57 virgins in heaven after they die?
This movie is heavy and disturbing because it shows how horrible and wrong we can be when we allow BELIEF to get in the way of critical and analytical thought. Why has there always been a significant portion of humanity that chooses belief over science? We think we are enlightened today, but there are still people that enjoy watching FoxNews, or belong to the Moral Majority, or BELIEVE in Creationism. It looks like humanity hasn't progressed much from the time this movie portrays.
Fillmore (1972)
Very disappointing
I was really pumped to see this one, but as I sat through one hour and 45 minutes of "The Bill Graham Show", my mood slowly deflated. If you have a Bill Graham fetish or you love Bill Graham, you will love this movie. If not, well...
The problems include way, way, way too much Bill Graham. Over 50% of this movie is him. More music and less Bill, please. Also, shot selection of the band's performances is horrendous. I don't know if they were intentionally trying to be artsy, or they were covering up terrible camera work. For example, during It's a Beautiful Day, we see unrelated cover shots instead of the gorgeous female lead singer. During Jefferson Airplane, we see exterior shots from an outdoor festival. During Santana, we see Carlos for about 1 minute out of 15 because they're too busy showing the keyboard player's hands for 5 minutes. Last, but not least, the two songs they chose for the Dead were the lamest two songs they did during this era - Casey Jones & Johnny Be Good. I love the Dead, but that just killed it for me.
Bright spots include Hot Tuna (with Papa John Creach), Quicksilver, Elvin Bishop, and especially Santana. If you're a Santana fan, you should definitely watch this movie.
House of Horrors (1946)
A bit disappointing...
I watched "Pearl of Death" and "The Brute Man", and I was really looking forward to "House of Horrors" because the first two movies were so enjoyable. Well...all I can say is "what a letdown!". I absolutely loved the parts of the movie that the sculptor and The Creeper were in, but the parts they weren't in sucked so bad that they ruined the whole movie. I'm totally serious.
First, we have the most annoying woman I've ever seen on screen. Her name is Virginia Grey and she plays the character, Joan Medford. This woman constantly is spewing snappy, clever, horrendously annoying witticisms out of her hole. It's like she's not even human. I can't believe people ever acted like this, not even in the 1940's. I kept wanting the The Creeper to grab her and give her a big bunny hug that would make her spine snap so loud they'd hear in Frisco, but I knew that would never happen because she was too important. I don't know if the director forced her to act like this or what, but I could NEVER watch this movie again because of this stupid ____.
Second, we have Medford's boyfriend, Steven Morrow. He's almost as bad as his sweetie, but he actually acts like a human a few times. The big problem is when he is with Medford because they both try to out duel each other with the clever quips - absolutely nauseating!
Last, but not least is Bill Goodwin as Lt. Larry Brooks. He's full of wise-cracks and stupidity, but thankfully he has less screen time than Medford and Morrow. This guy is an unlikable loser, but as soon as he walks into Morrow's studio where a beautiful model is being painted, he manages to worm his way into her heart. This is sooooo unbelievable that it's sickening. There is no way any woman would like this nobody, especially not a gorgeous model!
If you have the ability to edit, take this movie and remove any scene without The Creeper or the sculptor. Trust me, you won't miss anything, and you will enjoy this flick about a billion times more.
Long live Rondo Hatton!!! To all of you apologists out there that like to smugly write about how poor, poor Rondo was exploited - you sicken me! Rondo Hatton was a citizen of the USA. If Rondo Hatton was exploited and he hated it, then why did he CHOOSE to act in these films? If there is a record of him saying that he felt exploited, then he only has himself to blame. I humbly request that the next reviewer that wants to write about Hatton being exploited, please include some quotes and or a link to your source for this opinion. Until I see some concrete proof that Rondo Hatton felt exploited, I will continue to enjoy the films of this man who brought so much joy into all our lives. Long live Rondo Hatton!!!
Shadows Over Chinatown (1946)
Huh?!?
This movie is a total train wreck. I've never seen such a badly constructed movie in all my life. The story is virtually impossible to follow. Characters aren't properly introduced and we're supposed to know who they are and what they're doing!?! You literally need a scorecard to keep track of all the names that come flying at you in rapid fire succession. Plus, there are aliases we have to remember, too. One guy has at least 4 aliases. I can't see how anybody could know what's going on in this film without watching it at least 5 times. Maybe Monogram did that on purpose so that people would come back and pay to see it again.
Here are a few of the problems. The PI is not properly introduced. We don't know who he is. At he beginning of the movie, the bus breaks down and all the passengers wait in a room while the bus is being repaired. Some guy takes over and starts telling people what to do. He wants to frisk the Marine that walks in, and we don't know who this guy is (Is he a gay man that wants to "cop a feel"?). We don't know his name, and we don't know why he feels he has the authority to tell people what to do. When the bus finally gets to San Francisco, we find out that he is a PI, but we still don't know who he is. Why is he in San Francisco? Is it work or pleasure? There's no conversation with Charlie to introduce him, so we have no idea what this guy is all about. The big problem is that this PI plays an integral role in the film, plus he pops up every 5-10 minutes like the human whack-a-mole.
Why-oh-why-oh-why is Kate found dead in Mary Conover's apartment!?! This one really bothers me. We are barely introduced to Kate, but after multiple viewings I figured out that she is the woman traveling with Mary's grandmother. She is there to help Grandma find Mary because they DON'T KNOW where Mary is. If they don't know where Mary is, how could Kate be in her apartment? Is she keeping secrets from Grandma? One simple scene with Kate telling Grandma she was going to investigate a tip would've helped to clear up this major plot-hole, but the inept losers that made this mess didn't feel it was necessary. Which leads me to
Bumbleham Brown and Jimmy are total dead wood in this flick. They have absolutely NO rapport with each other. Every scene they are in could've been eliminated and the time used to explain some of the HUGE plot-holes.
The name of the film is "Shadows over Chinatown". Why? Does any of the action take place in Chinatown? How do we know they are in Chinatown? I only found out that many of the scenes took place in Chinatown after reading a review of this flick. There's NOTHING in this film that looks Chinese, except Charlie and Jimmy. Jimmy and Bumbleham go into a Chinese restaurant that looked like a Jewish deli from the outside, but we don't see the Chinese interior, we don't see Chinese architecture, we don't even see any Chinese people. There is absolutely nothing Chinese about the Chinatown in this film. It could be Anywhere, USA.
This Gun for Hire (1942)
Too 1942 for me...
This is a fine and interesting film to watch, but I didn't think it was as good as most of the people writing reviews here. I'm looking at it from the perspective of film noirs made from 1940-1960, not as a fan of old movies.
Things I liked: Alan Ladd and his character Raven. I love how Raven is so not the typical red-white-and-blue American. He's anti-social, he abuses women, he kicks people down stairs, he kills cats he likes, and he kills people for money. Ladd is very consistent and makes this totally one-sidedly, cold-hearted character believable.
The cinematography was gorgeous and rich black & white. I especially liked the scenes in the factory. They were shadowy, with great contrast and perfectly exposed. There was even a real exterior shot when they were on the roof of the chemical plant at the end, trying to get down to its owner and save him. I didn't expect any exteriors in a 1942 movie, that was a nice surprise.
The evil owner of the chemical plant. I wonder if Mr. Burns from The Simpsons was modeled after him. He's a pathetically greedy man. He lives in his own little world, detached from humanity because of his enormous wealth. He's feeble and physically impotent. His first lines in the movie were even "Excellent!" when his staff were reporting in to him. This guy is Mr. Burns' grandfather, for sure.
Things I didn't like: There were too many times when unbelievably stupid things happened in the script. Why pay Raven with "hot money" to send him to jail, so he wouldn't talk? Just kill him. It's way too convoluted, and they left themselves open to revenge by a killer if the plan didn't work (which it didn't). Gates could've gotten his chauffeur to do it.
How does Gates identify Raven on the train? Nobody knows what he looks like, they're just looking for a man with a deformed wrist. How does Gates know the man with the bandaged wrist is not Raven? I don't understand. Did I miss something?
Why did Raven want to kill Ellen when they got off the train? The police already know he is there and why. Just let her go.
Why did he save her life in Gates' mansion? Before, he wanted to kill her, now he saves her. Why? What changed his mind? I don't think this is explained well enough.
Later, at the club, he drags Ellen there with him so he can use her dressing room to get to Gates. Immediately, they are spotted and Raven runs away with Ellen. Why oh why would he ever take her with him? It makes absolutely no sense. She's no good to him any more, and she'll only slow him down (or leave a trail so the police can find them).
At the factory, Raven and Ellen slip down into a hole and Raven STUPIDLY allows the metal door to slam shut. Unbelievably, seconds later, the police find this exact door, in the dark, and know it's the place where Raven went, even though they didn't see where Raven went and were nowhere close enough to possibly know that this was the exact metal door Raven escaped into. Then, to top it all off, the police turn on their screeching sirens on the way to the train yard, which now informs Raven that the police know where he is and in which direction he is traveling. Why telegraph your intentions to this dangerous criminal? Just play it cool and try to grab him quietly without hurting Ellen.
Why kill the cat (which is your luck) while they're trapped in the train yard? Just let it go. It'll just run off and shut up.
Finally and most importantly, why didn't Ellen confide in her boyfriend and tell him what was going on with her investigation of Gates' and his boss' suspected criminal activity? It would've saved her and Raven tons of aggravation, and would've saved Raven's life and other lives. I'm sure they could've worked out an amnesty deal for the killings early in the movie if Raven would've cooperated. After all, the victims were traitors selling government secrets to the enemy. Ellen's stupid and unnecessary silence condemned Raven to death.
As far as Veronica Lake goes, I didn't think she was half as beautiful as people on IMDb describe her. She's got a silly looking face, terrible hair style, and a scrawny, little body. Plus, she always has a goofy look on her face, like she's perpetually constipated. And what's up with her voice and affect? Was that what they called acting in 1942? Also, those two song and dance routines gotta go! They were terrible and totally incongruous with the rest of the movie and especially Raven's mentality!
All in all, this is a decent movie, but the script takes way too many liberties and doesn't respect the intelligence of the viewer. Maybe this was OK in 1942, but this flick just doesn't hold up well 70 years later.
The Red Dragon (1945)
Not bad, for a Monogram
Sometimes I dread watching some of the later Monogram Chan's, but this one was a pleasure to watch. It's a friendly Chan that's easy to digest. The story is not convoluted with so many twists and turns that you need to take notes to follow the story. This one's pretty basic. Atom bomb secrets are stolen in Checkoslovakia and end up in Mexico City. A secret govt. agent who is watching the thief gets murdered in a mysterious way - one gun shot is heard, but two bullets are found. There are a group of suspects for the murder, and they're all looking for the secret papers. It's Charlie's job to find the papers first, and then find the murderer.
I like the clue the govt. agent leaves on the typewriter as he is dying. It's fun trying to figure out what the message means. If you can do it the first time you watch this flick, you are smarter than me. The way the people are murdered is pretty ingenious, which adds to the mystery. Also, I liked the fact that Chattanooga and #3 son had limited roles in this flick. The focus of these movies should be Charlie and the mystery he is trying to solve, but too many times the mood is destroyed in the name of comedy relief. Thankfully, Red Dragon doesn't have much of that. Another nice aspect was the amount of sets and locations. It helped give the movie a nice flow - it never got bogged down or boring. Sometimes these cheap Monogram's seem claustrophobic, slow, and boring, but this one bounced all around the city.
I read that the original running time for this movie was 64 minutes, but the one I watched last night was a hair under 59 minutes. This was a hard one to track down. It didn't seem like the missing 5 minutes hurt the story. Hopefully, it was just fluff, like Chattanooga and #3 son playing around. If you are a Chan fan and can find this one, it's well worth watching.
Nocturna (1979)
Bad, but watchable
I read all the reviews because I wanted to find out WHY Nai Bonet wanted to make this film. I didn't get an answer, so I'll speculate. I think poor Nai must've been going through some mid-life crisis. This was shot in 1978, and she looked to be around 25 years old in the 1965 episode of the Beverly Hillbillies "The Sheik", so that makes her a late 30's MILF. Don't get me wrong, she's a great looking MILF, but she's still a MILF! I think she saw her beauty and youth fading away, lost her marbles, and made this thing. It's too bad she didn't make it in 1965 - she was gorgeous! Also, how the hell did she manage to raise the $350,000 to make this film (wink,wink...nod,nod... say no more)?
Anyway, this film is pretty bad and boring. Nai Bonet's acting is so stiff and wooden she makes a Sequoia look like a lump of play-dough. I was a teen when disco was popular and have NO desire to deal with that crap again. If you like Lynyrd Skynyrd, you will hate this movie. Thank God for the remote! The old fart that plays the werewolf is horrendous and really annoying. Who is he, Nai Bonet's biggest contributor?
What are the things that make this watchable? Nai Bonet's nude bathroom scene definitely tops the list. She's a dancer and her body shows it. John Carradine's performance was delightful, especially the earlier scenes when we first see him. He definitely gives us the impression that he is a loving Grandfather that appreciates the way Nocturna cares for him. Yvonne DeCarlo was pretty good, but I wish she would've hammed it up a bit more, like she had done on the Munsters. Her performance was a bit too subdued for me.
Dangerous Money (1946)
Surprisingly good
Most of the Monogram Chan's fall somewhere between mediocre and horrendous, but this one was actually interesting. It had some thought put into it and definitely made the most out of its small budget. One of the previous reviewers said the movie was too claustrophobic. This is one of my biggest complaints about Monogram Chan's, but Dangerous Money does a great job of avoiding that. There are many different sets and scenes on the boat, plus there's the added bonus of all the different scenes on the island, which included some exterior beauty shots.
Another aspect of this movie I liked was the absence of Bumbleham Brown. He always seems to take over and dominate the scenes he's in, which usually detracts from the mysterious mood that has been created. In Dangerous Money, Chattanooga and Jimmy Chan are more in the background and less obtrusive. I love the last scene where Charlie strangles his moronic son for almost killing Chattanooga. I wonder if they did that because so many viewers had fantasized about doing it themselves over the years?
At certain points, the story is difficult to follow, so make sure you have the remote ready. There are a few things that don't make sense, like why the hell did the criminal gang want Rona Simmonds to come to Samoa? It makes no sense, she could identify the missing objects of art. Did they want her to verify that they were authentic? They obviously didn't do it to lure her to her death because they never tried to kill her. Why did Freddie Kirk contact her father to come to Samoa?
Another nice thing about this film is that it is in the public domain. The print that I watched from archive.org was crisp and sharp, with good contrast - black and white at it's best. Also, keep your eyes on Miss Simmonds breasts. I swear that they inflate or deflate as the situation calls for. It's mind boggling.
The X Files: Badlaa (2001)
I hate Chris Carter!
Chris Carter has to be the biggest charlatan in the whole history of television producing. He sickens me, and I can't believe people put up with his and his staff's lazy writing for nine years. This episode is the epitome of why I despise this so-called man.
Carter milked the Scully-scientist-serious-give me proof cop against Mulder wacko-open minded-mystical cop for years until Duchovny had enough and bailed. At this point, Carter must've been ready to poop his pants because he could no longer MILK the tried and true formula that had served him so well. So, what does he do? Well, he makes Doggett the new Scully and Scully becomes Mulder (or at least tries to). This episode wastes valuable time on this, and it really destroys the whole episode. Instead of having to hear how Doggett doesn't believe what Scully is laying down, why couldn't that time have been used to answer why Mr. Oompa Loompa is in Washington DC killing the people he has chosen to kill? The reason is Chris Carter is a lazy jerk-off. He hides behind the theme that there are things out there that are unexplainable, so why waste energy trying to explain them. He sits there and laughs at his loving fans that will happily eat any excrement that Carter feeds them. During the first season he probably said to himself, "Oh my God, I can write anything I want and not explain it, not tie up ANY loose ends, and they'll buy it. Bwaaahahahaha - what a bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Trust me, I don't expect everything to be sewn up nicely like on Start Trek:TNG, but how about a little once in a while! Throw me a friggin' bone, people! This episode could've been awesome if a little time and care was put into explaining why the Indian mystic was killing these specific people and less on Scully being Mulder and Doggett being Scully.
Suspense (1946)
Noir?
If this is indeed an example of film noir, it is definitely "noir lite" - tastes crappy, less filling. What's next? Will The Wizard of Oz become the next noir sleeper? Suspense is more of a chick flick where a budding romance can't happen because the woman is married. The main problem I had with this movie was the juvenile script. It is a slap in the face to any normal adult. There were too many preposterous, unbelievable things that happened in this film. Where do I begin?
1. How the hell does Joe Morgan (a dirty, abrasive, unlikeable man) be allowed to enter the office of the Ice Follies without knocking and get a job instantly? Then, because of ONE idea, he gets promoted to be Harry's assistant. Then, he makes a pass at the owner's wife. Then, he takes over the business while Mr. Leonard goes to Chicago. Then, he takes over Mr. Leonard's wife. Huh? What!?! It's absolutely ridiculous. It's an insult to any paying customer. There is no way this could EVER happen in real life. It's just too unbelievable. Plus, Joe is just an ignorant jerk that runs roughshod over everybody. In normal life, he would be shunned and sent packing.
2. Why do the Leonard's allow Joe to come in and take over their lives? They have everything - a gorgeous and modern penthouse, a cabin in the mountains, fame, and prestige. Mr. Leonard didn't get all this by being stupid and letting people control him (especially a greasy nobody like Joe). It just doesn't make sense. It's too unbelievable.
3. Some dame from Chicago amazingly hears about Joe's success in L.A. and comes to see him. She gets a room across the hall from Joe. When she sees him, he gives her the brush off, but she continues to stay in the room pining away for this grease-ball. He repeatedly pushes her away, but she stays! What?! Never - no way. It would never happen. Plus, where does she get the money to stay there all this time? She doesn't work, and the film doesn't address this.
4. Near the end, Mr. Leonard comes to see Joe in Joe's office, which used to be Mr. Leonard's office. Joe kills him and stuffs him into a roll top desk (pretty amazing that he could fit in there - maybe he was one of those Shriners that come piling out of that little car at the circus). Anyway, Joe has the desk chopped up by the janitor and burned in the basement furnace. Huh? Did I miss something here? If the janitor chopped up the desk, he would definitely see Mr. Leonard's body. Later, we see the furnace and the door is too small for the desk to fit through, so the janitor must've seen the body. It just doesn't make sense and it is never addressed in the movie. Also, Joe tells Roberta that he murdered Mr. Leonard because Leonard was "needling me from behind a gun". Huh? You're telling me that Joe with NO gun overpowered and killed somebody that has a gun? Sorry, can't believe it. Having achieved what he has in life, there is no way that Mr. Leonard can be the bumbling, stupid, incompetent fool he is in this movie. It just doesn't happen that way. Again, it's just too unbelievable.
5. Joe's old flame who is now living across the hall from him gets some dirt on Joe in the form of a letter. She confronts him with it and he slaps her around. This damning letter is never mentioned again. It was supposed to contain info on why Joe left NYC in such a hurry, but it's never revealed why. Then, this dame puts a round of slugs into Joe at the end of the movie. What!?! Why didn't she use the letter against him? Why was this letter ever brought into the film? It makes no sense. Joe's mysterious past hinges on this letter, and we're left high and dry. All the shots talking about Joe's past and this letter are absolutely useless - just like the script - USELESS!
6. At the end, when Roberta is going to jump through the circle of knives, Joe loosens one of the screws that holds one of the knives in place. The only problem is that there are thousands of people in the audience that can see him do this! WHAT!?! Give me a break! It's so ridiculous, that it's insulting. Maybe if Joe was in the dark while Roberta was lit with a spotlight, I could deal with it. But, just like in most of this flick, the lighting is too bright and even.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but I'm starting to get carpal tunnel syndrome. The title is Suspense, but there isn't much (any) suspense here. The script is atrocious and unbelievable. The sets are nice, and for a Monogram film it looks pretty good. BUT, if you want to see real noir, go watch Kiss of Death, Detour, Kiss Me Deadly, Murder My Sweet, etc.
The X Files: Redrum (2000)
Other reviewers MAY be missing the point...
I think the other reviews of this episode are making a mistake by taking this one too literally. There is another way to interpret the events of this show. The last scene shows the protagonist in a jail cell 3 months later. If he and Doggett stopped the murder of his wife, then why is he there talking about not being able to escape the jail of his character? If you interpret the show literally, you could say that by withholding evidence regarding the murderer's brother, he got a jail term. I posit another way of looking at it.
Everything we saw before the final scene was his confused and deluded rendering of what happened with the murder. He actually killed his wife. He snapped. He's dazed, confused, and disoriented. He is mentally unbalanced. Everything we see before the final scene is a jumbled fantasy from a mentally deranged person. He didn't go back through time, he's just fantasizing. He gets his face slashed by Mr. Spiderweb Hand in reality, and he mentally lashes back by making this guy the murderer in his fantasy. The only way he can get a 2nd chance is in his mind.
This 2nd way of looking at this episode is a lot like what happened in an old noir movie called Detour. The whole movie is the star's delusional recounting of events involved in the deaths of two people. Were they accidents or did he murder them? We never know because we see everything through his eyes. Everything is his mentally unbalanced fantasy, except for the last scene in a Nevada diner. I wonder if Chris Carter and company used Detour for inspiration here?
Anyway, it's a very thought provoking episode that could be interpreted at least two different ways.
Charlie Chan at the Opera (1936)
Best Chan!
I've seen at least half of the Chan movies, and this one is easily the best. First of all, the pacing is incredible. This movie doesn't let you catch your breath for the first 50 minutes or more. No slow, dragging plot or padding. It starts off with an ominous thunder storm at an insane asylum, moves to a violent escape (did Gravelle kill or just knock-out the intern?), then moves to a cavernous opera house that provides an opportunity for Karloff to play his own version of phantom of the opera.
I love how the movie starts out with opera music under the credits. It's extremely powerful, moving music and literally sets the stage, warning viewers that this is no regular Charlie Chan movie. It's big, it's powerful, and you better hold on tight because the foot's on the pedal and we ain't slowin' down!
Next is Karloff's performance. This is my favorite role I've ever seen him in. He was perfect as a quirky, amnesiac. I loved the way he always had a far-away look in his eyes when he talked, kind of like members of the Manson family when you would see them on TV. He always seemed like he was in another world (a world of music, right?) - kind of spaced-out, detached, and disoriented. And near the end, he was a very sympathetic character with Kitty. If you think about all that Gravelle had to endure, it was heart-breaking. I think Karloff did a top-notch job!
The only thing that detracts from this film is Uncle Charlie's (Wm. Demerest) relentless abuse of Mr. Chan. A little bit would be OK, but it became nauseating after awhile. I'm not one these politically correct types, but it's just too much here. Demerest reminds me of cranky Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies, when she's in one of her moods where nothing makes her happy.
If you've never seen a Chan film, don't start with this one. You'll be disappointed with the rest...
The Brain Eaters (1958)
disappointing movie
I was really primed to watch this one - expectations were high (how could they not be with a title like "The Brain Eaters"?). Well, as often as happens in life, the reality didn't match the expectation. Actually, this movie made me a bit angry because of the wasted potential. I love seeing old black and white monsters, but this movie showed virtually no monsters. What's the point of making a "monster movie" if you only show the monsters for a total of 10 seconds out of an hour - very lame! Plus, NONE of the characters in this film are likable, which is a very important aspect of a successful film. I didn't care about any of them. They were all either stupid or jerks or arrogant or useless. The doctor was the only one who showed any good qualities, but his stupidity outlined below rendered him useless.
1. A lot of damage was done by the people who were infected by these creatures. ALL of that damage could've been avoided by checking everybody to see if there was a little furry thing attached to the back of their necks. It seems pretty obvious to me...
2. How about when the doctor shot the bullet into the cone and it bounced around and he said, "The point of origin is the point of return." If that's true, why didn't he get injured as the bullet came back to the point of return?
3. The doctor crawls into the cone and is gone for a long time. Everybody is worried about his safety. He finally comes out and says that the tunnel in the cone just winds around and there was nothing inside. WHAT!?! Where were the two missing doctors that appeared later in the film? Where were all the creatures that were with them? This point really got on my nerves.
4. In the lab, the doctor dissects one of the creatures and tells his assistant/girlfriend that the creatures can split apart and regenerate. While he's telling her this, he leaves a piece of this thing HE KNOWS has the ability to hurt people unguarded on the table. While he is distracted, the thing crawls onto his arm and injures him. He uses fire to get it off, but then hurries out of the lab without making sure the thing is really dead. And what about the big piece he cut the little piece off of? Nobody seems very concerned that these two pieces could hurt people in the future.
5. Later, the doctor and the mayor's son go to the teletype office to see if any message came back from the governor. They end up fighting two people that are controlled by the monsters. After our heroes beat these guys up, they just leave them there. What's up with that!?! Kill them, tie them up, get the monsters off their backs, but don't just leave them lying there to cause more damage later. ARRGGH!
Sorry, but it goes on and on and on...