Category Archives: movies

Sorry About the Bunnies

Posted on February 13, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

I DVR’d What’s the Matter with Helen? (1971) from TCM because it starred Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds, and the description included the word “murder.” I thought no further of it till last Sunday. Steven and I had watched a distinctly non-cheesy movie (which I may yet write about), and Steven suggested that Helen might contain some amount of cheese.

In pre-show commentary, Ben Mankiewicz tells us the movie was one of a few horror movies featuring middle-aged female protagonists which followed the success of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? Jane was based on a novel by Henry Farrell. Farrell wrote the screenplay to Helen as well as the one to Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte (which, incidentally, was originally titled Whatever Happened to Cousin Charlotte? I sense a pattern here).

Shelley Winters plays Helen, the one with some something wrong with her. Debbie Reynolds plays Adele, the proprietress of a young ladies’ dance academy. It is a testament to the ladies’ acting ability that as I watched the movie and as I write about it, I see the characters as Helen and Adele, not Shelley and Debbie, nor yet Crazy One and Tap Dance Lady (as you know two less talented, unknown actresses would have ended up). For the purposes of this post, though, I will refer to them as Shelley and Debbie, to aid my readers’ mental imagery.

Shelley and Debbie play two women who are drawn together because their sons have committed a murder. The movie, which takes place in the 1930s, opens with a Hearst newsreel showing the two of them fighting a crowd to get to a taxi after sentencing. Life in prison, not the death penalty, which has caused some outrage. Shelley gets cut by someone in the crowd and receives a death threat over the phone from “somebody with athsma” (Debbie’s description).

I have to hand it to a movie that gets right into things and doesn’t waste a lot of time on boring flashbacks. Still, I could have used a little more backstory. Then too, after the promising start the movie bogs down a little. Debbie decides they will change their names and move to Hollywood, where hopeful mothers will pay good money to Adele in hopes she will turn their little darlings into the next Shirley Temple. Helen, it transpires, is the accompanist.

The most ominous foreshadowing to me was the collection of big white rabbits Shelley keeps in the back yard. She picks one up, caresses her, calls her beautiful, and I said, “Oh NOOO!” I spent the next hour or so saying, “Nothing bad better happen to those bunnies!” but not really holding out much hope that the poor things would make it to “The End” with skins intact.

The movie does create suspense, offering us several characters who may or may not be up to no good. Has the Texas millionaire who romances Debbie honorable or evil intentions? Why is the mysterious Englishman who enters without knocking so intent on teaching diction in this rinky dink school? And how about that stranger across the street, smoking a cigarette and watching Texas and Debbie “smooch” (Shelley’s word)? What is he up to? For that matter, are Shelley and Debbie what they seem, two innocent women caught up in bad circumstances?

I must sadly report that the ending did not justify all the suspense. Oh, I suppose it is shocking and creepy. To tell you more might ruin it for you and I am loathe to do that, because it is a pretty fun watch. I realize I did not include my usual Spoiler Alert, and I think I’ve done a pretty good job of not spoiling anything. Except perhaps for the bunnies, and I consider that more in the nature of a warning, if such a thing is needed. I think anyone who’s watched a horror movie knows: don’t get too attached to small, cute animals.

Leave a comment

Posted in horror, humor, movies and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

And There’s a Bird

Posted on February 8, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

Before Steven and I had our collection of 50 Horror Classics, we had a smaller collection of horror movies which we enjoyed. It came in a tin box that made haunted house noises at the press of a button. I purchased it almost purely because it contained Nosferatu (the original silent version), the scariest movie ever made. But we’re not talking about Nosferatu today.

Recently a co-worker was telling me about a horror movie he had which he thought I would like. He could not remember the title but it had Jack Nicholson in it and it was trippy. He went on and I can’t remember what all he said, but something rang a bell.

“I’ve seen it,” I exclaimed (I really did “exclaim,” although I realize it sounds a little dorky when I write it that way). “It has a bird in it, right?”

“Yes!”

“I can’t remember what it’s called either.” So I went home and checked my little tin box.

The Terror (1963) also stars Boris Karloff. He would be the operative star for my purposes, although Nicholson has the bigger part. Even more importantly, the movie is directed by Roger Corman. Lovers of horror cheese need look no further.

I finally got around to watching it again, thinking my conversation with my co-worker would make a neat introduction (“neat” as in “tidy,” not “nifty neato”). Full disclosure: I did not write about it right away. I even made a note in the TV Journal that I didn’t know if I could write about it. Then I thought, on Non-Sequitur Thursday, with no other topic to hand, it would be worth a try.

Nicholson plays a soldier who is lost from his regiment, about to expire on a sandy beach, presumable the ocean, since he is dying of thirst. A beautiful girl brings him to some fresh water (which looked to me like some ocean water had just washed into a cove, but what do I know?).

It is obvious from the get-go that there is something strange about the girl, but naturally it is love at first sight for Nicholson. It should surprise no one that he intends to spend the rest of the picture trying to help her rather than rejoining his unit like a good soldier should (I don’t know why I always advocate these logical courses of action that would make for a short, boring movie).

Karloff plays a mysterious (naturally) old baron, living by himself in a creepy (naturally) old castle. He’s had a very sad and bitter past. It’s kind of too bad there aren’t any flashbacks, because the character doesn’t really have a whole lot to do in the present.

The other characters are Karloff’s servant, an eerie old lady who might be a witch, her half-wit (I think) son and, of course, the bird. I don’t know if it’s a raven or a crow or just a big old black bird, but you just know it’s going to peck somebody’s eyes out. I didn’t need a spoiler alert before I told you that.

The movie is, as my friend said, trippy. I don’t think I can even tell you what is going on, because I’m not even sure about what seems to be going on. And this was at least my second viewing. I guess I’ll have to watch it yet again. I may even write about it yet again, especially as it seems I haven’t told you much so far.

5 Comments

Posted in horror, humor, movies and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Well, I Watched It and I Need a Post

Posted on February 6, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

Spoiler Alert! I’m actually going to try to be more circumspect about this one, just to mix things up a little. Still, one can’t help but give away something.

I DVR’d Sinner Take All (neglected to write down the year) purely on the strength of the clever title. Let that be a lesson to me.

Just kidding. It really was not a bad movie. My problem was that while it was not exactly a good movie, it did not reach the level of cheesiness I seek for my blogging pleasure. Still, I watched the whole thing. I need a post. I’ll write about it.

The plot centers around a rich businessman and his grown offspring, two sons and a daughter. All four receive death threats. It is pointed out that most murderers do not advertise their intent, they just go ahead and kill whoever. It is never explained why this murderer does not follow that protocol. I could hazard a guess as to the ostensible reason (love that word, ostensible), but that would give away who the murderer is. It is one of those, “You couldn’t be sure THAT was going to happen anyways” reasons, but let’s not get into that argument.

The hero is an ex-newspaperman who has become a lawyer. As a reporter he worked for a newspaper owned by the rich businessman. Guess whose lawyer he works for now. This makes it easy for his old boss to get our hero back on the paper to cover the big story once the rich folk start to get knocked off.

The rich guy’s offspring are pretty typical: one son is a driven businessman like Dad, the other a ne’er-do-well drunkard, the daughter a madcap heiress. Our hero’s first task, while he’s still a lawyer, is to bring the daughter home so’s they can have a family summit about the death threats.

Of course she does not want to leave the speakeasy/gambling house she’s in (at least, I don’t know if it’s a speakeasy or legitimate nightclub; they weren’t clear) (this is where knowing the year of the movie may have been helpful, but let us not repine). He persuades her not by logic or appealing to her better nature but by threatening to slug her, so you just know they’re going to fall for each other.

This is only the beginning of the patronizing man-knows-best crap he pulls on her because, after all, he must keep her safe. Funny how later on the only way he can catch the killer is to use her as bait and almost get her killed. Oh, I KNOW it is more dramatic that way. I’m just saying. The irony, not surprisingly, is lost on the characters.

The head lawyer is played by George Zucco, who somebody described as “marvelously theatrical” in Dead Men Walk (which I wrote a blog post about). I was wishing he had a bigger part, because he brought a certain… ambiguity to the role. Or perhaps I was just remembering the vampire.

Well, now I’ve done it. If you watch the movie, you’ll be staring at George Zucco thinking he’s the villain. Or is he? Or isn’t he? I will neither confirm nor deny.

Another character I liked was the cop, a young man who I thought was better looking than the hero. If I’d have been the heiress, I’d have fallen for him. He’s not your typical dumb cop, either. He’s usually a step ahead of our hero, although still a step behind the murderer (I guess it would have been a short movie otherwise).

Of course I was sorry to be watching a movie about a boy reporter and not an intrepid girl reporter. You know how I love those. I perked up when I saw in the credits that Dorothy Kilgallen has a role. Kilgallen was a real life intrepid female reporter (don’t feel right calling her “girl,” although it is OK for movie characters, if you see what I mean). In this movie she is a sob sister with a small but pivotal role.

On the whole, I enjoyed the movie. The plot is convoluted enough to make it interesting. There is no shortage of suspects and if the solution is a little “Waaait a minute,” who am I to quibble? For one thing, to raise my quibble I would need to tell you the solution, and you know how I hate to do that.

Leave a comment

Posted in commentary, humor, movies and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Zombies: A Love Story?

Posted on February 5, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

I wanted to have Monster Movie Monday, so I tried to find one I hadn’t seen yet in Steven’s collection of 50 Horror Classics. I thought I couldn’t go wrong with Revolt of the Zombies (1936). Then again, I’ve been fooled before.

Oh yeah, Spoiler Alert! I really don’t know how to write about a movie with spoiling something. In this case, I’m probably going to be giving something of a plot summary, so I may spoil everything.

The movie takes place during World War I. The first scene finds the main guy, a soldier, trying to warn his superiors about the danger of zombies, tireless, indestructible robot creatures doing the bidding of their master. Or he may be pitching them as a way to win the war. I was counting stitches on my knitting at the time, and I was really just waiting for the monsters to show up anyways. Predictably, the superior scorns the entire notion.

In the outer office, Main Guy has a conversation with his friend, a likable egotist, who advises him to be ruthless and run roughshod over people to get what he wants. I thought, “Ah! Here is the theme of the picture: ruthless vs not. OK, now bring on the monsters.”

During this scene, a guru-looking guy is standing by, straight and utterly motionless. I thought at first he was a zombie wandered in from another scene, but no, he’s a guy that has the secret of making zombies. He’s going to show people what zombies can do. I think. It got hard to follow at this point, although things cleared up a little when they get to Angkor Wat. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Switch to a battle scene where some Asian-looking soldiers (remember, movies of this era are not known for their diversity and sensitivity) have glazed, robotic expressions on their faces. They march slowly toward the European-looking soldiers (by the mustaches, I thought they were French). The robot-like ones are impervious to bullets and annihilate the others.

Excuse me, what? I mean, did that, in fact, just happen? And did Guru Guy make it happen, just to prove a point? If they ever explained exactly who Guru Guy is, I missed it. In my defense, I was still suffering from a cold and was a little fuzzy in the head (insert smart remark of your choice).

The next thing we know, Guru Guy is murdered as he prays in front of some statue. Might have been Buddha. Might have been some Chinese god. This movie really mixes it up with the ethnicities, as far as I could tell. The murderer wants the zombie-making secret. He doesn’t get it but at least he gets away with the murder, largely because the soldiers seem more exercised about loss of the zombie secret than the dead body.

Soon they are all in Angkor Wat, where they might find the secret. The expedition is led by an archaeologist with a beautiful daughter. I’m sure some of you were just waiting for a beautiful daughter to show up (you know who you are).

I was not very impressed with the set for Angkor Wat. It was very obviously a painted backdrop. You can get away with this on stage or sometimes in a movie when it’s seen through a window. Not a very big window. Didn’t they have some stock footage of some similar looking place they could have flashed, then put the outdoor scenes next to a wall or near a tent or something? Of course, one suspends one’s disbelief when watching a movie, but my disbelief was already hanging by a thin thread.

Main Guy tells Beautiful Daughter a story about some guy who gave up everything for the woman he loved. She likes that, but it seems she doesn’t like Main Guy as much as she likes his friend the Likable Egotist. She uses Main Guy to get him and does so — you guessed it — ruthlessly.

Now I like a love triangle as well as the next movie buff, but where are the zombies? Finally, Main Guy discovers the secret. In this movie, you can turn anybody into a zombie using some kind of mental telepathy. For the first zombie, Main Guy is burning some stuff in a petri dish and wafts the fumes toward his subject, but he doesn’t do that more than once. One guy he even zombie-izes from another room.

These zombies, by the way, are not the messed-up, flesh-eating monsters you may have been hoping for. They are merely robotic. Soon Main Guy has like a bazillion of them, including his former friends and bosses.

The only one he doesn’t zombie-ize is the Beautiful Daughter, because he still wants to marry her. She agrees to marry him in order to save her true love’s life.

So what wins out in the end? Ruthlessness or sacrifice for love? Well, I don’t want to give away the ending (despite having given away practically everything else), and, quite frankly, I’m not sure of the answer even having seen the ending. I will say that the Zombie revolt, when it finally happens, is not what I would call a revolt, and I don’t think if even lasts long enough to rate being the title of the movie.

On the whole, I found it an interesting movie, largely because I kept trying to figure out what sort of a picture it was. Supernatural adventure? Philosophical love story? I’m still not sure. Perhaps I’ll get some other movie buffs to watch it with me and we’ll have a discussion. Might rate another blog post. Or would that be too ruthless of me?

2 Comments

Posted in commentary, humor, movies and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Taking Liberties with Miss Marple

Posted on January 31, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

When I DVR’d Murder Ahoy starring Margaret Rutherford from TCM, I was hoping for a star-studded Agatha Christie extravaganza, maybe in a “Love Boat” type of setting. It was not that, but it was an enjoyable movie and not without certain points to ponder (you know how I hate to do just a straight review).

My first point of contention came during pre-movie commentary when Ben Mankiewicz kept referring to the main character as “Mrs. Marple.” It’s MISS!!! She is an old maiden lady, gossipy and harmless. It is perhaps a small point, but I think it is telling. Mankiewicz certainly never read a Miss Marple book and I question how many Miss Marple movies he has actually seen.

In fact, I know he’s never read a Miss Marple book, because he said “Mrs. Marple” was featured in 20 short stories by Agatha Christie. In fact, she was also in a number of novels (I didn’t look up how many, but you needn’t shake your finger at me; I’ve probably read them all).

Oh, I know, I’m carping. I don’t expect Ben Mankiewicz to have watched every movie TCM possibly shows, much less researched them all himself. I know he has a staff for such things. But I still think it is perfectly legitimate for me to point out: It’s Miss Marple, not Mrs., and she was featured in novels as well as short stories. OK, I’m done. For now.

Murder Ahoy, Mankiewicz tells us, was not adapted from a Christie story but is an original mystery based on the character. Well, I don’t mind that. Sometimes a novel doesn’t translate so well onto the screen. An original screenplay is at least written for its medium.

In the novels, Miss Marple solves mysteries mainly through her extensive knowledge of human nature (idea being that a maiden lady has more leisure to observe these things than, for example, a married lady with half a dozen kids to look after). Somebody would remind her of somebody she used to know and that would give her the key.

I believe this sort of thing works better on the page than on the screen. No matter, because this Miss Marple doesn’t seem to work that way. For heavens’ sake, she has laboratory equipment so she can detect the poison in… well, you know I don’t like to give everything away.

The written Miss Marple also stuck close to her little village of St. Mary Mead, with a few exceptions. Purists feel she was at her best at home, but I have no prejudice either way. This Miss Marple, as you probably expected, goes on board a ship to solve the mystery.

I have to say that the liberties taken with the character of Miss Marple did not bother me one bit. Dame Christie herself was the first to point out that screen (or stage, for which many works were originally adapted) is a different medium with different requirements. In fact, I’m not even going to share all the things the movie makers added, because at least one was for me a quite delightful surprise.

I thought the movie Murder Ahoy was quite entertaining. I look forward to other Miss Marple movies starring Margaret Rutherford.

Leave a comment

Posted in commentary, humor, movies, mystery and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Good Job, Leonard!

Posted on January 29, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

Spoiler Alert! I’m going to give away a big plot point for a B-movie (Crack-Up) and an A-Movie (Gaslight). It’s actually not that well-kept of a secret, but I feel better having issued a warning.

I DVR’d Crack-Up based on the description in the digital cable guide, which says an art forgery expert is made to think he’s losing his mind. In retrospect I don’t know why I found that intriguing. Maybe I was hoping for a low-rent, gender-reversed Gaslight.

In fiction people are always trying to make other people think they’re crazy. I don’t think it happens nearly that often in real life. It seems to me that in real life, the villains just go ahead and kill the victims or rob them or discredit them or whatever. The whole “make him think he’s crazy” idea seems awfully complicated to me. Then again, what do I know? I don’t go around victimizing people, not intentionally, at any rate.

The problem with the plot device in movies is that the audience knows it’s coming. We read it in the description or the review, or see it in the trailers (I could do a whole other blog post about how those three things usually give away too much). So only the characters in the movie are wondering, “Is he really crazy?” It would be much more suspenseful if the audience could wonder too.

I’ve seen it done in novels with greater success, perhaps because I avoid reading the backs or fly leafs of novels. Of course, having read a few novels and seen a few movies, I would automatically think when a character starts questioning her own sanity (it’s usually a girl) (insert gender-based stereotype of your choice), that somebody is making her feel that way.

In Crack-Up our hero never for one minute questions hes own sanity, even though pretty much everybody else does. He insists he’s not crazy and sets out to prove it. Complications ensue.

After I wrote the above but before typing it in, I consulted Leonard Maltin’s 2007 Movie Guide (Penguin Group, New York, 2006). Leonard says, “Art critic…remembers surviving a train wreck that never took place; it’s just the first incident in a growing web of intrigue and murder.”

What a great description! It barely gives anything away! Well, the train wreck that didn’t happen, but we find out about that fairly early on, so I say that’s OK. I say, Bravo! The digital cable guide should take a lesson.

As a side note, I went on to see what Leonard had to say about Gaslight. Alas, he is not nearly so circumspect. I suppose since that is such an old movie, based on an even older play, he figured that everybody pretty much knew.

1 Comment

Posted in commentary, humor, movies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

A Capitol Time

Posted on January 21, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

Friday night, Steven and I traveled into Rome, NY to the Capitol Theatre to attend a screening of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window.

The Capitol Theatre is a truly gorgeous old time movie palace. It is where I saw my first movie (Mary Poppins), roughly a hundred years ago. I saw other movies there, till it closed. The building fell on some hard times. It was used occasionally for stage shows such as Rome Catholic High’s musical. Now it’s a Center for the Performing Arts, and they do all kinds of fun stuff there. This is the first event we’ve been able to make it to.

The Capitol first opened in 1928, I recently learned. I just knew it was old. It’s never been renovated, that is, chopped up into a six screen cineplex, for which I am grateful. The ceilings are high and ornate. The balcony goes back forever. It seats over 1,000 people (1,788, according to the brochure I picked up).

Steven and I got there early, so we had time to walk around a little and explore. We climbed up the steps to the balcony. There is a large foyer-type of room with a few comfy chairs and a piano, then you go up another small set of steps and through an opening about a third of the way down the balcony.

We walked up toward the top of the balcony. It went back just about as far as I remembered. I also remembered there being bats, once during a performance of Oklahoma! I was in, one summer during high school. I didn’t see any Friday night, though. With the theatre more occupied these days, perhaps the bats have found other quarters.

We decided to sit right in the front of the balcony. First we went and got popcorn and soda (me) as well as coffee (Steve). I don’t usually drink soda, but they were having a special on a large soda and large popcorn. I didn’t finish either.

The movie was wonderful. Rear Window is one of our favorites, but I have never seen it on such a big screen. The movie concerns Jimmy Stewart, wheelchair bound with a broken leg, looking out his window at his neighbors in the surrounding apartments. It was fascinating to notice all the details I missed on a television screen.

The Capitol hosts a variety of events. We picked up a flier that listed movies, a Celtic-Rock group called The Elders, Joshua Kane’s Psychic show, and others. We voted on next year’s Hitchcock selection (Steve wants Lifeboat, I picked Strangers On A Train). We also hope to return in August for CapitolFest II, three days of silent and early sound films.

For more information on the capitol, visit their website at www.romecapitol.com. You can also like them on Facebook.

Leave a comment

Posted in entertainment, movies, theater and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

More of a B Feature

Posted on January 16, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

I wanted to make sure I watched a movie this weekend, so I would have something to write about one day this week. I don’t know that I picked a cheesy one, though. I would say more of a B feature. But it featured an intrepid girl reporter, so I thought it would suit my purposes: Fly Away, Baby (1937).

The description in the digital cable guide, on the strength of which I DVR’d it from TCM, said something about newswoman Torchy Blane proving to her policeman boyfriend that she could so solve a murder. The words “intrepid girl reporter” were not actually used, but I can read between the lines. With a name like Torchy, I figured she’d be wise-cracking as well. Right on both counts.

In pre-movie commentary, Ben Mankiewicz tell us this is the second of nine Torchy Blane movies. I believe TCM was going to or did show more of them, but this is the only one I caught. So, apologies to any Torchy Blane fans out there who might have been hoping for multiple posts.

The movie starts right out with the murder. The police are not letting anybody in, especially reporters. The door is being guarded by a hapless beat cop whose name I don’t remember, largely because it is one of those names that when you hear it you have no idea how it’s spelled. I could have made a note in the TV Journal. He shows up again later on, in a part I thought was going to be a whole lot more important, but I suppose I should not ask for miracles in a B picture.

Back at the city desk (I don’t remember the names of the papers; you know how I am), the editor is looking for the one reporter who can surely get in — Torchy Blane. So right away this movie is different from other intrepid girl reporter tales: the editor likes her and considers her a good reporter. Perhaps he learned so in the first installment, which makes this a worthy sequel in my book. So many sequels want to act like the first one never happened and we have to solve a bunch of stupid problems all over again. But that’s a whole other blog post.

Where is Torchy? Off to get a marriage license. Oh no! We all know married ladies don’t have jobs (this was the last century, after all). But no fears. Torchy’s boyfriend stood her up because of the murder (he’s a cop, remember?). So Torchy makes it to the murder after all and, true to her editor’s expectations, she manages to get in.

Another reporter also manages to get in. He’s a spoiled brat whose daddy got him a job on a rival newspaper. And he’s friends with the dead man, a jeweler. Or is he? It is brought up several times that Rich Boy is a heel, but as Cop Boyfriend points out, that does not make him a murderer. Of course it’s up to Torchy Blane to find out.

A reporter from a third paper also plays a role. He’s a fun guy with a rich wife and a way with words. He and Rich Boy are about to have a race around the world.

“I intend to show him the backs of two heels,” Fun Guy tells reporters. “Counting him, that will make three.” See, everybody says this kid is a heel.

As you may have expected, Torchy gets in on the race, in hopes of catching Rich Boy with the evidence.

Mankiewicz says this part was inspired by an air race in which Dorothy Kilgallen, a real life intrepid female reporter, took part. I may have to look up some Kilgallen biographies and read more about this, because quite frankly, I don’t get it. The reporters are not flying the planes themselves. They all get on the same plane. Then stay in the same hotel. They end up on the same zeppelin for the dramatic climax. Where’s the race?

This is only one of several “Waaait a minute” plot points. There are also a couple of clues that Torchy seems to find way too easily. What self-respecting murderer just leaves clues lying around in such a careless fashion? (I know, all of them.) But “Waait a minute” plot points are a movie staple, be the movie A, B or C for cheesy. The question is, does the movie carry us along in an entertaining manner so that we don’t say “Waaait a minute” till much later (ideally waking up in the middle of the night to ponder the points, from a movie maker’s point of view)?

The answer is this one pretty much does. The supporting characters are fun (not just Fun Guy), and Torchy Blane is an endearing heroine. She cracks wise, she doesn’t make egregiously stupid mistakes, and she’s always hungry. What’s not to like? I may try to catch further entries in the series.

Leave a comment

Posted in humor, movies and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Bela and the Baboon

Posted on January 4, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

I seem to remember mentioning a cheesy horror flick involving Bela Lugosi and a baboon. Having no other topic at hand, I thought I’d try to write about it: Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932).

Full disclosure: I did not watch the whole movie. I didn’t even pay a whole lot of attention to the parts I did watch. For a horror movie based on an Edgar Allen Poe story, starring Bela Lugosi and featuring a killer ape, I found it to be a pretty dull movie.

According to the Guide on digital cable, the movie concerns Lugosi murdering women for his experiments with apes. They had me at Bela Lugosi, but mad scientist and murders (after all, they go together) sounded good too.

The picture opens during Carnival in Paris. Many revelers are having a wonderful time, including a beautiful girl, a handsome man and his not so handsome friend. They go into a side show where they meet Lugosi and the killer ape, although of course they don’t know it’s a killer at the time.

“It’s only a baboon,” comforts Handsome Man when Beautiful Girl is frightened. I don’t know if it was a baboon, a gorilla or an overgrown chimpanzee. I can’t even be sure whether it was an authentic animal or a guy in a suit. These days I suppose they would have faked something up with CGI, quite possibly having first indulged in a little research. I made him a baboon in the headline for alliterative purposes, but you probably guessed that.

I’d like to just say a word about Bela’s hair (I know it’s more proper to refer to him by his last name, but I just feel I want to call him Bela). It’s not the elegant, slicked back Dracula look we are used to. It’s wild, shaggy and almost curly. Like he used volumizing mousse instead of maximum hold gel, although I have no idea what hair products were available at the time this movie was made (I did not indulge in any research while writing this post. Sorry). As a theatre person myself, I have no problem with an actor mixing it up a little, changing appearance to serve the character. It was just a little disconcerting is all. He still has the scariest eyes in show business.

Do I really need to tell anybody that he meets Beautiful Girl and is immediately taken with her? When she gets too close to the cage and the baboon snatches her bonnet, Bela smoothly promises to send her a new one, what’s you address, my dear? Handsome Man blocks that gambit, but not to worry. Bela has at least one henchman who can follow Beautiful Girl home. Just in case anybody was worried that the mad scientist would not get her into his evil clutches eventually.

Apparently he has already had other women in his evil clutches. We only see him actually abduct one, but when the authorities find her dead body (did I need to include a spoiler alert that somebody dies in a movie with “Murders” in the title?), we learn that she is not the first. Soon Handsome Man is investigating the murders, something to do with something in their blood, while letting his Not So Handsome Roommate eat all the lunch.

I stopped paying attention about the time Beautiful Girl gets the new bonnet from Bela and doesn’t worry too much about how he found her, because it’s such a fetching piece of headgear. So I don’t really know how she gets into his evil clutches or even what his evil plan is (although I know it has something to do with blood). Naturally there is a dramatic climax involving the baboon getting loose and climbing all over the city, but like I said, not really watching by that time. I may yet go back and watch it again, paying more attention this time. Which may or may not be worth another blog post.

I never read the story the movie is based on. The next time I go to the library I’ll look for it. Not that I expect it to inform any subsequent viewings of the movie. Hollywood is famous for taking liberties with adaptations and never more so than when they attempt Poe. In their defense, Poe is a very literary writer. Perhaps I should watch a series of movies based on Poe stories, read the stories and write a doctoral thesis (I bet you thought I was going to say blog post). Do you suppose I could find a university that would give me a degree for that?

Leave a comment

Posted in horror, humor, movies and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Cheesy Christmas

Posted on January 1, 2013 by mohawkvalleygirl

I wrote in a post earlier this month how I like to write about cheesy movies and was afraid people would hate on me if I wrote that way about Christmas movies. I tried to solve the problem with a cheesy Christmas movie: Mystery Science Theatre 3000: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

I first heard of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians many long years ago in high school. I was writing a piece for Speech Club making fun of Milton’s “Paradise Lost” (I hated that poem), and my speech coach suggested I have one character ask another who claimed to be a great Actor (pronounced Ac-tore) if he wasn’t in Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

In answer to the question I feel sure at least one of you just asked, yes, in fact, I could have been more of a geek. If I had studied more I would have been a great deal more geeky. I will, however, admit to a certain misfit quality, that I retain to this day.

But I digress.

I finally got to watch the silly movie when TCM showed it in, I believe, 2001. We videotaped it on our VCR, just to put it in historical context. We were charmed.

Is it cheesy, you ask. It’s like a Velveeta factory exploded onscreen! The martians’ make-up is in unevenly applied. Their killer robot looks like a homemade Halloween costume. The North Pole looks like a set from Lost In Space. When a polar bear chases the two earthling kids, you can see where the head piece is separate from the rest of the guy’s costume!

In short, this movie was begging for the robot head treatment.

It was actually just a few years ago that Steven discovered the MST3K version of the flick. We used to watch MST3K every Saturday on the SciFi Channel. However, these were in the later seasons, when Mike Nelson had replaced Joel on the space ship. They never showed the Santa Claus movie, and Steven always lamented that there was no Christmas episode of MST3K.

Imagine our delight to discover that there was so a Christmas episode and it featured a movie we already loved.

Well, now I’m getting all mushy and misty-eyed, thinking of my beloved MST3K, a truly delightful cheesy movie and, of course, Christmas. I warned you this might happen. Perhaps I should return to my DVR, where I have a fairly rancid movie involving Bela Lugosi and a baboon. I assure you, if I write about that one, no mush or mist will be involved. I hope you are all enjoying the latter part of your Christmas holidays.

2 Comments

Posted in humor, movies, personal and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
← Older Posts
Newer Posts →