Tag Archives: cheesy horror movies

Mike Brady But Not Vincent Price

“Don’t ask any questions. Just do exactly what I tell you to do.”

“What do you want me to do?

“I said no questions!”

Those were lines from a cheesy horror flick Steven and I watched on Sunday. OK, the last line wasn’t in the movie; I said it. I thought it was witty, or do I flatter myself?

I asked Steven to pick out a monster movie. When he read the description for Blood Lust (1959) on the DVD box for this one, I had my doubts. A group of teenagers find themselves on an island owned by a bad man. He used to import exotic animals to hunt, but he got bored with that and started to hunt people. In other words, no monsters per se.

Hunting people has got to be one of the hoariest fictional cliches going. I first encountered it in a short story I was forced to read in seventh grade called “The Deadliest Game.” I think it was here that my lifelong aversion to short stories began.

In seventh grade I took most things at face value. Now I ask questions like, how is a man with no gun more dangerous than, say, a lion? Men have no natural defenses. They have no instincts and natural wiles for hiding in the forest. They don’t even blend in particularly well. It seems to me a man would be a pathetically easy target for somebody who used to hunt big game.

And yet the hunted almost always win in these stories (now I’ve given away the ending, and I left off the Spoiler Alert. My bad).

The DVD box (50 Horror Classics) (they use both terms loosely) lists for each title the most well known actor in the cast as the star. In this case, it is Robert Reed.

“You know, Mike Brady,” Steven had to tell me (I don’t have to explain Mike Brady to my younger readers, do I?).

As the opening credits roll we find out Reed is not the star but a featured player. I think he actually did have the biggest part, as the main teenager. I must say it was kind of odd to see Mr. Brady as a teenager. Of course movie teenagers are usually in their 20s at least (hello, 30-something Steve McQueen in The Blob). That doesn’t bother me. It was the wise father voice in somebody who wasn’t supposed to be old enough to drink that I found disconcerting. I got over it, though, and settled in to enjoy the movie.

It starts out with four teenagers on a pleasure boat in the ocean. One couple is fishing and the other is skeet shooting. They can’t figure out what scared the fish. Oh yeah, they’re deadly game.

Apparently they are on vacation and have hired this drunkard to drive them around in his boat. they spot an island they’ve never seen before. When the boat guy passes out, they decide to row ashore and explore till he sobers up and can drive them home.

Excuse me, what? I guess this guy has been piloting them around all week and they are not perturbed by his dipsomania (how’s that for a $4 word?). As they row away in the row boat (Mike Brady can pilot the boat close enough to the island to go ashore in a row boat, but he can’t get them back to the mainland) (seriously, this is what he tells the others), the pilot wakes up and yells after them to not go to the island, you fools. Then he passes out again.

I’m afraid I started to lose track of the movie at this point, but they soon meet Bad Island Guy and his many henchmen. I think the folks that made the movie really really wanted Vincent Price for the part and the actor they got tries his best to oblige. Sometimes this kind of thing works (notably in Mrs. Santa Claus, where the guy playing the villain channels Tim Curry). This time not so much.

Eventually our teenage adventurers find out what going on and the hunt begins. At first it seems that Bad Island Guy gives his prey a sporting chance: limited crossbow arrows for himself, a gun and chance to find ammo for the hunted. I don’t think I’m giving too much away by saying he turns out to be a dirty double-crosser.

The girls get to be a little brave and clever, although the day ends up being saved by… well, you didn’t think I was going to give that away, did you? There are some decidedly creepy moments along the way as well as a few twists and turns. Perhaps I would have seen them coming if I would have been paying more attention. Which is a pretty good argument for watching these silly flicks as casually as I do.

Where’s Charleton Heston When You Need Him?

Our second horror feature Saturday night was The Mad Monster (1942), again starring George Zucco (um, for anyone just tuning in, this is a continuation of yesterday’s post).

This time out, Zucco plays a scientist who is all evil. He has a nice wolf in a little tiny cage. If that’s not evil! I hated that part of the movie. The wolf looked just like a dog. The evil doctor also has a big guy strapped to a bed, but I always feel less sorry for people than for animals.

Before anything too dramatic happened, Evil Doctor starts arguing with some guys that just magically appear around the table. That part confused Steven, who had left the room briefly to get ice cream. Apparently the guys were other scientists who had kicked Evil Doctor out of the club for being mad. Regular readers will guess that I readily understood this part of it, seeing as I spent part of Lame Post Friday explaining about how I have imaginary conversations in my head with various critics. This was a graphic depiction of that phenomenon.

Having mentally disposed of his enemies and promising to dispose of them more literally later on, Mad Scientist (isn’t that a better name than Evil Doctor?) proceeds to turn the big guy into a werewolf. I thought he looked more like something out of Planet of the Apes. Where’s Charleton Heston when you need him?

As the movie progresses we learn that the big guy is Mad Scientist’s gardener and apparently was not clear on all the job duties when he accepted the post. He’s half-witted (these movies abound in half-wits) and, if I’m not mistaken, has a crush on Mad Scientist’s daughter. The daughter believes her father is a brilliant scientist who has been maligned. She sent her boyfriend, who just happens to be a nosy reporter, away, apparently at Dad’s request. She is loyal buy lonely.

I confess I was not following things very well once the murders started. Second feature slump? Or a dull movie, despite the “marvelously theatrical” George Zucco “effortlessly stealing the show” (see previous post for quote sources). To be honest with you (as I usually am) I don’t quite remember how it ended. I seem to think that Mad Scientist got his comeuppance and his beautiful daughter ended up in her young man’s arms. Isn’t it funny that I can’t remember how the werewolf died, as I’m pretty sure he did. At least there were no spurious claims of beauty killing the beast, like in King Kong (the 1933 version, of course; I don’t remember how the remake ended).

I may have liked the movie better if I had been able to catch all the dialogue. For that we can blame my old television (purchased sometime in the last century) or, more likely, the cheap DVD (ten bucks for fifty movies, what do I expect?). However, as a second feature, it was enjoyable enough. As a blog post, I hope it entertained.

We Can’t All Be Bela Lugosi

Saturday night I continued my quest for cheesy horror with a double feature starring George Zucco. I had never heard of him, but the DVD box describes him as “marvelously theatrical,” and Leonard Maltin says he “effortlessly steals the show” in our second feature (Leonard Maltin’s 2011 Movie Guide, Signet, 2010). Who am I to argue with Leonard Maltin?

I don’t know that I need to give my usual spoiler alert, because I’m not sure I followed either movie with any accuracy. Our copies were so bad most of the dialog was difficult to understand, especially since we had two fans running. I do love a horror movie on a hot summer night.

In Dead Men Walk (1943), Zucca plays a dual role of a good twin and a bad twin, both doctors (actors just love to play dual roles and/or writers and directors just love identical twins; I may have to write a whole blog post on the phenomenon). The evil twin is dead as the movie begins, but that’s OK, because, as the they tell us in the title, dead men walk. There is a creepy prologue of a disembodied head double exposured over flame telling us… I’m not sure what. That was some of the dialogue I missed.

As the movie progresses, we learn that the good twin killed the evil twin. I personally could have used a little more information on this plot point. Good twin says it was self-defense. Evil twin says it was an ill-fated attempt to save the daughter/niece (that is, daughter of evil, niece of good).

Oh, and let’s talk about that niece for a minute. Of course, there is usually a beautiful young woman in these things, most often in deadly peril at some point. She must be sweet and vulnerable. Any additional personality is strictly optional. Come to think of it, that can be true for movie males, too, only without the sweet and vulnerable parts. The niece is mainly concerned with her young man, also a doctor. She seems completely unaware of her father’s nefarious activities and, I must point out, not particularly grief-stricken at his passing, although that may have been the fault of the lousy print. I mean, I didn’t hear everything she said. What I did hear, they didn’t give her the snappiest dialogue. I sure wish this movie had had an intrepid girl reporter, but that’s beside the point.

Bad Brother’s funeral is disrupted by a crazy old lady (no, not me) saying it is a desecration to have such an evil one in the church. She’s been nuts ever since her granddaughter was brutally murdered. Any guesses who was responsible? Well, you’re going to have to guess, because we never find out anything else about that subplot. I was grateful I heard that much.

Soon Big Brother returns, making all kinds of threats. Not surprisingly, only Good Brother gets to see him. I suppose with more budget they could have made a trippy movie where you find out at the end they are BOTH THE SAME PERSON. No such subtlety for this flick, which was really fine with me, because those trippy ones make my head hurt.

Bad Brother is a kind of a vampire. He intends to turn his daughter into one, too, but apparently this takes a lot of bites. At night she has mysterious dreams. By day she appears to be wasting away from an unknown disease. At one point her young man insists she be given a blood transfusion. She at once is better, which clues in nobody but the audience that vampires are at work. Oh, and crazy old lady, who brings her a crucifix, which helps. I’ll never understand why people in vampire movies don’t set up a perimeter of crucifixes all around the house and sleep well at night.

Zucca does a pretty good job playing two parts. I did remark at one point, thought, that it was the most professorial-looking vampire I had ever seen. That was just a cute remark, though, because he managed to be scary as well. And, after all, we can’t all be Bela Lugosi.

Things get interesting when the excitable townspeople begin to believe that Good Brother is in fact the murderer. It gets scary as events reach their dramatic conclusion. I shan’t tell you what that is, because I don’t warn you against watching this movie. In fact, if you do watch it, perhaps you could clue me in on a few of the plot points I missed due to my bad sound system. Did the niece know of her father’s evil nature? What all did that disembodied head say during the introduction? What was Bad Brother’s henchman’s name?

As usual, my review is becoming longer than the silly movie. This one runs 65 minutes, giving us plenty of time for our second feature, which I will talk about tomorrow. Stay tuned.