The Giant Behemoth (1959)

In a presentation, marine biologist Karnes (Gene Evans) warns that nuclear testing in the world’s oceans will eventually lead to nature striking back. He is mostly dismissed, but lucky for him nature DOES strike back in the form of … something.

Initially the monster was to be a giant blob, but producers wanted another dinosaur. Elements more consistent with a radioactive blob remain. Willis O’Brien of King Kong (1933) fame was brought in, but budgets and deadlines were tight, and it shows.

Originally titled “Behemoth, the Sea Monster” which sounds a little like a kids show, it was later renamed to The Giant Behemoth. This I presume to distinguish it from those tiny behemoths we all know and love.

Eugene Lourie, who also directed The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953), dispensed with the love interest part of the story, wanting to focus on science and monster mayhem. This decision may have contributed to the exposition heavy dialog. A young couple is introduced but disappears before the second act, despite being billed third and fourth.

The Giant Behemoth is a very by-the-numbers monster movie. Unfortunately it offers nothing new to the genre, and the stop motion effects were a half step down. The creature, unlike those created by Ray Harryhausen, lacked personality. AMRU 2.5.

Soylent Green (1973)

A cop (Charleston Heston) investigates the murder of an executive of the Soylent corporation, suppliers of much of the world’s food. Despite being told to let it go, he pushes on and discovers a disturbing secret. We all know. Go ahead, say the line …

I watched Soylent Green not long before I began the blog. It was on a library VHS tape and the quality was awful. Before the climax the video portion was completely shot. A quality copy makes an enormous difference.

Despite being set in the far off year of 2022, the filmmakers made no effort to give the world a futuristic look. The future isn’t ideal. It’s just like today except there is massive overpopulation, environmental disaster, and a worldwide food shortage.

Edward G. Robinson was dying during the production of the film, and in fact died the evening after his final scene. Early in the film is an improvised scene where Thorn and Sol (Heston and Robinson) feast on fresh food, practically non-existent in this world. It’s surprisingly impactful.

Elements of the story are a bit far fetched. The police just help themselves to items and furniture from a crime scene. Not that part. Climate change has devastated the environment and corporations control society. Not that either. We use the metric system. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Food, if you can call it that, is distributed in New York like it was a refugee camp. People sleep in hallways and staircases. Things like soap and pencils are a luxury. Soylent Green is an exceptionally prescient film. It could have been far preachier or leaned too far into levity. But it struck the right tone for 1973, and it strikes the right tone for now. AMRU 4.

Journey to Italy (1954)

A bickering couple (Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders) travel to Italy to resolve an estate they inherited. They discover that they do not enjoy each other’s company when not at home, so they bicker some more before exploring their own interests separately, nudge nudge.

Bergman made seven films during her “banishment” from Hollywood, most of which directed by her second husband, Roberto Rossellini. I hadn’t seen any of them and was eager to watch this, one of the highest rated.

Sanders and Bergman make an odd pair. Their acting styles were starkly different and had no chemistry. Sanders seemed to be in a different film from everyone else. He expressed a lot of frustration in his autobiography. This may be the only role of his I didn’t love. He was seriously miscast.

Journey to Italy wasn’t an unpleasant watch, but in the end it didn’t work for me. The majority of the film was a whole lot of nothing, and the ending felt unearned. I can’t express how little chemistry the leads had. They were to be a couple married with eight years of history together, but seemed like they just met at the start of filming. AMRU 2.5.

Young and Innocent (1937)

A man finds a dead woman on the beach and leaves to find help. He is seen “running away” so the cops make him the prime suspect and call it a day. He sneaks out of the courthouse and goes on the run. He convinces a pretty young woman to help him find the real killer. She is also the police chief’s daughter. Will love bloom?

Pretty Erica is very young (Nova Pilbeam was 17 during filming) and dashing Robert is innocent. She’s young and he’s innocent. Not a bad play on words. Much better of a title than “A Shilling for Candles”, the source material’s title. When it came to the US it was retitled “The Girl Was Young”, leaning hard into innuendo.

The setting isn’t very different from The 39 Steps (1935), with an accused but innocent man attached to a suspicious woman. Hitchcock revisited themes quite a bit. I’m surprised there wasn’t a scene on a train.

Young and Innocent was an unexpectedly fun watch. Two weeks on I admit I am struggling to recall the details, but I do remember being entertained. It’s a better “lesser Hitchcock”. AMRU 3.5.