The Story of Mankind (1957)

Mankind has invented the “Super H-Bomb”, and if they detonate it, the Earth and all men will be destroyed. Women too. A tribunal is held in Heaven to decide if mankind should be allowed to destroy itself. Advocate for the defense is The Spirit of Man (Ronald Coleman). Mr. Scratch (Vincent Price) advocates for destruction.

The “Master of Disaster” Irwin Allen assembled a large cast of stars by promising one day of work for $25,000. Several big names appear in cameos: Virginia Mayo as Cleopatra, Hedy Lamarr as Joan of Arc, Peter Lorre as Emperor Nero. The three main Marx Brothers appear and this is sometimes included as an official Marx Brothers film, but their screen time is brief and they don’t appear together. Scenes of action and of large set pieces were borrowed from better films.

The storybook version of world history is illustrated with Mr. Scratch pointing out the war, cruelty, and injustice, while The Spirit of Man points out the occasional scientific discovery or work of art. I’m glad they acknowledged the treatment of native americans, but much is still hand-waved away. The prosecution’s case is pretty air-tight.

The Story of Mankind is a cringy vanity project. It doesn’t earn its all star cast or grand scale. It’s a dull, tedious watch whose only real entertainment is to play spot the fading start. But that too gets tedious. AMRU 2.

Ingagi (1930)

A documentary crew travels to Africa to film the natives and wildlife. There they learn of a tribe that sacrifices girls to the “ingagi” (or gorilla). Except, the crew never left Los Angeles.

Done in voice over, much of the film feels like an early episode of Wild Kingdom. No real narrative and a little boring, save for the oddly frequent need to kill animals for fresh meat. But a critical eye will notice that scenes featuring the principles will show them in front of tall grass or shrubs while long shots feature the recognizable African Serengeti. But the reason for Ingagi’s infamy is in the final few minutes. A naked native woman is sacrificed to a gorilla. For, you know. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Ingagi entered my radar years ago when I learned of a controversial, early exploitation film. It was either lost or unavailable until it appeared on YouTube a couple years ago. As mentioned, the filmmakers never went to Africa. They stole footage from earlier safari films, added scenes filmed at a local zoo, then recorded the narration. The end result is a somewhat plausible nature documentary, with a side order of implied bestiality. And if Charles Gemora, the man in the ape costume, fathered his children while wearing it, well, that’s his business.

Ingagi (a completely made up word) had difficulty being distributed but was wildly popular where it was shown. The MPAA tried to keep it suppressed but anti-trust legislation made that difficult. In the end, they resorted to insisting it be labeled a work of fiction. The filmmakers refused.

A great many words could be written about the kerfuffle this film caused, but there are videos that do a pretty good job covering that. But were I to focus only on what we see on screen, there wouldn’t be much to say. If nature films or safari adventure is your thing, look elsewhere. If sexy native women are your thing, look elsewhere. Ingagi was provocative in its day, but today it’s a snoozefest. AMRU 2.

Alphaville (1965)

A reporter arrives in Alphaville from the “Outer Countries”, looking for Professor Von Braun and asking a lot of questions. Slowly he learns the true nature of Alphaville and Alpha 60, even if little of it makes much sense to the viewer.

Ostensibly this is Film-Noir, but it reads like a parody of the genre. Our protagonist behaves like a jerk, slapping people, acting misogynistic, and getting into random violence and gun play. I know, but I mean inappropriately so. I sense the director (Jean-Luc Godard) is making a statement about the hard-boiled detective trope and American cinema in general, and it is not a favorable one. Every adherence to the genre felt like an exaggeration to point out its absurdity.

But calling it science fiction is a taller order. It is said to be set in a dystopian future where computers control everyone’s thoughts, but there was no attempt to camouflage present era Paris. 1960’s locations, cars, and other technology are plainly used. Again, I feel the intent of the director. While real sci-fi explores modern society using a fanciful story and out-of-this-world setting, here the director presents his story with nothing more than sci-fi lip service. It’s a dystopian future, and it is today. The Alpha 60 computer is the only technology presented, and it seemed out of place in the world presented.

The unpleasant voice of Alpha 60 was recorded by a man with his voice box removed due to cancer. But this is not by far the most unpleasant aspect. The nonsensical dialog gave it a pretentious air and the herky-jerky editing made it hard to follow the action, principally the fight scenes. And occasionally scenes go reverse negative, because that’s artsy.

I understand that seamful editing was a French New Wave thing, to call attention to the existence of the film. An Intention of Disbelief, if you will. And perhaps the noir genre was more than a little dated by 1965, and deserved criticism. But Alphaville is confoundingly respected in both genres, and I don’t believe it respects them.

The story is tedious and absurd, the edits abrupt and disjointed, the dialog utterly nonsensical, and the character behavior is ridiculous. This was all a conscious decision by the director, but that doesn’t make it an easier watch. If you think French cinema is pompous and pretentious, I present to you exhibit Alpha. AMRU 2.

“Yes, I am afraid of death. But for a humble secret agent, it's an everyday thing, like whiskey. And I've been drinking all my life.”

Easy Virtue (1927)

Larita Filton, embroiled in a scandalous divorce, flees to the south of France to avoid the press. There she meets and falls for the young John Whittaker. When back in England and polite society, her new in-laws are suspicious of her past.

Ranked by IMDb as Hitchcock’s fourth worst film, it is a tedious and sometimes visually confusing mess. It does not help that my copy is a poor transfer. The film was thin with very poor contrast, and the score was damaged along with it. While a fully restored edition would have been more pleasant to watch, It would not have saved the film.

This is not to say there weren’t a few creative elements. A long shot of a tennis court starts through a tennis racket then progresses to the first volley. Another scene wordlessly communicates important information by watching the reaction of a telephone operator who is listening in on the phone call. Hitchcock is experimenting in a way we see much more of later in his career.

Based on a Noel Coward play, there is a 2008 version that didn’t fare much better. Prior to this the only Coward adapted film I have seen is 1933’s Cavalcade, which was dull as dishwater. I don’t know much about Coward and theater in general, but it appears he struck the zeitgeist of his time but his works became very dated very quickly. But I’ll leave that to someone’s Theater Philistine blog to explore.

As mentioned, Easy Virtue is ranked pretty low on Hitchcock’s CV, with the bottom three coming up if I continue chronologically. We will see what happens there. But as for this one, I found the characters hard to engage with, some of the action confusing, and the story tedious. But if you must watch it, find a much better copy. AMRU 2.

Trog (1970)

Amateur spelunkers discover a brightly lit cave made out of painted styrofoam. While exploring, they come face to face with the most terrifying thing imaginable: a white dude in a rubber mask. After one is killed, they flee to tell the esteemed “Dr.” Brockton (Joan Crawford), who decides she needs it for a pet.

None-too-keen on a monster chillin’ in the area is real estate developer Sam Murdock (Michael Gough) whose initial plan is to loudly make disparaging remarks about the doctor and monster to anyone in his vicinity. His strategy slowly improves.

Towards the bottom of the sciency monster flick subgenre, here the good doctor wants to save the creature while ignorant and fearful townsfolk want it destroyed. Seeing how things pan out, maybe the townsfolk were right. And if they knew her research consisted entirely of watching the creature play with toys, I think they would have lynched her in the second act.

We go from a late career revival for Joan Crawford to her very last. She agreed to this film as a favor to friend Herman Cohen, whom she worked with in Berserk. I’ve seen a couple Cohen produced films, and while none were very memorable, they were better than this.

Here we have all the hallmarks of a low budget rush job. An uninventive story with poor to terrible sets and costumes, but the highlight is the supremely awful script. The dialog was clumsy and inconsistent, and the science abysmal. Brockton states in court that Trog (short for troglodyte, or cave-dweller) is the missing link, somehow woken from a state of suspended animation after millions of years, despite the lack of any evidence.

Oddly, the acting was not a weak point. Crawford, considering what she was given, didn’t phone it in. Same for Gough even though his character was entirely one note. Even Trog did a better than fair job emoting. And he was wearing a 2001 cast-off mask in serious disrepair and fuzzy cave-man slippers. Also, I will give the movie credit for one good jump scare. 

But this does not rise Trog above the genre. The story could have done something other than follow the cheap horror boilerplate, but it had no imagination. And including an animated dinosaur clip from another film doesn’t count. AMRU 2. What a way to end a career.

Love Happy (1949)

A theater troupe struggles to finance their show (named Love Happy), jewel thieves are trying to locate a million dollar necklace they stole, and the brothers clown around. There is a lot going on, little of which is of much consequence.

This last Marx Brothers film came together somewhat accidentally. Harpo planned it as a solo project, but couldn’t secure financing unless Chico and Groucho came along. Harpo playing the Harpo character and doing all of the Harpo bits without his brothers doesn’t really make sense anyhow. Many of Groucho’s scenes appear to be filmed at a different time, improvised and poorly shot. He serves as the story’s narrator but interacts somewhat during the third act.

Vera-Ellen is charming as the plucky and lovelorn dancer. Baroness Frankenstein herself Ilona Massey is the exotic and enigmatic leader of the thieves. Her performance is peculiar but I blame the source material. Raymond Burr is one of her thugs. Marilyn Monroe had a very short and entirely gratuitous scene. That, and conspicuous product placements, may have been part of the financing agreement.

Like the worst of the Brother’s films, it transitions from a mostly uninteresting story line, to unfunny comic bits, to tedious song and dance numbers, then back again. To be fair there were a couple amusing bits, one in particular involves a handheld mirror. Unfortunately Harpo chooses to repeat it, just in case the audience was napping.

The Marx Brothers were a moment in time. Their downtrodden but irreverently upbeat act played well during the Depression, but became increasingly anachronistic as we inched towards the affluent and optimistic 50’s. Besides, only baby Groucho was under sixty at this point. It was a good time to move on.

So, this is it. The last of the Marx Brothers films. Famously Groucho omitted in his autobiography, naming A Night in Casablanca as their last. But the Brothers did appear, separately, in one more film, but I think I’m done here.

The boys did thirteen films together, but I can only recommend their second through seventh. Love Happy might be the worst of the lot, Groucho apparently thought so, and unless you feel compelled to complete arbitrary lists, it is completely skipable. AMRU 2.

Death Curse of Tartu (1966)

An archaeology professor, his wife, and four students visit a forbidden native burial mound in the Florida everglades. There, the ghost of the witch doctor Tartu transforms into animals to kill them.

Let’s get this out of the way. This is a very amateur production. I cannot stress that enough. For context, it comes in just ahead of the almost unwatchable Manos: The Hands of Fate. But while I will not knock it for what it could not do, I will for what it should have been. And it should have been vaguely interesting. Want to build tension? Have the characters walk slowly through the tall grass. Excitement? Have them walk quickly through the tall grass. While the acting and dialog were poor, the film suffers because frequently the characters say nothing at all. There are plenty of spaces for robots to crack wise about the nonsensical story, which was sorely missing. This is a dull movie, a fault I cannot abide.

So, let’s get on with goofing on the film, shall we? The four students (conveniently, two couples) decide to “roast some marshmallows” away from professor square and his wife. Instantly, the two women are in bikinis and making out with their fully clothed partners. Then the women do that one dance that all young people in the 1960’s know, until Tartu, in the form of a shark, eats some of them. The remaining woman screams and is instantly back into her normal attire.

There are many examples of low budgets and poor storytelling, like when the characters hide behind Tartu’s plainly visible sarcophagus before finally seeing it. Also, night scenes are normally shot “day for night”, where they film in daylight then tint to add a nighttime illusion. This effect is frequently unconvincing in low budget films, but here they forgot the tinting step. You wouldn’t know it was night had the actors not said so. It’s telling when you learn that filming was completed within a single week and the script was written in an afternoon, and your reaction is, what took them so long?

Writer/director William Grefe would go on to make some pretty average films and even did work on Live and Let Die. Death Curse of Tartu was never going to be a good film, but there were lost opportunities to make it interesting, or at least make sense. And it should have been twenty minutes shorter. AMRU 2.

Torn Curtain (1966)

Professor Armstrong (Paul Newman) is going on a secret mission, but unfortunately his fiancee (Julie Andrews) decides to tag along. He tries to ditch her, but she follows him into East Berlin. Golly, I wonder how this will all play out.

Getting through the rest of Hitchcock’s CV is going to be a slog. This is film 28 out of I believe 53 and one of his least interesting. Think North by Northwest if nothing about the plot was engaging and the stars had no chemistry. Which is very sad because I really like Newman and Andrews. Remember, this is just one year removed from her being irresistibly charming in The Sound of Music. They felt out of place in a Hitchcock film and didn’t have much to do.

Also, some of the techniques accepted in earlier films, like extensive use of rear screen projection, seemed conspicuously dated for 1966. Furthermore, the script is devoid of the humor so common in earlier films. Everything just fell flat.

Torn Curtain is like a well crafted slice of dry toast. No matter how perfectly it is toasted, it’s still toast. AMRU 2.

Night of the Lepus (1972)

An Arizona ranch is being overrun by Lepus. Wanting to avoid the indiscriminate spraying of poison, they turn to a well-meaning scientist who injects … something … into one of the Lepus. It escapes and later that day, giant Lepus are attacking the town and killing people. What’s a Lepus? Oh, they are bunny rabbits.

That’s right, this is the famous giant rabbit horror movie, three years before The Holy Grail. How do you make bunnies terrifying? Simple. Take close up shots of real bunnies on miniature sets, slowed down and shot at a low angle. Adding fake blood and a menacing growl made them genuinely terrifying fuzzy widdle baby-boos! Who’s a fuzzy boy! You are! Yes, you are!

Yea, this didn’t work. But the low rent special effects are not the worst part. Not even close. The pacing is slow and plotting, the story underdeveloped, and the acting … oh, the acting. I would periodically check to see if this was made for TV.

Films like this follow a certain format. The monster is introduced, there are initial incidents, the people try to figure out what is going on, things escalate, a plan is formulated, and conclusion. Them!, The Blob, The Birds, Jaws, they all progress the threat while exploring the people’s reaction to it. It should come as no surprise that the movie featuring giant, murderous bunnies does this very poorly. Things just happen and people just do things. There is very little logic. I mean, considering.

So, with this low budget, poorly conceived film, how did they manage to get former A-Lister Janet Leigh? Well, it was ten years since her last big film. And it was filmed near her house. Also here is Rory Calhoun. Perhaps you remember him from such films as Rogue River, Massacre River, and River of No Return. Oh, and How to Marry a Millionaire. And hey! Look, it's Doctor McCoy! Nice to see him get work.

The studio knew this wouldn't work, keeping the bunny angle a secret. Clunky, drab, and poorly acted, the effects just may be the best part of the film. There is an environmental Silent Spring message that may have won points with some viewers, but felt out of place. And the conclusion would take those points right back. AMRU 2.

Pardon Us (1931)

The boys hatch a plan to brew their own beer and sell what they can’t drink. Unfortunately they sell it to a cop and are sent to jail. It’s prohibition, remember. What was supposed to be another two-reeler, ended up their first feature-ish length film when they failed to edit out the boring parts. Or, in actuality, thought it was all good enough.

An early indication of efficient storytelling is how they go from concocting their brewing plan straight to being carted off to jail. No beer brewing antics, no arrest or trial bit, just “Let’s brew beer” to the close of the prison gates. But in reality they just wanted to do prison bits, so that’s all they did. Plus a scene in a cotton field wearing blackface. Yea, that was a thing.

Unpopular opinion: Laurel and Hardy’s comedy does not hold up. The big gag here is that Laurel has a bad tooth that causes him to make a rude mouth sound after every sentence. He can stop this by poking the side of his face. See him offend people when he forgets to poke his face! See him forget what side of his face he needs to poke! See him forget how blankets work! Pardon Us is rife with innovative punchlines like “Oh, yea?” and “Say, what is this?”

My hot take can be greatly influenced by mood, my company, and where I am in my film education. I fully acknowledge this. I don’t wish to dismiss a performer or performance too hastily and I should watch each film a second time before opening my big fat keyboard. But this is my third Laurel and Hardy film, one of their highest rated, and it, like the others, stunk.

I’ve rated higher films with more things wrong with them. Bad acting, bad editing, bad camera work, bad dialog. Here there is only one flaw, but it’s a fatal one. Pardon Us is uninteresting. Just a lot of pointless running around and goofy reaction shots. I have never before watched a film this short that felt so long. AMRU 2.

Sex Kittens Go To College (1960)

 

Thinko (Elektro) selects the perfect candidate to head the science department at Collins College, but Dr. West turns out to be a blond woman who looks like Mamie Van Doren (Mamie Van Doren). I mean, a blond woman? To run a college department? All of the men and some of the women fall over themselves in slapstick antics, while idiot gangsters try to find this Thinko character. I knew what I was getting into.

Perhaps Dr. West (Tassels Monclair to her friends) is the titular Sex Kitten but the plural ‘Kittens’ implies more than one. Maybe it’s a general statement as there are several attractive women we presume to be students: ‘The place that sex kittens go is college’. More likely they simply didn’t think very long on the title before shipping it off to drive-ins. The original title was Sex Pot (singular) goes to College. Either way, it wasn’t a terribly sexy movie. Or a funny one.

The main character other than Mamie is college administrator George, played by Martin Milner. Us old people will recognize him from Adam-12. He likes Dr. West just fine, but blond and attractive? Ya gotta admit she doesn’t look the part! Also here is a sixteen year old Tuesday Weld and her friend Brigitte Bardot’s sister. Bardot Sister is quite adorable but apparently needed to have all her lines dubbed.

John Carradine played a lecherous professor. He played a lot of low rent roles later in his career, though this was rather early for him to sink so low. Jackie Coogan plays Wildcat MacPherson, a college benefactor with a W.C. Fields impression. He was a child star in the silent era (The Kid) before personal problems put his career into the toilet. He would slowly revive his reputation earning roles in crap like this. Oh, and as Uncle Fester.

Further in the background is Conway Twitty (Conway Twitty) who was properly embarrassed by his presence here, and Maila Nurmi, better known as Vampira. I had trouble spotting her because she wasn't in character. Further still in the background is Charlie Chaplin, Jr. and Harold Lloyd, Jr. Yea, I wasn’t going to search for them.

Dr. West has, we are to believe legitimately, fourteen degrees and is fully qualified for her role. Is there a subtle message for women's rights here? To not judge people by their appearance? Not actually. This is simply a sexy fish out of water and played for as many laugh-adjacent reactions as possible. Not sure if drive-in audiences of the day would have tolerated anything smarter. But they should have held out for something funnier. The chimp was the best part. AMRU 2.

Konga (1961)

Dr. Decker (Michael Gough) was lost in Africa for a year and returns with witch doctor secrets to grow animals to enormous size. With the help of his trusty cook/housekeeper/lab assistant/lover Margaret, he recreates the formula. They injects it into a baby chimp causing it to grow into a regular sized chimp! Once again and Konga grows into a man in a gorilla suit! The commercial applications are limitless, and by applications I mean to murder people he sees as a threat.

I’ve hit quite a few giant ape films and I heard this one was terrible. Then I watched it and saw that it was terrible. I playfully knocked the others for playing fast and loose with scale. Here, the filmmakers don’t appear to be trying at all. With his third injection Konga grows out of control, but nothing is consistent. See exhibit A, before he crashes out of the house. Notice the doll victim compared to the counters behind him. And who has a basement laboratory with ceilings this high? Jealous. His size varies up and down through the conclusion of the film.

Gough’s Decker simply shouts exposition about the relentless pursuit of science, except all he seems to do is sic Konga on personal rivals. There is a side plot where he gracelessly tries to upgrade his cook/housekeeper/lab assistant/lover with an air-headed hottie student we are to believe is smart. In fact none of the acting performances are terribly good. Except for Konga himself. Acting principally with his eyes, I thought the ape man did a pretty fair job.

Sadly, Dr. Decker is an uncompelling villain. Projecting his lines at the top of his vocal range makes for a very two dimensional character, with no flesh and blood. His year in the jungle was rather mysterious but is not explored. Konga brings little new to the giant ape story, except maybe cool puppet plants. Sorry, Alfred. AMRU 2.

Deathsport (1978)

Authorities from a city capture “guides” to compete in a thing called Deathsport because, but these guides have competing story elements like mutants, talk in cryptic circles, and boy does this movie stink.

I didn’t come into this film with any great expectation, but it was the follow-up to Death Race 2000 so I was hoping it was a little fun. David Carradine returns as our hero and had it not bombed, the trilogy would have rounded out with Deathworld. While it featured some gratuitous nudity, it was completely lacking in humor. There was an attempt to save this film with reshoots and clever editing, but it failed. What we have is an overly complex story that makes no sense and goes nowhere.

Let’s talk about Claudia Jennings. She was a Playboy playmate that went on to do a string of cheesecake films during the 1970’s. She did pretty well, I thought, considering her pedigree, but apparently she had to be removed from the set once because she was coked up and unruly. She would die in a car crash shortly after the film’s release. Drugs, it would seem, were not involved.

Filming a convincing fight scene is difficult. The audience needs to know who the combatants are and how the fight is going for them, all the while being compelling to watch. Jackie Chan was the master at blocking a fight. So many of these low budget films do it poorly and Deathsport is no exception. And sadly, there are a lot of fight scenes.

Deathsport is a movie that started filming with little more than a premise. They hired a straight from film school director who was promptly fired. This stands as his only directorial credit. Allan Arkush was brought in to fix it, but the soup was already spoiled. The viewer is never sure what is going on, what the character’s motivation is, and why they should care. It’s just a string of pointless and poorly shot action scenes, tedious motorcycle chases, and punctuated with terrible dialog. No humor, no point, and no fun. AMRU 2.

Hands of a Stranger (1962)

A great concert pianist loses his hands in an accident and has the Hands of a Stranger grafted on. Sound familiar?

This is the second remake of The Hands of Orlac I’ve reviewed. There is yet another and now I feel obligated to watch it. Can’t be worse. Here everyone monologues in an overly melodramatic way, except for a cop that monologues in an overly snarky way. The dialog is so thick and awkward it would make George Lucas cringe. And it doesn’t let up. All 84 minutes of it. Each character grandstands emotionally at another followed by an unusual number of face slaps. It feels like it was written by a teenaged girl with a thesaurus. It was exhausting.

I focus on this because we get the premise. Will he ever play the piano again? Whose hands were theses? Was he a killer? Will he become a killer? Is he going insane? These questions are addressed gracelessly. For the record, no, don't know, don't know, yes, yes.

Sally Kellerman (you know, MASH, Back to School) has a small role. She was a cutie. Some of the cast went on to appear in films and not suck at acting, while others did us the favor of retiring. Anything else to report? Well, the opening credits feel like a made for TV movie. It sat on the shelf for two years before release maybe because it was terrible, but more likely because the other Orlac remake came out at that time.

A more generous me would say the acting and dialog style was a stylistic choice that simply didn’t work, but so many other choices were terrible as well. I mean, we never find out the identity of the stranger. Spoiler alert! AMRU 2.

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! (1978)

Tomatoes, the garden variety kind, start killing people. Let me stop you right there. You’ve already thought about this film more than it deserves.

Super low budget film made by complete amateurs. Most principles involved have few other credits, and mostly ones that feature murderous produce. A popular cult film, I likely saw it in the 80’s but remembered little. I remembered giant tomatoes, dumb jokes, and bad acting. Well, maybe I did remember something. There really is little else here.

An early scene shows a helicopter crash that clearly was unintentional. Apparently, the loss of the rental cost about two thirds of the film’s entire budget. Good thing they got the shot. The actors improvised dialog while pulling the pilot to safety. Yikes!

In the subgenre of low budget dumb comedy, think what was the lowest budget and dumbest comedy you ever saw. Now know that Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is it’s king. The jokes include a Japanese character (being clumsily dubbed ala Godzilla, of course) knocks a picture of the USS Arizona into an aquarium. Or a paratrooper who spends the entire movie running around in his jumpsuit with his chute out. Pop culture references standing in as jokes, and silliness for silliness’ sake. I mean, the main character is named Mason Dixon.

Based on a short film, I think the filmmakers were trying to channel the spirit of films like the much higher budgeted and professionally made Rocky Horror Picture Show. Here's an interesting fact: the terrible music in the film was performed by a teenaged Matt Cameron of Soundgarden and Pearl Jam fame. That's all I got for trivia.

I found Attack of the Killer Tomatoes hard to watch. None of it was funny, clever, or particularly interesting. It tried hard to be ridiculous rather than coming by it honestly. No point of view, no commentary on current events, just mindless foolishness. That said, my son liked it. AMRU 2.

Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957)

A clean cut teen couple, after making out in a car parked on a local farm, accidentally hits a space alien. The cops dismiss the alcohol-soaked kid’s story and the Air Force tries to cover up the flying “saucer”.

Initially intended as a straight sci-fi, they added comedic music and cool daddy-o dialog in an attempt to garner the ha-ha’s as well. This worked out about as well as expected. It’s a problem that we never get a good look at the Morbo-inspired aliens and the so-called saucer better resembles the bat mobile. Speaking of which, Frank Gorshin of Riddler fame plays a drifter trying to profit off of the LGMs. He may have been the best part of the film.

These low-budget, straight to drive-in films are a guilty pleasure of mine. I gave sub-3 scores to a couple I watched recently but truth be told, I enjoyed them. They are dumb, poorly acted, and sometimes racist, but I love them. The problem here is that the attempt at humor undercut any tension making the film pretty much pointless. There is little story outside of “Look! Aliens!” and they spent time introducing the Air Force characters to only stick in front of the ship with the direction “Act silly”. This doesn’t work.

I’m giving this thing only a half point lower than the others, but the difference in enjoyment is vast. The comedy isn’t funny, the aliens aren’t scary, and most damningly, the movie isn’t interesting. AMRU 2.

Nanook of the North (1922)

Nanook travels in a kayak, hunts seals, builds an igloo, and bores me to tears. Roll credits.

Nanook of the North is often called the first documentary, but because any length of film without a story narrative is technically a documentary, it isn’t even that. But it was a wild success and popularized what more people think a documentary is. But again, it isn’t even that. Nanook was played by a man named Allakariallak, the woman who played his wife (her name was Alice) wasn’t, and most of the scenes were staged. The Inuit people hunted with rifles and wore modern clothes, but filmmaker Robert Flaherty wanted to show a pre-industrial version of their society leading to criticism to depicting them as backwards and quaint. Still, it looked like a documentary and maybe that’s all that matters.

A fraud by modern standards but I do not hold that against the film. This is a time where the rules of film making were still being hammered out. It was very influential and gave people a vaguely accurate image of what life was like for the Inuit people. It also gave us a derisive name to call people who wear oversized winter coats. It’s in the National Film Registry, 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, and on many people’s great films list. But be warned that this is a painfully dull watch. I fell asleep several times watching it which is quite impressive for a 70-ish minute film. Nanook of the North was culturally significant and groundbreaking in some ways, but wholly uninteresting to me. I learned nothing about the Inuit people. I just learned what this famous film looked like, and, well AMRU 2.

Shock (1946)

A young wife, waiting for her recently released POW husband, checks into a hotel to advance the plot. Believing him dead for years, she becomes distraught when his arrival is delayed. Out on the balcony she witnesses an argument in another apartment that ends in murder. This shock puts her into a catatonic state. As luck would have it, a specialist (Vincent Price) happens to be staying at the same hotel and has just finished murdering his wife. This is a very delicate case. Better bring her to the sanitarium.

No mystery here as it never occurred to the filmmakers to play the ambiguity angle. Did she really witness a murder or was it all a delusion? Nope, she totally did. It’s just a matter of how everything plays out, which seems pretty obvious from the onset.

Our damsel in distress, cute Anabel Shaw, went on to do, well, fairly little else. She had a forgettable role in Gun Crazy but here she pouts her way into our hearts. Price is great as always in a very early villain role. If not for him, and the film’s short running time, I would not have considered watching it. Still, probably shouldn’t have.

The Amazon Prime film quality is quite poor. Rumor has it that there is a crisp version out there someplace, but I don’t think it would have helped. This is a slow moving, low budget, non-thrilling thriller that wastes a good Price performance. AMRU 2.

Transatlantic Tunnel (1935)

Visionary engineer Richard McAllan (Richard Dix) has a plan to build a Transatlantic Tunnel from Britain to America. You know, for world peace. All he needs is for some rich people to finance it. The project takes many years and impacts our hero’s life and family in many ways, while the rich people play games in the background. Gosh, that financier’s daughter is awfully pretty.

Originally titled The Tunnel, it is based somewhat loosely on the 1913 book Der Tunnel, which was also made into a 1933 German film. Infrastructure scenes were borrowed for the British version. Our hero’s life becomes consumed by the project. Not only does he deal with technical issues, he has to make sure the funds stay flowing, and even flies to America for publicity events. Wait a minute! He flies to America?

This film has been on my radar for quite a while and I don’t recall why. It must have been on a list of great early sci-fi movies. It has been compared to Things to Come (1936) which should have been a red flag. High concept, hit or miss scientific predictions, boring story. There is something infuriating about British movie dialog. They talk in circles, never say what’s on their mind, and use figures of speech that seem completely wrong for the situation. The Holly and the Ivy (1953) is probably the worst offender, but at least it had a fleshed out interpersonal story.

The sci-fi elements of Transatlantic Tunnel are admittedly interesting. Some thirty years later plate tectonics science would steal it’s thunder, but that’s not too bad of a run. The problem lays with the fact that building a tunnel, even if we forget about commercial airlines and plate tectonics, isn’t terribly interesting. Add to that the brit-speak and weak storyline and you end up with a film about as interesting as digging a hole. AMRU 2.

Coquette (1929)

Wealthy southern debutante Norma (Mary Pickford) has the attention of all the young (and a few middle aged) men, but she has taken a shine to an uncouth ruffian (Johnny Mack Brown) whom Doctor Daddy does not approve of. Ruffian Michael heads off to a work camp to make something of himself, but he can’t stay away.

It is hard to overstate how big of a star Mary Pickford was during the silent era. At five foot nothing and with youthful good looks, she played tween girls well into her thirties. Pancake makeup does wonders. She would not, however, transition successfully to sound cinema. Coquette was her first of only five forgettable talkies, then never to act again. By contrast hunky Johnny Mack Brown appeared in 165 feature films, well into the 1960’s, mostly in Westerns, and oddly as a character with his name.

Mary Pickford’s life may be more interesting than her films, definitely this one. She founded Allied Artists with D.W. Griffith, Charles Chaplin, and soon to be husband Douglas Fairbanks. Her marriage alone makes for quite a story. She, the nagging and humorless wife or Fairbanks, the drunken womanizer. Pick an angle and you’ll find a biopic to support it. Film star, film producer, studio head. Not bad for a tiny woman in the first half of the last century.

Based on a stage play, Coquette (slang for a flirtatious woman) seems it, spending twenty minutes per set piece. The story has promise but lacks execution. The audio track is typical of early talkies, and the acting style is stuck in the silent era and seems oddly unrehearsed. I recommend this film only if you are curious what America’s Sweetheart sounded like. Otherwise, AMRU 2.