How bad is it? It's seriously flawed, but merely mediocre.
Should you see it? It's not necessary, though a decade-by-decade Carradine vampire festival might be fun.
I first saw this film at age 8 on an 8 mm. black and white print. I was not impressed. Better print and color and decades later, it's still not much. Like most of William Beaudine's films, it's not good, but not utter trash.
The film doesn't really work as a western, though there are some natives and some horses and a gunslinger. It also doesn't work as a vampire film (the name "Dracula" never gets said in the film), as the main tropes get messed with - the vampire appears in daylight, it's not a wooden stake that kills him, etc. The biggest problem, however, and the source of some cheap laughs, is that the cinematographer didn't know how to shoot day-for-night, so night scenes are clearly done in the day. There's also bats on wires. After being shot at 12 times, Dracula succumbs to a glancing blow from a thrown handgun.
The companion piece, "Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter," Beaudine's last film, is worse because it's duller. It's not even an accurate title, as it's Frankenstein's granddaughter.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds."
Friday, March 7, 2014
The Astounding She-Monster (1957)
How bad is it? It's cheap and poorly acted.
Should you see it? Sure. It has its moments.
A girl is kidnapped just as a meteor arrives. A scientist is investigating the meteor as the kidnappers try to take his jeep. Then animals and people start dying when they get touched by an alien that came from what was thought to be a meteor. She has a shimmery metallic jumpsuit and painted eyebrows and is shot in double exposure to make her look eerie (and it actually works - score one for cheapo effects). The best part of the film is the very end, where the alien gets acid thrown at her and all that's left is an amulet that supposedly generated an electric field about her; inside the amulet is a message that makes for a plot twist.
Should you see it? Sure. It has its moments.
A girl is kidnapped just as a meteor arrives. A scientist is investigating the meteor as the kidnappers try to take his jeep. Then animals and people start dying when they get touched by an alien that came from what was thought to be a meteor. She has a shimmery metallic jumpsuit and painted eyebrows and is shot in double exposure to make her look eerie (and it actually works - score one for cheapo effects). The best part of the film is the very end, where the alien gets acid thrown at her and all that's left is an amulet that supposedly generated an electric field about her; inside the amulet is a message that makes for a plot twist.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla (1952)
How bad is it? Though cheap, it works as a comedy.
Should you see it? Can you resist a film with that title?
Duke Mitchell (Dominic Miceli) and Sammy Petrillo play themselves, which means they're doing impersonations of Martin and Lewis. Petrillo's act is so good that Jerry Lewis sued him, keeping him from ever doing it again. The two, doing a USO tour, land on a jungle island (with stock footage and potted palms), where the local tribe first threatens them and then takes them in. They hear from the Dorothy Lamour-ish girl in a sarong that there's a doctor in a castle that might be able to help. She has an overweight sister who chases Sammy throughout the film. The doctor's doing experiments in evolution with apes, turning a chimp into a capuchin and he's got a gorilla in a cage, which he thinks might be a good place for a human brain. Duke's the one that gets the transfer and jokes ensue from Sammy mistaking one gorilla for another. In the end, it turns out to be a dream. There's a scene where Lugosi is drinking and it appears he might actually have been drunk; this is the last film he'd be in until he was in Ed Wood's fiascos.
This was one of eight films directed by William Beaudine in 1952. Beaudine was known for his low shooting ratio (film shot/film used) and given the nickname "one-shot" for his lack of retakes. Because he always was under budget and on time, he was given less and less money and time for his films, but still managed to make competent films. Three other films of his will be reviewed on this blog.
Should you see it? Can you resist a film with that title?
Duke Mitchell (Dominic Miceli) and Sammy Petrillo play themselves, which means they're doing impersonations of Martin and Lewis. Petrillo's act is so good that Jerry Lewis sued him, keeping him from ever doing it again. The two, doing a USO tour, land on a jungle island (with stock footage and potted palms), where the local tribe first threatens them and then takes them in. They hear from the Dorothy Lamour-ish girl in a sarong that there's a doctor in a castle that might be able to help. She has an overweight sister who chases Sammy throughout the film. The doctor's doing experiments in evolution with apes, turning a chimp into a capuchin and he's got a gorilla in a cage, which he thinks might be a good place for a human brain. Duke's the one that gets the transfer and jokes ensue from Sammy mistaking one gorilla for another. In the end, it turns out to be a dream. There's a scene where Lugosi is drinking and it appears he might actually have been drunk; this is the last film he'd be in until he was in Ed Wood's fiascos.
This was one of eight films directed by William Beaudine in 1952. Beaudine was known for his low shooting ratio (film shot/film used) and given the nickname "one-shot" for his lack of retakes. Because he always was under budget and on time, he was given less and less money and time for his films, but still managed to make competent films. Three other films of his will be reviewed on this blog.
Amityville 4: The Evil Escapes
aka Amityville: The Evil Escapes
How bad is it? It's one of the worst TV movies.
Should you see it? If you have nothing better to do. And you're drinking.
"The Amityville Horror" was a surprise hit, as it was not very good; it apparently had something to do with there being a real house that the film was based upon. Three sequels followed, all bad, the last one by far the worst, made for television. In the fourth film, the evil of the house is apparently contained in... a lamp! and it gets purchased by Jane Wyatt, who brings it to California, presumably for ease of filming. Here we get introduced to Patty Duke (who had starred with Wyatt in the TV show "Hotel") and a couple of kids. Norman Lloyd of "St. Elsewhere" make an appearance, to add to the television feel.
The film has a lot of the lamp turning on and off by itself. Not scary. There is some carnage; a plumber loses a hand, someone gets strangled with the lamp cord, the boy has a very funny scene with a possessed chainsaw in the basement. At the end, the cat appears possessed, which doesn't follow what logic the film might have.
There are people who actually like this film as a serious horror film. They must lead sheltered lives.
How bad is it? It's one of the worst TV movies.
Should you see it? If you have nothing better to do. And you're drinking.
"The Amityville Horror" was a surprise hit, as it was not very good; it apparently had something to do with there being a real house that the film was based upon. Three sequels followed, all bad, the last one by far the worst, made for television. In the fourth film, the evil of the house is apparently contained in... a lamp! and it gets purchased by Jane Wyatt, who brings it to California, presumably for ease of filming. Here we get introduced to Patty Duke (who had starred with Wyatt in the TV show "Hotel") and a couple of kids. Norman Lloyd of "St. Elsewhere" make an appearance, to add to the television feel.
The film has a lot of the lamp turning on and off by itself. Not scary. There is some carnage; a plumber loses a hand, someone gets strangled with the lamp cord, the boy has a very funny scene with a possessed chainsaw in the basement. At the end, the cat appears possessed, which doesn't follow what logic the film might have.
There are people who actually like this film as a serious horror film. They must lead sheltered lives.
The Atomic Brain (1963)
aka Monstrosity
How bad is it? It's a ridiculous plot, done poorly.
Should you see it? It has a couple of laughs, but it's no classic.
An old woman has a doctor doing experiments that will put her brain into the body of a beautiful young woman. To that end, she's brought three girls to the house under false pretenses and she chooses between them. "Don't run up those stairs. Your legs will get all muscular and ugly," she tells one. There's a mutant from a failed experiment that guards the door of the lab (it's in chains and has two protruding lower incisors and a bit of hair, otherwise not much of a monster). In one experiment, one of the girls gets the brain of a cat (!) and this leads to the best scenes of the film, as she pretends to be a cat. Another girl gets injured in another experiment. The third, of course, gets away as the lab goes up in flames. She gets followed by a cat, that now speaks with the voice of the old lady.
How bad is it? It's a ridiculous plot, done poorly.
Should you see it? It has a couple of laughs, but it's no classic.
![]() |
| That's an uncomfortable-looking bra. |
Assassin of Youth (1937)
How bad is it? It's mediocre and dated.
Should you see it? Only if "Reefer Madness" and "Marihuana: Weed With Roots in Hell" are your favorite films.
The one interesting thing about this anti-drug film is the town gossip who rides around town on a motor scooter and who resembles Margaret Hamilton a little. A girl stands to inherit a fortune, but the will has a morality clause and the girl seems to be running with a crowd that's into marijuana and parties (which seem to consist of rolling around on the floor). There's a hearing before a judge and the truth is revealed to be that she's innocent. This film is too well acted and plotted to be so-bad-it's-good.
Should you see it? Only if "Reefer Madness" and "Marihuana: Weed With Roots in Hell" are your favorite films.
The one interesting thing about this anti-drug film is the town gossip who rides around town on a motor scooter and who resembles Margaret Hamilton a little. A girl stands to inherit a fortune, but the will has a morality clause and the girl seems to be running with a crowd that's into marijuana and parties (which seem to consist of rolling around on the floor). There's a hearing before a judge and the truth is revealed to be that she's innocent. This film is too well acted and plotted to be so-bad-it's-good.
Astro-Zombies (1968) and other T.V. Mikels films
How bad is it? It has some of the worst dialogue ever (written by Wayne Rogers of "M*A*S*H" fame).
Should you see it? Yes.
This is probably Ted Mikel's most entertaining film (though I have a fondness for "The Doll Squad"). The plot involves a scientist (John Carradine) who is replacing human body parts with synthetic parts and transplants the brain of a psychopathic killer into his creation. Spies of a foreign nation (or three; it's hard to think of one place these people could all belong) have plans to take control of the zombie, while the US government is hot on the trail of all of them.
Carradine's assistant is not a hunchback, but stoops anyway and he squints one eye and goggles the other, he's mute and he's doing his own experiments, which consist of tying a girl in a bikini to a table. Tura Satana changes from one ridiculous outfit to another and tries to act tough; one sees the talent of Russ Meyers in getting such a great performance from her in "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" by comparison. The zombie has a battery that is solar powered; in the climactic scene, it has to hold a flashlight to its head to keep going and it's impossible to see it as threatening at that point!
The movie spawned three sequels decades later, which I haven't seen.
Mikels directed several films at the start of the alphabet:
Aftermath (1982): post-nuke biker film. Not bad.
Angel of Vengeance (aka WarCat) (1987?): Survivalists vs. bikers. Dull.
The Black Klansman (1966): a light-colored black man infiltrates the Klan. Fair.
Blood Orgy of the She-Devils (1973): good title, poor film about a witches coven.
Should you see it? Yes.
This is probably Ted Mikel's most entertaining film (though I have a fondness for "The Doll Squad"). The plot involves a scientist (John Carradine) who is replacing human body parts with synthetic parts and transplants the brain of a psychopathic killer into his creation. Spies of a foreign nation (or three; it's hard to think of one place these people could all belong) have plans to take control of the zombie, while the US government is hot on the trail of all of them.
Carradine's assistant is not a hunchback, but stoops anyway and he squints one eye and goggles the other, he's mute and he's doing his own experiments, which consist of tying a girl in a bikini to a table. Tura Satana changes from one ridiculous outfit to another and tries to act tough; one sees the talent of Russ Meyers in getting such a great performance from her in "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" by comparison. The zombie has a battery that is solar powered; in the climactic scene, it has to hold a flashlight to its head to keep going and it's impossible to see it as threatening at that point!
The movie spawned three sequels decades later, which I haven't seen.
Mikels directed several films at the start of the alphabet:
Aftermath (1982): post-nuke biker film. Not bad.
Angel of Vengeance (aka WarCat) (1987?): Survivalists vs. bikers. Dull.
The Black Klansman (1966): a light-colored black man infiltrates the Klan. Fair.
Blood Orgy of the She-Devils (1973): good title, poor film about a witches coven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

_003.jpg)




