'Over-Exposed' is a nice showcase for Cleo Moore

Over-Exposed (1956)
Starring: Cleo Moore, Raymond Greeleaf, Richard Crenna, Donald Randolph, and Isobel Elsom
Director: Lewis Seiler
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

An arrest for vagrancy ends up leading to a young woman (Moore) to discover that she has a talent for photography. She parlays that talent in to wealth and fame, trampling on supporters and friends as she climbs her way to the top. But at the pinnacle of fame, she becomes a target for the mob when she witnesses a murder.

Despite showing lots of talent, actress Cleo Moore seemed to have been treated more like a pin-up girl than an actress by studio publicists. In films where she had bit parts, such as "Women's Prison" she was all over the promotional material in varying states of undress, and in films where she was the lead, such as this one and "One Woman's Confession", sex appeal also seemed to be emphasized over anything else.

And this is rather a shame, because I think Moore had greater talent as an actress than she ever really had the opportunity to show, and I think that is exhibited best in this picture than any others I've seen her in.

Moore's character goes through several stages during this film and she gets to portray a range of emotions... always tinged with a mixture of hardness that seems born from a rough life rather than any sort of emotional or mental defects. In a couple of scenes, she is particularly effective in showing emotional pain with some rather subtle acting that manages to keep the audience's sympathy for her character as she behaves like a bitch to those who care for her. Moore deftly keeps the character on the side of seeming tragic while a lesser actress might have caused her to come off as pathetic.

Moore is supported by good performances from the rest of the cast, especially from Raymond Greenleaf as the burn-out drunk who becomes Moore's gateway to the world of photography and who rediscovers his own gift while helping to develop hers. Greenleaf's character is kindhearted and funny, and is so likable that viewers will almost despise Moore's character for not making a greater effort to keep their relationship intact later in the film.

I probably would have rating this film a 7 if not for the ending. Given it was made in the 1950s, I suppose it comes as no surprise how things turn out for Moore's character, but couldn't the screenwriters have paired her a more manly man? Richard Crenna's character spends most of the movie whining and being obnoxiously insecure (possibly even jealous) about Moore's success. Sure, he punches out a few gangsters, but it still seemed wrong that Moore should give up her career for someone like that.

'One Girl's Confession' is barely worth hearing

One Girl's Confession (1953)
Starring: Cleo Moore, Hugo Haas, and Glenn Langan
Director: Hugo Haas
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Tempered by the school of hard knocks from an early age, Mary (Moore) robs $25,000 from her mobbed-up employer out of revenge for him ruining her father many years earlier. She then confesses to the theft, but never reveals where she hid the money, so she is sent to prison where she is safe from retaliation. All she has to do is serve her time and then quietly retrieve the hidden fortune once she is released. But when the kindness shown to her by a professional gambler (Haas) inspires her to share the money with him to help him out of a tight spot, and he appears to repay her by stealing the entire secreted fortune, she sets out get "her" money back or to gain revenge.

I imagine that in 1953 "One Girl's Confession" had all the plot twists and reversals to keep viewers satisfied. Further, the acting is good, the cinematography is serviceable, and the direction is steady and well-focused. Personally, I think that Cleo Moore's character of Mary was a little too quick to develop such trust in Hugo Haas' character given her background, but if one accepts the idea that she was just a little girl at heart looking for decent father-esque figure.

But nearly seventy years later, the film's story comes across as feeling too straight-forward, too pat, and under-developed. When watching it, there are numerous complications that seem to be set up as the story unfolds, but which are brought to fruition. The mob angle is dealt with kinda-sorta, but it feels too easy for someone watching the film in 2011, and there are a couple of characters that are just begging to be revealed as duplicitous or as something other than what they appear to be on the surface. But, without spoiling anything, I can tell you that whatever twists you THINK might be coming, you'll only get a tiny fraction of the proverbial "storm" can one would expect to come down on Mary's head as she moves to collect the money she's "worked for."

Now, the plot twists that do materialize are all well-executed, and the signature "ironic twists" in a Hugo Haas picture are here in spades, but as "The End" flashed on the screen, I was left feeling like I'd somehow been short-changed. This isn't exactly a bad movie, it's just a little tame.

I suppose it might be a nice, light-weight introduction to the film noir genre if you have a 11-14 year-old girl in your household with a love of crime fiction and mysteries (and the same might be true of a boy, but I think it might be less likely), but I think time has left this movie behind as entertainment for adults. I'd move to hear other opinions, though.

Not exactly arresting, but still worth seeing

Women's Prison (1955)
Starring: Ida Lupino, Jan Sterling, Audrey Totter, Phyllis Thaxter, Howard Duff, Barry Kelley, Warren Stevens, Mae Clarke, Gertrude Michael, and Cleo Moore
Director: Lewis Seiler
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Amelia Van Zandt (Lupino) is the warden of a women's prison who runs her institution with an iron fist, dominating the lives of both prisoners and prison matrons. Her fiercely controlled world starts coming unraveled when her abuses of a delicate housewife incarcerated for involuntary manslaughter (Thaxter) and a prisoner who becomes pregnant (Totter) when her husband (Stevens)--who is incarcerated in the male side of the prison--breaks into the women's prison to an illicit rendezvous provokes both the anger of the prison doctor (Duff) and the prisoners.

Compared to the "women in prison" movies that followed in the 1970s, this is very, very tame stuff, even if the publicity campaign at the time if its release tried to position the film as if it wasn't. The still I chose to illustrate the film implies atmosphere and situations that are nowhere to be found in the film (while demonstrating that Cleo Moore was literally the poster-girl for Columbia Picture's marketing department when it came to "sexing things up"--her part in the film is very small, yet she is the subject of a publicity still). The prisoners here seem more like members of a professional association on a retreat than hardened criminals worthy of being locked away, the guards are all professional and appropriately concerned with the well-being of prisoners, the prison is neat and clean and well-lit. If not for the hell-beast of a warden, the prison in this film and the people in it are nicer than some places I've been on vacation at.

In fact, the prisoners are so nice that the over-the-top hysterics of the poor housewife who is sent up for killing a child with her car become very irritating after a while. While she doesn't deserve to be straight-jacketed or thrown in solitary for being frightened, it's a mystery where her over-reaction to normal prison procedures came from, since every prisoner she meets is nice and chatty and no different than the girls at the hair salon or in the grocery store checkout line. Hell, one prisoner could even find work as a tour guide, I'm certain, given how quickly she steps up to show the "new kid" ropes.

Although the strangely gentile nature of the inmates seemed a bit odd to me, I did appreciate the fact that the film didn't try to paint them as victims of the justice system like some other prison movies I've watched. Most of the inmates are exactly where they belong, and they make no bones about it. I also liked the fact that the matrons and guards were shown as decent human beings who were just doing their jobs.

I also liked the fact that the decency and professionalism of the prison's staff was contrasted with the indifference of the men's prison warden (Barry Kelley)--who may have worked his way up through the system, but who somewhere along the way forgot that the inmates and those working under him are human beings--and the calculated cruelty of women's prison warden, the aforementioned Ida Lupino. In fact, Lupino does such a great job at portraying a sociopathic cast-iron bitch that I almost wished her end had been a little less predictable and pathetic... I wanted her to get a "top o' the world, ma!" sort-of memorable exit, even if the way the film does dispatch her is adequate and dramatically fitting.

Well-acted, well-scripted, and effectively paced, "Women's Prison" is worth a look if you're a fan of Ida Lupino and have a high tolerance for melodrama. But this is not the place to look if you have a hankering for a Roger Corman or Jess Franco "birds in cages"-type sleaze.

'Blackout' may put you off the bottle

Blackout (aka "Murder By Proxy") (1954)
Starring: Dane Clark, Elanor Summerfield, Belinda Lee, Andrew Osborn, and Betty Ann Davies
Director: Terence Fisher
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

An American drinking away his sorrows in London (Clark) is offered a large sum of money by a young woman (Lee) if he will marry her. He wakes up the next morning with a pocket full of cash, blood on his coat, and no recollection of happened after his "engagement" in the bar. However, his "wife" is nowhere to by found, and the newspapers are full of the news that her wealthy father was murdered the night before.

"Blackout" may be the best of the film noir-style pictures produced by the venerable British film studio Hammer, first with American B-movie producer Robert Lippert and later with Columbia Pictures. I haven't watched them all, but this one was by far the most interesting of a batch of films that are undeservedly obscure.

Dane Clark excels here as an Everyman who suddenly finds him thrust into a world of deception, intrigue, and murder. The script is expertly paced as the story of his efforts to find out what sort of trouble he is in, so he can find a way out, and the red herrings and plot reversals and surprise twists are all perfectly timed. This is one mystery that will keep you guessing almost up to the very end as to who is behind the killings and why.

The rest of the cast also does a fine job, although Belinda Lee--who plays the girl who marries Clark, either to escape impending forced nuptials or to frame him for murder--was probably hired more for her beauty than her acting talent. She is perfect at playing a distant upper-class snob, but falters when called upon to do anything else. Of course, Lee might just be suffering in comparison to strong and experienced character actors like Clark and Elanor Summerfield--who plays an artist who helps Cook on his quest of discovery, and whose performance and character is so much more lively than Lee's that one hopes that she is the Clark will end up with in the end--as she was just 19 and this was her first major film role.

Then again, good performances from the actors, along with plenty of striking visuals, are to be expected when Terence Fisher is at the helm of a picture. He rarely disappoints, and he doesn't do so with this one, either.

Fans of film noir pictures and well-crafted mysteries will appreciate this film... especially since it comes bundled cheaply with other neglected Hammer Films mysteries.

'The Gambler and the Lady' is worth a chance

The Gambler and the Lady (1952)
Starring: Dane Clark, Naomi Chance, Meredith Edwards, Kathleen Byron, and Erich Pohlmann
Director: Sam Newfield, Patrick Jenkins and Terence Fisher
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

An American hood living in London (Clark) wants more than to just be the guy who made his fortune owning popular night clubs and running successful after-hours gambling parlors... he wants to accepted among the circle of the British ruling class the admires so much. When he befriends the beautiful and truly noble-in-spirit Lady Susan (Chance), it appears his dream may come true. But will gangsters trying to take over his businesses, bitter ex-employees, and his own naive belief that the British upper class is inherently more honest and decent than men of the street like himself conspire to destroy him first?

"The Gambler and a Lady" unfolds like a Greek tragedy, with everyone around Jim Forster, the American street tough turned die-hard Anglophile, warning him that the upper-crust is not a place for him, nor are those who are already there the kind of people he imagines. But, like all tragic heroes, Jim forges ahead, pursuing his hopes and dreams... and ultimately dooming himself and everyone and everything he ever cared about. The end of the film is its starting point, but even if it wasn't, it is no surprise that Jim comes to a sad end, nor how he got there; each step that he thinks leads him closer to his dream turns out in the end to be another factor in his downfall and only Jim is blind to this fact until it's too late.

Although Dane Clark will never be enshrined among history's great actors, he had a real knack for portraying Everyman and tough guys with soft interiors, both of which made him perfect for the role in "The Gambler and the Lady". In the hands of a lesser actor, or a more handsome one, the character of Jim could easily have come across as pathetic rather than sympathetic. While the entire cast is good in their parts--as is the case with most of these black-and-white Hammer crime dramas given that we see the same supporting actors over and over again--it really is Cook who makes the movie.

"The Gambler and the Lady" was reportedly shot in less than a month, and with a configuration of three directors in order to allow American writer/director Sam Newfield to help the project without drawing flak from the British labor unions, but any production difficulties aren't to be seen in the final product. It's a fast-paced, interesting and compelling drama that features more action than is the norm for Hammer's black-and-white thrillers and it easily ranks among the best of the films born from the partnership between the English studio and American B-movie producer Robert Lippert.

This is a movie that doesn't deserve the obscurity it has languished in for the past many decades. It's worth checking out for anyone who enjoys classic movies.

'Bad Blonde' is an okay crime drama

Bad Blonde (aka "The Flanagan Boy") (1953)
Starring: Tony Wright, Barbara Payton, Frederick Valk, Sid James, and John Slater
Director: Reginald Le Borg
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A boxing promoter's trophy wife (Payton) seduces and manipulates a young prize fighter (Wright) into murdering her husband.

"Bad Blonde" is a crime drama mixed with a sports movie and a dash of film noir. Despite the American title, the film's main focus is actually the up-and-coming boxing star Johnny Flanagan, to whom the original British title referred, and how he is undone and ultimately destroyed by the sociopathic Lorna Vecchi.

It's a tragic story, because we watch Lorna destroy two decent men--and ruin the lives of two others--as the film unfolds. Boxing promoter Giuseppe Vecchi (played by Frederick Valch) is a kindhearted man who works very hard to treat everyone he interacts with fairly and to make all his friends happy, so as Lorna keeps pushing Johnny to murder him with her lies and sexual wiles, we keep hoping that he will come to his senses and tell his manager about what is really going on between him and Lorna. The fact that Johnny is also a good person makes us root even harder for him, especially when Lorna preys on Johnny's naivete by claiming to be threatening suicide and claiming to be pregnant to push him over the edge.

Because her victims are so likable, it is very satisfying to watch Lorna get her just rewards at the end of the movie. It would be even more satisfying if it made a little more sense than it does, or if one didn't have the feeling that she might easily be able to lie her way out of full punishment, but there are few characters in films that viewers want to see dragged off in chains than Lorna Vecchi.

The ending might also have been more satisfying if Barbara Payton had been a slightly better actress. She excels at putting sexiness--or, more accurately, horniness--on the screen, and she's quite good at delivering lines that are supposed to come across as haughty or bitchy, but when required to act angry or scared, her performance falls flat.

Fortunately, the rest of the cast is strong enough to carry the movie, with the supporting actors providing enough emotion and the tension to bring life and strength to the flawed ending. Likewise, the character of Giuseppe Vecchi could easily have come across as an annoying buffoon if he had been portrayed by a lesser actor than Valk. Much credit also goes to director Reginald Le Borg for keeping the film moving at a fast pace and further negating the lack of range in Payton's performance.

"Bad Blonde" is one of a dozen or so film-noirish crime drama's that Hammer Films co-produced with American B-movie mogul Robert L. Lippert. It's worth checking out if you want to see a neglected side of the greatest British B-movie studio. It's not the best film that came out of the partnership, but it's still very entertaining.

Only remarkable because of two Hammer firsts

Man Bait (aka "The Last Page") (1952)
Starring: George Brent, Diana Dors, Marguerite Chapman, Peter Reynolds, Raymond Huntley, and Meridith Edwards
Director: Terence Fisher
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

When a lazy bookstore employee (Dors) and a psychopathic career criminal (Reynolds) set out to blackmail her married manager, his refusal to submit leads to murder.

"Man-Bait" is a rambling crime drama that is probably more true to life than most films of this type--the criminal element are dumb as rocks and their "brilliant" scheme of first blackmail and then murder is so badly conceived that the movie only lasts as long as it does because of characters who either panic because they think they are going to be the ones blamed for murder, or who play detective and put themselves in major peril. If the mostly law-abiding citizens had turned the police when it had been the smart thing to do, the film would have been over in 20 minutes.

Although the film's story is incredibly forced and populated by dunderheads, the actors give it their all, as does director Terence Fisher, in what was the first film in what would be a 20+-year association with the company. Although George Brent is still pretty bland, he is more lively here than I've ever seen him before, while the scenes involving Peter Reynolds as he sets out to do violence to the beautiful Diana Dors and Marguerite Chapman are excellent and suspenseful high points for the film that are as good as anything Fisher did in later and far better films.

While this was Fisher's first film for Hammer, it was also the first of a dozen co-productions between Hammer Films and American B-movie producer Robert Lippert; before Hammer hit it big with Peter Cushing and Technicolor horror, they were creating quite a little niche for themselves with low-budget mysteries and film noir dramas. This first collaboration is one of the weaker films that would result from the union, but it's a far sight better than some of Lippert's other films, such as sci-fi misfires "Lost Continent" and "Unknown World". Also, while all the Lippert/Hammer productions are very British in nature, this is perhaps the one that is most strongly so, with the flavor of the bookstore where much of the action takes place, the characters both inside and outside the store where they work, and the setting of a London still recovering from WW2 blitzes all bringing a strong atmosphere to this picture that I've not often seen in this genre.

Still, this is a film that is really primarily of interest to the hardest of the hardcore Anglophiles or fans of film noir, as well as those with a strong interest in the works of Terence Fisher, one or more of the features performers, or the history of Hammer Films. It's not a bad movie, but it's also not as good as many of those that would follow.

'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is an exception among needless remakes

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1954)
Starring: James Stewart, Doris Day, Brenda de Banzie, Bernard Miles, and Christopher Olsen
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A vacation turns into a nightmare for Dr. Ben McKenna (Stewart) and his wife (Day) after a dying intelligence agent entrusts Ben with information to stop an assassination plot. Before they can notify the police, their son (Olsen) is kidnapped by members of the conspiracy and they are told that if they reveal anything, he will be killed. Not knowing who they can trust, the McKennas try to use the information they have to track the assassins and free their boy.

In my review of the original "The May Who Knew Too Much," (click here to read it at Shades of Gray), I commented that it wasn't Hitchcock's best, but that it was still very good. For that reason, I've avoided the remake, because, even though it was also done by Hitchcock, I assumed it would be a waste of time, because, like so many remakes, it was entirely unnecessary.

However, among the multitudes of unnecessary remakes, the 1954 version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is one of the few films that has a number of improvements on the original.

First and foremost of these is the fact that the protagonists in this film are just a pair of ordinary people--well, as ordinary as a successful surgeon and a retired musical star can be--who truly are in way over their heads. In the original version, the couple had a bit of "adventurer" in them and were a little better equipped to deal with the enemy agents they chose to take on, where the McKennas are just an an ordinary couple. Further, where the original film jumped straight into the suspenseful adventure plot, the remake takes time to establish the McKennas as the Everycouple that they are, even to the point where we get to see them bicker about inconsequential things the way married couples will. It's also hard to imagine more perfect casting than James Stewart and Doris Day in these roles... they are the perfect "everyday American couple" in this picture.

The remake also expands on the use of music as a plot device. In both versions of the film, an assassination is performed in time with an orchestral performance where a crash of cymbols is to cover the gunshot. In the remake, however, music is also used to show the close, loving relationship between the McKenna's and their young son, as well as serving as the key to his rescue, in the form of the famous and Academy Award-winning song "What Will Be, Will Be (Que Sera Sera)."

Unfortunately, the remake comes up a little short in the villain department. While they are every bit as insidious as they were in the original--and perhaps even more powerful, as they have the clear backing on a nation in this version--they end up having less of a presence in the film. This is partly due to the fact that they receive less screen time in the remake, but it's mostly because none of them are portrayed by an actor of Peter Lorre's caliber, nor are any of them quite as quirky or as sinister as Lorre's character in the original.

I strongly recommend this film to any fan of James Stewart, Doris Day, and Alfred Hitchcock who hasn't seen it yet--especially if you were staying away from it for the reason I was. It's some of the finest work any of those three worthies did, and it manages to be a superior version of what was already a great movie.





As a little bonus, here are a couple of versions of "What Will Be, Will Be."

First up, is Doris Day's original single recording of the song, with a fan-made video using clips from "The Man Who Knew Too Much". If you've only heard covers, the original version will let you understand why it's still being re-recorded to this day.



And here's a mildly creepy cover of the song by Pink Martini. It was first heard in the pilot episode of "Dead Like Me".



Click here for downloadable MP3 versions at Amazon.com

Hitchcock revisits early style in 'Stage Fright'

Stage Fright (1950)
Starring: Jane Wyman, Richard Todd, Michael Wilding, Marlene Dietrich, and Alastair Sim
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

A flighty acting student (Wyman) tries to help a friend she thinks she's in love with (Todd) when it looks like he is being drawn into a murder cover-up by a manipulative diva (Dietrich). Things get even more complicated when she realizes she is actually in love with the police detective working to solve the murder (Wilding) and when she comes to fear that her friend was more than just an innocent bystander in the murder plot.

Although made in 1950, "Stage Fright" feels more like the movies Hitchcock made in the 1930s like "Young and Innocent" rather than his other films from around this same time, such as "Strangers on a Train". Maybe it's because of the English setting and characters, but for some reason, the mix of humor-to-suspense, the pacing of the story, and even the outcome, gives the film a tone that Hitchcock will never again use. Perhaps, as is suggested on the DVD commentary track, this film was Hitchcock's "goodbye" to England and that early part of his career, even if it came roughly a decade after his relocation to Hollywood. Everything I found so pleasant, charming, and oh-so-early-20th-century British about Hitchcock's early films are present in this

Some viewers may not like the quaintness of the film's characters, most of whom feel like they belong in an Agatha Christie novel, or perhaps even a detective novel directed at teenaged girls what with the central character been an independent-minded, if a naive and prone to over-romanticising everything, girl who is out to do the right thing, her way. (Although as far as that goes, this may well be one of the more "girl-friendly" mystery movies I've come across.)

However, it is that very quaint, old-fashioned nature of so many of the movies characters that make the villains seem all that more evil and twisted when their natures and motives come to light. The character played by Richard Todd--our young heroine's original love interest--seems all the more terrifying and threatening when his full psychopathic nature comes to light because he is surrounded by such otherwise gentle and fundementally well-mannered people. It is one of the most intense scenes in any Hitchcock film.

Another thing that works far better than it has a right to is the insta-romance featured in this picture. I've complained about this plot device in many films before--the one where characters meet and instantly fall in love because supposedly their Fated to be True Loves but in reality it's Dictated By Plot Needs--but here it actually works. Maybe I can buy into the sudden and complete romance between our heroine and the police detective because of the old-fashioned atmosphere that permeates the film, or maybe it's because of the clumsy and realistic way their relationship gets its start, but it was for once one I could buy into, and one that I found myself caring about when it looked like it was going to fall apart.

It could also be that I buy into the insta-romance because Jane Wyman's Eve and MIchael Wilding's "Ordinary" Smith are so likable both in the way they are acted and the way they are written that even my cynic's heart gave way to well-wishes and romantic impulses. The characters are charming and the actors have great on-screen charisma. Wyman and Wilding make perhaps one of the best couples to ever grace a Hitchcock film.

There is really only one downside to "Stage Fright", and it's one that critics and Hitchcock himself has slammed it for. The film opens with a "flashback" that we later learn isn't entirely true. Hithcock reportedly stated that he later regretted starting the movie that way, and critics have commented that a film should never include a flashback that's a lie. Personally, it didn't bother me that much, although I would have liked there to have been a clue or two that demonstrated the lie before it is explained to us so that I might have figured it out on my own, but perhaps my perspective is informed by the fact that I've sat through entire movies that turned out to be lies, such as "The Usual Suspects."

If you love the early Hitchcock movies, you need to check out "Stage Fright". Like so many of his British pictures, this is a sorely under-appreciated effort.

City Slickers Get Caught in a Hillbilly Feud

Comin' Round the Mountain (1951)
Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Dorothy Shay, and Margaret Hamilton
Director: Charles Lamont
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

When small-time talent agent Al Stewart (Abbott) book up-and-coming nightclub singer Dorothy McCoy (Shay) and talentless magician Wilbur the Magnificent (Costello) on the same bill, the two performers realize that not only are they cousins, but that Wilbur holds the key to locating a long-lost family treasure. So, the trio leave the big city for hillbilly country and riches... only to become embroiled in a reawakened backwoods feude between the McCoys and the Winfields.


"Comin' Round the Mountain" is definately one of Abbott & Costello's lesser films. This is partly because it that is also intended as a vehicle for singer Dorothy Shay. She has entirely too many musical numbers in the film (one would have been plenty), and her talent as an actress leaves something to be desired. I also think the hillbilly humor also hasn't aged well... well, or maybe the jokes just aren't that funny. (Although, paradoxically, part of me feels that if the film had spent a little more time on hillybillies fueding and shooting at each other, and gotten rid of some of the romance stuff, the film might have been funnier.)

Leave this one be, unless you're a tremendous A&C fan who must see all their films before your life is complete.

Abbott and Costello vs the Alien Amazons!

Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (aka "Rocket and Roll") (1953)
Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Mari Blanchard, Robert Paige, Horace McMohan, and Anita Ekberg
Director: Charles Lamont
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When two workmen (Abbott and Costello) accidentally launch with an experimental space rocket, they think they end up on Mars. The truth is, they end up places far stranger than Mars... New Orleans during Mardi Gras and then Venus, a planet governed by immortal Amazons.


As my summary above states, Abbott and Costello never get to Mars in this film, despite the intentions of the builders of the top secret rocket and the movie's title. Instead, they move through a thin plot that is stretched to the breaking point to fill the movie's 77-minute running time, and every joke is beaten to death, particularly during the New Orleans segment. Things pick up a bit when the action moves to Venus (where Costello is made King), but it's only a slight improvement. I'm not even sure if it's the distraction of all the scantily clad beauty queens that tricked me into thinking the film got better.

This is one of the weakest Abbott & Costello pictures, and everyone but truly hardcore fans of their work should probably not bother with it.

Action almost unknown in 'Unknown World'

Unknwon World (aka "To the Center of the Earth") (1951)
Starring: Victor Kilian, Bruce Kellogg, Marilyn Nash, and Otto Waldis
Director: Terry O. Morse
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A group of obnoxious scientiest and their boorish, wealthy patron hop in their nifty drilling, amphibeous under-earth ATV--the Cyclotram!--to explore deep underground, hoping to find a place where humankind can retreat to in case of a nuclear disaster.


Never has so little happened during a "let's go looking for the underground world"-type movie. I think I can safely say that, despite the high bodycount among expedition members, the enterprise undertaken by the characters in "Unknown World" is the least eventful, most uninteresting, and ultimately pointles journey to "inner-earth" that any fictional characters have ever undertaken.

There's no much here, exept a slighly more scientific take on what explorers might find deep underground--as in, no monsters, no nubile, scantily clad queens of Atlantis, no nothing. And, frankly, if you're going to make a movie about guys drilling their way to the center of the Earth, you better damn well give me some monsters and nubile barbarian queens at the far end! ("The Core" would have been better if there had been babes in loinclothes and little else at the end of that trip, too.)

Much promised, but nothing delivered

She-Gods of Shark Reef (1958)
Starring: Bill Cord, Don Durant, Lisa Montell, and Jeanne Gerson
Director: Roger Corman
Rating: One of Ten Stars

Two brothers (Cord and Durant), one wanted for murder, are shipwrecked on an island inhabited only by women who collect and guard pearls for an international jewelry company. However, the women are also involved with a cult devoted to a shark god who hungers for sacrificial virgins.


"She-Gods of Shark Reef" is one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen. The first 15 or so minutes provide an abundance of promising set-ups, any one of which could have given rise to a decent horror movies and any combination of which could have been the foundation for a great horror movie.

First, we have our heroes completely cut off from the surrounding world. Add to that the fact that the island they are stuck on is completely owned by "The Company", and that only "The Company provides transportation on and off the island. The there's Pua (Gerson), the creepy woman in charge of the pearl divers, someone who is obviously hiding secrets and whose primary motivation seems to be protecting the interest of "The Company" above all else, as well as hiding whatever secrets there may be on the island. And, finally, there's the fact that the women are a bunch of superstitious cultists who believe their well-being is tied to a mysterious shark god that prowls the waters beyond the pearl beds they dive at. Oh, and then there's the added bonus that shark-infested waters are scary all by themselves.

But what does director Roger Corman and screenwriters Robert Hill and Victor Stoloff do with all this potential? Absolutely nothing, other than giving the "good brother" the opportunity to rescue a girl (Montell) from being a virgin sacrifice as part of a romantic plot in the film. The mysterious Company never comes into play, the creepy Pua turns out to be more of a nag than a serious threat to anyone, and the shark god angle is total dud. Heck, even the shark-infested waters aren't used to their potential, as characters blithely swim back and forth between the island the reef of the title.

This film wastes all its potential, features a cast who might be okay if they had a decent script and perhaps stronger direction but who mostly seem lost here, and spends five or so minutes of its brief 63-minute running time on showing the island girls doing Hawaiian dances. (Not sure why the dance segment is there. Perhaps it's intended as a tourism PSA as an additional thank you to the government of Hawaii, which is acknowledged and thanked for assistance at the beginning of the beginning of the film, or maybe just a misfired attempt to inject some exoticness into the beautiful but somewhat bland setting of the film.)

The only reason I'm not giving this film a 0-star rating is because it remains interesting for most of its running time. Even that misplaced Hawaiian dance routine isn't exactly boring, It could be it held my attention because I kept hoping some of its potential would pay off, but for all of its flaws and ultimately being a disappointment, but it kept me engaged.

But it is a crime against lovers of cheesy movies that a great title like "She-Gods of Shark Reef" was wasted on such a crappy movie. The crime becomes even greater when one considers the original poster used to promote the film:


Oh, if only the movie itself to have lived up to the coolness the marketing material promised!

Hollywood couple dreams up tales in 'Charade'

Charade (1953)
Starring: James Mason and Pamela Mason
Director: Roy Kellino
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

This "Charade" is a black-and-white anthology film starring James Mason and his wife Pamela,and it predates the more famous "Charade" (with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn) by a decade. It draws its title from the set-up and linking device for the three stories--James dreams of being a film producer instead of just an actor, and together with his wife imagines what the movies he might produce would be like.


The three tales in the film share a common thread of love and how it might enrich or destroy a life. The first story is a little chiller about a failed artist who developes a fatal attraction for a man she knows to be a murderer, the second one is a melodrama about a man of honor who is tricked into a duel by a dishonorable man who once had designs on his fiance, while the closer is a light-hearted little story about a man blessed with infallable luck who goes looking for that one thing that's missing in his life and discovers it may or may not be love. (The first of the three stories even bears a small resemblence to the more famous "Charade", in that it takes place inside a shabby rooming house and focuses on a woman who is attracted to a potentially dangerous man.)

All three stories are well written, well staged, and expertly acted, with James and Pamela playing the leads in each one. The third, comedic story is a bit of a head-scratcher, but it's fun and entertaining nonetheless. The framing sequences add to the overall fun of the film, with the moment where what seemed to be James and Pamela's sitting room suddenly gives way to a partially struck sound-stage when James starts dreaming about the movies he's going to produce.

James Mason's talent as actor are clearly on display in this film, particularly between the first and second stories, where he goes from a character of quiet menace to one of stiff-necked, hidebound honor. and gives an excellent performance in each role.

"Charade" is definately a movie that isn't seen nearly enough. I recommend tracking down a copy and taking a look for yourself.






(That Amazon.com link is not a mistake. As far as I know, the 1953 "Charade" is only available as a bonus feature on that particular DVD edition of the better known film from 1963 of the same title. Click here to read my review of this Audrey Hepburn/Cary Grant thriller at Watching the Detectives.)

One of Corman's first is also one of his best

A Bucket of Blood (1959)
Starring: Dick Miller, Barboura Morris, Antony Carbone, and Julian Burton
Director: Roger Corman
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Walter (Miller), the dorky, put-upon busboy at the beatnik hangout Yellow Door Cafe, wants desperately to be an artist--both so he can impress his beautiful coworker Carla (Morris) and receive the sort of adulations that are heaped nightly upon poet Maxwell Brock (Burton). After he accidentially kills his neighbor's cat, he hits upon the perfect medium for his creative expression--covering dead bodies with clay and presenting them as sculptures. Soon, people are dying to be his models.


For years, I maligned Roger Corman as a terrible filmmaker. This was partly due to the fact that that the first few movies of his that I saw were indeed awful, such as "The Gunslinger." However, as I've been seeing more of his films, I've realized I misjudged him. He could make good movies, and "A Bucket of Blood" is one of this best!


"A Bucket of Blood" is a dark comedy where a talentless loner, desperate for acceptance, goes to extremes to fit in. Its events and messages can be interperted in many ways--as commentary on what passes for "art"; as a statement about the downsides of societal pressures to fit in, even among supposedly accepting counter-cultures; that the one constant in life is hypocracy; or perhaps even all of these--or the viewer can just switch off the brain and watch Walter's quest for acknowledgement spin out of control.

The general structure, story, and even the types of characters, of "A Bucket of Blood" is similar to Corman's later "The Little Shop of Horrors", but the story is more tightly focused, the humor sharper, and the actors' performances more restrained. Where "The Little Shop of Horrors" was a broadbased spoof, "A Bucket of Blood" keeps its attention on beatniks, artists, and wannabes. The main characters are virtually identical, and they even come to similar final fates, but Walter emerges as a far more sinister and evil character than Seymour, and the climactic moment in "Bucket" is more impactful (where it was just goofy in "Shop".

The camerawork and lighting of this film are near perfect. Yes, this is a low-buget film, and the sets are simple and shabby, but Corman uses a wide range of filmmaking techniques that heighten the drama and horror toward the end of the film, and they greatly enhance the pitch-black comedy when Walter's boss (Carbone) is reacting in the background while Walter is showing his latest creation to him and Carla, after the boss has realized how the sculptures are being created. In fact, during the chase scene toward the end of the film, I found myself wondering if many modern filmmakers should be forced to watch this movie to see how to properly apply the tools of their trade.

The actors are also universally excellent, with great comedic talent shown all-around, from the pair of doped-out beatniks who wander through the scenes spouting hilarious nonsense; to Carbone, as the demanding boss who finds respect and fear for his busboy; to Morris, Walter's kindhearted coworker and target of his affections; to Burton, as the blowhard, psuedo-intellectual poet; to Miller, who, in his only starring role, puts on a spectacular show as a dork who turns into a homicidal maniac because of a hunger for acceptance. Miller does a fine job of going from goofy to menacing, but still maintaining a comic tone.

'To Catch a Thief' is one of Hitchcock's best

To Catch a Thief (1955)
Starring: Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, John Williams, and Brigitte Auber
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

Long-retired catburglar and jewel thief John Robie (Grant) teams up with an insurance agent (Williams) to catch a copy-cat thief who has the police hunting him. Robie conceives using a rich American and her massive diamonds as bait for the mystery thief--a mistake, because Robie soon finds that the woman's beautiful, thrill-seeking daughter, Frances (Kelly), wants to catch a thief of her own.


"To Catch a Thief" is a romance film with a mystery plot and some nice action sequences thrown in. It features perhaps the most believable romance featured in any Hitchcock film, as it is one that seems to grow between Grant and Kelly's characters as the story progresses, instead of springing onto the screen from left field as it does in "Notorious", for example.

Grant and Kelly are working with nuanced characters and great dialog in this film--and their bantering is perhaps some of the wittiest that is featured in any of Hitchcock's movies. Their onscreen chemistry was also fabulous, and this, coupled with the gorgeous photography and moody lighting of first the fireworks scene and shortly thereafter the confrontation between Robie and the sexy young heiress after her mother's jewels have vanished, end up creating some of the best-looking scenes in any of Hitchcock's films. (The shot of Frances, her face in shadow while the diamonds around her neck that she is trying to seduce Robie with sparkle brilliantly is pure visual poetry.

This may not be the sort of movie that comes to mind when someone says "Alfred Hitchcock", because while all the elements are there, they are not in the proportions that one expects--there is more romance than drama, and more comedy than suspense--but this is perhaps what makes it such a fantastic movie. Hitchcock made a movie featuring all the elements that are present in just about every movie he made, yet he uses them in ways that makes this movie stand alone.

Although it is more than 50 years since "To Catch A Thief" was released, it remains a fresh and vital picture that is as entertaining today as it was then. It is a film that has stood the test of time, and which is truly deserving of the label "classic."

Abbott and Costello vs Bedouins and Cheese-eatin' Surrender Monkeys!

Abbott and Costello in the Foreign Legion (1950)
Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Patricia Medina, Walter Slezak, Douglas Dumbrille and Wee Willie Davis
Director: Charles Lamont
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

While in North Africa on business, a couple of American wrestling promoters (Abbott and Costello) become drawn into local intrigues by a beautiful French intelligence agent (Medina) and agents of a villainous Arab Bedouin sheik (Dumbrille) and are tricked into joining the French Foreign Legion.


"Abbott and Costello in the Foreign Legion" is one of the funniest, fastest-paced films the duo made. The film barrels from comedy setpiece to comedy set piece and and nonsense verbal routine to nonsense verbal routine with barely an establishing shot to separate them.

As funny as the film is, it's not perfect. A couple of the extended comedy routines don't quite work--like the chase scene involving a jeep and Arab bad guys on horseback--and the ending feels a little rushed and badly constructed. However, the good far outweighs the bad here, and it's definitely worth checking out if you've enjoyed other Abbott and Costello films, or if you're just a lover of wild crazy comedies.

Or if you're a lover of films that probably couldn't even be made today. This film features villainous Arabs who are sexist, violent and duplicitous in all things--oh noes! Never mind that the real world contains plenty of real people who are far worse than the character portrayed by Douglass Dumbrille in this film.

'The Screaming Skull' is a failed thriller

The Screaming Skull (1958)
Starring: John Hudson and Peggy Webber
Director: Alex Nichol
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

"The Screaming Skull" is at its best before the movie actually starts. There is a gimmicky bit where the producers promise to pay the funeral costs for anyone who dies of fright during the movie's climax. It's far more likely that a captive audience member will die of boredom or irritation before the movie runs its course, so the producers will never have to deliver on their promis, as that little bit is more chilling in a corny sort of way than most of what follows.

This is a would-be thriller with the now well-worn backdrop of a widower marrying a one-time institutionalized (but very rich) woman, moving back to the isolated old mansion he shared with his first love, and the fragile psyche of the new wife either starts unraveling, or perhaps she is really being haunted by the jealous ghost of the original lady of the house... or maybe someone is trying to drive her insane again.

I can't fault the film for its I've-seen-this-a-hundred-times-before plot, because it dates from 1958, but I do fault it for being just plain bad. The script is awful, and the acting is worse. There are only two things the filmmakers do right--first, they reveal the source of Jenni's (the mentally frazzled rich wife) terror at just the right moment in the film; second, they successfully manage to convey the woman's deteriorating sanity and growing sense of isolation).he acting is worse. In fact, the only actor who delives even close to a passable performance is Russ Conway, who plays Reverend Snow.

I will also grant that the final ten-fifteen minutes of the film are actually not bad in a third-rate horror movie kinda way. But the ending isn't so good that it makes up for suffering through what led up to it. (And the filmmakers back off from making the ending as powerful as it SHOULD be by wimping out when it comes to Jenni's mental health, or lack thereof.)

Other positive notes are that aside from portions of the ending, there are a few other genuinely creepy moments, such as when Jenni is left alone in the house (which is suddenly filled with animated skulls). There are also some very nice shots of her roaming the house, and of the mysterious, shadowhaunted, vegetation-choked grounds that surround the southern mansion where the movie takes place that show some glimmer of talent on the part of the cinematographer and technical crew. Unfortunately, every time the actors open their mouths to deliver badly written dialogue with a level of acting ability that might not even get them into a high school play, whatever gains the movie made it loses. The leading lady, Peggy Webber, is a great screamer, but that's all she's good for (although I suspect the scene of her stripping down to her bra and panties was pretty racey in its day, so maybe we can list stripping among her talents).

Cary Grant heads 'North by Northwest'

North by Northwest (1959)
Starring: Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, and James Mason
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

When ad executive Roger Thornhill (Grant) is mistakenly identified by foreign spies as an elusive American agent, he finds himself framed for murder and on the run for his life, hunted by an ever-present foe (Mason) for reasons he doesn't understand. He eventually attempts to turn his situation back on his tormentors and discover the true identity of the spy they've mistaken him for, with the help of enigmatic beauty, Eve Kendell (Saint).


"North by Northwest" is perhaps the greatest thriller ever made, and I think it's quite possibly the very best movie Alfred Hitchcock directed; it's tied with "Young and Innocent" as my favorite Hitchcock film. It's got a fantastic cast--with Grant, as the hapless hero, and Mason. as the ultra-polished, James-Bondian bad guy, Vandamm shining brightest--a perfectly paced script that moves from one complication to another, from one breathtaking chase to another with roller coaster-like ups and downs and whip-lash turns; brilliant camera-work and editing; and one of the most fabulous scores ever written for cinema.

The use of sound in the film is also incredibly impressive. The cropduster scene (perhaps the most famous sequence from any Hitchcock film) is as impactful as it is because of the strategic use of sound (or, more accurately, the use of silence).

Modern filmmakers and writers should study this film carefully. They'll notice that the KISS principle is best when it comes to effective thrillers, and they'll also perhaps see what real witty dialogue sounds like. Lovers of thrillers and spy movies should also seek it out if they haven't seen it yet. It truly is a classic, and it is a movie that deserves to be seen again and again.

'The Trouble With Harry' is worth getting into

The Trouble with Harry (1955)
Starring: John Forsythe, Edmund Gwenn, and Shirly MacLaine
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

One fall morning, a mysterious stranger (identified as Harry by an envelop in his pocket) dies in the forest near a small Vermont town, and several of the citizens think they accidentally killed him. The retired sea captain (Gwenn) thinks he shot him while aiming at a rabbit; the single mother with a sketchy past (MacLaine) thinks she killed him by striking him with a milk bottle, and the spinster thinks she killed him after beaning him with a hiking boot. They all want to cover up the murder they think they've committed, and free-spirited, game-for-anything painter Sam Marlowe (Forsythe) is more than happy to lend his assistance at grave-digging. But Harry doesn't stay buried, and as the group of conspirators struggle to find the best way to put the trouble with Harry behind them, the local deputy sheriff receives a report of a dead man in the forest... and his investigation quickly leads him to the four grave-digging friends.


"The Trouble with Harry" is a fun little black comedy about a group of people who act on assumptions rather than fact. It has an odd juxtaposition of light-hearted, romantic comedy with grim murder and death, as romances form over Harry's dead body. This, along with the fact that none of the main characters really seem all that concerned about Harry being dead is where much of the film's humor comes from.

The actors all give great performances, and MacLaine was really cute when she was young. There are some very clumsy moments--such as a couple complete failures at slapstick at a couple of occasions, and the times where characters are just a little too oblivious for sake of plot--and the film takes on a bit too much the feel of a stage play at times, but it's still pretty good. The excellent score by Bernard Hermann gets a full Star by itself; "The Trouble with Harry" score is perhaps the best music he did.

Although one of Hitchcock's personal favorites, "The Trouble with Harry" isn't the best movie he did, but it is an enjoyable, quirky effort with a strange sort of charm.





Click here to read reviews of early Hitchcock films at Shades of Gray: Reviews From a Place Where Everything is in Black & White.