The-Silent-Photoplayer Reviews

Museo del horror (1964)

Successful Mexi-Horror Thriller

[6/10 · 16 February 2012]

A later entry in the series of Mexican Gothic horror films, MUSEO DEL HORROR also marks one of the last of the horror films directed by Rafael Baledón for Jesús Sotomayor Martínez. Baledón also directed LA LOBA for Martínez the following year, another compelling period horror film.

MUSEO begins on the streets of Mexico—it seems to be the 1890s but the time period is never actually hinted at—where pretty young girls are being abducted off of the streets by a mummy-faced killer, who drags them to a secret room underneath a cemetery. There, he dumps a vat of boiling wax onto them.

Most of the plot centers around Marta (Patricia Conde), and the guests at her mother's house, all of whom become suspects as the film progresses. Professor Abramov (Carlos López Moctezuma) is a hot- tempered taxidermist, and takes peculiar fascination in his work. Luis (Joaquín Cordero) was once a great actor, but an accident in his past has reduced him to a cripple; now he is the manager at a theater (or museum—it's never made clear if it's an operating theater), where he gives tours to patrons who come to see his museum of wax figures. Marta's childhood friend, Dr. Raúl, is a famous local doctor; unbeknownst to anyone, he performs morally compromising experiments on cadavers, both supplied by the hospital and by a couple of grave diggers. Raúl is in love with Marta, but she does not return his affection. Instead, her affection is directed towards Luis.

MUSEO's biggest asset is Baledón's direction. Atmosphere begins immediately, and the film's obviously modest budget is bolstered by effective location shooting. Some ghastly visuals of the killer dispensing with his victims and one particularly good dream sequence (although possibly culled from another film) really set the horrific mood of the film. A good soundtrack (library tracks?) also helps the proceedings.

The script is competent, but not particularly deep. The two leading men vying for Marta's affection are mostly unlikable, and having both of them suspects diminishes the romantic values of the film. Many characters are introduced, but little to no background is given for them, let alone names.

In many ways, MUSEO DEL HORROR uses a similar formula to the Italian Giallo films that would become in vogue within a few years, although the film's lineage of period horror pieces of the '50s, particularly HOUSE OF WAX, are also obvious to genre fans. Like many Mexican films of the era, however, the tension is somewhat derailed by several musical numbers, obviously placed to satisfy a general audience.

While not top-shelf Mexican cinema, MUSEO DEL HORROR is an interesting entry in the horror films that were produced there during the '60s, and in many ways still above average and work seeking out.

Billy's Dad Is a Fudge-Packer! (2004)

Ham-fisted?

[2/10 · 22 August 2010]

As an aficionado of ephemeral films of the 1950s, a friend of mine put me in the direction of this parody of said genre. Unfortunately, the almost three minutes credits in its mere ten minute running time (!) betray its origins as yet another clueless Hollywood product.

While clearly a lot of effort went into the production of this short (judging by how many people worked on it), director/writer Donahue is derailed by not being true to the source material, and ultimately, a script that is not very funny. What the audience is presented with is a ghoulish caricature of 1950s American culture, made by someone who either didn't study or didn't grasp the lexicon of industrial films from that era. This caricature/alternate world is apparently a gag that is regularly cultivated in modern film, so to some degree, the false notes this film hits come to no surprise.

The look of the film is that of someone who thinks that the only characteristic that defines 1950s industrial film-making is to shoot in black and white. Many of the other aspects of the photography are anachronistic, such as the lighting, compositions of set-ups, and the fatal use of a zoom lens in a couple of its shots.

The short (and I do mean short) sabotages itself with its own brand of humor. The film's message is either an effect of or effected by its production company, POWER UP, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to offering lesbian film-makers support. This may come as something of a shock to some viewers, as the film's script is decidedly mean-spirited, mocking the genre's supposedly misogynistic attitudes, while overlooking the fact that most industrial films of that time were made outside of Hollywood by particularly left-wing and even black-listed filmmakers. Much of the subversive humor than can be found in these shorts is lost here entirely.

All sorts of questionable sexual innuendos are underlined and highlighted twice over by the ubiquitous 1950s narrator. These basic jokes could have been much more effective by subtlety, but their obvious and in-your-face attitude aren't funny if you're even mildly intuitive. Could the lesbian grocery lady pull out anything *but* a phallic object from her bag? The answer is yes: a pair of melons. How many times have we seen *that* gag? The only character that comes close to being identifiable with the audience is that played by Alex Borstein, and even she is the butt of several jokes. Donahue doesn't realize that you can't make statements with cardboard characters, even if if you do so by making them the polar opposite of what you believe in.

I'll give it a "2" for the fact that the picture obviously employed a number of people for it, but my suggestion to like-filmmakers is to use this picture only as a reference of what *not* to do when creating a satire. In contrast, watch Mel Brooks' YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and compare it to any of the 1930s Universal Horror films it lampooned. You will see where BILLY'S DAD lands astray.

The Saracen Blade (1954)

Not even for the completest .

[3/10 · 27 February 2009]

The plot: During the era of the Crusades, Ricardo Montalban plays an Italian peasant who gains favor of the king and works his way up to knight in order to avenge the death of his father.

THE SARACEN BLADE should work, but it doesn't. It's hampered at all ends-- the script isn't incompetent, but is uninspired and predictable. The dialog and performances jog between "old English" to modern-day soap opera. The cast is uneven, and nary a one of them is Italian, where the majority of the film is set-- indeed, England would have been a more convincing location location given the plot. Carolyn Jones and Betta St. John are pleasing to look at, but totally out of place and are better used in many other films of this period.

Henry Freulich's wide-screen cinematography is colorful, and the set design and costuming reflect this accordingly, but the lighting and camera-work is flat.

The exteriors are unconvincing, often doubling the rocky California countryside for rural Italy as well as the Middle East, and during an attack on a castle, the night-tinted stock footage is painfully unconvincing in black and white, inter-cut with the Technicolor footage shot for the picture.

The blame rests on the always cheap producer Sam Katzman and in-over-his-head William Castle, a director that I admire, but who was clearly more comfortable in westerns and cleverly-written contemporary pictures than costume dramas.

This was screened for me in a theatrical setting (35mm) in the last month, and doesn't seem to be available in any television package at this point (TCM seems to have struck a deal with Sony, so you may see it on their channel).

While I may be over-critical on what is nothing more than what would have been the "B" feature on a double bill in its time, I also doubt it's noteworthy enough to end up on DVD unless it's part of a Montalban set. No loss, as while this would have played in its day as a time-passer on the lower half of a double bill, out of this context today, it's just a mediocre time waster.

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Save your money and your dignity.

[1/10 · 19 August 2006]

SNAKES ON A PLANE is a bad film. And no, it's not of the "so bad it's good" genre, it's of the "how did this even get greenlighted?" make.

The film has no earmarkings of competent film making: its (only) assets are its exploitative title, lead actor and a year's worth of Internet hype. It spends no time giving you such minor elements as a plot, character development or even character background-- we're simply flung into the story and expected to enjoy it.

Clichés abound around every corner, and predictability is the name of the game for "SoaP" (which is what you'll want to wash yourself with after sitting through this stinker). The CGI is simply abominable, clearly an indication of this film's "B" budget. The opening shot of the plane taking off into a storm looks like it was lifted out of a Sony PlayStation video game. Oh yeah, PlayStation is among the SCORES of items that suffer through product placement throughout the film. I'm sure Nintendo is gloating right now.

Yeah, I got the joke. It just wasn't funny. It's supposed to be a farce. But you wouldn't know it from all of the deadpan performances. Samuel L. Jackson, whose work I admire quite well, is completely exploited in a role that will come back to haunt him, I'm sure.

The opening night crowd that attended the film with me is exactly why people over 25 don't go to the theater anymore. Noisy, arrogant, cell phones out and shouting at the screen. I felt like I was in the Mystery Science Theater, except nothing said was even remotely funny. I suppose all this will jive if you're a nerdy adolescent of this generation who is pumped up on Red Bull, studio hype and dressed up as Batman for a midnight screening, but for the rest of us who have taste, do yourself a favor and pick another film.

Silent Madness (1984)

3 times more effective in 3-D

[1 November 2004]

I recently saw a nice 35mm print of this in a collection of a friend who had a print that hadn't been run that he had held onto for 20 years. Appropriately enough, I saw it on Halloween.

The film itself is entertaining and keeps the viewer's attention. It's a generally psychological thriller about a killer that through the error of a psych ward that's been having seedy events behind the scenes. Most of the plot is predictable, and the acting is pretty mediocre, but the cinematography and good locations coupled with some clever moments make this one worth seeking out (even moreso in 3-D).

Some notes about the film: Apparently it opened in LA in 3D and pretty much did a roadshow tour. By the time it hit NY, it was being shown flat, which goes to show it really sort of hit the tail end of the 3D craze of the early 80s, which is too bad, because the photography in this one is tenfold that of anything else that was being done at the time (it was done with the over-under polaroid process, not anaglyph, and this was the way it was presented to me). Several murders have some great effects that really work well in the 3-D.

The film, while not being totally obscured with nobodies, does rise to the occasion with some character actors. The sheriff, a security guard and the housemother of the college make for some interesting roles and those actors/actresses stuck out in my mind as being some of the most memorable portrayals. Not too much gore, and everything is done well enough to leave the imagination up to the rest. My hands got sweaty during the show, so I was somewhat tense.

Worth catching if you can, particularly for an indie production. 7/10

Friday Night Lights (2004)

Okay film. Worth catching once.

[6/10 · 17 October 2004]

Friday NIGHT LIGHTS promises action and drama, and does not fail to give the audience that. For a sports movie, LIGHTS does come above the average, giving some good detail while not overburdening the viewer with minutae they couldn't care less about. In this respect, LIGHTS is worth catching once (although you might want to catch the matinée price showing).

Its biggest faults are in its character development... for a semi-biographical film, one might expect that there could at least be SOME realistic development, but the little that there is in the film comes off as bland characters developing into a little less bland versions of their former selves (ie. no one ever raises themselves above the level until the final game, and then totally miss the point).

LIGHTS also tries to emulate another great football film, REMEMBER THE TITANS, in its approach to the characters and what they are going through, but ultimately leaves its former a stronger selection.

Thornton is good as the burnt-out coach of the team that almost makes it, and his character is certainly the most interesting of the rest of the cast to watch. Some honor should be made of the subplot containing Derek Luke as "Boobie" Miles, which does help pick up the story behind what is going on and does make for an interesting conflict. However, the writers feel that once it's realized that he won't ever be able to play again, they throw every clichéd symbol possible in the script, which really hurts what would have been a most positive part of the film.

The film is also well shot, giving it a feel of a late-80s film as well as the football scenes having a distinct NFL highlights sort of tone to them. The only thing I took issue with was the editing, that was obviously trying hard to pace the film, but ended up making me need to take a Dramamine.

So on a 1-10, I give this one a 6. It's above average, and is entertaining to watch for once, but there's nothing here that would merit me watching repeat viewings of the film. It is pretty much a sports programmer.

Luke's Movie Muddle (1916)

Interesting and humorous.

[7/10 · 8 April 2004]

LUKE'S MOVIE MUDDLE (1916) is one of the few surviving "Lonesome Luke" shorts of the great comedian Harold Lloyd. Many of Lloyd's films survive because of his own preservation. Unfortunately, a fire at his estate wiped out many of the Lonesome Luke comedies.

MOVIE MUDDLE begins showing Luke as the owner of a movie theater that shows Pathé (the company that produced this short) films. He does everything—sells tickets, takes tickets, shows people to their seats. His only partners are the piano player and the bumbling projectionist, played by the great Snub Pollard.

When a girl enters (Bebe Daniels), Luke's flirting gets the best of him. The film gets jammed, and via a smoking (literally) patron, the audience rushes out thinking there's a fire.

The comedy in MOVIE MUDDLE is much more refined than your average comedy short from the period, and unlike the of Mack Sennett, creates a situation and THEN mayhem, not vice versa.

I saw this short via a 16mm print that was clear, but not great. Obviously from a lesser source, but not a strain to watch.

Harold Lloyd fans will find this satisfying as a curiosity piece and an idea as to what Lonesome Luke was like (contrary to popular belief, the character was nothing like Chaplin's Tramp past his appearance). To the slapstick fans, a funny short awaits.

7/10 for good effort and satisfying results.

Where East Is East (1929)

Mixed last effort for Browning and Chaney.

[6/10 · 27 December 2003]

Some spoilers may be ahead, but nothing that will wreck the plot.

When first viewing this film, I was hoping to see a good note to end on for the Tod Browning and Lon Chaney collaborations. Unfortunately, I was left with a bittersweet reaction of good performances and photography unfortunately spoiled by a terrible story and bad continuity.

With Browning at throne, one expects something really juicy and he doesn't fail to deliver. There's all sorts of incestuous overtones between Velez and Chaney, and some almost lesbian moments between Velez and Taylor. He does put in his trademark switcheroos, and has you believe one thing, and then turns the corner to something else. Unfortunately, many scenes seem tagged on or awkward, and it leaves you feeling as if he was pressed for time or wasn't finished when the cut was released.

For Chaney, this role is almost a throwaway. There's little change of pace in the role that he usually plays for MGM (unrequited love for younger woman, doesn't get the woman in the end). Little of the plot revolved around him, and most of the time he is found as a reference for plot points. There's some good character makeup, and a nice opening scene with Chaney and his goons trapping a lion, but this fails to make up in the final reel. His love for Toyo is believable, and by the end, there's really no doubt in what his decision will be between Toyo and Bobbie. This film really feels like a bit of a retread of his past films, particularly ROAD TO MANDALAY, WEST OF ZANZIBAR and even THE UNHOLY THREE. The same, tired Tod Browning vehicles are installed (even his trademark guy-in-a-Chimp-outfit-posing-as-a-gorilla).

Lupe Velez, Lloyd Hughes and Estelle Taylor are billed as if they're supporting cast, but the film ultimately revolves around them most of all. Velez is quite energetic and has a presence that unfortunately few seem to have captured in that era.

Hughes is charming as the protagonist, and he runs a good range of emotions in the film. One scene finds him in a restaurant, thinking of Madam de Sylva, and then the image changes to Toyo. His emotions feels torn, and his reaction is quite good and one must give Browning some props for handling the scene as well as it comes out.

Estelle Taylor is very good and very subtle as the sinister Madam De Sylva. Many scenes of the film portray her as a woman who can have anything she wants through her beauty, and this leads to the conflict in the story.

The photography is another thing that stands out most in the film. There's wonderful shots of French-Indo China, and footage along the various rivers really stand out. Various shots are well photographed, and really have a sort of glow that MGM was famous for. There's also some great wildlife photography, no doubt handled through stock footage, but edited in such a way that it flows seamlessly with the story.

The print I watched was clear and complete, with just a bit of decomposition at the beginning of the film (for a few seconds). It had no score, but I've read elsewhere that there was a sound effects and music track that the film was released with.

For the most part, this one is forgettable. Even if you are a Browning or Chaney fan, you may want to save this for a rainy day. However, it's worth a viewing once around, and does have redeeming qualities. In 1929, it may have been a bit risqué, but it's a pretty tame movie in comparison today. Not exactly for children, but most of it will go over their heads anyway to be sure. Good points are good performances, direction and photography; Bad points are a terrible script and fails to pull full circle.

I give it 6/10.

El fantasma de la opereta (1960)

Ridiculous farce.

[5/10 · 12 July 2003]

Mainly a vehicle for Tin-Tan, EL FANTASMA DE LA OPERETTA is pretty much what one would expect if they've seen his other films. However, he is pretty funny and the film has its moments.

Aldo (Tin-Tan) and his girlfriend Lucy (Peluffo) decide to reopen an abandoned theater to run operettas in. Unbeknownst to them, there's an angry Phantom haunting the place, hideously burned in a fire of his own making years earlier. Aldo starts dressing up like the Phantom to scare people for a laugh and hilarity ensues.

The movie is really loosely based on "The Phantom of the Opera", but there are some classic scenes. The Phantom plays his melody on a violin, and much of the time shadowed on the wall. The unmasking is pretty stupid, and the makeup is poorly thought out (he even has what looks like a pair of poorly-fitted fake buck teeth sticking out).

The sets are pretty neat and there are a few funny musical numbers. Rather hard to find, but worth a watch if you're a Phantom or Tin-Tan fan, but not much here for anyone else. 5/10 in my book.

The Miracle Man (1919)

Unfortunately lost.

[6 July 2003]

THE MIRACLE MAN (1919) is a lost film, all except for a small fragment that was shown in a Paramount "best of" reel. This film has long been considered the major vehicle for the principle stars, Thomas Meighan and Lon Chaney and the segment that survives shows why. The story is about a band of con-men who decide to pull a fast one on a town that believes that their blind priest is a faith healer. All of the crooks end up being cured through miracles of their evil ways and end up doing the opposite of what compelled them to be evil. Chaney's performance in the surviving "healing" scene is quite compelling. I can not recommend this film to anyone since I have not seen it all, but if you do get a chance to see the surviving scene, it's worth a look.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Only a shadow of a film.

[10/10 · 28 June 2003]

The current copy of the Universal production of "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925) is only a shadow of what was once a great film.

Originally, the way the film was shot, it stayed quite close to the book. Many people have complaints about the film straying from the novel, but key sequences like the Graveyard at Perros and the alternate ending where Erik dies of Christine's kiss were shot, then scrapped, then reshot, and then re-scrapped. Eventually, they were just rewritten or disacknowledged altogether.

The original cut was shown in Los Angeles on January 7 and 26, 1925. This was the cut that used the most footage from what was shot starting on October-December 1924. Due to poor reviews, the January release was pulled, and Rupert Julian was told to reshoot most of the picture. Already having become a difficult director and egocentric over the fact that he was the star director ever since he replaced Erich Von Stroheim on THE MERRY-GO-ROUND (1924), he walked out on the studio.

Edward Sedgewick (later director of Keaton's THE CAMERAMAN), who was working for Universal at the time, was asked by Carl Laemmele to reshoot and redirect a bulk of the movie. Raymond L. Schrock, who along with Elliot Clawson, was the screenwriter for the film, re-wrote new scenes to add into the film by the request of Sedgewick. Most of these scenes were added subplots, with Chester Conklin and Vola Vale as comedic partners to the heroes and Ward Crane as the Russian, "Count Ruboff" dueling for Christine's affection. This cut premiered in San Fransico on April 26, 1925 and also failed miserably with reviews.

The final cut had to be made, so Maurice Pivar and Lois Weber re-wrote the final draft script, which was edited to the final nine reels, which debuted on September 6, 1925 at the Astor Theater in New York City, and October 17, 1925 in Hollywood. This cut only exists in 16mm Show-At-Home prints made by Universal for home movie use. These prints are not top quality, but watchable, and even the most complete existing version of this print today is incomplete from years of splicing. These 16mm prints sometimes make it to the underground video market and are best to watch for story, but not for quality.

If you think about all of the mishandling in between, you realize how much has been tampered with the film so far. To add insult to injury, most prints circulating today, including Kino's and the Kevin Brownlow restoration, are actually from a re-release in 1929. When sound came around, Universal immediately redubbed Phantom in sound and re-shot about 40% of the film (whatever Lon Chaney was not in, since he was unavailable). The only quality 35mm print today is a copy made in 1950 for Eastman House in Rochester, NY of the silent cut of the sound re-release to distribute to theaters that didn't have sound systems.

So as you can see, it is really almost impossible to truly critique THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925). It is a semi-lost film.

White Savage (1943)

What a picture!

[24 June 2003]

WHITE SAVAGE (1943) was one of first three Universal Picture Technicolor productions when they acquired their contract with the company (the other two being "Phantom of the Opera" and "Arabian Nights", and it shows in every respect.

I was fortunate enough to catch White Savage on the big screen a few months back and was thoroughly impressed with the acting, script, and most of all, the beautiful set design and lavish Technicolor photography. The added sex appeal of Maria Montez does not hurt, either.

Again, like in "Arabian Nights", Montez is teamed up with Jon Hall as Kaloe, a shark hunter who is after Vitamin A to sell. Unfortunately, he is unable to fish around Temple Island, where all of the sharks seem to be. He meets a rascally friend named Orano (Sabu) who, through connections, gets him to meet the Princess (Montez). Needless to say, after some mishaps, the two fall in love. Also in the picture is Princess Tahia's brother (played by Turhan Bey) who is a gambler and loses to Miller (Thomas Gomez), who is after the treasure hidden in the palace pool.

The cast here, like most of the Universal Technicolor productions, is an all star one. Montez, Hall, Sabu and Bey end up all being Univeral-Tech favorites, and show up in almost all of the films. Also a rare treat is the added distinction of Sidney Toler in his Charlie Chan make-up, in an obviously similar role of a detective/lawyer/banker/et al. Thomas Gomez and Don Terry also round up the cast.

The photography is constantly colorful. There is not one scene in the film where there isn't a splash of blue, red or green somewhere in the picture. Direction by Arthur Lubin is adequate, while the script by Richard Brooks never slows down when it shouldn't.

Unfortunately, White Savage (1943) is not available on tape or disk, and due to the fact that Universal's commercial catalog lists the title as "black and white" by mishap (a simple error they have yet to corrected), most television stations will not play it. Even AMC, with a recent line-up of all the Montez titles, left this gem out of the package.

I would strongly urge anyone at Universal or with any influence to investigate this film. It's quite an adventure, and is sure to attract audiences.

I give it 8 or 9 out of 10. Not perfect, but at a little over an hour, time well spent.

Seven Footprints to Satan (1929)

Entertaining, but somewhat off a letdown.

[6/10 · 24 August 2002]

For years "Seven Footprints to Satan" has been considered a lost film. Often it was mentioned in magazines like FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND with mysterious photos that only titillated film collectors and horror buffs who had heard stories, but had never seen the film.

A little background on the film: the film was shot silent, but during the transition to sound, was given a music and sound effects track, and a talkie end sequence was shot. Of two extant prints, the one that has been bootlegged is a silent print made for foreign release with Italian intertitles.

The basic story is about James Kirkham and his girlfriend Eve being kidnapped to an old dark house involving jewel thieves and a cult led by "Satan". I won't give too much away, just review in general.

The film starts off very atmospheric, with the editing done so that when you think one thing is occurring, it's really something else. The whole theme of the film is very early art deco, and it is a pleasure to see Sol Polito's master camera-work, even if it is ravaged by the hands of time.

The film in style is not unlike Christensen's other film, HAXAN(1922), with bizarre orgies, scantily clothed women, bizarre characters and obtuse sets that overshadow characters at times. The whole atmosphere of the movie is a low key sort of insanity, and even with the wide sets seems claustrophobic.

The acting is a little over the top at times, but generally due to pantomime that was not uncommon of silent films of that period. Creighton Hale doesn't seem very heroic, more like a scared schoolboy, and Thelma Todd can't make up her mind if she's the heroine or the damsel in distress. Sheldon Lewis, Sojin, and Angelo Rossitto all have memorable characters in the movie, and add to Christensen's bizarre world of "Satan", the hooded villain of the film.

The ending really crashes the picture into a brick wall, but overall the movie is worth a viewing, though not the classic everyone expected(or at least, not myself).

I don't expect much to offend anyone in this film of today's audience, but definitely not for squares. There's very little violence, and what is is pretty stagy. There is a scene where a gorilla attacks a naked woman in chains, but there is no nudity and the violence is off screen and implied. The story line is rather complicated, and the Italian intertitles don't help, so it's probably not something for children. People who enjoy Christensen films, Tod Browning films, old dark house mysteries, and/or silent era/early films will enjoy this movie.

My rating 6/10. Has good sets, lighting and camera-work, and a decent story, which fails to come full circle and the acting is a little edgy.