Change Your Image
drmargis
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Magnum Force (1973)
It's no 'Dirty Harry', but it's not bad
In the first of four sequels to the iconic 'Dirty Harry', Clint Eastwood returns as loner cop Harry Callahan, the cop who doesn't play by the rules except when he does. Since the original film was a groundbreaking masterpiece, it may be unfair to hold a sequel to such high standards, but as entertaining as 'Magnum Force' is it just doesn't cut it as an adequate follow up.
After apparently fishing his badge out of the water after the climactic ending to the first film, Harry has returned to the force and is working stake outs since his new boss, Lieutenant Briggs (played by the always enjoyable Hal Holbrook) doesn't want him mucking things up with his cowboy ways. Harry returns to homicide when a series of high profile murders of criminals rock the city, eventually being put on the case that he quickly suspects is an inside job with the culprits being fellow San Francisco police officers.
The premise is a clever play on themes present in the first movie, that of how to stop criminals if laws are protecting them. But while in the original film the idea was present and important to Harry's character, it didn't dominate. In this one, it's there from the start. Being are waving signs around in the opening scene expressing just such a sentiment. A fellow cop even more bitter than Harry openly states his belief that criminals are allowed to kill cops but not the other way around. The movie throws these ideas out there haphazardly and doesn't really respond to any of them in any meaningful way. Which is fine if you take this for a kind of dumb action movie, but it's sorry to see it in a follow up to the original.
Harry's character also gets some softening. He's working very nicely with a partner with no tension at all. He's visiting friends and is beloved by children. Two separate women hit on him, one of them successfully. In the first movie when Harry spoke little it was because he didn't need to say anything. In this one, it often comes across as he's feeling awkward and uncomfortable. He's also put into more outlandish situations, such as accidentally stumbling onto a hijacking and stopping it with a plan that can be summed up as "wait until the last minute and then bump backwards".
The action sequences are fun, but there's no suspense in the crime. We know from the start who's committing them and the only tension comes from how long before they realize Harry has figured them out. Not a bad structure given the plot, but the movie could have benefited from some more mystery that would have put Harry's detective skills to use rather than seeming like killing screen time.
Direct Ted Post, it must be said, is no Don Siegel. The direction is often sloppy and uneven, with shoot outs and car chases lacking the gritty realism and consistency of the original. These sometimes cartoony sequences combined with Harry's softer presentation makes 'Magnum Force' seem like it could have just been any generic 70s cop film rather than a sequel to THE iconic 70s cop film.
I'm criticizing 'Magnum Force' a lot here, because there's a lot to criticize, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. The aspects that seem silly, starting from the ridiculous low-budget James Bond-esque opening, are kind of endearing. It's still a fun movie to watch. Seeing Clint Eastwood prowl the streets of San Francisco catching bad guys is never not going to be something I want to see, even if presented in a less than ideal packaging. Don't go in expecting the same quality of the first movie and you won't be disappointed.
Dirty Harry (1971)
A snapshot of the times that still holds up today
More than fifty years after its release, 'Dirty Harry' still stands as a classic of the gritty 70s cop genre. There's plenty of reasons why it still holds up. The story of an unnamed serial killer being tracked by a cowboy police detective who doesn't let anything et in his way is straight forward and told at a brisk pace with just the right amount of action and violence without going over the top. Legendary director Don Siegel was at the top of his game in directing what was his most famous work.
But the biggest draw to this day is the quietly menacing figure of Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan. With little dialog and an often barely audible snarl he commands every scene he's in. He has real star presence and knows exactly what he's doing, and Siegel never lets the camera linger away from him for too long. We get a few unnecessary scenes of a lone Scorpio, but the movie goes right back to Eastwood and I'm always glad when it does.
You could watch this movie as a straight up crime/action/cop film and one of the finest examples from its time and still enjoy it. That's one of the movie's strengths, and is often found in the best movies with a deliberate social message. 'Dirty Harry' came out during a specific time our country. It was 1971 and the groovy, optimistic 60s already seemed decades away. Rising violence and economic turmoil put the country in a bitter, sour mood, the kind of mood where a lot of people identified with the straight-talking, no-nonsense Harry Callahan. The biggest issue was a conservative backlash against the wild excesses of the 60s, with one of those targets being criminal rights. The preceding decade saw civil rights activists fighting back against excessive force by police and the tendency of some officers to treat all the accused as guilty, and violently at that. To the average American, who had little exposure to real crime or the police and only saw the news, this was misconstrued as coddling criminals and not caring about the victims. It was a simplistic and illogical response, but it was a real and widespread feeling at the time. Average citizens often didn't like the idea that some faceless bureaucrat could stranglehold the law with red tape and stop the Dirty Harries of the world from putting criminals either behind bars or in the ground.
But you really don't need to be that aware of 1970s American culture to still enjoy it. The message that 'there are too many laws protecting criminals' is definitely there, and is a plot point, but the movie focuses on the crime at hand alongside Harry's daily life on the force. Harry gets chewed out by the Chief and the Mayor but faces no serious onscreen punishment. When the DA chastises Harry for not following proper procedure and getting a warrant, he appears as annoyed with Harry for not following that procedure and forcing him to let Scorpio go as Harry is at having to follow any procedure at all.
There you have some of the weaknesses of the film, too. The DA having to let Scorpio go because Harry didn't have a warrant is questionable and seems like the kind of fantasy nightmare scenario critics of criminal rights laws saw as happening, since it seems likely that Harry had probable cause for entering the stadium and chasing down Scorpio based on the doctor's recognition. Aside from questionable legal logic, the movie does have a few parts that drag, although these are often short and don't really detract from the enjoyment.
'Dirty Harry' still holds up on its own as an entertaining movie even outside of the context of its times. It might possibly be the best of the genre of 70s gritty cop movies.
Venom (2018)
Frustratingly close to good
When I heard Sony was making a Venom movie without Spider-Man, I was not on board. It was such an obvious cash grab to hold onto an IP it was struggling with, and that's ignoring that Venom without Spider-Man just doesn't make sense. So I went in with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised.
But not.that pleasantly. I get the strong positive fan response but can't agree that strongly since the movie has some glaring problems that pile up as the movie goes on. I don't dislike it, and even enjoyed much of it, but overall left disappointed.
'Venom' follows journalist Eddie Brock, a selfish and arrogant but not awful guy, who winds up ruining his career and losing his girlfriend when he uses privileged information to go after a tech tycoon. Said tycoon turns out to be performing deadly tests on humans with an alien creature that can bond with other life forms, usually imperfectly. When Eddie tries to find real evidence of this, he winds up bonded with the alien and you get your Venom.
I don't mind that the story diverges drastically from the source material. There's a lot about this movie I did enjoy. Tom Hardy is good as Eddie Brock and is able to sell him as kind of a jerk but overall a decent guy, just with a lot of ego. The rest of the cast is otherwise forgettable, with only Jenny Slate bringing a fine performance. The action sequences are frantic and exciting, so no complaints from me on that. And the special effects mostly worked.
The biggest problem is the script and the pacing. The movie spends way too much time at the start dwelling on Eddie's decent from successful journalist to single, jobless loser. The relationship between Eddie and Anne just isn't interesting enough. A better script could have accomplished the same thing in far less time and more effectively. The inciting incident of Eddie losing his job and them breaking up works, but the movie struggles after that to get to the real plot. The movie does shine when the focus is on Eddie and Venom, but it comes too late and is poorly developed, even if it is engaging at times.
The second problem is that there are some great moments that would have been very effective pay offs, except the movie does almost no work to earn them. When Eddie is told the Symbiote is killing him, he acts angry and hurt, asking "What happened to us?" Except there is almost no attempt to sell that the two are building a trusting relationship. When Eddie later asks Venom what changed his mind about invading the Earth, Venom says, "You did." Except aside from a brief scene of Venom musing that the city looks pretty nice, there is no other development of this change of heart. This is a shame, since the movie otherwise does a good job with the Eddie/Venom combo, it just doesn't work to develop it in any meaningful way. The whole movie just screams that the script needed a few re-writes to tighten it up and give it a real structure and build up the characters.
There are plenty of logical problems. How the symbiotes bond with people is poorly explained. The movie implies Anne willingly bonded temporarily with Venom to rescue Eddie, but the last scene we just saw her in moments before she was convinced she had to get Venom as far from Eddie as possible. Riot is described as having unimaginable powers by Venom and they have little chance of beating him, but when they do fight it turns out Riot is just... a little bigger and a little stronger, but otherwise it was a fair match. We could even argue the ending where the hero fights an evil version of himself is the most common cliche seen in almost every other comic book movie (Superman II, Superman III, Superman IV, Man of Steel, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Ant Man, Black Panther) But these are minor, and I'd say the movie handles them as well as any super hero movie. The real problem is the writing and how poorly the characters were handled.
I went in not thinking I would like it at all and wound up moderately enjoying myself. I just wish the movie had done a better job. I'm not saying don't see it like a lot of critics, but I am saying don't get your hopes too high. Not a bad way to spend two hours but I can't help thinking how with a little bit of effort they could have had a great movie, and instead are left something mediocre and only sometimes entertaining.
Invasion, U.S.A. (1952)
Pay your taxes, do your part during war time, and give blood regularly
'Invasion, U. S. A.' begins as a street level look at what an invasion of the United States would look like just as as the Cold War was gearing up in real life. The opening scene lays out a sound premise by setting up a group of strangers in a bar discussing politics, the economy, and complaining about taxes and communism. Thinking I was about to see an hour or so for 50s folks reacting to news reports as the invasion progressed, I was on board.
If the movie had stuck with that premise it could have been a decent movie. The characters are broad and the acting and dialog are average, but the scattered scenes we get of them throughout do hold up and made wish that was the whole movie. Instead, they often cut away for long periods of time to military stock footage to represent the invasion. It slows the movie down and distracts from the more interesting story of regular people dealing with an unprecedented foreign invasion. The movie goes one step forward in derailing its story by breaking with their "average people react to U. S. invasion" premise by random showing shots of U. S. and the enemy military command. It doesn't jive with the initial set up, and the fact that they never address the invading nation by name only makes it further confusing that we're getting a look at their inner workings. The enemy is never identified (although viewers at the time could safely assume they are Soviets based on everything), so seeing these scenes come across as even more out of place.
Despite being obvious propaganda, the message is itself tame and could have been told well enough to function as a movie in its own right if the filmmakers had stuck to the original premise and implied structure. Pay your taxes, do your part during war time, and give blood regularly are the messages here, which seem more akin to WWII "Buy war bonds!" ads than the more aggressive propaganda at the time. It seems odd that one of the Cold War-themed movies that shows the communist enemy in its most overt form as a literal invasion force also has one of the calmer tones and mostly reasonable, un-warlike requests of its American viewers.
This isn't a disaster and does have some better points, but is overall disappointing and only moderately interesting. Honestly, cut out the military scenes and leave only the parts with characters we start with and you wouldn't have a bad half hour.
Fear and Desire (1952)
Only worth watching to see a great director's first effort
'Fear and Desire' is a film known entirely for being the first feature film of a director who would become one of the most innovative filmmakers of the 20th century. There's very little hint of that future promise in viewing this film out of context, but then it being Stanley Kubrick's first movie is virtually the only reason to watch it. It's unlikely it would have been preserved at all if not for Kubrick's later fame.
The plot involves a group of soldiers trapped behind enemies lines looking for a way out. Their efforts to escape are thwarted by one of the soldier's mental instability and another's obsession with killing a general. The war is intentionally kept vague. We only know this particular part of it takes place in the woods.
Kubrick attempted to keep his first full length effort from the public eye his whole life. It's easy to see why. The script is pretentious and tries so hard to say something that it doesn't even know what it wants to say. The directing is competent but unremarkable. The acting is all around bad, although maybe we should blame that more on the script and director than the skills of the actors. Even the usually compelling Frank Silvera's performance is stilted and unconvincing. And he's the best of the lot.
I wasn't being entirely fair when I said that this was a movie that only Kubrick completest should bother watching. As bad as it is, it's still impressive that it got made. This came out in 1956, years before independently financed films became common, and decades before it became cheap enough for multiple ambitious young filmmaker to create feature length films outside of the studio system. It's impressive that Kubrick was able to get the funding together to complete the project, and to do it on his terms. The end result doesn't stand up on its own, but that shouldn't take away from the accomplishment.
Every movie Kubrick made after this is infinitely better. If you want to see where his career began, or want to see an early example of the kind of self-involved, pretentious art house movies that would become more common as film production moved away from the big studios, then you can do worse than 'Fear and Desire'. But if you want to watch a compelling war movie with relatable characters and exciting situations, then you can do a lot better.
The Magnetic Monster (1953)
A unique stand out example of 50s sc-fi
In the early 50s American scientific research boomed with the promise-and danger-of atomic research. The Office of Scientific Investigations and their "A-Men" examine odd occurrences that may be of scientific interest. OSI agents Jeff Stewart and Dan Forbes are first on the scene when a pulsating magnetic disturbance appears in town and soon discover the cause has apocalyptic potential.
The premise of 'The Magnetic Monster' isn't too different from the hundreds of other similar movies of science going too far and other scientist having to step in to avert disaster. What makes this film different is the manner of the "monster" and the structure of the story. It unfolds like a police procedural, think 'Dragnet' through a science fiction lens, with the OSI functioning as a less melodramatic X-Files. The story moves at a leisurely pace as the scientist heroes do their job with the low key professionalism expected of well-meaning, competent bureaucrats. Even the more dramatic scenes come across as reassuring given how level headed most of the characters are.
That's not to say that there isn't a sense of danger when it's warranted. Even when the characters remain calm, they still sell the sense of danger without blowing the budget on special effects. To be fair, not seeing the most exciting effects of the titular monster is one of the film's short comings. This also might have helped the movie age better and be taken more seriously, since there aren't hokey effects to laugh at.
It's the threat that makes this movie stand out. It's not aliens, or a killer robot, or a mutant caused by a radioactive accident. The magnetic monster turns out to be a new element that consumes a dangerous amount of energy and causes massive destruction if it doesn't get that energy. I suspect the science doesn't completely add up, but it's delivered with sincerity and to a layman it at least doesn't sound like it's going overboard.
The writing and acting is appropriate and professional, if not exactly compelling. Richard Carlson (co-star of 'Creature from the Black Lagoon') and King Donovan (of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers') are naturals who head up a cast of other B-movie regulars. Carlson as leading man Jeff Stewart even gets some homey scenes of him and his wife discussing finances for buying a new house, while also coming off as kind of a weirdo who's obsessed that his pregnant wife become enormous.
This is an underappreciated gem of 50s sci-fi that deserves more attention. It's less fun than some of the wackier films in the genre, and less thought provoking than some of the more famous ones, but is still worth a watch.
Goe-gi-maen-syon (2021)
A solid and creepy if forgettable anthology horror film
'Ghost Mansion' is an anthology horror film in five parts tied together by all taking place in a haunted apartment complex, framed by an artist seeking inspiration for his horror comics. It's a solid entry into the anthology horror genre, although don't go in expecting something exceptional or even that memorable.
I guess 'mansion' must mean something different in Korea, because that is definitely an apartment complex. At least 'Ghost Mansion' is a much better title than the inexplicable 'The Night Shift' this movie gets flagged with in some English releases. If you avoided watching this because you thought it would be about a janitor working late nights in some building, fear not; there's not that much janitor content.
Some of the stories are straightforward, while others don't make much sense-which is okay. They may be insubstantial, but they provide plenty of steady, atmospheric build up and legitimately creepy scenes. That's exactly what I wanted out of a random Korean horror movie and I was not disappointed. The artist (or "webtoon artist" as he insists on calling himself, despite the implication that his comics are published in traditional print media) framing device works, and is developed just enough that it sells the "don't go in there" moment that are often so cheesy.
If you just want the kind of slow burn creepiness that Asian horror does so well, but broken up in bite sized chunks, this one is well worth a watch. It's just not particularly interesting or memorable.
Invaders from Mars (1953)
On the fence between silly 50s schlock and serious classic sci-fi
An intelligent young son of a government scientist spots a UFO late one night. When his father goes to investigate the next morning, he returns changed for the worse. The boy immediately knows something is wrong, but every time his frantic quest to alert the adults of the town that something is going down he is met with either disbelief or resistance of alien invaders disguised as humans.
'Invaders From Mars' starts off strong. Jimmy Hunt as David is an exceptional child actor and sells the increasingly paranoia as he's blocked at every turn by adults who either disregard him or are part of the plot he's trying to stop. This first part of the movie is effective and methodical. Once he alerts the proper authorities who are able to respond to the alien threat, the movie takes a sillier turn. A scientist working on a top secret weapons project casually reveals the location and manner of the defense system using atomic rocks to be launched into space. Once the military is involved they continue to take the kid along, even watching the site of the invasion from a rooftop and letting him remain within feet of the subterranean spaceship. Plus, I'm fairly positive the writers didn't know what words like "mutant", "x-rays", and even "atomic" actually mean. From that point the movie becomes somewhat of a slog, and the plotting and dialog very fitting of a true B picture.
However, this is not a bad movie. Yes, if it falters after the initial set up and does not rise to the heights of an 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'. It still has an effective story and subverts the more generic cliches of 50s sci-fi. The alien invaders aren't mindlessly malicious. Their use of humans as tools-complete with the kind of alien implants that would become ubiquitous in UFO conspiracies in the following years-serve a sympathetic purpose. The aliens are threatened by a defense system that's about to go live. Granted, if they can travel from Mars, melt through Earth, and effortlessly control humans, couldn't they just blow up the rockets before their launched and kill all the scientist involved from a distance? If the details of the plot don't make a lot of sense and the story drags, the overall film is still effective on a more basic level.
For one thing, the visuals are stunning. The cheap and somewhat garish sets looked unconvincing at first but quickly grew on me. While clearly on a budget, there is something appealing about the look of the film. It's not high budget art direction, but it's still effective all the same. Both this, and the clunky dialog and acting seen throughout most of the movie, actually lend the film credibility if you consider it being viewed from a child's perspective. Everything is both silly and completely earnest at the same time.
The movie also deserves credit for subverting the usual cliches of the sci-fi genre and the general cultural morals of the time. The aliens are clearly the bad guys but they're not acting completely without reason, even if we never truly get to see things from their perspective. The military are ultimately the good guys, but blind obedience to authority is presented as a liability. Indeed, father does not always know best, and this is not a perspective often seen in US media of the era.
For such a silly move it has a surprisingly nuanced tone. I'm not going to deny nostalgia has a lot to do with the fondness this movie receives, but it's not just that. 'Invaders From Mars' is a deceptively intelligent and subversive example of the 50s sci-fi. It's not 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' or 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', but it has merit beyond it's B-movie trappings and it's reputation goes beyond mere nostalgia.
The Mistress of Atlantis (1932)
An intriguing, but ultimately boring, dreamlike adventure film
Two French Foreign Legion soldiers and their aids stumble upon the lost kingdom of Atlantis-apparently-deep in the Sahara Desert. There, their Queen Antinea shows alternating interest and disinterest in these travelers.
'The Mistress of Atlantis' follows the familiar premise of an H. Ryder Haggard novel or other such Victorian-era adventure stories. A hidden kingdom in an unexplored continent. Europeans in way over their heads in an unfamiliar land and yet able to hold their own. A possibly ancient female ruler of a possibly magical kingdom with possible magic involved. 'The Mistress of Atlantis' is basically a knock off of 'She' but with a heaping dose of ambiguity.
Whether anything mystical is involved is left entirely ambiguous. Sure, the queen Antinea could be exerting some sort of influence over the incoming Legionairres, but this is Brigette Helm of 'Metropolis' fame we're talking about, so it's entirely likely multiple men have gone nuts over her with no magical influence whatsoever. This ambiguity is one of the major weak points of the movie. The so-called "Atlantis" seems less like a mystical, ancient city and more like a random oasis town in the Sahara. That's still a cool thing to see, but not really worthy of the focal point of a Haggardian adventure tale.
However, the uncertainty of everything in this movie is actually one of the strong points. There is a dreamlike atmosphere throughout the story that could make up for the lackluster plot, story, and acting. The real problem is the direction and editing. In some ways the move feels more ahead of its times than it is. There are many odd close ups and tracking shots that were extremely uncommon in 1932 and give the movie a more modern look than it otherwise would have. The film quality is also atrocious even by 30s standards, so any benefit from a pioneering new film style are lost. More specifically, there are important sequences involving fights and battles that are shot so poorly it's difficult to tell what's even happening. Even if we take this to be a more serious film in the guise of a Haggard-esque adventure tale, that only makes these deficiencies more glaring. A movie trying to use a usually low-brow genre to present more thoughtful entertainment should be built better and with more care. This is an ambitious movie with some impressive attempts at film-making but ultimately fails at being either entertaining or thought-provoking. There are no single scenes that stand out. On a few individual scenes of performances are memorable. It comes so close to a hidden classic so many times and yet each times fails to reach the heights of even a minor classic.
If you're a fan of 'She', 'The Lost World', Allan Quatermain stories, and other similar adventure stories from the late 1800s, then by call means seek out 'The Mistress of Atlantis'. It's well worth a watch for fans of the genre. Even those interested in 1930s movies will be interested to see how it is in some ways ahead of it's time. Unfortunately, it's no 'She', so if viewers looking for a rollicking adventure will be disappointed.
Kook's Tour (1970)
The end of an era
This was it, the last Three Stooges film ever made. It came decades after their heyday in almost 200 Columbia shorts in the 30s and 40s, and just a few years after those shorts being rerun on television lead to a brief revival that had the Stooges staring in several feature length films. It's an essential film for Stooge fans. Unfortunately, it's not very entertaining on its own.
'Kook's Tour' follows Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe as they retire and take their RV and boat to visit the great national parks of the American Northwest. This consists mostly of Moe narrating over footage of the gorgeous natural scenery, some comedy bits where the three attempt to be outdoorsmen, and lots of scenes of them fishing.
The most obvious knock against the movie is the washed out picture quality. The footage was basically shot as a glorified home movie intended to be a pilot for a television series that would follow the same pattern, and was virtually lost and not taken care of for decades. Even by 70s film quality, the picture is hard to watch.
Beyond that, it's just not funny. The Stooges are too old by this point for their trademark physical comedy. Even the comedic dialog falls flat more often than not. There are a few bits that warrant a nostalgic chuckle, but not enough to make up for the rest of it. This is a real shame, since they missed a great opportunity to just have the old stars reminiscing about the old times amongst each other or possibly fans they encounter.
Plans for a show were cancelled when a stroke forced Larry Fine to fully retire before production was complete. Both Moe Howard and Joe DeRita would attempt Three Stooges revivals in the next few years, but none would come to fruition. Moe made some TV appearances but died in 1975, just four months after Larry. Joe DeRita retired from show business due to failing health the same year. With Moe's brothers' Curley and Shemp both long gone by then, that was the end of the Three Stooges.
It's sad to see the end of a legendary career, especially when their last effort proved unremarkable. Stooge fans should definitely seek this out. The casual viewer is unlikely to find anything of value in it, though. If you want a taste of the Stooges, find their shots from the 30s and 40s, and don't bother with 'Kook's Tour.'
The Giant Claw (1957)
A 50s sci-fi flick that kind of works, and can even be fun
There are plenty of schlocky, poorly made, written, and acted sci-fi flicks from the 50s. This is one of the better ones.
'The Giant Claw' follows civilians engineer Mitch MacAfee after he witnesses a mysterious UFO during a test flight. Mathematician Sally Caldwell and entire US military dismiss him as a crank, until Mitch's UFO is soon seen all over North America destroying planes and causing panic. The military throws everything they can at it with no effect. Nobody is safe: not parachuting pilots, not backwoods Quebecois, not rowdy teenagers shouting 'daddio!' It turns out the world is facing a big, angry bird that size of a battleship with no idea how to stop it.
Don't get me wrong, 'The Giant Claw' isn't "good" exactly, but neither is it awful. It has a lot of problems. The pacing is all over the place, slowing to a crawl even as the movie reaches its climax. The dialog is serviceable for the most part but can be truly cringe worthy at other times (the baseball metaphor heavy flirting scene and the general joyfully encouraging a civilian to keep harshly criticizing the military being two prime examples). The techno jargon and science talk sound convincing enough to a non-specialist but could have been cut down with no loss to the story. There's also the distracting narration that pops up at random when the filmmakers thought the viewers would be confused, although to be fair that was very common in 50s sci-fi.
With all that wrong with it, the movie does have some things going for it. For one thing, even if the pacing isn't great it does have a clear, direct plot. While it seems unlikely that the military would rely so heavily on two civilians whose association with the big bird was accidental, it kind of works. Aside from the fact that actor Jeff Morrow is some 23 older than his co-star Mara Corday, even the romance angle kind of works. The acting overall is professional, if not exactly compelling. In fact, "It kind of works!" would have been a good tag line for this movie.
The big bird gets a lot of flack for looking goofy-which it does-but the model actually decent. The plane models used also aren't great, but neither are they completely horrible. Considering this was on a B budget, the effects are almost impressive especially when you compare it to other similar movies of the time.
There's nothing groundbreaking in 'The Giant Claw', but for fans of 50s sci-fi it's a fun ride. And for somebody looking for a better example of those kind of movies than you usually see, you can do a lot worse.
Matango (1963)
A castaway horror film that's worth your time
'Godzilla' director Ishiro Honda turned away from his usual giant monster fare for this early 60s science fiction/horror movie. It is really worth a watch. The same focus he showed in combining human themes with fantastic elements in Godzilla is put to good use here. Except here, the there's a lot less spectacle for a much smaller scale story.
While this is ultimately a 60s style sci-fi flick, those genre elements don't really show up in any relevant way until the last twenty minutes. For the bulk of the runtime this is a straight up castaway movie. Since I'm a sucker for those, I was hooked immediately and stayed hooked. Although I admit I did ask myself a few times when the mushroom folks were going to make a real appearance when it was an hour in and we were still focusing on the castaways and their castaway troubles.
'Matango' begins with a group of clueless yuppies from Tokyo crammed together in a yacht that seems far too small to fit them and their minimalist crew. Due to the owner's inept commands, they sail directly into a storm and wind up shipwrecked. Once there, they find another shipwrecked ship to stay in, avoiding the usual castaway tropes of having them build shelter. While the skipper shows some initiative to keep them alive, the passengers and rest of the crew range from incompetent to intentionally harmful. So it winds up being a problem when it turns out the most prominent potential food source on the island is a fungus with mutational properties.
If you go into this movie dead set on getting your monster fix you may be disappointed. Honda puts the focus on the survivors' attempts to survive and the immediate problems they face as lack of experience, class disrespect, and finally mutant mushrooms foil them at every turn. The characters are not the most fleshed out, but they work well enough and the actors and writing pull it together.
Don't be deceived by the goofy title this was given when released in America, 'Attack of the Mushroom People.' This is just a quite good castaway movie with sci-fi and horror elements.
The Flying Saucer (1950)
Well, the scenery is nice
'The Flying Saucer' isn't quite the clunker it's made out to be-which admittedly is not by many, since this obscure 50s sci-fi film is hardly a household name. It actually has a simple, if basic, premise. Fun-loving layabout journalist(?) Mike Trent-played by director/writer/star Mike Conrad-is asked by his editor to investigate confirmed sightings of his a flying saucer throughout the country. For reasons involving Soviet Russia, he reluctantly agrees to be sent to Alaska with another investigator, Vee Langley, disguised as his nurse due to a nervous breakdown. What follows is... not that much.
The premise is strong enough to hold a movie but the execution is weak. There are some good character moments, but even these come off as forced as our two lead actors have little chemistry despite their best efforts. The plot takes several minor swerves which don't entirely make sense. Prolific and little-known character actor Frank Darien has the most memorable roll as Matt, the drunken old friend of Mike. Darien manages to give the best performance in the film in one of the last roles of a career stretching back to the silent era. Unfortunately our two leads are not nearly as charismatic or interesting, although to their credit they do their best with a weak script and even weaker plot.
This movie is not completely worthless, though. Even if it lacks the understated artistic merits of the best 50s sci-films and the entertaining campiness of the worst, it still does have a story that slogs forward and actors that do their best with what their given. The lead up to the ending and the finale are a cop out and could have made the previous dull hour worthwhile if handled better. If there's any reason to watch this movie it's for the beautiful scenery. Mike Conrad may not have been a top notch director, writer, or actor, but he captured some amazing shots of the Alaskan wilderness and 1950s Juneau. It may not be enough to justify watching most of this forgettable 69-minute early sci-fi film, but it's not nothing.