Change Your Image
danr51
Reviews
The Thin Red Line (1998)
The Thin Brown Line
This film is yet again an example of all that is horrific about
Hollywood. Under the guise of delivering some sort of powerful
anti-war message and showcasing a bunch of famous actors, the
makers of this film make us pay them $8 to waste three hours of
our time. first of all, the film is pretentiously self-important and overly ponderous. Why didn't the director
and writers just let the story and action deliver the message
instead of patronizing the audience with stupid narrative from
the minds of the soldiers and long, drawn out, stagnant scenes.
Why does Hollywood not give us credit for having brains?
Moreover, the exact message of the movie ends of getting
obscured anyway. Just stating the fact "War is bad" would have
been more effective than the three hours of monotonous boring
garbage this film spewed forth. The greatest cast in the world
could not have saved this film and its horrendous screenplay.
(The screen writer should be sent back to MacDonalds). If
Terrence Malick or whatever the director's name is, feels he
created a great work of art, than he is more of a clueless and
ostentatious fool than even his movie projects he is. The movie
acts as if it has integrity but it actually doesn't. Typical
Hollywood, just three hours of agony instead of two. If you
want to see quality war films, check out Kubrick's "Paths of
Glory" or "Ful
The Abominable Snowman (1957)
Subtle Provocative Classic
In the fifties, Hammer produced a few highly noted films that were scripted by Nigel Kneale and directed by Val Guest. Among them were QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT and the highly disturbing QUATERMASS II (a.k.a. ENEMY FROM SPACE). Though produced on low budgets, these productions were of a higher quality than most of the usual Science-Fiction releases at the time.
Kneale's literate screenplays were directed towards a more sophisticated audience and Guest's direction displayed much creative imagination, proving that innovation can often override a limited budget.
The story begins as botanist Peter Cushing teams up with crass hustler Forrest Tucker for the purpose of finding the ever elusive Yeti, despite protests and warnings from Cushing's wife (Maureen Connell) and the llama. As the research team progresses on its expedition, they begin to find subtle clues that the yeti may truly exist. While they sleep, they are awaken by the sounds of strange wailing in the night. Upon investigating, they find large footprints of something not apparently human.
Cushing, an honorable man of decent principles, is outraged when he learns that Tucker's real aim is to capture and cheaply exploit the yeti for monetary and personal status gain. During the night, a claw reaches into the tent, sending their superstitious guide out into the night in a fit of total panic. The other members, with the exception of Cushing who tries to maintain his sense of reason, become more and more unhinged as they fear that the creatures are now stalking them. Member Macnee (who claims he once caught a glimpse of one on a previous expedition) believes that they are trying to psychically attack him and he falls to death. Cushing asserts that Macnee was mentally unstable and fell victim to his own frightened carelessness, while Tucker cynically feels that they deliberately drove him to his death.
Tucker proposes a reckless trick to entrap one of the creatures in a cave with a steel net, as his trapper buddy stands by with a gun, just in case. As Cushing and Tucker wait in a nearby tent, a raging blizzard breaks out. Cushing deduces that the Yeti may actually be intelligent beings, perhaps the missing link between man and ape and are a lost chapter in our history of evolution. He feels its possible that they may actually be biding their time, waiting for mankind to die out, so that they can then take over. Tucker only has money-money-money on his sleazy mind and thinks the scientist has flipped-out from cabin fever and is off on an intellectual tangent. Besides, being the hollow man he finally reveals himself to be, Tucker couldn't care less.
The pair hear the hunter's scream and a roar from the cave. They find his dead body with an expression of sheer horror on his face and see that the steel net has been ripped to shreds. As the remaining two members decide to hold-up in the cave til morning, Cushing then hears the radio announcer saying that they are strongly advised to leave their gear and get out of the area immediately. There is only one problem: The radio was busted earlier and is not working, and Tucker says that he didn't hear any such announcement.
I won't say anymore. In many ways Kneale's intriguing story (based on his acclaimed BBC serial THE CREATURE) bears allegorical similarities to Huston's TREASURE OF THE SERRA MADRA, in that the characters are actually pursuing a myth and are inevitably destroyed by their own greed and paranoia. Like TWILIGHT ZONE and OUTER LIMITS, the science-fiction premise takes on supernatural overtones and serves as a cautionary morality play. Though some may think that that old "there are some things that man should not meddle with" message is a preachy cliche, it does have validity when the man's sense of perception, judgement, personal ethics and real motives are highly in question.
Director Guest creates an absorbing atmosphere of mounting terror from beginning to end as the characters' (and the viewers') smugness and complacency is gradually devoured; then the unknown takes over, and total helplessness and fear become the terrifying and tragic results. What at first seemed far-fetched now becomes all too real. This skillful technique was effectively employed in the Quatermass films as well as Tourneur's memorable scare classic NIGHT OF THE DEMON.
The B & W photography evokes the proper dark, eerie mood which leaves you with that unsettling feeling that something truly is out there and it's inevitably closing in on you. Though many critics and viewers felt that the highly overpraised BLAIR WITCH was original with its idea of the unseen menace that preys upon your doubt and paranoia, it's now obvious that it was nothing more than a slipshod rehash of these notable films that were produced decades earlier.
As long as you're not expecting some stupid, slasher monster movie, sophomoric puns and another overblown demo roll of special-effects, then give this unique, intelligent film your serious consideration. It may leave you haunted and disturbed.
Target Earth (1954)
WHERE IS EVERYBODY?
This low-budget 'B' fifties film benefits from a highly compelling opening. A young, single woman awakens in her room in the early afternoon (after a failed suicide attempt), notices that the power is out and that no one else is in the building. Upon going outside, she sees that the entire city of Chicago (which looks suspiciously like L.A.) is deserted. She discovers the dead body of a woman with a look of sheer horror on her face and a man who tells her that he had been knocked unconscious all night after being robbed. The pair desperately search the empty streets (the B&W photography evokes an appropriate bleak mood), trying to figure out what happened. (I always wondered exactly when this was filmed for portions of the town are truly deserted).
Obviously, the city was evacuated for some crucial reason, but they haven't got a clue. Many of the fifties cold war paranoias come to mind; the atomic age and the UFO scare. Our hapless duo discover another couple, a pair of rowdy partiers who decided to stay behind and go bar crashing as well as a frightened, pathetic man who tells them that he's seen more dead bodies with the same horrified expressions on their faces. Then they see a huge shadow on a building of something, not apparently human, from the nearby roof. An ominous moment, reminiscent of the lurking shadow of IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE.
The hapless group takes cover in a close-by hotel lobby where they find a newspaper stating that a UFO landed outside the city last night. It looks like they really have something to worry about now. The frightened man (the only one without a date) has a simple solution: GET THE HECK OUT OF THE CITY! Before the others can dissuade him, fearing that the outskirts of the city are already surrounded, he dashes back out into the street, only to be greeted by a cyclopean robot who fires a death ray from its orb, prompting him to join the ranks of the rest of the corpses. Realizing that the city is now doomed and that any escape attempt would end up causing them to become additional reluctant members of the corpse club, the two couples decide to hold up in one of the suites upstairs. At least they can hide out first-class.
This film's set up is great, presented in a mysterious Twilight Zone manner. O.K., the robot looks a bit silly, but its bland, expressionless appearence is aloof and somewhat chilling. The fact that its lethal ray will knock you dead without a mark is quite chilling. Throughout the rest of the picture, our heros are helplessly trapped upstairs in the hotel room as the invading robots lay siege on the deserted city (we see only one; remember this is fifties low-budget, an experimental era when the studios snubbed the Science-Fiction and Horror genres and wouldn't invest much money in them).
TARGET EARTH was an old favorite that had great potential. It's unfortunate that about midway it becomes a standard alien invasion tale, lacking the mystery and suspense of the first half hour. However, the performances are good enough that I actually felt dismayed to see a few of the characters fall victims to the death rays. There is a very fifties science-fiction pulp feel to it which generates a sense of paranoia that grabs your interest. Also, this was one of the first of the "characters trapped in a confined, claustrophobic setting as an unknown menace besieges them" genre films; a theme that is reiterated in IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and ALIEN. This idea is an effective means of creating tense suspense, especially if the filmmaker is restricted by a limited budget. The enclosed tension can produce a certain intimate quality, heightening the characters' interactions, sometimes taking on aspects of a dysfunctional family. Corman applied these methods in many of his early low-budget efforts, often to great effect.
Some of the script flaws are here: Denning (the ideal fifties science-fiction everyman) immediately arrives at the conclusion that the robots are from Venus simply because it has cloud cover, is nearest to us and "could support human life." But these are robots! We never learn why the invasion is being engineered, but maybe that's better for some unresolved mystery always adds a disturbing quality that tears down complacency.
Though I dread to say it, this could be remade, but I doubt that the script would be improved. Knowing today's formulaic approach far too well, we'd end up with a zillion more robots (at least the six year olds will be thrilled), an overblown budget and, except for schmaltzy moments, no intimacy. As an added bonus, we'd be also stuck with an idiotic, inappropriate MTV soundtrack.
Though TARGET EARTH is no classic, see it nevertheless, even for the top film it could have been.
The Sadist (1963)
No Budget Triumph
Forget everything else that Arch Hall jr. appeared in. This is one unforgettable, independently produced gem. I remember first seeing it in the wee hours of the morning many years ago and it left a horrifying impression.
SADIST doesn't impact through gore, but sheer psychological torment and absolute fear. No cute gimmicks, just a candid depiction of an excruciating incident. Struggling independent film makers should check this out as brutal proof of what an innovative artist can truly achieve with practically no money.
Three school teachers (two men and a young prim and proper woman) arrive at a deserted rural service station after having car trouble. From the word-go you have that apprehensive feeling that something is not right. Misfit Charlie Starkweather (Hall), along with his girlfriend, Judy, make their sudden appearance, holding them under the gun. Hall brilliantly portrays one of the most dangerous pychopaths in the history of cult cinema. He simply loves to intimidate, threaten and murder. Period.
He boasts to his next victims that he murdered the station owners and orders them to fix their car so he and his female partner-in-homicide can make their getaway. They've acquired an infamous reputation as road killers and are being hunted by the law.
What makes this film so powerfully suspenseful is that it follows real time from start to finish, imprisoning the viewer (like the victims) within every second by second development. YOU are definitely there and you have enough time to fearfully wonder what you would be feeling and doing if you were in the their unfortunate place. The photography is very impressive, utilising many unique angles, giving you a clear sense of the entrapping, isolating surroundings.
I won't be a clot and tell you what happens but I am confident enough to bet that you will be extremely freaked by a totally unexpected surprise/shock that haunted me for a long while after seeing it.
This film has so much integrity that it couldn't be camp no matter how hard it tried, but it does have the ironic humor in the respect that the joke ends up being on you. You won't be relieved by even the slightest ha ha, and I challenge the boys at MST3000 to try to lampoon this. I bet they can't. That's how effective this obscure, disturbing slice of cinema actually is. The kind of picture that no one has the courage to make in todays' commercially cowardly "Oh no! We'd better not offend anyone", movie scene. Pity.
If you don't believe anything I've said, then challenge me by checking it out.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
What's the Problem?
I just don't get what Kubrick was trying to say with his final feature. I'm usually quite skillful at perceiving his subtexts and underlying themes, but here I'm admittingly stumped. Was that his true intention to leave me with these confused reactions? All I can recall is two spoiled married New York kids having a marital spat and then a soap opera scenerio of "will he cheat on her or not?" I didn't care.
Tom and Nicole go to a fancy, elite New York party, come home and argue. Drunk and stoned, she tells him she once had an urge to cheat on him. Being that most people have wild sex fantasies, this is almost a moot point, but Cruise reacts as if it is the surprise shock of the century. He's also a doctor, someone who should be more aware of these Freudian things than the so-called average person, but it still hits him like the coming of Armegeddon. The wife's argument is weak to the point of annoyance. She makes a monumental issue of his professional medical duties of examining women's breasts. They've been married for years, she's already known about it, so why should this suddenly be such a big deal? It comes off like obnoxious bickering and not effective dramatic conflict. It's like the brat who whines that they can't have seconds after having their cake and eating it too. My only reaction was, "that's her bummer". I DIDN'T CARE!
Next, Cruise decides to take to the streets and get his revenge on his almost cheating wife. The problem is nothing happens. Every time it seems like the plot is going to emerge into something, it is just suddenly dissipated. There's an interesting scene where Cruise is with a young hooker in her run down apartment. After they negotiate it seems like the story is starting to now take shape. Then his cell phone rings and he has to go. It's an irritating old sitcom routine, a cheesy ironic chuckle at best. Worse, it makes the whole scene you've just been struggling through useless and makes you feel as if you've just been taken advantage of. Was that Kubrick's purpose for some unknown reason?
Throughout this picture, Cruise appears constantly troubled internally. What is he troubled about? What's his problem? He and his wife had an argument and some feelings got hurt? Ever know of any couples who never had any problems like that? Is it that because two people are officially married, that means that they are now suddenly immune to all human failings? I didn't know that a marriage license was that infallible. If everything isn't consistently hunky-dory, does that mean things will be fated to erupt into a hopeless nightmare of horror? If Cruise's character is that much of a spoiled, naive prima-donna, then I frankly couldn't care less about his disturbed conscience or what eventually happens to his storybook marriage. Come out of your plastic bubble and security blanket and get real.
Is Cruise worried that he is not sexually desirable? Through-out the film many attractive women proposition him in one way or another, but he is the one who pulls out. When he is at the orgy, an unknown woman tries to help him by warning him of the possible danger that may be coming his way. Why would this woman, a total stranger (who is also a hooker and a junkie) stick her neck out for someone she doesn't even know? No hooker would risk losing her bread and butter for that and, in her case, it ends up putting her life in jeopardy. What's her motivation? He's wearing a mask, she has no idea of who he is, and, for all she knows he could be an undercover officer or a corrupt one looking for a blackmail opportunity. Why?
Cruise later returns to his wife and breaks down as if he just experienced the war of the worlds. Except for some embarrassing mishaps and some spent money (which shouldn't be that big of a deal to a well-to-do person like him), what terrible thing really happened to him? I hate to say it, but it all comes off as a 'much ado about nothing' presentation.
Obviously, I'm missing something. I saw this film two more times, hoping that some new perspective would surface, but I hit an impasse. With Kubrick, you have to look deeper than the usual celluoid creation, but I simply hit a blatant dead end. Possibly at a later time something will suddenly occur to me, but presently that's all I could absorb. I've always been a tremendous admirer of Kubrick, possibly one of his biggest fans, but this film regretfully strikes me as his weakest effort. It sincerely pains me to have to say that.
EYES WIDE SHUT is still interesting if the slow pace and length doesn't bother you, but it pales compared to the directors' other strongly memorable, artistic events.
Kidman gives a fine performance, though she has little to do through-out the second half, Cruise is not at all bad, and the supporting players are all quite impressive in spite of the script's problems. The music during the orgy scene (which is not really that shocking) is compelling, the photographic images are splendid and engrossing as they always have been, but the story falls short. I just feel it didn't come close to its actual potential, whatever that precisely was. Later, it starts to turn into a mystery thriller, and just when that started to involve me, the rug got pulled out again. Was that his purpose for some reason? Was it his intention for the viewer to be left with deliberate mixed feelings? Was he saying that many of our problems and worries are mainly just in our minds? Are we suppose to be left confused and not knowing? Is it possible that "knowing" doesn't really change anything and that perhaps it can even worsen things? I could go on and on, but hopefully you got the idea. Somebody tell me - WHAT WAS THE POINT?
Truthfully, I hope I will eventually change my ambivalent views of this great director's final work. He contributed so much to the art and to his fans. His influence was overpowering. Simply put - There will never be another Kubrick. It's for these great reasons that I felt disappointed with this interesting failure.
Night of the Demon (1957)
SHUDDERY CLASSIC
If there ever was an ideal supernatural thriller, this is the one. Priggish skeptic John Holden (Dana Andrews) arrives in England for the purpose of exposing a devil cult run a wealthy, eccentric named Karswell (splendid, sinister performance from Niall MacGinnis). Holden is warned by Joanna Harrington ("Gun Crazy's" Peggy Cummins) that his life is endanger from an ancient curse that recently claimed her uncle, Holden's former colleague. Unfortunately, he's too much of a pompous-ass to give any credence to her fears, and intends to proceed with his investigation of Karswell and his strange activities.
After Holden is unknowingly slipped a parchment containing runic symbols, mysterious things begin to happen to him. He starts to receive eerie clues that he is being stalked by a supernatural fire demon who will claim his life at 10:00 P.M. in a few nights.
In the hands of many writers and film makers, this could have turned into another hokey horror movie, crammed with the usual cliches, flaws, sophomoric dialogue and dead spots. However, screenwriter Charles Bennett (a Hitchcock veteran) and director Tourneur have transformed M.R. James short story "Casting the Ruins" into a minor, but highly notable cinema masterpiece. The plot is very well paced and generates much suspense, building up to a truly terrifying climax that is not easily forgotten. The skillfully conceived script handles the subject manner in an intelligent way that convinces you that it could possibly happen. The moody black & white cinematography evokes an overwhelming atmosphere of terror throughout (fine use of high contrast shadows that always seem to be inferring something and striking use of camera angles that bring Welles, Kubrick and Hitchcock to mind). One consistantly gets the sense that there is something lurking in the shadows, keeping close watch on its next, intended victim. (Does this sound a little reminiscent of BLAIR WITCH)? This film would not have been anywhere as effective if it had been shot in dazzling color with the use of tacky computer images. It would have looked too slick, too clean and too cute; not appropriate for the rough, morbid mood.
One shuddery scene has Holden walking through the woods after leaving Karswell's mansion. He hears the sounds of large feet following (footprints of an invisible creature appear in the ground as an unnerving sound track fills the air), then a startling fireball emerges in the trees and pursues him. The ball of flames vanishes as it is about to overtake him, serving as a sadistic foreshadowing of the grim fate that soon awaits him.
Another scene has Holden walking to his hotel room. He suddenly hears weird sounds of something lurking at the end of the hallway. Despite all the clues that Andrews receives, he is still too obstinate to believe in the existence of the occult and constantly comes up with "reasonable" rationalizations for what is occurring. He gets so irritating with his practical reality philosophies that, at times, I was hoping that his complacency would inevitably succumb to the mysterious forces closing in on him. Though Karswell is the villian, he is actually an easier character to warm up to, due to his wit and remarkable character. He's not a condescending prig or an unimaginative bore.
There has always been much heated debate as to whether it was wise to actually show the demon. Tourneur originally did not want to ever reveal it, playing on the Val Lewton tradition of the unseen menace that preys upon your paranoia and doubt. It was the studio that added in the shots of the monster without his consent or knowledge. Though I've always preferred subtle suggestion, I must admit that the opening and closing scenes that do reveal it are genuinely frightening in the true classic horror vein. Yes, it was especially erroneous to allow it to be shown in the first ten minutes, but it is such a memorable and scary scene, that I can forgive that. Some modern day F/X gourmets have said that the shots of the creature are "dated" and "primitive", but then this was 1957, and who says that ancient demons are suppose to be unprimitive. They're not. The rough edges help to make it more compelling and threatening. I'm usually not one to split hairs over F/X unless they are so far off the mark that even a six-year-old would wonder. Story, character, suspense, mood and provocative thought are the main qualities I seek.
CURSE OF THE DEMON is a one-of-a-kind literate scare classic that keeps you thoroughly absorbed and refuses to insult your intelligence. This rare film really leaves you to ponder the possible existence of the supernatural without coming off like a phony "true story". It succeeds at what so many others have only vainly attempted. Hollywood should take note, but don't hold your breath.
Dogma (1999)
Dog Meat
This film is very typical of Hollywood crap in that its only interest is bringing in the most suckers instead of making great art. It tries to be controversial and cutting edge but doesn't have the guts to really follow through.
The film's feeble attempt to mock conventional religious ideas falls short because the film makers were too fearful of stepping on anyone's toes. What you are left with is a film lacking any solid convictions and any real revolutionary ideas. Even its humor is clouded amongst a half-assed attempt to have serious ideas about God and religion. It could have been thought provoking but instead the film makers give their audience no credit for having any intelligence. The occasional laughs from Chris Rock and a couple of others serve as only good clippings for the previews but do not make the movie worthwhile.
Overall, this Hollywood piece of gutless garbage is a total waste of the many talented comedians and actors involved.
The ridiculous conclusion mistakes ludicrousness for satirical hilarity. Linda Fiorentino should not be wasting her time and talents on this pretentious, forgettable rubbish.
The Last Seduction (1994)
ONE WOMAN SHOW
Recently I rented this film, after hearing much glowing reviews about it. The critics were right: Linda Fiorentino gives a superb performance as the manipulative and totally immoral femme fatale who vamps everyone in sight. She imbues the role with sinister intentions and mordant humor. This is a film noir that for once establishes the female antagonist as the main character, instead of, like BODY HEAT, as second to the male protagonist.
My problem with this independent production lies with the script. There are just a few too many flaws with it, the biggest is that Bridget's character is written up to be totally smart, while all the rest of the characters are presented as ultra dupes. Hence, she has the red carpet and is fully able to get away with her ruthless schemes. The writers don't seem to recall a vital 'rule of thumb' in dramatic writing: If your main character is that intelligent and deadly, then give um worthy opponents. I didn't feel much suspense because I already knew that she'd get away with her treacherous plans. There must be some doubt as to whether she'll succeed or not, or else there is little or no dramatic tension.
In the opening scene, her bumbling boob of a husband, Bill Pullman, is engaged in a drug deal with two New York low life dealers. After he gives them the drugs, they pull a gun on him, but then leave him the money. If that had been a real situation they would have probably killed him, or, if not, they would have certainly not left the money there for him. Perhaps the director felt that this would evoke an offbeat humor; instead it already starts to mar the film's credibility.
After Bridget absconds with the cash, she ends up in a small upstate hick town, Beston, and immediately acts rude and abrasive to everyone in sight, drawing much negative attention to herself. Being a fugitive from both the law and the mob, this technique is not highly advisable. Someone in her tense position should be keeping a low profile.
She meets the small town, heart-of-gold boy, Peter Berg, who couldn't be a bigger chump if he tried. No matter what she pulls (and she pulls plenty), he just never seems to catch on. Talk about being blinded by love.
Pullmans's henchman also proves to be a professional sap. He catches up with her and makes her drive. She starts a penis-length rap with him, asking to see it. Not only is he dumb enough to go along with her game, but he drops his guard long enough for her to crash the car, sending him on a B-line right through the windshield. She is saved by the inflated airbag. Now tell me, would a real, professional hit man/thug be that stupid?
A federal agent is keeping tabs on Bridget outside of her house. So, she brings some cookies to him, so she can plant a board with nails beside his tires. Call me a party pooper, but I don't believe that a true federal officer (whose job it is to be highly suspicious) would fall for that. Not only does he accept the cookies, but he eats them as well! He never even suspects that she might have put something in them?
Inconsistencies like this abound throughout. Roger Ebert always referred to this as the "Idiot Plot Syndrome"; having characters do dumb things to place themselves in disadvantaged situations (like the splatter movie victims who always do stupid things to get themselves killed). This isn't suspense, but annoyance, and it only accomplishes the great feat of weakening a story's effectiveness. This is also a cheesy way of simply moving the plot along and is usually indicative of lazy writing.
Also, we never have even the slightest clue as to why Bridget is as evil as she is. It isn't enough to say that that is simply the rotten way she is (as the ads do). That is a stereotypical cop-out and not dramatically involving. Though we don't need a concise bio, it would have helped to have some clue as to her past. (For example, was she a victim of an abusive family, a crummy background, rape? We never know). Enigma in compelling characters can be desirable, but, being that she's the main character, some, even slight info, would have been useful. This could have even aided in establishing a dangerous sympathy for her. Instead she's an interesting, but criminally insane psycho, who you hope gets her comeuppance.
Dahl's direction is good, but nothing that outstanding. This film lacks many of noir's mysterious visual effectiveness. It is all right, but nothing very seductive. Also, why does he constantly use that hokey, whimsical soundtrack? It's way too cute and it's irritating.
I may sound as if I didn't care much for this film, but I still did in spite of its shortcomings. Fiorentino has proven to be an exceptional actress and does more than she can, considering the script's problems. She has a stunning, memorable presence and easily could seduce most males with little problem. It's her film all the way, and hence I whole-heartedly recommend it for that reason alone.
The Quatermass Xperiment (1955)
INTELLIGENT MONSTER TALE
Known in the U.S. as THE CREEPING UNKNOWN, this was the first of the Hammer produced Quatermass films that were proficiently scripted by Nigel Kneale.
True Science-Fiction challenges the mind and projects "what ifs?". It's purpose is to deal with intriguing ideas and to be a lot more than just silly, fleeting entertainment. This effective low-budget film achieves these goals to a frightening degree.
The story opens as the first manned rocket into space crash lands in the British countryside outside of London. Prof. Quatermass (A mean performance from Brian Donleavy) and his colleagues investigate and find one sole surviving astronaut, Victor Carroon, in a state of catatonia. The other two astronauts have simply vanished. Quatermass conducts a cold, scientific examination of Carroon's condition to determine what happened to him and the crew. Donleavy portrays the renegade man of science as a tough misanthrope who seems to place scientific research before humanity. He treats the troubled Carroon more as a specimen than as a suffering human being.
Something totally unprecedented is happening to the ill-fated space voyager: He is slowly turning into something that is undeniably alien. When his distraught wife sneaks him out of the hospital, he escapes and takes refuge that night at the London zoo. This is a classic scene of scary mood and sheer horror. Carroon stumbles through some bushes as he slowly morphs into a terrifying, mutated being. In the Val Lewton mode, we never actually see it, but sense its unsettling presense. The caged animals react with consternation as the thing creeps by, all we see is an all-encompassing shadow. The overall effect is quite nightmarish and good for a sleepless night. (Contrary to popular belief, BLAIR WITCH was NOT the first to utilize the notion of the unseen menace that leaves it to your paranoid imagination. It all started many decades earlier).
Quatermass and his assistants, along with the police and military scour the city to find and destroy this unknown menace before it can reproduce and threaten all life on Earth.
Directer Val Guest handles the filming in an almost semi-documentary manner, often employing a hand-held camera (did the BLAIR WITCH people ever catch this late night?). The black & white cinematography aids in creating a dark, creepy atmosphere. This film is more of a disturbing and provocative story of the horrors that can emerge from irresponsible scientific research (yes, there really are things that man would be wise to not meddle with), and not an outright action/effects opus.
The monster effects are naturally dated, but Guest is clever enough to keep it off-screen through-out most of the film. Actually, one close-up of it is quite horrifying as it looks like something truly mutated. Keep it a mystery instead of a beloved character. It's more disturbing.
Watching this, you may see where many other genre movies since got their influence. Though many modern day/high tech people like to poke fun at early low-budget 'B' films, primarily for lacking technical effects that didn't exist then, it's interesting to note how their plots and ideas have been constantly pirated.
If you're growing weary of special-effects demo rolls and John William's cloying sound tracks, then give this early adult science-fiction horror effort a try.
Quatermass and the Pit (1967)
INTRIGUING CLASSIC CHILLER
Without a doubt, this is true science-fiction at its best. Kneale's brilliant script (based on his acclaimed 50's BBC serial) proposes a truly staggering premise. The human race was actually genetically altered by martians about five million years ago, the martian race hence perished, and mankind was left alone, stranded on this remote outpost. Bizarre? Seemingly, but is it anymore fantastic than any others theories (religious, scientific and philosophical) on man's existence?
Could this explain why we've been such a troubled and confused race, uncertain of our true purpose because we've been actually left in the dark regarding our true heritage? Hence we've been groping with theories and speculations for centuries, never really seeing the whole picture, just bits and pieces that we're not really intelligent enough to make total sense out of. Is religion just an ignorant, mythic misinterpretation of scientific truth? Are the storybook devils and supernatural demons distorted visions of our true forefathers; a superior alien race who bred us by playing a prime role in our evolutionary development? Are we nothing more than an experiment; helpless specimens under a vast microscope? Ponder that next time you're confused, frustrated, disillusioned and frightened.
This excellent film is not short of disturbing, but thought-provoking ideas; the essence of genuine science-fiction. Kneale is able to propose his speculations in a very believable manner that could possibly be feasible. I'm surprised this picture was not condemned by the church for its original interpretations of our old traditions.
Out of all the QUATERMASS films, this is the one that's most strongly remembered. Its special-effects are minimal but not bad; they exist to propel the story and not dominate the movie. The tension builds through-out, building up to a smashing and unforgettable climax as the uncovered martian spaceship becomes reactivated and humanity receives some terrifying clues as to the source of its actual creation. If this doesn't shatter one's complacency, I don't know what will. Kneale makes suspension-of-disbelief so easy, it's unsettling.
It would have been interesting to see what Kubrick would have done with this unique script, for it bears thematic similarities to 2001. Baker's direction is good, but lacks any true striking qualities. He nevertheless gets impressive results with a modest budget. The Hammer staff were quite proficient at that, and struggling independents should take note.
If you're tired of mindless action, neverending cliches and demo rolls of F/X, then give this your serious attention.
Teenagers from Outer Space (1959)
INTERESTING B
What is it about this no-budget film that gets my interest? Sure it was produced for a mere $3,000 and the effects are laughable, but there is something that's actually engrossing about its storyline: Aliens come to Earth for the purpose of breeding their man-eating lobsters called Gargons. Derek, the young,idealistic black sheep, with James Dean pretentions, disapproves of his comrades lack of compassion towards the fate of the earth people, and goes AWOL to warn the unsuspecting citizens of our world.
Derek ends up in a suburban utopia, where everyone is sincerely kind and caring of one another (this must be an alien planet). He rents a room and falls in love with the local teen queen (who is surprisingly as UN-prima-donna as they come). Unknown to the hapless pair, one of Derek's cronies, Thor, is hot on his trail, blasting everyone in sight with his focusing disintegrater (which turns the victim into a skeleton). The aliens plan to return soon with a full shipment of gargons, and our heroes only have a short time to thwart their trecherous plans.
Ridiculous? Sure. Engrosssing? Definitely. In some ways the plot is reminiscent of TERMINATOR (I wonder if Cameron saw this in his younger years). As little more than a home movie, it's not really that bad. You could tell that filmmaker Graeff (who plays Joe the reporter under the name of Tom Lockyear) compensated for an inadequate budget, with heart, imagination and soul, and has produced a picture that has some surprising moments of brilliance. It would have been curious to have seen how this production would have turned out if Graeff had had a decent budget. This film doesn't lack creative inspiration or intelligence (you can rank it above Ed Wood or Larry Buchanan), but simply money. When it comes to the mega-budget likes of INDEPENDENCE DAY or GODZILLA - money isn't everything!
The performances here are pretty poor, but I came to really care about the characters. Figure that. The film also takes on a certain hallucinatory quality that actually makes it memorable.
This also has the significance of being one of the first independently produced films to be released by a major studio, long before Indies became a tired trend (I'm not much of a Sundance freak). Graeff originally entitled this THE GARGON TERROR and managed to sell it to Warner Brothers (no small feat, believe me). The studio, in turn, changed its title to the more drive-in exploitative TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE. One could tell, if they drop their prejudices and pay close attention, that Graeff was sincerely trying to produce a worthy effort. The man deserves to be congratulated for his attitude, even if the results fall short, due to lack of funds. He was desperately trying promote a stronger understanding between the adults and the kids, hoping for a less troubled world. How can one be faulted for that?
Naturally, MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000 had a field day lampooning it, but I sometimes wonder what its producers and fans criteria really is? Is it all just superficial budget and effects with no regard for content? Sounds pretty shallow to me.
I won't recommend this to most, but if you put aside high-tech, you may want to trip back to a different era for curiousity sake if nothing else.
Deep Blue Sea (1999)
JAWS MEETS ALIENS ON THE POSIEDON
Don't ask me why, but for some reason I actually got a kick out seeing this. Sure, it's totally stupid, but it kept me engaged.
The first twenty minutes are so dull I was about to nod out. Then the action abruptly kicks in (after one of the scientists loses his arm, courtesy of shark hostility), and it moves from there.
It seems today that part of the "fun" of watching mindless action flicks is seeing how many other previous films they have ripped off. Here, we have JAWS (naturally), ALIENS, POSIEDON ADVENTURE, with touches of KILLER SHREWS.
The so-called premise merely serves as a plot excuse: Sharks become more intelligent, due to scientific experimenting (or is it meddling?); hence the reason why the ocean predators behave in such a smart fashion. It is not necessary to dignify this idiocy by attempting any serious criticism of it.
With the splendid exceptions of Samuel L. Jackson (was he simply moonlighting between worthy projects?) and LL Cool J, the rest of the cast fails to impress. Poor Saffron Burrows; it seems nearly everyone has it in for her. She wasn't believable as a scientist, and she's written up as a detestable character. Yes, her Sigorney Weaver stripped-to-the-panties is impressive, but I'm sure that many actresses (women, for that matter) would be capable of reaching such a goal.
By now, most are well aware of Samuel Jackson's famous speech, destined for a niche in cinema horror history (maybe that's why he couldn't resist the role).
The shark effects are good and bad, but the action does move along, and some characters, who you're sure won't die, do. That's about all I can say. I certainly won't recommend this, for fear of being lynched, but I did find it entertaining in a dumb sort of way. If you do decide to take the plunge, don't check your brains in at the door - leave them home.
Quatermass 2 (1957)
DISTURBING CLASSIC OF 50"s SCIENCE-FICTION
This was one of the first of its kind; a subtlety scary vision of a secret alien takeover. X-FILES may owe a debt to this low-budget, but nevertheless effective film of the powers-that-be who are conspiring with the invaders, and one lone, determined scientist who accidentally uncovers the sinister plot.
QUATERMASS II (U.S. title: ENEMY FROM SPACE) was produced before INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the film it is often compared to, due to their thematic similarities (loss of identity, social oppression, dangers of conformity, and blind allegiance to a greatly questionable, authoritarian power). However, it was released in the U.S. shortly after BODY SNATCHERS, probably making it look like a copycat to some.
Superb writer Nigel Kneale (excellent script, highly original for its time, derived from the earlier BBC serial) was known to strongly despise Brian Donleavy's gruff performance as the lead character. Kneale did not like the fact that Donleavy presented the character as a cold, methodical misanthrope who treats his colleagues like expendable underlings. He will probably want to boil me in oil for saying this, but I felt that presenting the lead character as morally ambivalent and ethically questionable jettisoned the standard 50's scientist/hero sterotype (for once he is not nice and charming). It also added a further degree of tension to the well-plotted story. In many ways, his alienated character is somewhat alien; perhaps that's the only true way to resist social pressures and conditioning. The allegory here is strong.
As the story opens, Quatermass is driving one night on a remote country road. He is furious that the stodgy Whitehall bureaucrats rejected his funding request for a proposed moon colonization project. A speeding car nearly hits him head-on as it runs off the road. The shaken passengers are a frightened woman and her boyfriend, who is in a crazed state, and has a strange black mark on his face.
Quatermass returns to his isolated lab, where radar reveals to his assistants that many small meteor particles (at least that's what they assume they are) have descended over a rural village known as Wynerton Flats.
Going out there with his colleague, Marsh, they first discover his moon project, fully constructed, and some small, mysterious rocks. As Marsh examines one, it emits an eerie gas and pops in his face, leaving the weird black mark. Strange soldiers arrive, behaving like aloof zombies, abduct Marsh, strong-arm Quatermass in the typical fascist tradition, and order him to leave. (There may be one flaw here: Why didn't the "soldiers" either abduct or kill Quatermass, instead of letting him go, so he can inform?)
Naturally the authorities all have tight lips about the secret activities at Wynerton Flats, but Quatermass manages to convince a few officials to go out there with him. A government aid (with that strange black mark on his wrist) conducts a formal tour of the plant, where everything seems to be normal. Not so. The small group is indoctrinated by the zombies (who resemble Nazis), but Quatermass manages to escape.
(This scene truly exposes Donleavy's ruthless side: He and a woman are taken into a large dome, but Quatermass flees, leaving the woman behind, without any concern for her fate. Hell, he doesn't even abide by the old fifties hero tradition by risking his life to save the distressed damsel. In many ways Quatermass was an ahead-of-his-time anti-hero. I always felt that this added a disquieting strength to the drama and the severity of the dire situation, but I guess that Kneale will still vehemently disagree).
I'll stop here, but don't worry, the worse is still to come. The sense of growing unease and mounting terror (strong qualities of your finer British Science Fiction at that time) escalates. Be patient, for it does carefully build into a total state of alarm, as Quatermass and the local angered citizens challenge the invaders (who have taken over most of the government and military officials) to a brutal showdown. There is something highly menacing in those domes.
This impressive film is true Science Fiction at its best. It thrills without pandering and is thoughtful to the point of disturbing. You can't trust anyone. Its social and political implications are definitely troubling. This is not for your Lucas and Spielberg crowd, for we're not talking about commercial catering to eight-year-olds. Val Guest directs in a cold, cynical Kubrickian manner, accentuating the high degree of paranoia, and the picture's black & white photography conveys a bleak, creepy mood. (Sorry, no pretty pictures here). The intriguing story takes on true nightmarish proportions.
The few effects won't win any CGI awards (don't forget, computers weren't around then) but the briefly glimpsed monster (in the gothic Lovecraft tradition) is quite sickening. After all, it can manipulate man's dirty politics, you can't get more reprehensible than that.
From the late sixties to the late eighties this film was unavailable to the public, and it was feared to be permanently lost, but it later was released on video and shown occasionally on the Science Fiction Channel. Many notable Science Fiction and Horror authors (I believe that Harlan Ellison and Stephen King were among them) have championed this small, but remarkable early Hammer production. This is the film that many others have "borrowed from." Just a polite way of saying RIPPED-OFF!
For those seeking an intelligent challenge, check it out.
Histoire d'O (1975)
NOT QUITE
Anyone who has read, or at least heard about the story might think that this would be the ideal kinky, erotic film. Naturally, I had many wicked, nasty expectations. I WAS DISAPPOINTED. Somehow this film was not erotic, and actually managed the inconceivable feat of being tedious and dull.
It actually amazed me as to how someone could ruin it. Unlike most hardcore porn films (that resort to extremity and not imagination), this film does attempt a soft-core, foreign art film approach. All I can say is that it could have been far more effective. Many of its "hot scenes" actually become annoyingly silly instead of titillating.
I wish someone could do a genuinely decent and effective kinky, erotic film. The market is in dire need of them. And forget mainstream Hollywood's ridiculous attempts at it. Like many "contraversial" subjects, they usually handle it in a very wishy-washy manner, exploiting every negative sterotype and cliche in the book.
You may find this film interesting, but it just doesn't (forgive the dumb pun) hit the target.
Dracula (1958)
STILL A CLASSIC
Am I being too presumptuous to say that this is the greatest vampire film of the 20th century?
This was one of Hammer's early efforts (far superior to the respectable, but so-so CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN), the film that launched the careers of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Though you'd never know it, due to its high production qualities, this was actually conceived on a low-budget.
I first saw this at an afternoon matinee back at the ripe, impressionable age of eight, and it left one hell of an imprint in my cinematic memory. When I recently rented it, I feared it would simply be a fond, childhood memory, not living up to my expectations today. Fortunately, I was wrong, for I actually enjoyed it more as an adult, being that I could now appreciate its intelligent dialogue, that passed me by as an overzealous brat, impatiently waiting for the shock scenes.
Sangster's script is brilliant; a successful blending of superb storytelling, literate dialogue, strong chacterizations and great action. Fisher's direction is atmospheric, imaginative and highly absorbing. He can frighten you without a ton of effects or having you grabbing for your airsick bag. There isn't a single superfluous moment here. It's one of those rare films that you hate to see end, playing on the old show-biz tradition of "always leave them begging for more." How come filmmakers today never take that into account? It's usually just the opposite: It seems as if they never want to end (the wrong kind of relentlessness), somehow harboring the grand delusion that we just can't get enough of a good thing. HAH!
I don't need to critique the plot since you more or less already know it. There is a subtle, underlying theme (not obviously bashed over your head) of victorian, sexual repression in which Lee's Count (superb, unforgettable performance, accomplishes much in his limited screen time, proving that less is more) is a degenerate liberator of his female victim's suppressed erotic desires. They willingly submit to his sinister seduction, but, in the usual dramatic irony, get a lot more than they bargained for. (As a dumb kid, I never quite picked up on that until puberty started approaching - HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!)
Cushing's performance as Lee's worthy adversary, Dr. Van Helsing, is tremendous. He can be graciously mannered and wildly determined simultaneously. Lee's Dracula initially appears as the attractive, romantic prince, cleverly concealing a bullying, sadistic brute who couldn't care less what D.H. Lawrence had to say. Even when he's off-screen, his menacing presence continues to dominate; you never know when he is suddenly going to appear. The climatic confrontation between Cushing and Lee has earned its fame. As a kid, it had me and the entire audience literally jumping up and down in our seats. More popcorn was spilled at that showing than perhaps any other cinematic presentation.
What more can be said? The lush color hints at the evil that often lurks within palatial surroundings. The pulsating score is highly riveting. Being that this film is a period piece prevents it from actually "outdating" (like many of the Hammer films). It's also encouraging to note that many younger kids today have gotten hip to it as well - proof that it is truly a TIMELESS CLASSIC! RENT IT!
It Conquered the World (1956)
VINTAGE 50's PULP PARANOIA
In spite of the ridiculous, cucumber alien monster (which is fortunatedly kept off-screen through most of the film) this is actually an intelligent science-fiction thriller that's very much in an OUTER LIMITS vein.
Misanthropic scientist Lee Van Cleef makes contact with a being from Venus who promises to save mankind from his own self-destruction. Cleef paves the way for the alien to come to Earth, where it hides out in a hot springs cave outside of a small, remote Southern Californian town. Upon arriving, the being (or should I say invader) proves to have sinister plans of its own.
This early Corman quickie is quite good as long as you're not evaluating it based by today's high-tech standards. It's naive and unsportmanslike to condemn a film just because it was made decades before CGI was even invented.
The film has a certain disquieting mood about it. The remote setting adds to the sense of paranoia and isolation, and though the plot is sometimes critizied as being awkward, that tells me that the critic may be a short attention span member. You need to put some brainwork into your film viewing if you wish to gain any savory qualities from it. Whining because a planet isn't exploding every other minute is very superficial, and true science-fiction isn't for the shallow non-thinker who only has instant, immediate gratification on his non-mind.
A subtle sense of terror builds throughout (similar to INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS) as nearly the entire cast meet unspeakable fates. The story carrys a pertinent cautionary message: Blind devotion to a utopian ideal can lead to the worst kind of disillusionment and tragedy. History has taught us that many times over. Science-fiction is meant to be provocative and not just shallow, forgettable entertainment.
Sure, if this film had a higher budget, and perhaps a little more script polishing, it could have been one of the top fifties science-fiction films. As it is, it's interesting with intriguing possibilities, and as long as YOU haven't been taken over by high-tech effects and sales hype, you may find it worth taking a look at.
Deep Impact (1998)
NO IMPACT
What really infuriates me about a film of this nature is that it initially had a great idea, the potential to be a strong and memorable experience. However, what you end up with is a totally vapid and boring concoction that's about as compelling as watching chrome rust.
Whoever decided to cast Tea Leoni in the lead should go back t Macdonalds. She is completely unconvincing as a newscaster nd I couldn't care less about her petty disputes with her stupid father or her nitwit mother's despair.
Instead of an intriguing story about the coming of armegheddon, we're stuck with two hours of dull, insipid soap opera sub-plots. This film is NOT scary, NOT tense, NOT suspenseful, NOT provocotive. It is NOT ANYTHING but a total waste of time.
Let's put our cards on the table: THIS SO-CALLED MOVIE THOROUGHLY LACKS THE COURAGE OF ITS CONVICTIONS - IT IS TOTALLY GUTLESS AND PANDERS STRICTLY TO PANSIES! How does everyone react to the absolute terror of being drowned in a monstrous world ending tidal wave? They all do the noble thing and simpl accept it like another typical, daily problem. Where is the fear, the panic, the bizarre things that many people would be doing under these terrifying circumstances? WHERE IS THE TRUE DRAMA??? What we're stuck with is a tepid TV movie which does everything to sell tickets to the ignorant masses (including myself) but nothing to make a compelling film. These assinine scenarios make DYNASTY look like an enduring classic.
When we finally get to that "thrilling" climax, we're completely disappointed, for we already saw the two minutes of lackluster effects in the previews. (Smart way to snag our bucks at the box office). The musical score is so sentimental and cloying that it only adds to vomitory quality of this undisputed masterpiece.
I won't bore you with all the implausible plot details - The movie will
It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958)
THE ORIGINAL ALIEN
Out of the fifties 'B' Science-Fiction monster movies, this easily ranks as the best. It's most notable as the film that ALIEN is an unaccredited remake of, thus giving it a certain historical significance.
The intriguing plot is about the rescue of the only marooned survivor (Col. Carruthers) of an ill-fated expedition to Mars. The authorities, pig-headed as usual, falsely assume that he murdered his fellow crew members, so that he'd have more provisions to survive; hence he is being brought back to Earth to face court-martial for murder. (There is also a somewhat interesting plot reversal here: Most movies of this nature usually begin with the ship leaving Earth, enroute to its otherworld destination, while, in this case, the "story" is believed finished, and begins as the characters take-off from the other planet, returning to Earth). As the rescue ship is leaving Mars, a lurking, ominous shadow is seen in the lower compartment. (A frightening, atmospheric moment, accomplished through sheer economy and simplicity).
Carruthers insists of his innocence to his fellow captors, claiming that his original crew mates were slaughtered by a hostile, unseen presence on the desolute red planet, but three-guesses as to their reaction to his unusual plea. Naturally, he can't prove it, and 50's space authorities were not very alien conscience at the time. (As a side-thought, "unseen menace" may remind you of that highly "original" BLAIR WITCH).
As everyone sacks out, a hapless supporting charactor whose name is at the bottom of the casting list (guess what will happen to him?) hears something in the lower compartment. Despite your futile "don't go down there, you jerk!" pleas, he does just that, and is appropriately killed (more like thoroughly obliterated) by the shadowy figure with insatiable blood lust on its mind. In the victim's case, dereliction of duty and sheer cowardliness would have been the wise decision. The scene is actually well-directed (for a change) and develops much suspense, as the entire film surprisingly does.
The crew finally catches on that they have an unwanted ship crasher on board, and try every possible means at their disposal to eliminate it, but the unknown creature seems to copping an anti-death attitude. Proving to be an even more clever, worthy adversary, 'IT!' also hides out in the ventilation shafts of the ship (now that should ring a bell). Cahn's forceful direction generates considerable tension as the malevolent stowaway works its way up from one level of the confined ship to the next, eventually leaving the remaining characters trapped at the top. The movie's suspense is blunt and right to the point: "IT!' has to kill them or starve, hence they have to kill "IT!" or die. Nothing like those "no two ways about it" choices. Rent it, or check for it on cable if you wish to know the outcome.
For a low-budget quickie, IT! is quite impressive and memorable. The dreaded sense of claustrophobic tension, rendering the characters' helpless entrapment, is highly effective. This is a production in which the limited budget and small sets actually work in favor of the plot's scary ambience. The black & white photography (Yes, it's one of those!) helps to enhance its dark, creepy mood, and the sense of apprehension is quite high. (Modern day color freaks never seem to take that into consideration). The plot is also somewhat cynically ironic: If the creature hadn't stowed away on the ship, Carruthers would have most likely been found guilty of the charges against him.
The intelligent script (see what I mean about "rareity") was penned by noted Science-Fiction author Jerome Bixby (remember Twilight Zone's "It's a Good Life")? The picture's taut editing eliminates any extraneous dross. (ALIEN tended to drag in its first hour with its sophomoric dialogue, and why did it have to include that stupid and ultimately counter-productive sub-plot of Ash being a robot, and further dragging the story down to another big bad conspiracy cliche? UNNECESSARY!!!)
Director Cahn astutely keeps the rubber-suited monster off-screen and in the shadows through-out most of the proceedings, keeping your paranoid imagination on constant alert. Unfortunately, perhaps at the studio's commercial insistance, it is a little over-revealed at the climax, but I haven't claimed this to be the perfect masterpiece. The performances, though nothing award-winning, are nevertheless cool enough so that one becomes sincerely concerned as to their fates. Not many movies in recent times ever come close to achieving that. They can be over-produced from here to eternity, and usually only succeed in being gloriously annoying.
This film's story is not really totally original (what is?), for it is based on A.E. Van Vogt's "VOYAGE OF THE SPACE BEAGLE." All ALIEN fanatics should track down an old used copy to see where the initial influence came from.
As long as you're not craving another CGI wind-ding, you may find it worthwhile. Just don't expect the women to be Ripley precursors. This was still the sock-knitting fifties, sad to say.
Deluge (1933)
HOLLYWOOD'S FIRST END OF THE WORLD DISASTER FILM
Back at the start of the "talkies", in 1933, RKO Studios produced this compelling vision of the Earth destroyed by natural disasters. Until recently, this was a lost film, all prints of it presumed gone. I managed to obtain a VHS copy of this, essentially, low budget production directed by Felix Feist. For cinema historians, this is highly recommended viewing; just don't expect CGI perfection, for we're talking decades before our glorious computers were invented.
The first twenty minutes are the most terrifying I can recall. For apparently no rhyme or reason, scientists discover that the Earth's weather has drastically changed: The barometers are dropping rapidly, the wind velocity is increasing, and a mysterious, unscheduled solar eclipse has occurred. Unlike most science-films, no pseudo-scientific explanations are offered. the world's officials and citizens are thoroughly baffled and horrified. To worsen the disturbing mystery, Earthquakes and tidal waves then break out, destroying and sinking most of the land on our planet, leaving the world a vast ocean with millions dead.
The spectacular sequence of the destruction of New York is spellbinding and memorable. Though the effects are naturally dated, they are nevertheless convincing and frightening. Buildings crumble, people perish and a tremendous flood buries the world's largest city (though some may not consider that to be any great tragedy). The sense of doom and dread convey an overpowering deluge. The film's title conveys a double meaning; a gigantic flood and a state of being overwhelmed. As the tag line reads, EARTH IS DOOMED! And that's no phoney promo, DELUGE lives up to its hype. A one of a kind effort and an early experiment in special-effects.
The story's opening is directed in an eerir Twilight Zone manner. Believable dialogue and an astute lack of sopomoric jargon enhance its credibility and effectiveness. A totally impossible nightmare plagues the human race, and no one knows how or why. Obviously, no solution to the bizzare occurance prevails. Reality and illusion converge with catastrophic results. Its grim, somber tone is undeniable and unrelenting. They don't make paranoia like they used to.
However, the film's main drawback is that once the devastation is over, the excruciating tension diminishes and we're left with a standard tale of a group of survivors marooned on a strip of land that still remains above water, a few miles away from where New York once was. Though not bad (remember it was still the first of its kind), it still pales considerably compared to the powerful and unforgettable opening.
If DELUGE had concentrated solely on the catastrophie, and the suspenseful events leading up to it, it could have been a great classic. As it is, it's still quite a unique effort (considering its low budget) and an interesting curio. Perhaps Irwin Allen saw this back in his childhood.
Check this out, but don't expect an Industrial Light and Magic enterprise and Harrison Ford. We're talking nearly seventy years ago. It was 'Famous Monster's' Forrest J. Ackerman who uncovered the only known existing print (way back in the eighties) dubbed in Italian and sub-titled, giving it a foreign film cinema verite appearence. Very honorable deed, Forrey, but why did you wait so long to tell us?