Mysterious island (1929)

I've heard about this "lost" film for many years. "Mysterious Island" is drawn from Jules Verne's novel of the same name, but it bears only a slight resemblance to that source and actually uses elements from several Verne stories. The novel was published in 1874 as a sequel to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I finally got my hands on a copy the other day, and settled down to enjoy a classic that almost killed science fiction as a film genre for many years.

Titles screen cap from the opening of the movie

Why? "Mysterious Island" started production in 1926 as a big-budget silent, two-strip Technicolor epic by MGM, the one Hollywood movie lot that didn't do anything half-assed. Unfortunately, production problems, including a hurricane that destroyed many of the sets, hampering the film and sent it WAY over budget. MGM replaced the original director, and much of the existing footage was reshot. While all of this was going on, sound hit the screen with "The Jazz Singer" in 1927. Suddenly, nobody wanted silent movies, no matter how epic in scope. MGM rushed back into production and filmed some sound sequences to insert into their silent white elephant. Sound effects and a score were also added. Then, just as the film was being released in 1929, the Stock Market crashed! Nobody felt like seeing a movie, and then had no money to see a movie, so MGM's epic flopped like a dying flounder. MGM recouped only a fraction of the film's cost. The failure became so notorious; no studio would touch science fiction for years to come: it cost over 1 million dollars and only netted $55,000. The film was shoved in a vault and forgotten for decades, until the advent of television in the 50s. A black and white TV print was struck, but eventually the film became scarce again, and disappeared from the airwaves. Recently TCM aired the film and this is where the many of the copies circulating today come from…

Only one color reel of "Mysterious Island" survives, which is part of the UCLA Film and Television Archive. The TV print, unfortunately, is black and white only.

Count Andre Dakkar, (Lionel Barrymore), a character who later came to be known as Captain Nemo in future productions based on the same source, is an eccentric genius living on an island near the shores of the kingdom of Hetvia. He explains to Baron Fallon, (Montague Love), his intention to explore the ocean in search of a civilization he believes exists under the ocean floor. In his experimental submersible craft, Count Dakkar and his daughter's sweetheart, Nikolai, (Lloyd Hughes), descend into the waters. However, during their descent, Count Fallon and his Hussars seize the chance to overrun the island, and in a bid to rule the kingdom he holds Dakkar's daughter, Countess Sonia, (Jane Daly), captive.

Upon resurfacing in the craft, Dakkar and Nikolai learn of the dissent and quickly return to the ocean depths after they are bombarded by the Hussars. Plummeting dangerously to the bottom of the ocean the ship ends up precariously balanced on a ledge. The crew disembark in cumbersome diving suits to be greeted by a race of dwarf-sized fishmen that look similar to deformed Donald

One of Dakkar's submarines

Ducks.
After encountering a giant dinosaur, the fishmen and a giant octopus help remove Dakkar's ship safely from the ledge, but Count Fallon has discovered another of Dakkar's submersible crafts on the island

During the ensuing confrontation Baron Fallon looses his life when a pole pierces his diving helmet and his life's-blood oozes out. Fighting off a further attack from hoards of sea creatures, Dakkar, his daughter and Nikolai repair their ship with parts provided by the other submersible allowing them to return to the surface and defeat Fallon's remaining army. Finally to prevent his work from being stolen and used for evil ends, Dakkar destroys his laboratory. His dying wish is to be buried at sea in his submersible ship, and in turn destroying the last remnant of his discoveries.

This is one of the underwater creatures - there are hundreds of these little guys in the film!

The film rivals "Metropolis" in spectacle and grandeur. It features miniatures, matte paintings, models, a live octopus, creature costumes, and even an alligator dressed up as the underwater dinosaur! The underwater sequences are very cleverly composited. As for the cast, I think Barrymore is miscast as Dakker and doesn't convince me he's a great inventor or

The little underwater guys sic their pet giant octopus on the stranded sub

that he is the same man known as the legendary Captain Nemo. For once, the onscreen romance between Sonia and Nikolai (Who is very handsome) is actually interesting, and Sonia is no shrinking violet victim typical of most clunky silent films.

Check out the youtube clip======>>>>

Tower of London (1962)

"Tower of London" really isn't a horror movie, but a historical chiller based (very loosely) on Shakespeare's play. This Roger Corman "cheapie" is actually a remake of a 1939 Universal film that starred Basil Rathbone as Richard III and Boris Karloff as his pet executioner. There seems to be some confusion about the two films, because when I searched for a trailer for the 1962 version, I kept finding pages that reviewed the 1962 film, but featured the trailer for the 1939 version. So, there's no footage to show you.

Vincent Price is the only actor of any name in this film, which is okay, 'cause if you have Vincent Price you don't need anybody else. I have never seen a bad Vincent Price performance. He saves what would otherwise be a dull affair of a film with his delicious, almost campy acting. He plays Richard III, deformed brother of King Edward, and he murders just about everyone else in the cast in his bid to become King of England. Richard takes delight in torturing, stabbing, strangling and smothering his relatives until he

Some of the stuff on this lobby card is actually in the movie...those neat-looking ghosts in the background are not.

is the only one left who COULD be king, and Price sneers and smirks his way through it all, dripping malevolent villainy the whole time.

Unfortunately for Richard, the ghosts of his victims come back to haunt him, and they make a prediction of his doom that does indeed come to pass at the end. Nobody plays a tortured madman like Vincent Price, he is my favorite Old School horror movie actor. But in Richard's case, you're never quite sure - is

he mad, or are the ghosts real?

Roger Corman found out 4 days before filming was to begin on his version of "Tower of London" that it would not be filmed in color, and I think the film is less famous than the other Corman pictures because of that fact. The budget was also slashed repeatedly during production, so there was no money for make-up to make the ghosts of Richard's victims truly horrific, and the big "battle" scenes at the end are simply stock footage from the 1939 version with Vincent Price in armor, flailing his sword at empty air, superimposed over it …pathetic. But I guess the last scene is the thing, where Richard meets his fate on the battlefield, so I think the ending satisfies. I liked it. After "The Pit and the Pendulum," I think this is my favorite Vincent Price madman performance.

Home Sweet Home for the royal family.  "They're creepy and they're kookie, mysterious and ookie..."

Vincent Price as the murderous Richard III. (SSHH! Don't mention his hump!)

This has been released on DVD under the MGM "Midnite Movies" banner, paired with another Price/Corman effort, "The Haunted Palace," which is filmed in color.

Richard sees his dead brother's ghost...but nobody else does.

Doctor Strange The Sorcerer Supreme (2007)

Someone in the household finally broke down and bought the "Doctor Strange The Sorcerer Supreme" DVD that came out last year, so now I get to review it. This movie turned out to be more interesting than even I thought it would be, and for different reasons than I expected.

"Doctor Strange" was created as a back-up feature for the Marvel comic book "Strange Tales" in 1963, drawn by the incomparable Steve Ditko. Ditko was already becoming famous as the premiere artist for "Spiderman," but for "Strange," the artist really unleashed his bizarre imagination, making "Doctor Strange" the most imaginative and unusual hero in the then-budding Marvel Universe.

The direct-to-DVD movie fleshes out the skimpy origin story of how Dr. Steven Strange, gifted but aloof surgeon, became The Master of Mystic Arts. A car accident cripples Strange's hands, and his quest for a cure for his useless appendages sends him down the road to ruin, which happens to lead to Tibet. There he encounters The Ancient One, the current Sorcerer Supreme, now aged, feeble and looking for a

potential replacement. He sees something in Strange that convinces him that his replacement is this broken man who has come to him for help. The Ancient One has several students of Mystical Arts, among them Mordo, a capable but arrogant bully who feels only he is qualified to replace his Master, and Wong, a gentle teacher destined to become Doctor Strange's right-hand man. A powerful entity of Pure Evil Magic, the Dread Dormammu, ruler of an other-dimensional magical realm, launches attack after attack in an attempt to break into this realm and take over. The Ancient One, in his weakened state, realizes that time to find and train his replacement is running out, and Dormammu's final violent bid to break into this world is at hand. But first, the Ancient One must help Stephen Strange to heal himself, both physically and emotionally.

The most impressive thing about this movie, and what got me excited about it, is twofold: It is about Stephen Strange the man, and his emotional journey from cold cad to magical warrior. He undergoes a life-changing experience, and we learn how he got from who he was to who and what he will become. I love personal stories of true character development. The other awesome thing about this movie is what a visual treat it is. I think this is the best-looking animated Marvel film
yet.

Strange vs. the trecherous Mordo

The backgrounds are incredible, obviously designed for high definition, rich with colors and textures rarely seen since the old days of Disney animated features. Everything in background and foreground has a surface feature. In addition, so much is going on within the frame. The film is action-packed, with huge other-dimensional monstrosities, magical weapons appearing and disappearing in curls of vile-looking smoke, spells that manifest as arcane symbols, and magical bursts of colorful energy that blot out the screen. And one other thing about this movie that I am thankful for, it is modern and innovative, but hearkens back to the golden age of animation instead of the over-used conventions of anime. I loved it, and recommend it highly. Here's the trailer, although the low resolution doesn't do the animation justice:

Doctor Strange and Wong, now more on equal footing with the Sorcerer Supreme.

Check ot the youtube clip======>>>>

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) and
        The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

I've watched two world-famous silent films over the past couple of days - both starring "The Man of a Thousand Faces," Lon Chaney Sr.  They are "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (1923) and "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925).  Being a horror movie film fan, I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that I had not seen either of these classics in their entirety.  I just never made the time, being satisfied with highlight clips that inevitably show up on any retrospective about horror movies.

The thing is, neither of these movies is strictly a horror film.  They are dramas about human monsters - one a true monster, the other a misunderstood one.  Of the two, I think I liked "Hunchback" better, because it had a better, more realistic story.  the Hunchback is a sympathetic character, and the story, although its named for him, isn't really about him.  The story happens around him, and it is full of pathos.  I also prefer the grander scale of medieval Paris and the Cathedral.

Check ot the youtube clip======>>>>

Set in a not-particularly-interesting Paris opera house at the turn of the (20th) century, "Phantom," on the other hand, is weaker because it seems set-bound and stiff.  Erik, the Phantom, is a deformed criminal who escaped from an insane asylum, and a cold blooded-killer, although I have to say the skull-like makeup for "Phantom" is ghastly and hideous even today.  I found "Hunchback" fascinating all the way through, where only a collective ten minutes or so of "Phantom" stands out in my memory.

Check ot the youtube clip======>>>>

Oh yeah, like traditional horror movies, both films have the angry torch-wielding mob at the end, so that was fun...

Both films are in poor shape.  Although both originally had tinted sequences, (gold for daytime exterior scenes, blue for night scenes, etc.) "Phantom" originally had technicolor sequences, only one of which survives in color today and therefor seems out of place in the middle of the picture.  The negative of the "Phantom" is incredibly scratched up, rendering some sequences incomprehensible as to what is supposed to be going on.  "Hunchback" is much clearer and crisper in image, and not nearly as damaged.  Neither one of the versions I saw had the tinting intact.  It's ironic that although these are probably the most famous silent films, they are also the ones in the poorest condition, whereas something more obscure, like "The Passion of Joan of Arc," is nearly pristine by comparison.  Also, The "Hunchback" print I saw had a synchronized orchestral music track and added sound effects  (Done for a later re-release in the 1930s.)  The "Phantom" print had a musical sequence that repeated every few minutes and no sound effects.