432 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Son of Samson (1960)
17 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Good gracious, what a movie. Been watching my Peplums again after a need to better understand the character of Hercules came up. Sure, he's called Maciste (or however its pronounced) in this one but it's essentially the same guy: Muscle-bound demigod begotten from the Sire of Zeus/Jupiter wandering the Earth righting wrongs. Here he comes upon another Peplum Egyptian Pharaonic era royal court beset by all sorts of fascinating evils furthered by the attention-riveting Chelo Alonso, perfectly as the intelligent yet bloodthirsty slave girl come to be Queen of an Empire.

Or whatever — This is one of the most violent and potentially disturbing Sword & Sandal mini- epic I can recall, with an implied body count in the thousands as she has entire human settlements wiped out to further her ambition for ultimate power. Humans torched alive on top of elaborate towers is a favored method of dispatching the unworthy, but our favorite will always be the Crocodile Pool into which assorted cast members are tossed to suffer hideously as they are devoured alive.

And you know, something tells me we're missing a proper introduction to the plot device, as a key character is dispatched fairly early into proceedings, later appearing in a manner in which their identity cannot be confirmed and is supposed to be of bother to the story. Because, I suspect, he was devoured whole by crocodiles in a scene removed from the surviving print, which only mentions the Crocodile Pool towards the end of the proceedings. This totally defies how Pepla are usually structured and in a manner which can only be the result of external meddling.

Much like a James Bond film the best Peplum thrillers establish an elaborately horrifying execution or torture device for its crazed villain's inept underlings fairly early on. The threat of ending up thrown into its workings then hangs over the rest of the plot, indeed driving its plot once the Hero has come into the story. And sure enough Mark Forrest's very capable Maciste is indeed thrown bodily into the Crocodile Pool at what would have been exactly the right moment — If we had known about the Crocodile Pool previously.

Since we do not my suspicions were raised upon a 2nd viewing when going back to make sure the movie really was as cool as I'd thought it was. And "Son of Samson" is, just off-balanced by not having the Crocodile Pool established in the mind's eye of the viewer prior to Maciste being tossed into it. And a 3rd viewing established the likely place where our introduction to its horrors should have been cemented. There is no reason for the plot to insist that the identity of a certain key character is anyone but that person … Unless, that is, he had been devoured by the crocodiles & a dummy used in his place.

The good news is that even after three viewings the film remains of fascination and deserves a restoration. Ms. Alonso is nothing shy of a revelation and her final doom is perhaps the most disturbing moment in Peplum history since Kirk Douglas had his run-in with the Lepers. I'll even forgive the movie for not having a rampaging monster for a big showdown match. Trust me: Maciste has his hands full in this one just contending with all the evil scheming afoot. Fitting in screen time for a giant cyclops or mechanical moon-men would have proved a distraction, and the film concludes on exactly the right note to leave the viewer wondering, "Wait … what was that again, with the thing?"
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
On the Cutting Out of Tongues
17 November 2017
Meanwhile back at the sarcophagus, Italian filmmakers go to great lengths to create an effectively atmospheric Peplum set during the time of the Ancient Egyptian empires. Or there abouts, depends on which language version you encounter. The sets are elegant, the costumes right out of a high school textbook and the film delivers the goods if you like talky period-type drama mixed in with your Swords & Sandals. Lots of intrigue involving royal courts, family lineage, duplicitous religious leaders, and Debra Paget decked out in a Pharaonic babe-getup that is very easy on the eyes. She can lounge around eating grapes over at my place anytime and the dialog is surprisingly fluid for Italian translated to English.

All of which is routine. The film will stand out in my mind as the one where the threat of having one's tongue cut out is repeated sufficient times to prove curious. The first time was cool. The second time was odd. The third time had me wondering if the dubbing was on right, and the fourth time made me laugh. Maybe there's a drinking game to be had here. Nothing else about the film's story made much of an impression though I do not regret the time invested (wasted?), no, consumed by watching it. A mummy subplot could have been cool, or maybe more slave chicks. At least a giant cyclops or something, Guys.

Which is perhaps why having a female lead with a respectable pedigree in such a production will ultimately work against the film's appeal beyond the boundaries of genre viewers. Since Ms. Paget is the intended focus of our ardor the fate of random half naked slave chicks hurled to their doom for the entertainment of some slavering despot becomes less pressing to the needs of the plot, and sadly the filmmakers took the easy way out. Court intrigue or giant a cyclops devouring centurions? If choosing the former, bingo.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nightmare (1981)
The Fine Art of the Spoiler
12 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Guys, guys GUYS! People get a grip, please. There's a thing called The Spoiler, whereby commentators on films will spoil the fun of getting to see the movie for other people by carelessly revealing a pivotal development, revelation, or secret held by a movie. The fun for viewers is to get to encounter that revelation on their own without having the moment ruined by knowing about it in advance.

"Nightmares" has such a revelation and it only comes in the very last minute of the film. The payoff was fantastic, and thank goodness I had not sought out reviews of the film beforehand or the fun would have been ruined. Almost every review, post, or synopsis of the movie contains that revelation which viewers should have to earn after sitting through the rest of it. By knowing in advance the potency of the scenes which lead up to it is diluted and there were some very potent scenes here which would have suffered from advance knowledge of the revelation.

Best way to sum up the story is to say that a patient from a secret drug treatment program for the criminally insane is released prematurely, goes off his personality modifying meds, and embarks on a journey through the seedy side of America's east coast during which he commits several gruesome killings. That's the extent of what should be revealed. Anything more would spoil the mind- screw of that last minute, and reduce the meaning of the film to a checklist of slasher movie components pieced together by an oblique story which will only serve to distract genre viewers from the horror of it all.

And hence the film's current status: Regarded as a classic by some but dismissed by many more as boring & derivative. Because without coming upon that revelation on your own it is sort of a 2nd rate overly arty if competently made slasher-type horror movie rating just about 5 out of 10: Covers the bases, constructed with skill but not really having anything too spectacular with a comparatively modest body count (I believe it is eight, if you count the big flashback scene). The gore effects may or may not have been "supervised" by Tom Savini, it doesn't really matter, they serve the film well enough. The extra notoriety the controversy generated only means more opportunities for reviewers to spill the beans for audience members who could care less.

I'm glad I ignored it all. With that spoiler intact I give the film a 7 out of ten, with very tight plotting that is only revealed as being more thorough than usual once that revelation takes place. The film is very well made from a technical standpoint with an interesting use of film speeds and droll, non-sensational music. But who watches slasher movies for their plotting, technical work or soundtracks? They are traditionally a series of gruesome set pieces connected by some sort of story which may or may not hold up to the light of day when evaluated separate from the gore. This one does and that alone is somewhat remarkable. Just don't read any more reviews until after watching it or you too may be tempted to dismiss the results for being something different than the usual brainless mayhem.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
They Made the Wrong Movie
19 October 2017
Serviceable enough Italian produced historical Peplum drawing upon biblical scenario, directed by Spaghetti Western master Ferdinando Baldi at the beginning of his career. Orson Welles glowers and half-whispers his way through a marvelously pointless performance done in only by Goliath himself, who standing about twelve feet tall at 450 pounds is the focus of my thesis on the film.

Which is specifically that the Italians -- no doubt limited by 1960 era morality -- made the wrong movie. The scenes with Goliath are its best, and the most enjoyable the one where he is promised command of an army (doesn't care) a roomful of gold (been there/done that) and the prettiest most wholesome women in the kingdom attending to his every bidding. SCORE!

The hilarious scene where Goliath sits on a giant throne quaffing a barrel of wine while scantily clad damsels perform a Veil Dance for him should have been the departure point for a much more interesting story exploring just what went down. Though sadly Goliath returns on screen only to slaughter a few guards prior to his disappointingly brief showdown with David. After which the film persists in continuing for a while, missing the point that we weren't dialing in to watch Orson Welles palpitate. We were there for Goliath, and he ruled.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dogs (1976)
Has One Incredibly Creeped Out Sequence
26 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know guys, didn't think this movie was all so silly. Yeah OK, most of the canine cast are pooches who sort of look like they want to play, go walkies and have a snack. Perspective might have something to do with my reaction: I got bit pretty bad as an 11 year old and by a beagle, of all things. Not Snoopy but a vicious snarling little ball of teeth who would not let go and scared the crap out of me enough to turn me into a cat person for most of my life. Only as an adult in what one might refer to as middle ages have I become more fond of dogs. Cats don't care. Dogs celebrate your very existence each time you walk into the room. Mmyesh you do, Pumpkin Butt.

I also buy the premise of a swarm/pack/stampede of similar animals or insects having a collective response to stimuli which could provoke group reactions. Imagine if all the millions of mosquitoes in the Adirondacks collectively went after every living warm blooded creature en masse, all at once. Deep Woods Off and your windbreaker would not help for long. Thankfully it isn't going to happen, but if applied up the ladder of life forms one could see how it would be kind of scary to have every domesticated pet turn into my friend the beagle all at once and form up into packs of ravaging bloodthirsty killers.

The film also goes out of its way to explain the science of its premise in terms that come across as being at least as plausible as "King Kong Vs. Godzilla" so I was willing to give the film a chance. And it does have one insanely creeped out sequence which I won't ruin. I will cite ALIEN (1979) as my favorite film ever and for about ten minutes "Dogs" had me wondering if I should maybe turn a couple lights on and fix a drink. Freaked the hell out of me, with a sober plausible cast of non-sensational types making it all feel pretty familiar up until that moment. The festival of carnage which then climaxes the film and its obligatory 70s paranoid ending sort of broke the spell, which is too bad as they were onto something there for a while. Yeeeesh.

Do I recommend the movie? Sure, if you want to potentially be freaked out by something that really is as skin-crawlingly scary as a character describes it as. The snarling dogs may be unsettling to some viewers but my guess is that was sort of the point -- Horror movies used to be designed to actually scare audiences and they do a fairly good job of it. Though my sensibilities as a film consumer are also rooted in the 1970s & don't rely on mind- blowing special effects, can set aside the absurdity of seeing a poodle mutt depicted as vicious due to personal experience, and watched the movie all alone in the dark with the lights off. Which was the right decision.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Alien (1979)
Great Movie About A Bunch Of People On An Old Space Ship Who Save A Cat
6 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It is impossible for me to write an objective review of ALIEN simply because I believe it is not just the best motion picture film ever made, but is a pinnacle of artistic expression that owes its debt to pretty much everything that came before it. The story was a cultural funnel into which it all flowed. The only thing it can be correctly compared to might be the original 1977 release of STAR WARS even though its objectives could not have been more different. It is the most thorough and convincing portrayal of the future ever committed to celluloid. Certainly more convincing than 2001: A SPACE ODDITY, which is too sterile and gleaming. The future will not look like a dentist's office.

The future will be ugly, loud and busy. It will be a retrofitted mess of the past, present and futuristic forms. Like a city which adapts to changing times by modernizing certain parts while still facilitating its old function with its crumbling old infrastructure. If you're curious to see what the future of commercial space travel may look like watch this film. Humans will come and go, we may be tooling about on space craft, we may be crossing vast distances of space, and yes: It stands to reason we will encounter life forms startlingly different than ourselves. Unless we are very lucky it is almost inevitable that like other creatures on this planet they will react to us with fear, hostility or aggression for primal reasons related to territoriality or survival. It is doubtful we will have much in common.

We won't meet these alien life forms by looking for them. We will come across them as we go about our human ways, pressing deeper into the universe while going about our mundane business on the surfaces of worlds never meant to accommodate warm blooded protein and sugar consuming bipedal air breathers. I doubt the aliens we do find will look like HR Giger's creations, but at least in Giger we finally had an artist's vision for a life form that is suitable for the vastness of space. It is infinitely adaptable, roughly taking the form of whatever creature it gestates inside of and born ready-made to thrive in whatever the host's native environment may be. It's a weapon — natural or engineered, doesn't matter — a DNA replicating machine which mimics its host creature so it may corrupt and devour it more efficiently.

Here it takes the bastardized form of a man and effortlessly eliminates five human adults inside of 48 hours. It would have infected whatever biosphere it was introduced into, skillfully devouring, replicating, spawning and breeding until a critical mass is reached and all other forms of life in that biosphere would be eliminated in a survival of the fittest test with one inevitable outcome. The only way that its threat would be believable and frightening is if the fictional universe the story takes place in is 100% convincing. ALIEN's is, boasting the most effective production design in the history of cinema, bested only by NASA's Apollo moon landing program.

We believe in the universe it is set, the people who inhabit it, and the hardware they use to perform the tasks required by their mode of existence. If we were not thoroughly convinced the entire premise would fall like a house of cards. Ridley Scott, Dan O'cannon, Ron Shussett, Ron Cobb, Christopher Foss, H.R. Giger, John Mollo, Roger Dickens, Les Dilley, Brian Johnson, Jerry Goldsmith, Terry Rawlins, and the cast chosen to enact the story all collaborated seamlessly to produce a completely convincing facade telling a tightly plotted story about humans stumbling across an alien life form. Through duplicity and against protocol, the organism is allowed to infect the human biosphere within the ship, and the crew inevitably discover that the only way to contain the outbreak to their ship is to destroy it. It is a perfect metaphor for the necessary evils of modern life.

The film was successful and its dominance of the horror/action movie market spawned an outbreak of similarly themed films, some of which came close to replicating ALIEN's impact on our culture, but none really being able to introduce anything very useful to the premise. Queens laying eggs dumbs the creature down to familiar Terrestrial life patterns. I would prefer to think that the universe holds many surprises about how life thrives that aren't anything like the patterns we are comfortable with. The bug hunt in the first sequel is well done, but whatever success its offspring may have enjoyed all relate back to the singular vision and urgency behind the artistic quest that this film set out to resolve.

It does so in ways that go beyond the impact of individual scenes. Every film of its kind made since has been influenced by ALIEN in one way or another, and that influence will continue for as long as humans make films. Nobody will ever be able to "undo" its contributions, negate them from our society's palette. You can mix in Predators or A list casts with super-real computer effects, but it will always come back to this film and the startling possibilities it suggested. If it hadn't been done so well we wouldn't still be talking about it, proof that they really did get it right. We have only just begun to explore what forms the possibilities suggested by ALIEN may take, and someone someday will get it just as right in their own era's equivalent.

I hope I'm around to see that happen, maybe even have a hand in making it. Who knows.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mission Mars (1968)
One Frozen Cosmonaut to Go, Please (**Spoilers**)
5 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I love movies like this. Low budget hard science fiction effort played straight-up, non-campy, done with the best of intentions in mind with the limited resources the filmmakers had access to. If you had any doubt it's all on the level look no further than Darren McGavin as the capable no- nonsense commander of America's first manned mission to Mars. Which according to the way the film is edited feels like it took about a week, round trip.

My favorable opinion of the film likely cased by having followed the advice of skipping forward to the blast off and bypassing the preliminary nonsense. Not sure what all I missed just yet but subsequent scenes of females back at home sitting around being annoyed they have been gone so long don't bode well. The rest of the movie went swimmingly for this lover of improbable space suits, absurd model effects, studio bound alien planets, unsealed motorcycle helmets with antennae and oxygen tubes, stick figure aliens that look like Gumby dolls, space capsules equipped with office chairs, unexplained artificial gravity, absurdly entertaining music that actually works, and balloons.

On that note the film is actually quite satisfying if still clumsily made. Nothing wrong with that. One's suspension of disbelief only need be tempered by being assured that if the filmmakers had access to the budgets & resources "2001: A Space Odyssey" boasted they'd have come up winners too. They didn't, and persevered anyway with space suits consisting of downhill skiing garb, props that do nothing, and even threw in a meal in space scene: Takes up screen time, and converting contemporary food into space food only requires a few odd looking trays with futuristic utensils. Food is food.

I love the pan shots of the wind-swept Martian surface in miniature, the research balloon subplot, and the lost expedition angle with mummified (frozen?) Cosmonaut. Maybe they'd seen "Planet of the Vampires"? The aliens are great, very wise decision in not even bothering to have them move. Makes them more alien without even trying, and their use of a hand weapon on one provides the movie's biggest laugh. I love the stupid hoses connected to their motorbike helmets, the empty tool boxes they carry around, the backwards sound effects and the film's marvelously trippy color schemes. They may have been trying to play it square but this is one hell of a head movie & I'm not even stoned.

In all honesty, most viewers would likely be advised to skip it unless planning a bad movie night, which is a cliché but can still be fun. Those who enjoy low budget science fiction movies — and are inclined to admire art made under whatever circumstance the artist had at their disposal in the face of universal indifference & potential ridicule — will find a brave little movie here. The filmmakers weren't dummies, even working in a sly reference to Gemini 5's famous corned beef sandwich incident. They also knew how little they had and insisted on working with it, only to be shown up by someone more capable who had the mistakes of films such as this to learn from. For that matter I enjoyed this movie just as much as "2001" though for different reasons more related to playing space explorers with my pals after school. Or during school, whenever we could find the time and something to serve as a rocket ship. Same kind of spirit at work here.

And WTF is that theme song? LOL I want a whole CD of that. Awesome movie, just be warned about those first 17 minutes. I don't even want to look.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Even I Have My Limits, It Seems
17 November 2016
Nope. I am not going to do it. I refuse to get into the spirit of this awful little movie, which revealed itself very quickly as an homage to The Three Stooges when one of the characters has a bit of trouble with a high pressure water hose. In Curly's capable hands such physical comedy passes beyond just being funny into some sort of sublime expression of how futile & stupid life can be, and that the best advice anyone can offer another is to save string. Here it's just funny and provided me with the film's sole laugh.

The rest of it was puzzling. At two times I "gave up" and went on to do something else with the precious time our grand creator has granted me here on earth. Life is short. The girls in the movie are tall, however, and I dig tall chicks. It can be like making love to a suspension bridge, so I went back both times to see what the film could come up with them to do, other than to look great in their space leotards. Trust me when I say that could be a whole movie just right there, though sadly they were not granted enough screen time to carry the day & the movie sucks.

I kept wondering whom it was allegedly made for, what audience was in mind while it was being constructed from script to final edit. Children *might* be entertained by it. Lovers of campy overtly corny movies will need their own hard copy so they can plan theme parties where screening it is the focus of the evening. Anyone else should just stick with "Plan 9" which was intended to be a serious movie made by a filmmaker who demonstrated far more finesse with the form than anyone here shy of the ladies' costume designer. At least they got that right.

How to put it ... I love "bad" movies, but they have to end up being bad with the best of intentions to make something meaningful. When you go out of your way to purposefully make a bad movie you are treading on thin ice. What makes the film so curious is that it was made in 1962 when such filmmaking was regarded with a certain amount of seriousness. It's pre-Elvira, suggesting that the film's creators were actually sort of ahead of their time in creating the same kind of crap that Elvira helped make fashionable.

Which I despise, rooting for the underdogs that actually made their little movies for a few thousand dollars in spite of universal indifference & critical ridicule. Going right for the jugular of critical ridicule is nothing short of cheating and this movie left me annoyed enough to come here and crab about it. Sorry.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Special Bulletin (1983 TV Movie)
Still Worth Watching For Ideas
9 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I have now seen this ingenious made for TV movie twice: Upon original broadcast and again last night via the marvel of the internet. In 1983 I was a high school sophomore who watched in thunderstruck awe as a dark fantasy of nuclear hell played out as vividly as it had in the music of the era which captivated me. Here at last was a suitable pop culture document of how senseless it all was, with even the well-intentioned terrorist/activists being as dead wrong as the suicidal federal policies they were trying to put a stop to. It scared the living crap out of me to say the least, ringing with authenticity and dead cold delivery. The few moments where the script tries to become pat and predictable are all undermined by the activities of the players. Normality is set aside.

Upon second viewing now as a jaded adult approaching fifty some of the seams in the weave are evident. We've grown up in an era of 24hr cable news programming with one on the spot disaster coverage after another. The mother of all being coverage of the September 11th attacks, as riveting a 36 hours of nonstop news viewing endurance as I can recall. Then there's all those plane crashes, space shuttle disasters, hostage dramas, reality TV law enforcement shows, and the Ferguson riots, which were streamed live from people's smart phones. You can now pretty much cut out the middleman of the broadcast journalist and watch events unfold live via those who are there.

So there's sort of a chicken-egg thing going on here: Which came first? The cinema-verity docudrama approach of speculative fiction, or the tradition of Americans tuning in on their TV sets to watch events of horror or spectacle happen before our eyes? Which was one of the aspects which made that 1983 viewing so unforgettable — The story *happened* to the viewer and could not be stopped or paused or Tivo'd to watch it later. You had to be tuned in and paying attention, and I am struggling now to recall how or even if I knew specifically to watch. It certainly would have been a priority viewing experience if told about it. I was a young suburban punk being prepared for the coming apocalypse by the music of The Clash, British Ska bands, artist/experimenters like Eno and King Crimson, and watched Carl Sagan's COSMOS religiously. It's fatalistic anti-nuclear theme was pure and rational enough to be convincing even without "Ivan Meets G.I. Joe". We were doomed as far as I was concerned. Just a matter of circumstance and POOF. There goes 6.5 billion years of evolution.

None of what "Special Bulletin" depicts stretched outside the realm of what we thought was possible in 1983, and there wasn't opportunity to stop the proceedings during events to check IMDb or other resources (which didn't exist at the time) to try and make sense of what the hell was going on. You sort of have to surrender yourself to the passage of events shown, which was easier 32 years ago than it is now. Viewing with a 2015 sensibility the authenticity of certain moments suffer, specifically the final shootout where a live feed camera is allowed to capture the initial moments of the assault. First thing Delta would have done was get the goddamn cameras out of there, but then again this is as much a fantasy about the news media's irresponsible nature as it was about the nuclear incident. In such fantasies plausibility will be the first thing to go out the window.

So scratch watching this for an authentic demonstration of how such an event could unfold. Watch it instead for the performances, all of which are pretty much dead on, David Clennon being especially convincing as the leader of the group. It is the staging of the interplay between the media personalities which dominate the proceedings being the main shortcoming for contemporary audiences. Or rather, subsequent experience with such broadcast events have rendered the approach taken by the writers as being naive. It's never that simple, and indeed the broadcast's finest moments are when events spiral out of control and leave the commentators bereft of anything to say. Because there is nothing to say at such times, and the best thing they could do was shut the hell up. At least they got that right.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Joey, Do you like Movies about Sasquatches
3 November 2015
Peter Graves sonorously narrates Sunn Classics uproarious Bigfoot documentary with all of the authority of Captain Crunch. The film is best remembered in my circle for a genuinely hair raising segment where Bigfoot rummages through the belongings of a group of "Boy Scouts" out camping without adult supervision. Attention is also given to the Loch Ness Monster and indeed, Graves is able to conclude with authority that it is a population of aquatic dinosaurs who have somehow escaped the ravages of time. He also concludes that Bigfoot is actually a population of 200 or more bipedal creatures who exist at one with nature, and have only come to our attention as mankind has cruelly encroached on their habitat with all our unwelcome riot & clamor.

The same approach is found in Sunn Classic's "In Search of Noah's Ark", which taught us that the Ark split in two and rests half submerged in a glacier on Mount Ararat, just waiting for earnest Christians to free it from the ice. Sunn's "The Lincoln Conspiracy" also finds in favor of a complex conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln centered around super spy / traitor Union Colonel Lafayette Baker, who would have made Oliver Stone blush with embarrassment for his ham-fisted script for "JFK". And the overlooked "The Bermuda Triangle", which posits with authority that ships, airplanes and whole civilizations have been sucked into the very bowels of the Earth itself by a misfired Atlantean particle beam accelerator, lost somewhere off the coast of Bimini.

The films are classic Americana, made with working class families who went to the movies two or three times a year in mind, demanding otherwise wholesome G-rated fare suitable for all-ages and fueled by a bizarre zeal to have it all be true even when flying in the face of common sense. "Mysterious Monsters" succeeds admirably, cashing in early on the Bigfoot craze that even "The Six Million Dollar Man" got caught up in and demanding our acceptance by appealing to our conscience rather than science. Forty years later there's still no hide or bones to study and it's to my personal disappointment that garbage films like this sort of got shoved under the carpet as people realized how stupid it all was. It is the right of earlier eras to be as slack-jawed and backward as they like. I for one marvel at garbage such as this film, celebrating with forthright authority man's unending quest to sucker each other out of a couple dollars — In this case, movie tickets, and it worked brilliantly. These movies all made gobs of money with almost nothing up front, though don't sell the talents of the filmmakers short. They knew exactly what they were doing just like the guy at the carnival sideshow knows what he is doing. It's called show business.

The results are actually highly entertaining, the one slow spot in the film being a sequence where a "psychiatrist" is shown "hypnotizing" his "patient", who relates a tale so filled with mystery as to sound not just poorly scripted, but unrehearsed. Yet that's half the fun. Not just marveling at how bad, dumb or outrageously idiotic the movie is, but in knowing that it was the best they could manage under the circumstances. Which means there's hope for the rest of us, or at least those of us who refuse to stop believing in Bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs or "Ancient Aliens". Take your pick, spark up and just enjoy being smarter than the dimwits who paid money to see this, ate it up whole, and went home wanting more. Now that's funny.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.