PaulCurt Reviews

12/12/12 (2012)

If the baby had ping pong ball eyes, it would have looked even sillier. But would it have improved the overall film?

[4/10 · 12 December 2012]

12/12/12 probably isn't the worst rampaging killer baby movie, but it certainly isn't the best. It works against the film that the performance of most important character in the story is never, ever visually convincing. "Baby Sebastian" gets plenty of screen time, and is at the center of a storm of violence and unpleasantness, yet always looks like an ugly baby-doll (for good reason.) If you're willing to embrace the fact that everyone else in the story is running around screaming and attacking each other because of a silly-looking doll, then the movie is pretty darn entertaining. If unconvincing effects ruin your enjoyment, keep your distance.

Other reviewers have complained about the performances of the human actors, and I'm uncertain what bothered them, considering what one expects in low-budget movies of this genre. I thought they were all adequate, and some performances seemed pretty good, to my tastes. Sara Malakul Lane was just fine, and I'm always entertained by Steve Hanks. Shauna Chin was particularly appealing (which was troubling, because you know immediately she is in for some bad luck) and Jesus Guevara is better than he seems to be, on first viewing. I can't think of anyone whose acting diminishes the film.

Of course, it is a pretty goofy film we're discussing here. I would call it a stupid movie, except I don't think it ever pretended to be an intelligent one. It makes sense only in a loopy dream-logic way...in fact I was afraid the writer would wuss out and have the whole thing turn out to be a hallucination or a nightmare or some other cheat. He didn't.

Also, as far as not cheating goes, it was good to see the producers using a practical effect (the puppet baby) rather than a computer-generated animation. CGI would have looked boring, cheap and unconvincing. The puppet looked yucky-funny and unconvincing, which is far more appealing and amusing to my eyes.

The other technical aspects of the movie were all pretty high-quality, which makes the completed film seem all the more surrealistic and inexplicable. The photography is clear and well-lit (I never had any doubt what was supposed to be happening on-screen), the sound was clear and the dialogue (the weird, dreamlike dialogue!) was all audible. The production crew should all be proud of their work.

Well, the production crew, with the possible exception of Sean Patrick Watkins, fabricator of Baby Sebastian, the central character of 12/12/12. It's hard to divine whether it was actually intended to look lifelike (in which case, it failed), or creepily and surrealistically non-lifelike (possible partial success), or whether Watkins's work was actually a hastily-constructed "Plan B" that had to be used when some other practical effect (a monkey in a baby suit?) failed to materialize. Perhaps it is more intriguing just to leave this creative decision as a movieland mystery.

Even more mysterious: when the story drew to a close, I asked myself, "I wonder if there will be a sequel?" And I realized ruefully, that I actually would gladly pay money to see a follow-up film. I cannot explain why.

Hold Your Breath (2012)

An enjoyable "spirit possession" movie, with some non-standard details

[5/10 · 12 October 2012]

Tuesday afternoon I went to see #holdyourbreath at a theater in Times Square! Since most of their productions go the straight-to-DVD or Video-on-demand route, I was tickled to see an Asylum picture in a movie house during the first week of its release! Asylum's strategy is to use a numeral or an early letter of the alphabet, when choosing a movie title...in this case, the "#" sign. The strategy worked insofar as the movie DOES come to the top of the list of films...but the ticket lady didn't recognize what movie I was talking about, when I asked for it. "Oh! The first one on the list!" she said after an embarrassed pause.

The movie opens unpromisingly with (apparently) 16mm stock footage of the night sky, but soon launches into a nice gruesome prologue set in the 1950's, depicting the execution of a crazed mass-murderer. The sequence was lively and gory, and left a good impression that worse sights would soon follow. The rest of the film takes place in present-day California, where six former high school pals embark on a camping trip, hoping to catch up on old times and abandon their day-to-day stresses. When the road to the camp ground carries them past a graveyard, one of the pals insists that taking a breath while driving past a graveyard, risks possession by disembodied spirits. Of course, this happens almost immediately, so we spend much of the remainder of the film watching the cast assume alternate personalities and run around torturing/shooting at each other. Sounds like fast-moving craziness would ensue, however the movie rarely evokes the same breathless "what's gonna happen next?" anarchy of its first ten minutes.

Oddest aspect of the film is not the "possessed" versions of the protagonists, but their everyday personalities. Example: soon after the friends see the graveyard, they stop their vehicle and one of them announces that he intends to relieve his bladder. He then walks a few steps away from the others and proceeds to do as he has announced, without making any effort to step out of their line-of-sight. The behavior isn't manic or unhinged, but it shows him as a creep. And they're all people with whom I wouldn't want to spend many idle hours.

In a long sequence set in the now-abandoned building where the murderer was electrocuted, (located conveniently close to the cemetery) the protagonists roam needlessly, get romantic, play pranks, and then leave. What's remarkable about the sequence is: they trespass into an abandoned sanitarium...locate its morgue and its execution chamber (!!!)...and then hang around for a while instead of getting the heck OUT. What kind of people break into a fifty-years-abandoned morgue and instead of saying "Eww!" think, "hey, let's make whoopee on this gritty, dusty morgue table!" Or play at strapping each other in the electric chair? It's not unimaginable, yet plainly these are not ordinary 20-somethings. And the scriptwriter NEVER pursues this aspect: we meet a bunch of semi-twisted people in a supernatural situation, and yet the rest of the plot never refers back to their distinctly oddball behavior. The beginning and the scenes in the sanitarium/prison got my hopes up, then fell into a standard spooky-movie path.

Also, when the disembodied killer possesses a living person, he uses the host's knowledge (such as: what is a cell phone), but when he leaves the body, only fragmented, nightmarish images remain. I found the idea of surviving the possession, (and having no recollection of the mischief committed) to be disquieting, so I was sorry the movie didn't explore it further. I hope there will be a commentary track on the disc release; I'd like to hear more about what the writer intended.

Apart from that disappointment? I enjoyed the film. Asylum demonstrates its mastery of squeezing the full value of every nickel spent on production, right up onto the screen. The original score by Chris Ridenhour was nice, if not his best and the practical makeup was convincing. The CGI violence and spook effects were OK (people love to complain about Asylum's decisions in using CGI) and were certainly NOT the downfall of this production. I've noticed that many people who slam Asylum productions, preface their reviews with "Normally I love Bad Movies, but THIS...!" ...and then fume about some aspect they didn't like. In my experience, Bad Movie fans are looking for one (or all) of the following values: inept production, unrestrained creative content, or over-the-top campy performances; Asylum productions routinely under-deliver in all three areas because the creative team works so hard to make competent, professional-looking entertainment. Ironically, some movie watchers think the results look cheap and unconvincing, while the low-budget movie aficionados find the results flat and unexciting.

My reaction to the cast is problematical, since it's clear I have pegged the protagonists as a bunch of creeps. Standout performances came from Seth Cassell as the guy who smokes his pipe in the car, Steve Hanks as a guy who likes to offer coffee to people whilst threatening them, and Katrina Bowden as a pretty gal who's not as likable as when she was in "Tucker and Dale vs Evil" (but that really does set an unreasonable standard.) Jordan Pratt-Thatcher was memorable in the opening scene (wish there had been more of him.) Asylum regular Gerald Webb has an appealing scene as a well-meaning park ranger. Cassell's performance was the one that left me thinking, "that guy can ACT!" Again, not to dismiss Asylum's marketing, but it seemed ill-considered to put a hash-tag in the title of a story in which the internet is irrelevant. In fact no plot element is more modern than the automobile or the electric chair. If you're going to create an old-timey spook story, the decision to give it a Twitter-era title is misleading. Strange, since the flick has more to offer than trendiness.

One Frightened Night (1935)

A murder mystery starring Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz...

[8/10 · 9 October 2003]

And featuring the likeable clown from Freaks. What more could one ask? A low-budget Old Dark House mystery that is better than it needs to be, with sharp dialogue and engaging characters...can't go wrong!

Why can't all B pictures be this good?

Ma Barker's Killer Brood (1960)

A wacky, bloody romp!

[9/10 · 2 June 2003]

This film is terrific fun! It makes up for its tiny budget with wild, over-the-top performances (Lurene Tuttle was sweet-voiced Effie on the Sam Spade radio show...WHAT a DIFFERENCE!), extreme violence (one part where they set a guy on fire gets shown TWICE!) and goofy, quotable dialogue.

This is the kind of movie The Addams Family would watch with their kids.

With these things in mind, viewers looking for an accurate, historical picture will be disoriented, or at least disappointed. This is definitely not a good source for American History term papers. It is intended as a source for giggly thrills, and is a good one.

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

A different kind of film!

[8/10 · 11 May 2003]

The first "Babe" was a touching fable, similar enough to other children's animal stories that everyone could feel comfortable with enjoying the adventure. This story is different, both in tone and in plotline.

If this story had been told with human, rather than animal characters, it would be considered a 'film noir' entry. As such, perhaps it is a rare example of 'animal noir,' a genre with only a handful of examples. "The Painted Hills" might count, seeing as it is a crime-revenge flick starring Lassie. My childhood recollection of Abe Levitow's "Gay Purr-ee" places it as a possibility, what with its criminal group of sewer-dwelling cats and the plotline involving selling the heroine through the auspices of a Parisian cathouse...

The main reason such films are rarely made is that few producers want to risk money on disturbing, unpleasant, grotesque stories intended for young people. Can't blame them, though frankly kids can stand that sort of thing much better than we presume. The really disturbing material tends to be misunderstood adult stuff.

Goofy Movies Number Six (1934)

Mildly amusing absurdities, Pete Smith-style

[7/10 · 26 January 2003]

Bless the hearts of the folks at Turner Classic Movies for showing these curiosities. They're not Great Art, they're just good for a chuckle. A chuckle is worth having.

My favorite line is "Goodness, I seem to be dying! Come, boys!" ...it's a typical Pete Smith moment. Without TCM nobody would know what a typical Pete Smith moment was like.

Cassidy of Bar 20 (1938)

A good Hopalong entry, with one standout performance

[8/10 · 12 January 2003]

I picked up a few of the Image Entertainment "Hopalong Cassidy" DVDs owing to a friend's research for a magazine article...I had seen numerous examples of Boyd's excellent acting and wanted to see if watching whole "Hopalong" features would be rewarding. As I had hoped, the features are very good.

One expects a certain level of acting in B movies...better than a high-school stage play, but less depth than major movie characters. B movie performances usually have enough personality to explain what a character is doing at the time...but not enough to account for what the character is like, off-screen. It's one of the excellences of Boyd's acting; you feel that he is just as honest and competent and well-meaning before the movie starts, and in scenes where he does not appear. Most of the other characters are not so well-written or well-played, that one considers their backstory.

The exception in this movie is Gertrude Hoffman as Ma Caffrey, a crusty old general-store manager. At first she appears to be a typical comic-relief gun-totin' old lady, who thinks one of Hoppy's partners looks like her dead husband. Later she talks to that partner, who's been ordered by the court to help around the store. She says:

"Jeff's a good boy. Ain't scared to stand behind a gun and shoot for what's right. Jeff's pa was a Federal Marshal; got killed fightin' for the gov'ment. Yep, fell dead right where you're standing. I've tried to learn Jeff right from wrong. Clay Allison wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for my Jeff. Allison's round-up crew'll be here today. Fightin' men from the border; they're a bad lot; al's bring trouble." ...and in that brief minute or so you COMPLETELY believe her and her grief for her husband and her disappointment in her son, working for Mr. Allison (who's the villain of the film). It's an A-picture performance...the sort of thing that wins "Best Supporting Actress" nominations if the movie is "respectable" enough. It's plain the actress thought the part through; her every line implies her past and her ongoing relationship with her townspeople and her son.

Is this worthwhile if a person doesn't care for the Western genre? Not really. Is it worth showing to young actors as an example of doing a lot with a small part? Yes, certainly! Does it demonstrate once again that not all low-budget movies have second-rate casts? Sure!

Be Human (1936)

A "message" cartoon that's pretty effective!

[8/10 · 28 November 2002]

The "be nice to animals" message is presented with some unsettlingly violent images of cartoon animal abuse. It's just a little shocking, which is exactly what the creators intended. It's probably best not to spoil any of the gags; sufficient to say that the mixture of cuteness and brutality is certain to startle present-day cartoon watchers.

Son of the Border (1933)

It's silly and dated, but a treat nonetheless

[7/10 · 18 November 2002]

I'm rapidly developing a taste for Tom Keene movies. He looks and sounds only a few notches away from being a live-action Dudley Do-Right...but somehow his performances work for me.

This movie is intriguing to me because Tom's good pal (well-played by the regretful-looking Lon Chaney Jr.) is working for the outlaws and gets himself killed...then when Lon's little brother shows up, Lon's former girlfriend competes with Tom to raise the boy. The pretty girlfriend, by the way, used to work over at the dance hall, where business has dropped off since she left...one presumes she wasn't just dancing... So it's fun to see squeaky-clean Tom being buddies with a cheap crook and a retired dance hall gal.

The final scenes are action-packed fun (made all the more odd and dated because of the speeded-up camera) and I got to cheer whenever Tom hit somebody. I like movies that make me cheer for the heroes. So YAY!

Scarlet River (1933)

"He's asleep! I'll just throw something over him."

[8/10 · 10 October 2002]

That's my favorite line from this adorable comedy-western. I liked the premise (cowboy movie people helping real ranchers with their problems) but wasn't expecting anything special...this was a surprise. The story is lively, the script is sharp, and Tom Keene is a hoot as the dumb-looking pretty-boy hero. I've seen few westerns (except post-"Support Your Local Sheriff" parodies) that acknowledge the too-good-looking ultra-wholesome hero but this one does it well.

From now on I'm going to keep an eye out for screenwriter Harold Shumate, whose script delivers exactly what western-watchers of the time wanted, but adds plenty of funny lines and charming situations. I'm also going to take a little more care seeking out movies with Tom Keene, whose performance succeeds as a strong hero performance, but also self-parody as well. I hadn't recognized him as another goofball hero, Col. Tom Edwards in the classic badfilm "Plan 9 from Outer Space." I'm eager to find out if he played such quotably strange characters in other pics.

The Eyes of the Mummy (1918)

This is the perfect Edward Gorey movie!

[8/10 · 7 October 2002]

As a piece of movie entertainment, Eyes of the Mummy is dated and unremarkable seen through current standards. There are a few nicely nightmarish moments (especially a scene when Ma sees Radu in the mirror while nobody else seems to notice) but overall, this is no Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

On the other hand, fans of cartoonist/writer Edward Gorey will be richly rewarded by a film that appears to have been designed and directed by the illustrator of "The Gilded Bat" and "The Blue Aspic." The effect is uncanny and curiously involving. It's not just the melodramatic subject matter...every detail has the Gorey touch. One almost imagines the hand-drawn texture lines. Any Gorey fan will find Eyes of the Mummy to be well worth the time spent.

The Painted Hills (1951)

...or, Revenge of Lassie!

[7/10 · 4 July 2002]

Who wouldn't love a flick in which Lassie, compelled by burning hatred, tracks down the man who killed his beloved owner? It's not quite as bleak as all that, (if it had taken place in a city, it would have been the sole entry in the "Lassie-noir" genre) but it IS a startlingly dark work, for a 50's family-movie audience. As for the acting, it's pretty much what you would expect...but during those final scenes, where Lassie faces the killer...aren't you glad it's not YOU facing that implacable, growling, fang-faced beast?

Look Who's Laughing (1941)

Pure delight for fans of Old-Time Radio

[29 May 2002]

Perhaps the audience for old radio comedy is dwindling, but those who enjoy Fibber McGee and Molly, The Great Gildersleeve, and The Chase & Sanborn Hour will get a kick out of this silly movie. It's a crossover story in which Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy accidentally crash their plane at Wistful Vista. An added plus: Lucille Ball as Bergen's love interest. An added added plus: Sterling (Winnie the Pooh) Holloway as a soda jerk.

I can't be sure what effect the movie would have on viewers unacquainted with the radio series...the only reason for the existence of the film is for fans to be able to SEE people whose voices they've come to love, saying the popular catch phrases from the shows. Imagine "Where's the Beef? - The Motion Picture!" ...well, it's not that dreadful, but almost as nonsensical for the uninitiated.

Lovers of cinematic weirdness will enjoy a bizarre aspect of the story: Dummy Charlie McCarthy is depicted as a living, independently mobile creature, with several solo scenes. You can kind of accept him sitting there talking, but the effect is pretty eerie when he moves around. A friend of mine found it so disconcerting she left the room.

The Ghost Comes Home (1940)

Amusing Frank Morgan vehicle

[7/10 · 29 May 2002]

This fairly standard piece of situation comedy would be most appealing to fans of Frank Morgan, who is charming in his role. There is a curious appeal in seeing The Wizard of Oz married to Glinda the Good Witch, but unfortunately Billie Burke is in only a few scenes.

The script has some funny lines, and I'd be intrigued to find out how much of the dialogue was contributed by screenwriter Richard Maibaum, who wrote a lot of the James Bond movies.

Geez, this comment sounds much more lukewarm than I actually feel about the movie. Morgan is delightful and I enjoyed the time I spent watching the film...to about the same degree that I'd enjoy three good TV sitcoms.

The Fearmakers (1958)

An overlooked gem that begs to be remade

[8/10 · 7 September 2001]

This low-budget 50's thriller has a treatment standard for its time, but the premise is fascinating. Dana Andrews plays Alan Eaton, a veteran of the Korean War who comes home (after years of being brainwashed as a POW.) When he returns to his Public Relations firm in Washington, DC, he is surprised to find it has been sold by his former partner, who later died; his own name has been retained only for the goodwill value he had generated. Soon after, he comes to suspect that the firm no longer uses polls and surveys to shape its PR campaigns, it conducts its surveys in accordance with a hidden agenda and shapes the data to meet its own demands. By the end of the film, the entire conspiracy (and its plot to get a man elected Governor) is exposed. Americans are free to believe everything they read, once again.

Everything about the movie is just what one would expect from an inexpensive thriller from the era, and that's not bad at all. Probably the most appealing character is played by Mel Torme (Andrews is much too surly - and for good reason - to capture audience sympathy), a number-cruncher who remains oblivious to the moral implications of the data he is massaging for his employers. His best moment comes when he picks EXACTLY the wrong moment to strike up a conversation with Marilee Earle; the audience knows she can't possibly tear her attention away from a task she has been sent to perform, but we all know how it feels to want to break through another person's preoccupation.

Thematically, the film bites off more than it is prepared to chew. The premise (that some distinct group may control a substantial part of the information we Americans receive every day) is both disturbing and plausible. We do our best to make sure that no single source can exert too much power over information, but we can never be sure just how much of the data we believe to be factual, is actually cooked up by people with an agenda. Exposing one conspiracy (as seen in The Fearmakers) does not stamp out all such conspiracies at once, and the film offers no hint of assurance that the public will be any wiser, the next time information is manipulated. One may extrapolate that there is a terrible danger in trusting ANY source of information, but no solution is suggested.

A minor disappointment comes from another important topic that is introduced at the beginning and then thrown away: Eaton's brainwashing. He has apparently been subjected to gruelling torture and mind control in the recent past, but it has no effect at all on his behavior except to make him grumpy and subject to sudden headaches. Basically, this is used as a plot device which allows the bad guys to get the upper hand at times, but nothing in the story really turns on it. Perhaps after seeing The Manchurian Candidate, one's expectations are set too high; certainly one can't fault the scriptwriters, as the novel had not yet been published.

The most unfortunate aspect of the movie is that a 1950's happy ending is predetermined. By the 1970's, filmmakers would be comfortable creating conspiracy stories with darker endings, and today it is difficult for viewers to accept a movie in which a problem like this one is completely solved. By current standards, the last few minutes of The Fearmakers are dreamlike and childish...and perhaps this explains some of the film's charm. I'd love to see a remake of the movie, set once again in the 50's, nearly identical right up to the end, and then have Alan Eaton wake up to discover that the conspiracy has NOT been neatly wrapped up at all. It's enjoyable to imagine a finale in which he runs, Kevin McCarthy-like through Washington DC, grabbing away people's newspapers and shouting "Where do they get their facts? Where do they get their numbers?" Who knows? Seems like they're making a lot of remakes these days, and this one would be do-able with a small budget...

The Cabinet of Caligari (1962)

A favorite moment

[14 July 2001]

There's one little moment that stood out for me when I watched this movie years ago on the USA network:

Glynis Johns spends most of the movie in some sort of conflict with Dan O'Herlihy playing Dr. Caligari...it's the sort of psych-out contest seen in every episode of The Prisoner and other war-of-wills dramas. Up to this point Ms. Johns is rather prim and after a while this can become irritating to viewers who are used to seeing female protagonists stand up for themselves more vigorously. After a frustrating argument with Dr. C, she runs upstairs, throws herself on the bed and (instead of sobbing or sulking, as her uptight character has behaved so far) lets out a huge WAAAAAA-HAAAAAAH! My girlfriend and I both collapsed with laughter ...but after that moment found ourselves much more in sympathy with her, and that is precisely the effect intended by Robert Bloch.

Overall the movie was worth the time it took to watch, but didn't stand out as a favorite for either of us. But when we encountered something frustrating after that, we'd look at each other and shout, "Waaaa-Hahhh!"

Barnes & Barnes: Fish Heads (1980 Music Video)

One of the classic music videos

[10/10 · 10 June 2000]

It's a mild surprise to see "Fish Heads" listed as a short film, but I suppose it is.

The song is odd, as is the film. Most people watch it for the first time with their mouth open. I think this is the highest recommendation possible for a music video (surpassed possibly only by The Residents' "Hello Skinny.")

This short film is available on the Barnes & Barnes music video compilation, "Voobaha" (or something like that.) Their other videos aren't as startling as "Fish Heads" but they are a lot of fun.

Courage the Cowardly Dog (1999–2002)

The episodes are uneven but overall I like the series.

[7 June 2000]

I was expecting to like the series a LOT because of the charming advertisements on The Cartoon Network, and found myself disappointed by the first few episodes I caught. But I came to think I had misjudged; there are some terrific episodes which overbalance the average ones.

The pattern is usually the same: everything is okay at the house, then something scary arrives and frightens the dog, then he figures out what to do about it, the end. My favorites are the really scary ones: I recommend "Night of the Were-Mole" "Queen of the Black Puddle" and "A Night at the Katz Hotel." I have to admit I inadvertently frightened my granddaughter by leaving the TV set to "Night of the Were-Mole" but she got over it.

I only hope the series is popular enough to last another season or more. I'd love to see more shows.

I Saw What You Did (1965)

An evening of prank phone calls turns deadly.

[8/10 · 14 November 1999]

I became aware that this movie is now available on DVD thanks to the IMDB...thanks folks! I've been looking for years to find a copy! I take it the reason this has not been seen on TV in a long time is, they mention actual phone numbers, something which was replaced with the 555-xxxx phone numbers in the '70's. Apparently someone figured pranksters would start dialing the numbers used in the story...

This is a good suspense thriller very much like other films of the '60's and later the made-for-TV '70's fare. It is enjoyable on its own terms, as are most of William Castle's movies.

What makes it stand out, historically, is that children who saw this film in the theater or on TV became EXTREMELY unlikely to make prank phone calls! Talk to someone who saw the movie in the '60'...they will tell you that they NEVER made Bart Simpson-type calls because this movie warned them off! In a way, that makes the movie a part of American culture in a bigger way than many big-budget flicks from the same era.

An Inspector Calls (1954)

A well-to-do British family has their complacency disrupted by the appearance of Inspector Poole.

[10/10 · 14 November 1999]

This movie is a special favorite of mine. Alistair Sim has never been better; his regretful smile is truly haunting. I particularly enjoy showing this movie to people for the first time, as reactions are never quite the same. What is consistent is that it always gets a reaction! Warning: some female friends count it as a two-Kleenex-box movie...be prepared.

An odd thing...Bryan Forbes, as Eric Birling, resembles American actor John Larroquette remarkably. It doesn't distract from the enjoyment of the movie. Just a curious thing.

Destination Murder (1950)

The daughter of a murdered man seeks to find the people responsible.

[7/10 · 14 November 1999]

This is a good crime/suspense drama, of a piece with the other film noir dramas presented by Turner Classic Movies (and therefore well worth the time to watch). There is at least one neat twist in the plot which makes the film better than most of its kind. If you have seen a LOT of postwar crime films (as I have) you may find them predictable...and this adds to your appreciation of clever plot devices.

Fans of radio's "Have Gun Will Travel" will enjoy seeing John Dehner in a small but crucial part.

Daredevils of the Red Circle (1939)

Circus stuntmen thwart the plans of former prisoner 39013.

[10/10 · 14 November 1999]

This Republic serial is about as good as they get. The chapter ending involving a tunnel under the river is quite memorable, as I pass through the Lincoln Tunnel every morning on the way to work.

I was also impressed with the always-excellent Charles Middleton (best remembered as Ming the Merciless) as the villain. Everytime we see him in a movie, my girlfriend gasps "39013!"...which is pretty remarkable when you think about it. How many numerically-named characters do YOU remember from old movies?

It's Alive! (1969 TV Movie)

Unwary travelers find themselves trapped in a roadside exhibit in the Ozarks

[1/10 · 15 September 1998]

This movie is typical among Larry Buchanan's Azalea films, which means it is dull and interminable and saddled with a startlingly low budget...most viewers will find it almost unwatchable. However, those who enjoy these same attributes will find it rewarding. Two things stand out in my memory:

1. The monster suit is outstandingly cheap and silly... you'll think it's a parody of cheap monster movie monsters!

2. There's a scene where the villain chases and beats up his wife... apparently planned in slow motion, but the camera wouldn't work, so they just do the scene v-e-e-e-r-r-r-y s-l-o-o-o-w-w-l-y!

99 River Street (1953)

An ex-boxer finds himself mixed up in robbery and murder.

[10/10 · 14 September 1998]

This is definitely a minor crime film, but it is one of the best examples of the genre I can recall. Within ten minutes of the start of the story, the viewer comes to care about the main character and his situation. The story proceeds logically and rapidly, and many of the incidental characters are well-defined and likeable. It's not going to end up on many top-ten lists, but this is as close to a perfect movie as you're likely to see.