The Haunting: 1963

Release date: September 18, 1963 (USA)

Director: Robert Wise

Adaptations: The Haunting (1999)

Adapted from: The Haunting of Hill House

MPAA rating: G

Let us all give a hand to one very talented man, by the name of Robert Wise. A man who is able to make one of the greatest musicals of all time, as well as some fantastic horror films. Ending his film making career after close to fifty years, he has come to be known as a true inspiration to us all. Honestly, the guy's a genius! You take the genre of musicals and define it, using one film as a precedent for all musicals to come after, and then you do it again, directing and producing one of the greatest (and in my opinion scariest) ghost stories of all time.  And now, without further ado...The Haunting!

The film follows one Eleanor Lance and her dangerous exploits to feel wanted by someone, anyone. She is invited by Dr. John Markway to take part in an experiment on fear at "Hill House", a residence with a very twisted past. The house is believed to be haunted, but as we continue to lower ourselves even further into the muck of Lane's mind, we are also plagued with the question "Is the house haunted, or is Eleanor?" It's a fantastic premise, and the perfect buildup to a ghost story done right. 

But how do you make a good ghost story? Well, in my opinion, it comes down to a few elements. First you have to have a developed background about the house that the haunting is taking place in. I won't give away the spooky background of the haunting of Hill House, so you'll just have to trust me when I say, "It's kind of a big deal". Next, you need compelling characters to frighten or be frightened by...The character of Eleanor Lance is exceptional for this part because as we get to know her better we are compassionate towards her and don't want her to get into any trouble, but there remains still a sense of lingering uncertainty regarding her actions and delusions of grandeur. There is a duality that I don't think any other character presents to her but herself, and therein lies the craft of her character! We as an audience do not know if she is a character to be trusted for we are introduced to her in a rather violent way. First we don't see her in a very positive light. She argues with her siblings who think she's crazy. We are invited into her inner monologues that tell a great deal about her inner psychosis and deep seeded issues. 

She is invited to Hill House and does not know who else will be there besides Markway, the man who invited her; she only knows that for once in her life she is expected. That someone (it didn't matter who) wanted her to be somewhere (it didn't matter where). Robert Wise deals with this urge to be wanted by someone. Lance is constantly remarking (sometimes silently) that even though she is afraid, she was still expected to be here. And it's actually her inner desires and flaws that haunt her, as opposed to the ghosts of Hill House. But I could talk about Eleanor and her role in the story for hours on end, so it's best that I leave you here in terms of character design and simply say that everything about her , from beginning to end is perfect. And this has a little to do with what I had mentioned earlier as well as the rest of the cast being sort of one sided and simpler than Eleanor's character.

The set design in "The Haunting" is truly frightening. And this brings up an important topic, about what it is that actually scares people. Most people think that "horror", at least in film terms, must be updated to stay fresh in the minds of the consumer. That if you've seen it once, you never want to see it again. Now, this is sort of true. Of course an idea that is used time and time again might seem a little cheap and shallow to general audiences. Like a jump scare, if it's used too many times in the same window it ceases to be scary because you expect it, and you can pick up on certain cues to prepare yourself. And I have no problem with jump scares...when they're done right, but if I start to talk about that, I'll just keep going, and this review will never end. The point is an idea done before can be scary if everything around the stale idea is fresh and, well, executed correctly.

Let's use this film as an example. As Iv'e explained earlier, this is a movie about "ghosts" in a haunted house scaring people. And on the surface, that's all it is. It's what's under the surface that makes this film work, and actually scary. First, there's the house itself. The set and location of "The Haunting" is amazing. I just love it, from the long, creepy, narrow hallways to the damp creepy garden with the creepy statues, and the creepy staircase, and the super scary nursery with the creepy double doors and the dude's all like, "don't go in there, it's the heart of the house," and his wife's all like, "I don't even care if I'm awakening this self aware haunted house that has the souls of hundreds of children trapped in the walls..." "Who careeees?" "I don't care." And then there are, like, all those parts where the camera gets really close to the walls of the house, and the intricate designs start to look like faces and then you start to hear children laughing, and crying faintly, and then you hear like, this one creepy dude that Markway was talking about before. Y'know, the guy who owned the house, and you start to hear the creepy dude making this super scary, far off, moaning noise, that gets louder and louder from the other side of the wall. And then you start to think to yourself, "Hey this house means business! This is scaring the pants off of me! And the worst part is that the only person I know well enough to hide behind...is Eleanor Lane. But how can I do that when all this might be in her head? What if she's the haunting of Hill House? How can I trust someone who might not be entirely sane to begin with? Why Robert Wise? Why would you direct a film where the only character we know well enough to consider our main protagonist, our hero, is possibly insane? There's no one to hold onto, is there? There's nowhere to hide, is there? Sweet Jesus someone let me out of this house!!!!!!!!!!!

Sufficed to say, "The Haunting" is ahead of its time. And part of the reason that it stands out among the rest of the sixties schlock that was coming out around the time like "Carnival of Souls",  and "The Brain That Wouldn't Die" was because of the serious tone, and the cinematography. The camera work in "The Haunting" is unlike anything I've seen during that age in film. Everything works to the film's advantage; The acting, set design, shots and angles and tracking, and the story! I'm happy that a film exists containing all these attributes. And I really can't think of anything more to say. I guess it's been awhile since I've written anything. And I think it's been awhile since I've written anything with a lot of substance. I do this for me. And I do it because I like to think about movies. I want to continue, but it's been hard. I turned 18 a few weeks ago. School's been laying it on pretty thick for awhile now. But I don't think I want to grow up. I just want to write.

8.9/10

Watch Trailer Here

Next Review: Misery - 1990

A Charlie Brown Christmas: 1965

Release date: December 9, 1965 (initial release)
Director: Bill Melendez
Running time: 25 minutes
DVD release date: September 12, 2000
Sequel: A Boy Named Charlie Brown
  
   Well, the Christmas Season is upon us yet again. I guess now it's time to review a Christmas-ish movie, and this year I've picked one that I hold very dear. I watched this movie so many times when I was younger, and it has been quite awhile since I sat down with it again. I am also quite glad that I still own this film today on VHS, because in a bit we'll never see the likes of the format again. I know that this film is very different from my last selection, "Santa Clause Conquers The Martians," but who knows, maybe next year I'll have something stranger in store. But now, lets not waste any time in taking a look at a childhood memory of mine, "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

   All my life I've had sort of had a bone to pick with commercialism, and it only just occurred to me that this may be where that originated. This movie, or short film isn't entirely about Christmas (as far as Christmas specials go. You all know how a Christmas special goes! The characters in the show meet Santa and help him with some problem he has, and they take it upon themselves to quote on quote, "Save Christmas," by delivering the presents to all the good girls and boys, but this doesn't happen here. In fact, the characters never see Santa at all, and what's more is that he's not even mentioned! The only thing Christmas-related in the special, is a Christmas tree. And I submit to you, dear readers, that this short film represents the true meaning of Christmas better than any other episode submitted to public entertainment with the similar, if not the same intention. 

   The plot of the short film goes like this. Charlie Brown is feeling a bit down during the Christmas season, but he can't figure out why. While trying to deal with this dilemma, he is chosen by his, "friends" to be the director of the Christmas play they are presenting in their school (with no adults around, of course). Charlie Brown really tries his best in directing the actors and positions to create the play they were intended to present. This, unfortunately does not go over well, and Charlie Brown decides with a complete lack of cooperation, and because the rest of the world is being too commercial, none of the play can be presented. They decide that the thing that the play needs is a Christmas Tree to give the play an authentic look. Charlie and Linus proceed into town to find the biggest tree, but when they get there, they notice that all of the tree's being sold are aluminum (all except one). The only wooden tree left in the lot was the smallest, and overall most unappealing one there. Charlie Brown picks this tree, because he said, "it needed him." It is my belief that the other reason Charlie picks this tree, is because he relates to it. throughout the strips he has been in, Charlie Brown has always thought little of himself, if anything at all. But he always tells the truth, and he does the best that he can in anything he tries to do. The film shows an example of this when Charlie Brown is given the task of directing the school play.

   When Charlie Brown presents the tree to the others, they insult the tree's value, and by extension, insult Charlie Brown's value in their usual fashion. But before Charlie loses all hope, Linus divulges the true meaning of Christmas, plain and simply. Charlie Brown then takes the tree outside (the others following) and tries to decorate the tree with a single ornament, but the tree bends over, and Charlie Brown believes that he killed the tree, and (once again) by extension, the spirit of Christmas. But the theme of the film appears at the very end, when the others decide (supposedly in Charlie Brown's pity) that the tree wasn't as bad as they had originally thought. They decorate the tree and make it look nice, and surprise Charlie Brown with their cooperation, thus reconstructing the traditional Christmas. The End.

      I like this movie, and people in general like this movie and I think I know why. Everyone at one time has felt as though they were not accepted or understood. This is what Charlie Brown goes through in "A Charlie Brown Christmas," among other things.we connect with the character, and since the story revolves around the character, we also connect with the story. So, for a simple 20 minuet long story, it is quite engaging. Every character in the peanut series is a bully to Charlie Brown, maybe with the exception of Linus. This is because Charlie Brown doesn't really stand up for himself, so he's easy to knock down frequently. He is different from the group, and when this is pointed out to him, he feels bad about it and considers changing. On the contrary, one of the character's, Pigpen (my favorite) is also different from the bunch. However, what differentiates Pigpen from Charlie Brown, is due to their tolerance for who they are. In other words, Pigpen is secure, while Charlie Brown is not. In the comics, Charlie Brown frequently became agitated by Pigpen, because he didn't care about the way he looked or did things and the rest of the group (for the most part) accepted him. Pigpen just didn't care what anyone thought, and that's why he is my favorite character in the Peanuts franchise. So, on that note, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year, and for the more extreme one's Happy D-Day! I've got some more cult favorites coming at ya for the next few months, but for my next review I think I'll take a detour down doomsday lane.

8.2/10

Click here to watch the trailer

Next Review: 2012 2009

West Side Story: 1961

Composer: Leonard Bernstein
Playwright: Arthur Laurents
Adapted from: Romeo and Juliet
Lyricist: Stephen Sondheim
Characters: Schrank, A-rab, Baby John, Maria, Bernardo, Tony, Action, Doc, Anita, Riff, Chino

   Romeo and Juliet. The timeless story about a boy and a girl who fall in love with each other, but are torn apart by their families, who have hated each other since who knows how long ago. You've all heard this story before, so why am I telling this to you? Well, because this kind of plot is timeless within itself, and can be told forever, and whenever. But this, my friends...this is special. And not only that, but I like this film more than any other film adaptation of Romeo and Juliet manufactured by human hands. Let me tell you why.

   West Side Story is an example of how a plot such as this can be adapted to various time periods. Our two families are now Americans and Puerto Ricans. They both hate each other, accept for an American named Tony, and a Puerto Rican named Maria. Maria's brother, Bernardo, and Tony's friend, Riff are the leaders of both groups, and are also the ones that are killed from each side.  And, besides the fact that our Juliet does not die in the end with our Romeo, those are the only changes.  The rest is the same, only updated to fit with the time it was made. But in an adaptation of Romeo And Juliet, the story is not the aspect everyone is looking forward to because almost everyone knows the story, or at least the basic premise.  And this is where West Side Story really shines, because believe it or not, this film is a musical.

 The music in this movie is wonderful!  Composer Leonard Bernstein and Lyricist Sephen Sondheim did a fantastic job creating the songs in West Side Story.  The music is great, and coupled with even better choreography.  But how can simply writing about the music be enough.  So I'll post my top five favorite songs from the film.

#5:  Something's Coming

#4:  Quintet

#3:  America

#2:  Jet's Song

#1:  Cool

  Well, that's my list.  I hope it didn't take up too much space on the review, and try not to take the list too seriously.  It's my own opinion and we're each entitled to one.  I didn't list "Maria", or "Gym Mambo"  because there wasn't enough space, but those are two other scenes that are great.  And this movie was wonderful!  I suppose for me it's a little better because it adds allot of nostalgic value, being that I watched this many times before as a younger person.  But if you haven't seen "West Side Story", go!  Right now!  Go and get it!  Please, by any means, obtain this film.  Watch it!  Put it on your action/item list.  I have not yet heard of a person who has died, and not seen this film.  Don't blame me though, it's not common knowledge people just throw around.

7.8/10

Next Review:  Singin' in the Rain 1952

Night of the Living Dead: 1968

I've been waiting a long time to review this..

   "Residents" of an abandoned house are bombarded by waves of zombies during an epidemic caused by radiation.     

   Ahhh, the zombie apocalypse.  There's nothing more annoying than having a balding idiot yell at you, and have to fight zombies too.  yes, it is a frustratingly frightening experience; trying to survive a zombie outbreak.  With nothing to separate you from them other than a couple of windows, and a door.  This movie is a very good example of having a cult following.  In this review, not only will I be looking at this movie, but why the zombie film genre, "...won't stay dead!!"  

   Actually, let's tackle that first, "why can't we leave zombies alone?"  What is it about them that gives use a satisfying feeling.  Well, I think that I have the answer.  I think that it's because killing a zombie is the closest thing to killing a living human.  We've always had that one guy (or girl) that you just want to bash with a kerosene covered, flaming club.  We are sickly satisfied with killing our own kind.  We understand our kind the best, which can be a reason why most of the time, they are the ones who get on our nerves.  Besides, they're already dead.  They can't feel pain anyway.  So what if you give it to em' ninja style, or go all Rambo on their @#!*% ?  They were gonna eat you anyway!  And that's why we just love zombies.

   "Night of the Living Dead" was in no doubt, the definition of a horror film.  You have suspense, action, desperation, irony, reality clashing with myth, madness, and gore.  With this film the action starts up right away.  You meet two character's that go down to the cemetery to pay respects, and then WAMMO!  THERE COMING TO GET YOU BARBARA...And then right there, they do!  You get all of the exposition in one scene.  The rest is just survival.  However, Barbara doesn't do that much with helping survive the outbreak.  She just sits on the couch...falling slowly into endless cavern of her own mind.  spiraling into an uncontrollable journey of MASS HYSTERIA!!!!!  So, no, she didn't really do anything. 

   This film moves around the basis between the constant struggle of vulnerability and invulnerability.  Some of the occupants of the abandoned house wanted to go into the cellar, while other wanted to stay on the top floor.  While on the top floor, the windows and doors are boarded up, but in the cellar there happened to be a zombie (infected daughter), so it would seem as though the cellar would be the best option...but ya'know...it wasn't.  I'm not too sure though, I think it's a debatable subject.  Anyway, these are surprisingly smart zombies!  One has the ability to think, "Hmmm.  I can't seem to get through the window...well, what if I picked this brick up...and somehow used it's weight to my advantage and force it through the air.  With the correct trajectory, I may be able to break the window so that I can get to the tasty human.."  Or something like that.

   However, there is one thing that has been bugging me.  There is a scene where the zombies pick flesh off of two humans from a burning truck.  They were eating the flesh like good generic zombies and I started to forget which year this film was made in.  This was more like a movie made after 2000!  I don't think many people then were ready to take on a movie like this.  It was in this way that, "Night of the Living Dead" was revolutionary towards the world of cinematic horror.  However, there are some movies made by George A. Romero that might go a little too far with this idea to say the least.  But I suppose after this movie he was like, "Hey...I'm pretty good at this zombie stuff..."  An next thing you know stuff by him starts popping up all over the place.  If you're good at something, you might as well make millions doing it.

   In Conclusion:  "Night of the Living Dead" was wonderful.  I loved every minuet of it. With stressful camera angles, fantastic lighting, and it probably being the goriest film of it's time, this film has launched the biggest cult following of zombie films ever.  What I like allot about it is that although there is some gruesome imaging, it does not go overboard with it.  There are so many other aspects about this movie that can still put you at edge of your seat, without holding a barf bag or a million dollar budget.  This film is great for Halloween, and I recommend this to anyone who enjoy's a terrifically made horror film.  If you're have trouble deciding what your first zombie flick should be, do yourself a favor and go watch this one instead of whatever it was you were thinking of before.  And if you've never heard of this film, then climb out of the hole you've been living in and watch it at the bottom of this review.  Thank you!

Verdict:

I give this film 10 little girl zombies out of 10

Note:  A new series is coming out for next couple of reviews!  This time I'm going to venture into the horror films of french film maker Georges Méliès!

Next Review:  Le Monstre 1903 

Creature from the Haunted Sea: 1961

Let's review a B-Movie Creature Feature.

   A crook decides to bump off members of his inept crew and blame their deaths on a legendary sea creature. What he doesn't know is that the creature is real.

   "The Creature from the Haunted Sea" is an example of Rodger Corman's knack for dark humor.  He takes a budget of what looks like less than $200, and turns it into this.  A furry/criminal/stranded/quirky/chuckle/in love/Cuban/monster...and all of it on a boat.  In a way he's a genius, and in another he's...well...not.  But, there is a definite charm to his films, this one especially.  The movie is so strange that I would classify this to be rather stylistic, or at least to some extent.  I do have to note the cartoon opening credits though.  I thought for just a second that it would be, "Santa Clause Conquers the Martians" all over again, but thank goodness that it wasn't.

Now, I'm not clear as to what the budget Corman was given exactly.  But whatever he wanted to do, I think he did it.  Aside from the poor sound quality he accomplished his task successfully, although it was very difficult to hear the dialog.  This made it very hard to hear the jokes and even sometimes the story.  But even though there was poor sound quality, that didn't stop any of the actor’s voices from hitting an un-hittable frequency.  Honestly, I don't know whether these people want to be caught, or are just lousy spies!  Every scene in which two people are trying to trade, "spy" information, they talk as though nothing's at stake!  "HELLO THERE FELLOW SPY!!!” "OHHHHH HELLO!!!”  "DO YOU HAVE THAT SUPER TOP SECRET INFORMATION ON THE COUPLE SITTING IN THE BOOTH NEXT TO US???”  "WHY, I SURE DO!!!  HERE YOU GO!!!".”THANK YOU FELLOW SPY!!!  GOODBYE!!!".”GOODBYE FELLOW SPY!!!”  It's ridiculous!

   Now let's talk about the monster.  I can tell you that when I saw the poster for this movie, I did not think that it would look like it did.  I'm sure that by now I've gone and posted the monster's picture on this review, but I'll describe it anyway.  It looks like if you took the creature from the black lagoon, and instead of having him be a human fish, you made him a bear/alien.  I guess the monster is pretty funny, so that's another point to the comedic side of this film.  Also, if you look at the synopsis near the beginning of the review, it takes a (sort of) real issue, and mixes it with a myth.  I suppose that it's to flesh the monster out to be more realistic, but I'm not too sure about that.  

   

   In Conclusion:  For anyone that knows what a Rodger Corman film looks like, then you can expect what you're going to get out of the, "Creature from the Haunted Sea".  It's a cheesy film, riddled with dark humor and an expendable cast to be picked off one by one.  I do respect Corman for both the director and producer that he is, and I also like his films, but in a different way that I like other films.  With him, you know what you're getting into and I enjoy that just as I do with people like Alfred Hitchcock and his twist endings.  And speaking of endings, this film has a surprisingly satisfying one!  If you enjoy a good Corman film, I'd advise you to check this one out!      

Verdict:

I give this film 3 plungers to the face out of 10

Next Review:  Night of the Living Dead 1963

The Terror: 1963

   
  Rodger Corman was, and still is known as, “The B-Movie King”.  He was the director of many horror flicks, most of which were made fast and inexpensive.  Around the time this movie came out, Corman was working on, "The Raven", an adaptation of the book by Edgar Allen Poe.  He must have been fond of Poe's work, because he made many more film adaptations like it, including, "The Pit and the Pendulum", and, "The Black Cat".  Anyway Rodger Corman finished, "The Raven" two days before its expected release, so instead of just making an audience wait two days to see a movie, he decided to make another film entitled, "The Terror", the film I will be reviewing today.  "The Terror", was filmed in the two days left over from the early release of, "The Raven", and it used the same props, sets, cast, and crew left over from, "The Raven".  Why not?  

   If you know the cast from the raven, then it won't be a surprise when I tell you the cast of this film are Boris Carloft and Jack Nicholson.  I bet you never would have thought these people would have crossed paths ever in the history of cinema, but there it is!  Wow!  You've got the famous older Boris Carloft with younger-soon-to-be-star, Jack Nicholson, while directed by the B-Movie master, Rodger Corman!  How could this movie possibly go wrong?  Francis Coppola worked on the film a little bit after Rodger Corman gave up the production.  Okay, you might think that this is the time that I go into the movie review like I normally do, but today we're going to do something different.  I'll be moving on right into my conclusion, but instead of labeling it, "In Conclusion", I'm not going to be making any separation from the back story and the actual review of the movie.

   This was a sad film, but not for the acting or the story or the characters.  It wasn't any of those things.  It was simply the fact that it was a clash of actors in the same year.  Boris Carloft and Jack Nicholson both have had their share of horror films, only, for one it was the beginning of a career, and for another the end of one.  But as for the story, it went everywhere with its twists and turns and changing of roles.  It never stopped!  My guess is that Rodger Corman made it this way, because of the lack of time.  He may not have known that his idea for, "The Terror” needed more separation between each possible explanation to a mystery.  To space out the twists until it was appropriate to use them.  There were some confusing parts too, like the very first scene, where you watch Boris Carloft travel down into the castle to open a door to find a skeleton.  This had no purpose to the story whatsoever.  It’s even in the beginning of the movie, so it seems as though it was meant to be paid attention to.  

   Ronald Stein composed the music for the film, and I'm sure that it was meant to be a powerful piece, but it ends up being redundant and forgetful.  Not only was this rushed, but the dialog and timing are sub-par, making for mediocre conversations, and since there is a twist every three scenes, you end up becoming unattached to the plot.  The performances were standard; however, Nicholson   interacting with Carloft was very interesting.  If you'd like to see what Jack Nicholson's career was like before he became famous, you should check this out.  However, it comes with a price.  In the climax its shown clearly, That Boris Carloft cannot do hand to hand combat at all, and you reflect upon the time that has gone by with his career, you now know his former way of life has come to a close.  The turning point of film has arrived with Nicholson, and ended with Carloft.  Out with the old and in with the new, I suppose.  Out with the old and in with the new... 

Verdict:  I give this film 3 unexplained skeletons out of 5

  

         Next Review:  The Vampire Bat 1933
     

Santa Clause Conquers The Martians: 1964

   Why did I have to pick this one for my first science fiction review?  Well, I'll tell you why.  It's because I'm too curious to see how bad this film was going to turn out.  And you know what?  I'm going to embrace the possibility that this might be the worst film I've ever seen.  With that said, let’s get started!  "Santa Clause Conquers the Martians" was directed by Nicholas Webster and stars John Call as Santa Clause.  It is also in fact listed annually on the bottom 100 list on Internet Movie Database.  The link will be posted at the bottom of this review.

   We start our film off with a song that, I'm sure if you showed your kids (if you have any) they would make it an additional Christmas carol…but hopefully not.  And it's strange because this is supposed to be a science fiction film, right?  Then why are they incorporating whimsical music and Santa Clause?!  Well I'll tell you..... It's because it’s a trap, that's why!  But I guess if you weren't confused beyond repair, you might find the song catchy.  After the opening credits role, we get a shot of a TV, that's being watched by...... kids in Halloween costumes?  I'm confused.  

   So, these kids who think its Halloween, instead of Christmas, watch a reporter taking a look inside of Santa's Workshop.  Wait a second!!  Is Santa allowing this? Doesn't he need to hide his gift making secrets or magic or something like that?  I didn't know Santa went public in 64'.  Wow, somebody's been keeping something from me.  

   So anyway, they do make a clever transition into how Mars doesn't have Santa to bring presents to all the Martian children.  So, I guess everything is tied up in neat bow.  We take a look at life on mars, and get a quick back story on how Martians live their lifestyle.  I never thought I would be writing a review that had that sentence in it.  We also have a number of characters with uncreative names and everything!  We have Kimar, the king Martian, Momar, the mom Martian, Bomar, the boy Martian, and Girmar, the girl Martian.  I'm beginning to see a pattern.  

To understand this confused nature of this movie, allow me to quote Kimar, "It's no wonder.  They sit in front of their video set all day watching those ridiculous earth programs.  It confuses them!"  Well you know what Kimar, I'm confused too, and I don't blame your kids who think it's Halloween!  Nothing is making sense!  And another thing, they must have an incredible antenna.  I didn't even know that television signals could reach that far.  You know a film is messing with you when you question your grasp on reality.  

   

   We find out that all the children on mars are having trouble sleeping, but Kimar can’t figure out what the reason behind it is.  So they call a meeting somewhere where Kimar talks with some people.... scratch that, Martians about how to fix the dilemma.  For 1964 the color isn't half bad.  They seek the help of Chochem, the wise and ask for advice.  He explains that, somehow, because it is Christmas on earth, all the children on mars are eager with anticipation for Santa Clause to come and give gifts.  He also says that since new technology has come out that teaches everything to children until they are adults.... everything except how to have fun.  

   

   After all this nonsense, I believe that the only way to view this is to give into the madness and embrace the nonsensical nature of this film.  So, long story short, the Martians need a Santa Clause on mars, so they leave that very night to capture Santa Clause and bring him to mars.  There is one character, Voldar, who disagrees with Santa being at mars.  Disagreeing with something regarding Santa Clause?!  He must be the villain!  So, the Martians go down to earth and come across two children, Billy and Betty Foster.  You have to love the creativity with these names.  So, the Martians kidnap Billy General and Betty Generic, and take them to the North Pole, because you need to have a couple of kidnappings in a kids movie.

  

  I wonder what the demographic was for people that said, "You know what I'd like to see?  A science fiction film about Santa.  That sure would make me happy!"  I don't know what they were thinking, but I hope Nicholas Webster didn't intend this to be taken seriously, as far as science fiction films go.  However, they are incorporating thinks like The Soviet Union, and the Air Force.  So, one of the Martians takes the kids to the ship and shows them around. The kids hide in a box while the rest of the Martians come aboard to say that they’re going to capture Santa.  So, this was, you guessed it, completely pointless.  

   After the Martians leave, the children come out.... and dismantle the ships power (or something like that) because they don't want the government after them?!  WWWHHHAAATTT!?  How does that work!?  None of that made any sense!  If they stay, the Martians will have a greater chance of getting caught and analyzed!  But if they leave, they might be spotted, but they'll be out of reach by the time they take off!  Billy, you misinformed idiot!  Why did you have to go and mess everything up?!  

  And he does it again, because they get trapped in a cave with a man in a polar bear suit..... I mean a polar bear corners them, away from the entrance.  I'm serious, the animatronics lion in the car from, "The Hangover” looked more realistic than this makeshift costume!  So, after Betty and Billy's trick or treater attack, they get attacked by another one!  This time a man in a robot costume...... I mean a robot shows up!  Oh no!  I hope they brought enough candy to satisfy his robotic needs.  But sadly this robot came to trick and not for treats, and captures the children while we find out that Voldar was behind it all.  

   However, Kimar shows up to explain that the robot will only obey his commands.  So I guess Kimar was just being a jerk, and sent the robot after the children to mess with them.  What's that movie?  You can’t explain what happened ether?  Okay I'll move on.  I've just made up the perfect analogy for this film.  Have you ever watched a really bad school play that one of your kids is in.  You didn't really want to go but you knew that you had to because your child was performing in it, and he or she was the lead something or other.  And so you go to this play and it's really bad.  But you clap because your kid is up there trying his/her best.  Imagine they made one that lasted 1 hour and 20 minutes, only your kid doesn't star in it, and it’s worse than any other play you've been to.  

   Okay, let’s see where we are now.... oh!  So their getting tor, the robot, to tear down the door of the workshop.  Apparently Santa's doors are hinge-less.  Many ridiculous things happen in the next few seconds, but in the end Santa is captured.  So, remember how I thought that the Martians would be long gone with Santa before the Soviet Union found out?  Well they did and now we get to watch a thrilling spaceship chase.  Oh boy, action?  But that doesn't stop Voldar from trying to murder our hero's in the air lock chamber, which they fall for quite comically. All this is going on while Voldar and Kimar are having a Star Trek influenced fight, only it's much more boring because I don't care about any of the characters!  

   They start laughing after they find out everything is okay.  Awwwww.... this film has such light hearted.........and confusing moments, such as the fact that y over 5 pi r squared determines the correct orbit from the planet Mars to Jupiter.  Because that makes sense, right?  Billy and Betty finally meet Bomar and Girmar.  And then Santa comes in and..... they all start laughing..........what the heck?  That's...just...creepy.  

   To continue on, Dropo, the comedic effect Martian, dresses up like Santa and goes down to the workshop to make more toys, but Voldar and his goons broke into the workshop before him, and seem to be the three stooges of this film, although they aren't as funny or likable or talented...the list goes on.  They capture, "Santa", and bring him to their hide out.  I'm not going to divulge the climax, so I guess I'll conclude this review.  

   

In Conclusion:  Oh man, do I have allot to say about this film.  Let me start this off by saying that this was incredibly boring....if you’re not 6 years old.  I mean this is for really young children.  The story is pretty primitive, the villain has no motives, the movie feels like a play, the names are uncreative, and it dragged on in a few places.  But, what was I expecting from a film titled, "Santa Clause Concurs the Martians"?  To be honest, I had no idea.  The one thing that was decent was the ending, because this is when you realize that you’re watching a harmless movie.  A movie that just wanted to have fun, to clumsily execute a child's laugh.  I'm actually kind of glad that this was made, because no studio today would ever dream of Okaying this to be made.  We will never see this side of film again, and that's pretty upsetting.  I actually liked John Call as Santa Clause. Was it the worst film I’ve seen.... it actually might have been, and I'm not going to rate this any higher after saying this, but I want you to see this film.  I want you to watch, "Santa Clause Concurs the Martians" because I want you to know what you missed out on in 64'.  I want you to watch this because there will never be a film as light hearted as aliens meet Santa Clause.  In fact, I challenge you, dear reader, to make this a practice.  Every Christmas, I want you to watch this movie to see the horrible and carefree world of film that is no more.  Thank you for reading, and please follow, +1, and comment.  Don't forget to watch this film after reading my review at the bottom of this review, because to believe a film can be this bad, you have to see it.

I give this film 2 rocket sleds out of 5

Thank you,

   

   Albert Dubin

IMDB link:  Santa Claus Conquers the Martians   

        Next Review:  Phantom From Space 1953

The Brain That Wouldn't Die: 1962

   Alright, here we have, "The Brain That Wouldn't Die"..... I mean, "The Head That Wouldn't Die"...... I mean, "The Black Door".  Okay, what's this films real name?!  Okay, I'll explain.  The original name for this film was, "The Black Door", and was completed in 1959.  However, it was released in 1962 when they decided to rename it, "The Brain That Wouldn't Die.   The film was directed by Joseph Green and written by Green and Rex Carlton.  

   So we start our film off in a hospital, where we see four doctors operating on a body.  After the patient’s death, one of the surgeons, Bill Cortner, asks if he could try to revive him and, he succeeds.  Now, how many times have you seen that?  A father and son operating on a body.......they must be close. 

   The next day the surgeon and his wife, Jan Compton, drive to the country house because a man named Kurt called and told them to head over because of an emergency.  While driving on the road they crash and Jan's head is decapitated.  Now I'm debating whether this was done properly.  We barely know his wife or hardly anything about her that would make us care that she dies.  Also, you'd have to be pretty desperate to carry your wife's severed head(if that is what their implying) out of a burning car.

   Granted, his motives for doing this are quite clear, and I feel really bad for anyone who doesn't understand beyond this point.    And another thing, how does her head become severed in the first place?  Are we meant to believe that a simple car-crashes-into-railing incident would decapitate a human head?!  Please movie........BE MORE CREATIVE!  Anyway, after this traumatic (and rather improbable) experience, Bill takes what’s left of his wife and heads for the hills.......while run/limping away.  

   Upon arriving, he hooks the head up to an (insert sciency, tecnobable here).  Now, there is no doubt that what Green comes up with saves allot of money, but this is something you would find in a neighborhood haunted house.  But, I shouldn't really complain, because it doesn't take that much credibility away and you didn't really need to do anything extra to make it work.  Now, if I was a supporting surgeon to a crazed madman trying to keep a decapitated head alive, I would have some things to think through.  So, we find that Jan can live at least forty hours on life support before dying.  We also find out that the scientist is keeping a creature in his closet.  Sure, why not.  I’ve seen a head on life support, and a-thing-in-a-closet......at this point I'll believe anything.  

   I'm not blaming this guy for becoming insane, I'm blaming this movie!  But seriously, this thing freaked me out, and I only heard it, you don't actually see the monster.....yet.  So, after promising his wife a new body, Bill goes to a night club.  Say, there are allot of mixed messages within that scene.  A man will go through the trouble of reviving his wife (keeping in mind that he has at most two days and two hours to get her a new body) and he goes to a night club, as if he has time on his hands.  I don't know what to think.  So, back at the laboratory, Jan tries communicating with the monster in the closet. That sounds a whole lot more mediocre than if you were to watch it happen.  His wife reasons with the monster and they both create an alliance, which is a change of pace.  It's also a twist that shows itself much earlier than in other movies. 

   You wouldn't think that being kept alive would be so bad, but  before you put yourself in a situation like that, you have to ask yourself:  at what cost?  So, we find out that the monster in the closet was lifeless before it was given a serum to bring it back to life.  These scientists sure are obsessed with resurrection, though they don't seem insane.  I forgot to mention awhile back that Kurt had a warped hand caused by all the grafting and tests on it from Bill.  In a way he shares their pain.  

   While driving down the road, Bill is haunted by the temptations of other women, once again.  A few women that Bill knows stop him and tell him about a beauty contest that he should go to and they do precisely that.  Now, why would women want to go to a beauty contest?  I'm not sure if that's normal, but if it's one thing, it's ironic!  There is an incredible build up until the monster is revealed, and even the monster pounding on the door is frightening.  

   After the beauty contest, one of the women that acquainted Bill tells him about the most beautiful woman, and he sets out to find her, his intentions being to murder her, and use her body to connect itself onto Jan.  How does he start off by finding this person?  He doesn't, he drives in one direction and then he's suddenly there.  Bill's lucky.  But certainly getting into a celebrity's studio filled with camera men will be a challenge, right? Wrong, he has full access to the entire room that their shooting in.  VERY LUCKY.  

   And here's another thing.  Bill is the only one there that's not a model and not a camera man.  Who the heck is this guy?!  If he has access to things like this in the first place, don't you thing it would have been easier for him to get a model to kill?  Because of this ONE flaw, any reasonable person could have cut out at least a half an hour of these shenanigans!  I curse you movie! I curse you!!!  

   We cut to back at the lab........after about a minute of blackness!  I don't know what it is, maybe an in-theater interaction with the movie (note, "The Tingler" and "House on Haunted Hill") If you know the answer, tell me in the comments section.  Leading up to the models surgery, they give so many clues to what his real intentions are, and she doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong in the least!  After drugging her he goes forth with the operation.  All I can say after this point is that the climax is terrific.               

In Conclusion:  This was classic.  It may amount to some boredom, but in the end it all levels out.  You could argue that that the film could use some character development, but it didn't need any.  It went back to the basics, and I respect that.  However the ending could have used some polishing, and it may have been rushed, but it said what was needed to be said.  I enjoyed this film very much and I think that you will too.  Read, watch, comment, and +1!

I give this film 4 scalpels out of 5.

    

Thank you,

   

   Albert

           Next Review:  Frankenstein 1910