Kangaroo Jack: 2003

Release date: January 17, 2003 (USA)
Director: David McNally
MPAA rating: PG
DVD release date: June 24, 2003
Sequel: Kangaroo Jack: G'Day U.S.A.!

   Before you even ask, let me just say that it's a movie, and probably shouldn't be taken seriously. And before you also ask why I would even think to review this, let me tell you. The reason that I sometimes review the crap stains on cinema, is because I like to have closure. Many of the films from my past have been just terrible, and now that I'm a bit older I can experience them in a more mature way...which ruins the movie entirely. But I do this to remind myself that I didn't know what I was doing then, and that my parents didn't know what they were doing when they bought this movie for me.

   However, what I didn't realize at the time of watching "Kangaroo Jack", was that I was in way over my head. First, let me fill you in on the plot of the movie. Best friends Charlie Carbone (Jerry O' Connell)  and Louis Booker (Anthony Anderson) are given the task to deliver a package to Mr. Smith (Marton Csokas) in Australia, by Charlie's mafioso step-father, Sal Maggio (Christopher Walken). On the plane Louis' curiosity overtakes him and opens the package to find $50,000. After sweet talking their way through security, they go to track down Mr. Smith, in a place called "Coober Pety". While jammin' out to some toons, our two hero's manage to run over a kangaroo. It is here that our movie begins to plummet into oblivion. When Charlie realizes that he had killed the national icon of the outback, he tries to pull the kangaroo off the road. But Booker stops him to...take pictures of it. Uncomfortable yet? What if I said that they posed the kangaroo in the back of their Jeep, and dressed him in a jacket and sunglasses? Would you be uncomfortable then? Halfway through their photo-shoot, the kangaroo...comes back to life, and escapes. The problem with this, is that in the jacket's pocket was the $50,000. Silly, over the top hi-jinks ensue as our quirky best buds try to take back the package, and get back from the outback. 

   Where do I begin? Well, for starters, the MPAA rating for this film is PG. *Ahem*... A MOVIE WITH THE MAFIA, MOB MONEY, EXECUTIONS, WOMANIZING, RACISM, SEXUALITY, AND INFANT AND ANIMAL ABUSE IS RATED PG?!  Why? Why would you do that to an eight year old? Why would you do that to me?! Who knows how many times I watched this movie! And you can't blame me! Eight year old boys don't have taste in film, or really anything! They play with Lego's and watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "Babe" five times in a row in the same day! Of course, that wasn't to say that "Kangaroo Jack" pandered to children during the film, because it did. Because the two kinds of jokes that appear in this movie are the offensive kind, and jokes for the kiddies. The problem, is that adults who aren't into the "...movie" ("disaster movie", "scary movie", and more recently "A Haunted House," type of film, won't really get too much out of "Kangaroo Jack," because it doesn't know what it wants to be. Sometimes it feels like they were going for a light-hearted comedy, sometimes a mob flick, and other times a fun adventure film. Because it tries to be everything, it ceases to become anything in the mind of the audience. I have said many times before that when a film tries to appeal to everyone, the final product will blow up in everyone's face.

   If there was anything redeeming about this film, It would probably have to be that the CG kangaroo looks good in some of the shots. But I think they may have been a bit too confident with their design of the CG kangaroo, because they added him in with other live kangaroos as though the two would seamlessly blend together...they do not. But that isn't to say that he looks bad, because for 2003, it's pretty decent and looks like they put a little bit of time into it. However, this slowly starts to not matter when you realize that the kangaroo hardly appears in the movie. Before the ending credits role, there is a short scene where "Kangaroo Jack" actually talks. He says during this scene, "Wait a minuet! The movie's called 'Kangaroo Jack!' It should end with me!" I have a hunch that this is director, David McNally's way of telling us, "Yes, we tricked your kids into watching a movie that had a kangaroo on the poster, but not in the movie! Thank you for giving us your money to watch a movie that was written in one weekend." In 2003 "Kangaroo Jack" stole a little over sixteen and a half million dollars from unsuspecting consumers during its three day opening weekend. And I'm sad that all of you, including myself, have been played for a chump

   "Kangaroo Jack" is a distasteful, detached, un-funny, and an utterly unmitigated disaster. It fails to be funny, and instead comes off as very offensive. Not to mention there being too many plot holes to count. I cringe when I watch this movie, and I have had to more times than I would like to say. Everyone knows by now that this movie wasn't worth anyone's time, especially for small children. And I know I've said this about many movies, but the most depressing part about this, is that "Kangaroo Jack" will never go away. It's part of film culture now, it's there to stay, and the people have accepted it by proof the box office. Think about that for awhile.

4/10

Watch the trailer...if you dare! 

Next Review: Scream 1996         

Troll 2: 1990

Release date: 1990 (initial release)
Director: Claudio Fragasso
MPAA rating: PG-13
Prequel: Troll
Sequel: Troll 3
Cast: Michael Stephenson, George Hardy, Connie Young, Jason F. Wright

   There really is no way to tell someone who doesn't know about "Troll 2" what the movie is about. Of course I can tell you that Joshua goes with his family on a vacation to Nilbog, a farming community that is somehow completely devoid of farmland and populated by Goblins (not trolls, but goblins) disguised as humans who, throughout the movie, plot to eat the family by first turning them into vegetation, because these are vegan goblins, and Joshua, is the only one who can save them because he's the only one who knows that the humans are goblins because his Grandfather tells him from beyond the grave. I could tell you this, but that surprisingly would not be doing the film justice.     

   Troll 2 has been claimed, not to be the worst movie of all time, but the best worst movie of all time. Because of this, fans have branched into two categories; those who like the camp value of the film, and those that loathe it. Naturally, Troll 2 became an ever-expanding cult phenomenon among movie lovers alike. There are several reasons why this movie doesn't work, and is flawed beyond belief. You might even think that the film wasn't finished because of how many terrible choices the director made in the making of his film. But, the idea that the viewers of this film had yet to grasp during "Troll 2"'s release in 1990, was that the film was meant to appeal to a different kind of audience. The audience that took films like this seriously. 

   The problem with this, of course, is that this is simply not a good movie. And I feel really bad for director Claudio Fragasso when I listen to interviews that reveal that he intended to make a good movie and thinks he actually did. I don't think that he's crazy for thinking that antagonizing vegans is simply the work of powerful cinema, and I also don't think that he is willing to change himself for today's type of audience. When I look at Fragasso, I see a man who has a very specific taste. I see someone who might be a bit too stubborn to realize what a terrible thing he's created, and I also see someone who never intended to create a cult film sensation like Troll 2. It's sad that Claudio will never really get the attention he believes he deserves. I also find it sad that his enthusiasm exceeds his talent. But, Fragasso understands that attention is simply attention and that you have to enjoy a movie how you want to enjoy it.

   In order to really understand a movie that is so bad, yet so loved, you need to watch the documentary, "Best Worst Movie." This time, Michael Stephenson who played young protagonist Joshua from, "Troll 2" becomes the director of the re-telling of the cult phenomenon in his 2009 documentary, "Best Worst Movie." I won't review it, although it is a very good film, and it shows the way Stephenson redeems himself as a man of film-making. Instead of reviewing it, I'm using it as a different perspective of "Troll 2" in order to not simply say, "This is the worst  movie that I have ever seen!" By watching this film I feel obligated to say a few things. First, one of the reasons why the acting in this film was...not as great as it could have been, was because the writing was translated from Italian to English (in a manner of speaking), so the actors struggled tremendously in trying to decipher what they were supposed to be saying in the film. This language barrier was the cause of maybe 50% of the mishaps in the film, not to mention one or two actors being downright insane during shooting.

   I can't talk about every problem the film had, because this review would last a few more pages than I'd like it to be, but I will tell you my main problem with it. The music is probably the worst I have ever heard. If you watch this movie you might think that the acting was the worst aspect, or the editing, or just the amount of plot holes, but no. The main problem was the music, and I'll tell you why. For the most part of the movie, there is no real problem with the score, until you get to any one of the "action sequences." Now think back to any horror film you've seen and try to remember how the score sounded. It might send shivers down your spine, or retain some of that creepy ambiance, as a good score should. But if you were to just listen to this song, would you ever think that this would be attached to a horror film? 

   
   No, it takes you out of the film! And you may be wondering why I'm even trying to understand a movie like "Troll 2", but after learning about this director it doesn't seem like he would haphazardly throw this song together and put it into a movie that he wanted to scare an audience with. He genuinely wanted to make a movie, but this score could simply be Claudio's way of "Americanizing" his film. (This better explained in the documentary). I'm almost certain that if you were to put some kind of an effective score in the film, it might work to its advantage...but that's just me being optimistic.  

    In the documentary of the film, Claudio Fragasso talks about the "themes" placed throughout "Troll 2." These included "hunger," "life," "death," and "family." I suppose that these appear in the movie, yet, they play no part in the movie, nor are they even addressed to give the appearance of a "theme." What Claudio believes to be a motif in his film, comes off as a confusing misguided mess. You could give the excuse that because Claudio doesn't direct Americans well, he didn't get his point across, and so the final product didn't translate correctly for other Americans. This is probably true, but the writing in the movie turns it into such a disastrous train-wreak, that I can't tell anything apart from the confusing dialogue, the terrible acting, and every conceivable image in the film. It's like a code that, when deciphered, never really meant anything to begin with. When you realize this, you can either never look back at the film again, or you accept it for what you think it is. Then you begin to like it, and you begin to notice this special quality in the film. And that's when you realize, this movie was like no other film you had ever seen. 

   If you don't really look into why Claudio Fragasso thinks he can make movies, you might enjoy this film. It is hysterical! "Troll 2" is an example of a movie that was made by aliens and sent to earth to see if we could respond. If that were to happen, just take a copy of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" as a retort, and send it to them. I enjoyed this film, and you might enjoy it too. But I suggest that you look at "Best Worst Movie" afterwards. It put the actors places into perspective for me, and I truly believe that these two movies were made to be watched together. But is "Troll 2" the worst movie ever made? Well, let me put it this way; I have not yet witnessed a movie worse than "Troll 2," and I've seen "Plan 9 From Outer Space," and "Santa Clause Conquers The Martians." ...I'm going to let that sink in for awhile...

      
2.7/10

Troll 2 Trailer:

   

Best Worst Movie Trailer:

      Next Review: Kangaroo Jack 2003

2012: 2009

Release date: November 13, 2009 (USA)
Director: Roland Emmerich
MPAA rating: PG-13
Running time: 158 minutes
Budget: 200 million USD

   Hello, ladies and gentlemen! I hope that you've had yourselves a wonderful D-Day! For those of you who have been living under a rock, or you simply choose not to care (which is fine), the Mayan calendar predicted that on the twenty first of December of this year, the world would come to a crashing halt and everything would blow up in our faces. Apparently director Roland Emmerich did those of use, who were not informed of this catastrophe, a favor by making a movie three years in advance to warn us of what would happen. In this review of "2012," we will attempt to uncover what it was about this disaster movie, that made the movie, the disaster.

   This film is very reminiscent of an earlier film of his released in 2004, "The Day After Tomorrow." I saw this film in the fifth grade as the first (technical) horror film. At the time, I was freaked out by this film. I liked the effects and the suspense, but if you put a gun to my face I couldn't remember a single thing from that movie besides the effects. And that's generally how Rolland's films go. You remember how pretty it looked, but if you waited a few months you couldn't remember the plot if you were staring at it...because it would be hidden by all of the atomic-breathing monsters, and tornadoes, and saber-toothed cats, and alien mother-ships, and explosions, and, in this case, John Cusack.

   But I am writing about "2012" and not "The Day After Tomorrow". And although both are equal train wrecks, one is easier to look at than the other. This film is the one that is easier to look at...but it's still a train wreck. "2012" follows Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) who plans to outrun the collapse of modern civilization that is doomsday with his divorced wife Kate Curtis (Amanda Peet), her boyfriend, Gordan Silberman (Thomas McCarthy), and his two kids, Noah and Lilly (Liam James) and (Morgan Lily). When I say "outrun" I mean that in the most literal sense possible because wherever Jackson and company flee to, volcanoes and meteorites and earthquakes and tidal waves are sure to follow very close behind. You may think that this provides more tension when transitioning towards each location. This is not true. Okay, so maybe through the first scene when Jackson and company pile in the car to escape the chaos by throwing themselves directly at the chaos and pandemonium, there may have been a little tension. But this feeling is quickly squandered because the actors in the car have, for some reason, been told to make jokes. I'm going to write this again: An action sequence that shows millions (scratch that) BILLIONS of innocent people experiencing horrible deaths is being dashed away because someone wants to make a joke about how freeways can inconvenience you from time to time.

   But it's not the comedy that really upsets me. It's the fact that everyone that the movie thinks we care about become invincible. And no matter how hard you pray, these people will not die! And I didn't think that at a certain point in any movie I would be rooting for the earth to open up and swallow all of the main characters. And there are really only two sides to this. On one side we have the characters that annoy you, and this includes the two children (maybe even John Cusack), who either cry and scream too much and try too hard to give off the vibe that they hate their biological father. On the other side there are the characters that you virtually have no sympathy for. And this is mainly due to how the actors "act" around the destruction. The problem is that they do not act! Because of this nothing feels real! It may look cool but now all you can think about is how little investment there appears to be on screen with the characters in the film and the destruction going on around them.

   I'm not going to pretend to know about anything that goes into the science of these types of films. What I mean, is that I'm not going to try to talk about how scientifically incorrect Rolland's films may be, because that's not what I like about this or any of Rolland's films. And yes, you read correctly there is something I like about his films, and that is the visuals. I'm not going to lie, I was impressed by the C.G in this film. You might even say that I was blown away. In fact, all of Rolland's films look good to some extent (starting with "10000 B.C" and ending at "2012". And for this reason, if you haven't already, watch the movie. It'll be bad, I know. Not the worst, just very bad. But if you don't listen to explanation or dialog, and only look at the ultra high octane destruction, you might have a little fun. "2012" is unfortunately what you would expect from any Rolland film but with a fresh coat of paint to admire. 

Happy New Years friends, we had a good one.            

5.9/10

Watch the Trailer Here:

Next Review: Troll 2 1990

Plan 9 From Outer Space: 1959

Release date: July 22, 1959 (USA)
Director: Ed Wood, Jr.
DVD release date: May 18, 1999
Screenplay: Ed Wood, Jr.
Sequel: Night of the Ghouls

     Lets talk a little bit about Ed Wood. This overly-optimistic director of several titles, was deemed the worst film director of all time. His movies are corny, they are campy, and although I do like Ed Wood and the name he has made for himself, the movies that he makes with the meager finance he is given, are just bad. But the person behind these films, "Glen or Glenda", "The Ghoul Goes West," and, of course, "Plan 9 From Outer Space," is the real story.
     
     Ed Wood was  an odd ball of sorts. Secretly a transvestite, Ed wood worked in Hollywood for a short time before signing over to screen classics, a studio which specialized in B-movies. He made his first film, Glen or Glenda which expressed his love for wearing women's clothing. This passion of his ruined the marriage with his first wife, but not his second. Befriending Bela Lugosi, who was currently a drug addict, made making films a bit easier for Ed, because in his mind Bela was still a star. Although appearing in many films, Bela's popularity died down drastically with the atomic age of films. This was a period in film history that was confined to the 50's, and consisted mostly of bugs that grew 50 feet tall and started destroying the tranquil city of fill in the blank. Ed Wood would continue to make B-movies with Bela, and eventually they became good friends. Supposedly during this time, Bela checked himself into rehab as one of the first celebrities ever to do so. Ed Wood would continue to make movies, and would later be dubbed, "The Worst Director of all Time." You can't get more depressing than that.

   Plan 9 From Outer Space is one of those movies that you don't necessarily dream about, more so that one movie that you don't believe exists until you watch it. You have, a science fiction film, that has implemented horror into it. Now, if it were to be done correctly, we may have a good film, or at least a decent one. Often times science fiction can become quite scary. This, however, is not one of those cases. In fact, very rarely would you come across a science fiction film that is also a horror film from the 50's. But that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. I think what Ed Wood may have been trying to do was put everything he liked into one movie, and this is one of the reasons that "Plan 9 From Outer Space" simply does not work. Alien's from another planet come to earth to execute "plan 9" which involves the resurrection of the dead. Why do they do this? I honestly could not catch onto their motives. In this sense the film can become apparently cryptic to some viewers, mainly me. At least we have the satisfaction of every character being on the same page as those that are watching them. 

   The editing for "Plan 9" is just one of the worst things I've seen in awhile. Normally editing in a film isn't something I talk about in a review, but I need to address this. Normally in a film,  the final product will create for itself a smooth transition from each and every shot. The purpose of editing is to create a seemingly fluent narrative for the viewers to comfortable watch a film in. "Plan 9" instead resorts to still shots one after the other in the same position almost every time. This is why, if you were watching this movie now-a-day's you would so bored you wouldn't know what to do with yourself. Because of this complete lack of fluency within the film, it appears to be only a play being recorded by a camera. When it appears as though the camera or operator of the camera (Ed) isn't invested in what he is creating, no-one else will be. Obviously Ed Wood was very excited with making movies and, by the looks of this film, he must have had complete control.

   Complete control is not necessarily a bad thing. Why, look at Citizen Kane, where the studio hated what director and actor Orson Welles created, but he had complete control, and ultimately created one of the greatest films ever made, and continued to create fantastic films then-after. But while Welles and Wood knew what they wanted, it was only Welles that, lets face it, knew what he was doing. But I hope as the years keep passing, humans will find the capacity to appreciate "Plan 9" not for the film making, or the acting, or the editing, or the genre, or the direction, or the set design, or anything aesthetic about the film at all, but the insertion of everything Ed Wood stood for exclusively in one film. We have to appreciate this amount of independence that is possible in a project like this. 

   Ever since I began this blog I have learned many a deal of film related things, for instance, "how to make a film" and "how not to". But I have always wrote by one fact that I have made for myself, and that is that film is interpretative, and any film can be seen in a number of ways. This is why it is important to read many reviews of a film, and not just mine. The growth of film is based on new ideas, and the only way to formulate said ideas is if you can learn through the best ways that define you as a film-maker,review,viewer, anything-er. I think that Ed Wood lived a life when no-one at the time knew how important it was to think outside of the box. No, Ed's films are not good. But that was never the point. He did what he wanted because he loved making movies. Any film maker does this, if not for, um, the money, i guess.

Movies are only good as the viewer perceives it to be...

3.2/10

Watch the full movie here:

Next Review: The Wolf Man 1941

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension: 1984

Release date: August 15, 1984 (USA)

Director: W. D. Richter

MPAA rating: PG

Running time: 103 minutes

Music: Michael Boddicker

   On Cult Classic Theater I have reviewed many films, most of which many people have never heard of.  I'm not too good at keeping my reviews grounded to the title of my blog, "cult classic," and I'm not sure what I should do about that.  Regardless, I have still managed to broaden my perspective of the cinematic world, so in a way, I'm reaching past the former boundaries I've set for myself.  I like that.  I still enjoy this hobby I have made for myself and I hope to ,"stick with the program" for a couple more years if not more.  In case you are wondering why I'm not reviewing this film yet, it's because I have reached a certain mile stone for this blog.  a small feat, but a feat to be recognized at that.  So, I'm pleased to show you, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai:  Across the 8th Dimension."  This is my 50th review.

   But why this movie?  Well, Buckaroo Banzai links to my past in a certain special way.  I don't know...ya ever watched something as a kid, and then ten years later you watch it again and you get this overwhelming feeling of nostalgia from it.  One of these movies (or in this case, short films) was of "The Night on Bald Mountain," a short from the film, Fantasia.  Another one of these films is the one you're looking at, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai:  Across the 8th Dimension."  Who is Buckaroo Banzai?  The hero of our film, played by Peter Weller, is a race car driver...and a neurosurgeon...and a rock star.  He is awesome, and a likable character at that.  And that's the key word here;  likability.  Of course you would think to put this trait into any main character of a film, but with the other characteristics I have expressed to you about him, that might be a difficult feat to overcome.  Surprisingly, director W.D Richter, does this phenomenally well.  You have this guy who can do everything, but that can still come off as a realistic guy (for the most part).

     Our story is as follows;  everyman Buckaroo Banzai and his parents have created a rocket car (if you will) to jump into other dimensions using a device called The Oscillation Overthruster.  Buckaroo tests this device, and successfully drives...through a mountain.  Yes, through a mountain.  Actually, through a dimension inside of the mountain. However, upon re-entree to the third dimension, Banzai accidently brings back an alien or, "lectroid" artifact.  Buckaroo Banzai finds out later, with the help of his crew called, The Hong Kong Cavaliers, that what Buckaroo had witnessed was the 8th dimension, during a meeting about the technology that brought Banzai there.  He was contacted by, "black" Lectroids to be able to see the "red" Lectroid's because the red Lectroid's want to steal the Oscillation Overthruster, so that they can, "go home."

   W.D Richter's character of Buckaroo Banzai is, in a way satirizing all of the hero's in films and books.  The guy's that can have any woman they want, can do whatever he wants, everyone knows him, wants to be him, and approves everything he does. But, very differently, you still can see that Buckaroo is just a man. For example, Steven Spielberg takes a very different approach with the Indiana Jones Trilogy. Contrarily wise, THIS character is a jerk, but a doctor. He's rude, but heroic. However, the likability that is attached to Harrison Ford's character has to do with the duality of his character, and the choices he makes throughout the situations he comes across. So it really is up to you which of these, "every-men" you prefer.

      Our villain is good (for the kind of camp this film wants to emit) but he is aside the film itself, meaning that although he has more to do with the story, there is no connection between him and Banzai, suggesting that this villain won't be around for very long. I can think of one reason why they might have done this. Buckaroo Banzai was meant to have several films to its name. The fact that, "across the 8th dimension" was a subtext, is a hint to that. Supposedly each film would feature Buckaroo banzai, along with his crew, "The Hong Kong Cavaliers" going around saving the world from evil. I sounded cool. It also sounded like a serial. A serial is series of short films, or episodes, that would be played in theaters on a scheduled time of week or month, depending on cost of production. Often times, nearing the end of each episode, there would be a cliff hanger. You would have to wait until the next episode to see how the hero would escape the danger he was previously confronted by. Buckaroo Banzai never incorporated cliff hangers, but would have separate stories for each film (*ahem* Indiana Jones). Sadly, W.D Richter's next installed adventure for Buckaroo Banzai, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Against the World Crime League" never saw the light of day, although it was teased at the end of this film. I won't lie, I was so excited to watch that movie after finishing this one. You couldn't fathom.
    There are two ways I can look at this film: from a child's perspective, and from an analytical perspective. From a child standpoint, I really like this movie. But does that mean that it IS a good movie? no, of course not. The story is insane, the costumes are okay, I guess, Buckaroo has no weakness, so he isn't completely fleshed out as the film's hero, The Hong Kong Cavaliers have nothing that distinguishes their character besides their name, and what they wear, and it is a mess. But to this day I love every minuet of it. I'm sure fans of this film will agree that Buckaroo Banzai has its flaws, but what W.D Richter may have just been going for was a camp film. And guess what? It became a cult classic! So my blog title finally has one more percentage of meaning in its name. I hope that counts for something.

6.0/10

Watch the Trailer Here:

Next Review:  Plan 9 From Outer Space 1959

The Ape Man: 1943

   And so it begins.  My gorilla-based movie marathon is now in effect, all until I get to my twentieth review.  So sit back and enjoy!

   Conducting weird scientific experiments, crazed Dr. James Brewster, aided by his colleague Dr. Randall, has managed to transform himself into a hairy, stooped-over ape-man. Desperately seeking a cure, Brewster believes only an injection of recently-drawn human spinal fluid will prove effective. With Randall refusing to help him, it falls to Brewster and his captive gorilla to find appropriate donors.

   

   "The Ape Man", is an interesting little piece of work that famous actor Bela Lugosi just happened to be a part of.  His acting is...well, let’s just say that it’s the same as any other film he's been in.  He does what he can with what he has, and what he can do is act.  His character as The Ape Man looks a bit like The Wolf Man with a hunched back, but he still has a human side to him.  But that's kind of what I'm trying to get at; none of the characters have character added onto them during the movie.  Your first impression of every actor will stay the same throughout the sixty three minuet duration.  I do like how the majority of the film focuses on the character that is the most interesting, and that's The Ape Man.  However there is less emphases on who he was before he was turned into a human/ape hybrid.  But I suppose that doesn't really matter because aside from his appearance and posture Bela Lugosi doesn't act any differently from a human being.

    The sound quality ranges throughout the duration of the film. In the exposition it is very poor, but nearing the end you begin to understand the dialog better.  Being this not a huge problem at first glance, it does have an effect on the movie in its entirety.  Since the sound is not that great during the beginning, there leaves allot to be desired to understanding the exposition of the film.  To be fair though, you do infer what you missed by the context of the movie later on.  Speaking of, the movie’s plot has a very distinct resemblance to, "The Invisible Man".  You have a scientist who says, "Stand back!  I'm going to try science!", and in effect has something go horribly wrong.  The scientist then spends the remainder of his days trying to concoct an antidote in order to reverse the effect.  They will never learn.

   "The Ape Man", was an interesting movie.  I managed to have a neutral feeling from start to finish.  Just from the name I could tell that this wasn't going to be that great of a flick.  Though to be fair it’s not something I wouldn't mind viewing again.  However, I do respect Bela Lugosi and I don't think that this movie respected him as an actor.   After all of the sophisticated roles that he's been in, it’s really insulting that he be re-casted as a human-monkey hybrid!  It’s the last thing I would expect from a horror icon such as him.  But, alas, any good business is better at marketing than at what they actually do, and I believe this is the case for this film.  They must have known that if you take a big star and put him/her in a not so big production, it’ll pay off.  I will admit that this was not Bela Lugosi's best role, but if you're interested in a bit of this legends history, I would recommend this to you.  Besides, at sixty three minutes, what have you got to lose?

 Verdict

I give this film 4 spinal fluid injections out of 10

 Note:  It has come to my attention that I have looked over one major problem.  This movie is a virtual remake of, "The Ape", from 1940.  I should have reviewed that movie before this one but all I really want to do now is post this. So join me next time as I delve into the first installment of this film starring Boris Carloff!

 

Next Review:  The Ape 1940