Film Review: The Jungle Book (1967)

Release Date: October 18th, 1967
Directed by: Wolfgang Reitherman
Written by: Larry Clemmons, Ralph Wright, Ken Anderson, Vance Gerry
Based on: The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling
Music by: George Bruns
Cast: Phil Harris, Sebastian Cabot, George Sanders, Sterling Holloway, John Abbott, Louis Prima, Bruce Reitherman, Clint Howard

Walt Disney Animation Studios, Walt Disney Productions, 78 Minutes

Review:

“What do they call you?” – Baloo, “His name is Mowgli, and I’m taking him back to the man village.” – Bagheera, “Man village? They’ll ruin him. They’ll make a man out of him.” – Baloo, 

While I always liked The Jungle Book it wasn’t one of the films that popped into my head when thinking of Disney’s greatest classic animated features. However, seeing it this time, the first in a few decades, gave me a new appreciation for it, as seeing it through the eyes of an adult made it a richer experience.

The reason for that, is that even though I can relate to Mowgli, I have more appreciation for Bagheera’s point-of-view and also have grown away from my more care-free ways that Baloo exhibits. Well, until Baloo has to ultimately let the kid move on and live his life.

The magic of this film is that it can connect to anyone through the youthful Mowgli but it has the ability to speak to the adults watching it in a way that the kids also probably understand but can’t fully connect to until they’ve actually experienced more in life.

Also, this is just such a fun and jovial movie that its music really stands out for this era of Disney pictures.

I also like the art style and the lush colors and environment.

It reminds me a lot of the film before it, The Sword In the Stone, in how this plays more like two friends going on random adventures where the main plot is just kind of secondary. Except, this does that better and overall, provides a more memorable and emotional bond.

The Jungle Book is simply great. It’s a positive, fun, coming of age story that has some of the best tunes in the history of Disney films.

Rating: 8/10

Film Review: The Terror (1963)

Also known as: The Night of Terror, The Haunting, Lady of the Shadows (alternative titles)
Release Date: June 17th, 1963 (Buffalo premiere)
Directed by: Roger Corman; uncredited: Francis Ford Coppola, Dennis Jacob, Monte Hellman, Jack Hill, Jack Nicholson
Written by: Leo Gordon, Jack Hill
Music by: Ronald Stein, Les Baxter (uncredited)
Cast: Boris Karloff, Jack Nicholson, Dick Miller, Sandra Knight, Dorothy Neumann, Jonathan Haze

Roger Corman Productions, The Filmgroup, American International Pictures, 81 Minutes

Review:

“The crypt! It must be destroyed, and with it the dead.” – Helene

Man, The Terror is a really bizarre, nonsensical movie but if you are a fan of Corman’s ’60s gothic horror and know about this movie’s strange production, it’s a worthwhile experience to see this playout onscreen.

The movie shares the narrative and visual style of Corman’s Edgar Allan Poe pictures but this features an original, albeit very sloppy, story that was thrown together quickly in an effort to crank out this movie as rapidly as possible to recycle the still standing sets from Corman’s The Raven, which also featured Boris Karloff and Jack Nicholson.

While Karloff’s scenes were shot in just two days, the movie took a staggering nine months to complete, which was absolutely unheard of for a Corman production. But like almost every Corman film, this didn’t lose money.

This is also legendary for the fact that so many people worked on it that would go on to be pretty damn famous: Francis Ford Coppola, Jack Hill, Monte Hellman and Jack Nicholson, who even worked as one of the many directors, behind the scenes.

The story was written by regular Corman actor Leo Gordon, along with Jack Hill. The story itself is a mess but I don’t know if that’s due to Gordon and Hill’s initial script or if the chaotic production really screwed things up. There is a scene, leading into the finale of the film, where Dick Miller’s character just gives the audience a massive info dump, so that they can make sense out of what the hell they had been watching up to that point.

Overall, the story is all over the place and hard to follow. I feel like the info dump was necessary to salvage it somewhat. However, it doesn’t save the mess and honestly, there is more entertainment value in enjoying the mess itself.

Additionally, you also get to see Karloff work with Nicholson and Dick Miller in almost all of his scenes. It’s just cool seeing these three legends on the screen together despite the overall quality of the film.

In what must’ve been a real treat for a young Francis Ford Coppola, this was released on a double bill with his horror classic, Dementia 13.

Rating: 5.25/10

Film Review: The Sword In the Stone (1963)

Release Date: December 12th, 1963 (London premiere)
Directed by: Wolfgang Reitherman
Written by: Bill Peet
Based on: The Sword and the Stone by T. H. White
Music by: George Bruns
Cast: Rickie Sorensen, Karl Swenson, Junius Matthews, Sebastian Cabot, Norman Alden, Martha Wentworth

Walt Disney Animation Studios, Walt Disney Productions, 79 Minutes

Review:

“Sounds like someone’s sick. How lovely. I do hope it’s serious. Something dreadful.” – Madame Mim

This was one of my favorite animated Disney films to watch growing up. Although, I wouldn’t consider it to be one that’s near the top.

This tells the story of a young King Arthur, called Wart in this, as he meets Merlin the wizard and learns many lessons from him. Although, the film plays more like an anthology of comedy skits with a very thin overall narrative.

However, in the end, it all comes together nicely and we see Wart pull the legendary sword from the stone and thus, become the first king in a new lineage of royalty.

I do like the humor in this and the sequences are still enjoyable. It would be really hard not to like Wart and Merlin and their adventures.

The animation is also good and it kind of shows a change in what was the typical, standard Disney style. This visual change started with One Hundred and One Dalmatians but then again, Disney really experimented with the visual style of Sleeping Beauty, a few years before that. But I like the ’60s style, as well as how they started to color their films a little more vividly.

The Sword In the Stone is an amusing picture but I can also see why it hasn’t stuck in people’s minds historically like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio and others. But it’s also unique in that it treads similar territory to Disney’s “princess” movies but from a boy’s perspective.

Rating: 7.25/10

Film Review: City of the Dead (1960)

Also known as: Horror Hotel (alternative title)
Release Date: September, 1960 (UK)
Directed by: John Llewellyn Moxey
Written by: George Baxt, Milton Subotsky
Music by: Douglas Gamey, Ken Jones (jazz tracks)
Cast: Christopher Lee, Venetia Stevenson, Betta St. John, Dennis Lotis, Valentine Dyall, Patricia Jessel

Vulcan Films, British Lion, 76 Minutes

Review:

“The basis of fairy tale is in reality. The basis of reality is fairy tales.” – Professor Alan Driscoll

I’ve known about this film for a very long time but I never saw it for some reason. It’s interesting as it came out when Christopher Lee was just hitting his stride as a horror film icon and it’s also not a film put out by Hammer, where Lee was plying his trade almost exclusively this early on.

While Lee is the top billed star of the film, he doesn’t feel like the main character and he’s not in the movie a whole lot. You get him in the beginning, a major scene in the middle and then he returns in the final sequence to reveal that he’s been pulling a lot of the strings.

The story is about a small village with a history of atrocities surrounding witchcraft. A young student goes there to investigate the village’s history for a school assignment. While there, she starts uncovering things that she probably should’ve left alone and she goes missing. Her sister then goes to the village to investigate and finds herself in the same situation.

In the end, we learn the dark secret of the town and get a really phenomenal finale that sees a dying hero, carrying a giant cross through a witch infested graveyard. That same cross summons a holy power as evil villagers are struck by a force that sets them on fire. It’s a really f’n cool scene and it comes off much better than one would anticipate for a very low budget horror flick filmed in 1959.

Beyond that, this film has incredible cinematography. The sets have real texture and the darkness almost becomes a character all on its own. The film is dreary, unsettling but kind of beautiful. There is always a brooding atmosphere and a real sense of danger lurking just offscreen.

The film builds suspense exceptionally well and even though it’s pretty obvious that Christopher Lee is going to reveal himself as a villain, his appearance in the end is still satisfying and cool.

I kind of love this movie. I didn’t expect to enjoy it nearly as much as I did but man, I’m glad that I finally made time for it.

Rating: 8/10

Film Review: One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)

Also known as: 101 Dalmatians (alternative spelling)
Release Date: January 25th, 1961
Directed by: Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton Luske, Wolfgang Reitherman
Written by: Bill Peet
Based on: The Hundred and One Dalmatians by Dodie Smith
Music by: George Bruns
Cast: Rod Taylor, Cate Bauer, Betty Lou Gerson, Ben Wright, Bill Lee (singing voice), Lisa Davis, Martha Wentworth

Walt Disney Productions, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Buena Vista Distribution, 79 Minutes

Review:

“My only true love, darling. I live for furs. I worship furs! After all, is there a woman in all this wretched world who doesn’t?” – Cruella De Vil

I had reviewed every classic Disney animated film of the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s and then decided to take a break, as I covered a lot. But I figured it was time to revisit and review the ’60s, which starts with this film.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians is probably the most iconic classic Disney animated picture that features animal characters. While, Lady and the Tramp has a slight edge on it, in my book, this property has probably been tapped the most by Disney in regards to sequels and live action remakes and their sequels.

The thing I like most about this film is just its vibe. It uses a unique art style that fits well with Disney’s older pictures while still being fresh looking for the time, giving the film more character that helps it stand out. With that, I like the character design and it’s a combination of the art style and character design that brought one of Disney’s most iconic villains to life: Cruella De Vil.

This was Cruella’s debut into the world on the big screen and like Maleficent, before her, she made one heck of an impact and cemented herself as one of Disney’s greatest villains of all-time. And she’s held that distinction now for decades, which is why we recently got a live action origin story for the character starring Emma Stone.

I think that Disney did a good job, here, at telling a lighthearted and sweet story that also had a lot of darkness running through it. We knew what Cruella wanted all those puppies for but somehow the film doesn’t get bogged down by that.

Then again, this was such a different time, culturally, that I think introducing this story to kids, today, would get every easily offended busybody in an uproar. This is probably why Emma Stone’s Cruella only made a flippant joke about making a handbag out of a puppy while she just accepted the Dalmatians into her family of friends and pets.

Overall, this isn’t near the top of the list as one of my favorite classic animated features by Disney but it’s still a wonderful picture and better than anything that studio puts out these days.

Rating: 7.25/10

Film Review: Mr. Sardonicus (1961)

Also known as: Sardonicus (UK)
Release Date: October 8th, 1961 (New York City premiere)
Directed by: William Castle
Written by: Ray Russell
Music by: Von Dexter
Cast: Oskar Homolka, Ronald Lewis, Audrey Dalton, Guy Rolfe, Vladimir Sokoloff, Erika Peters, Lorna Hanson

William Castle Productions, Columbia Pictures, 89 Minutes

Review:

“What I had not forseen was that the face of my father, the muscles stretched by a terrible death recoil, would look directly and hideously upon me, the dead lips drawn back in a constant and soul-shattering smile.” – Baron Sardonicus

My mum and her sister once referred to this movie as the most terrifying thing they ever saw as kids, as well as being the reason why they never wanted to watch horror movies. Knowing this for most of my life, I still hadn’t seen this until now. I texted my aunt about it and she replied, “Oh, don’t even bring that movie up to me!”

So I understand why this was scary for them in 1961, as it’s got some gruesome makeup effects that are still visually effective, sixty years later. So much so, in fact, that they kind of blew my modern mind; a mind that has seen more horror movies than most mortal men.

The plot is about a man with a severely disfigured face. He’s stuck with this permanent, horrific grin. He’s also a rich baron and uses his power and wealth to experiment on people in an effort to fix his face. He forces a doctor to help him and the doctor has to try and figure out how to solve this evil man’s problem while also trying to get out of his own situation, alive.

This is just a really creepy movie and even though it moves a bit slow, it’s far from boring and the best bits make up for the more uneventful parts of the picture.

I’m surprised that this isn’t a more widely known film. Practical effects and makeup artists should really be impressed with what they accomplished with this movie for its time.

Strangely, as terrifying as the face of Mr. Sardonicus looks, the mask he wears to cover it up is devoid of life, otherworldly and I feel, more sinister and cold.

I thought the acting was top notch stuff for early ’60s horror not starring any of the legends of that time: Vincent Price, Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee. Guy Rolfe was perfect as Sardonicus and unlike actors today, wasn’t afraid to put in a performance behind heavy makeup or a mask.

Rating: 7/10

Film Review: The Premature Burial (1962)

Release Date: March 7th, 1962 (Chicago premiere)
Directed by: Roger Corman
Written by: Charles Beaumont, Ray Russell
Based on: The Premature Burial by Edgar Allan Poe
Music by: Ronald Stein
Cast: Ray Milland, Hazel Court, Richard Ney, Heather Angel, Alan Napier, Dick Miller

Santa Clara Productions, American International Pictures, 81 Minutes

Review:

“Can you possibly conceive it. The unendurable oppression of the lungs, the stifling fumes of the earth, the rigid embrace of the coffin, the blackness of absolute night and the silence, like an overwhelming sea.” – Guy Carrell

The Premature Burial is the only Edgar Allan Poe adaptation that Roger Corman directed that didn’t star Vincent Price. The reason being is that Corman started developing this picture outside of American International Pictures and because Price had an exclusive contract with AIP, at the time, Corman had to cast someone else. Oddly enough, AIP would eventually produce the film before it went into the shooting phase. However, by that point, Ray Milland, an Academy Award winning actor, had already signed on.

Sure, I would’ve liked to have seen what Price would’ve done with the lead role in this but I’m also not going to downplay Milland, how great he was in this and how great of an actor that he was in general. And even though Price is one of my all-time favorites, it’s hard to deny that Milland was probably the more accomplished actor, as far as mainstream, critical recognition goes.

So, yes… Ray Milland is pretty damn incredible in this low budget, Corman directed, Edgar Allan Poe story. I also really believed the connection he had with Hazel Court in this. She’s a horror icon of this film’s era and she was always great alongside the boys at Hammer, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, as well as Vincent Price. However, she had really strong chemistry with Milland, even if she turned out to be traitorous and the villain of the story.

This was just a really compelling tale and honestly, it’s one of Corman’s best movies and not just out of his Poe stuff. Milland brought a real seriousness to this and I think it made the rest of the cast really step up too. While Corman is known for rushing through his shoots because that’s his style, Milland’s presence and his ability to elevate his castmates probably made Corman’s job much easier.

I love how dark and brooding this picture is. While that fits with Corman’s other Poe movies, this one just has a thick, stifling atmosphere about it. It also features a trippy LSD-like dream sequence. I always loved that about these movies and this film boasts maybe the best one.

Overall, this isn’t my favorite of the Corman-Poe pictures and it does seem somewhat strange without it starring Vincent Price, but it’s still a damn fine classic horror picture and it is one of the best ones Roger Corman directed.

Rating: 7.5/10

Film Review: Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960)

Release Date: December 26th, 1960 (UK)
Directed by: Terence Fisher
Written by: Alan Hackney
Music by: Alun Hoddinott
Cast: Richard Greene, Sarah Branch, Peter Cushing, Niall MacGinnis, Nigel Green, Oliver Reed (uncredited), Desmond Llewellyn (uncredited)

Yeoman Films Ltd., Hammer Films, 80 Minutes

Review:

“This is not a game, Madam, I’m dealing with criminals!” – Sheriff of Nottingham

I’m kind of shocked that this site is two months shy of its five-year anniversary and this is the first Robin Hood movie that I’ve reviewed! Damn, I’ve been slacking on one of my all-time favorite legendary characters! I must rectify it with this movie and many more in the coming months!

Anyway, I guess I’m glad that I started with one that I had never seen and one that was made by one of my all-time favorite studios, Hammer Films. It also features horror icon Peter Cushing and has smaller parts for Oliver Reed, Nigel Green and James Bond‘s original Q, Desmond Llewelyn.

This film’s Robin Hood is played by Richard Greene, who actually played the character in the British television show The Adventures of Robin Hood for four seasons, totaling 143 episodes! So for fans of that show, this film must’ve felt like a theatrical finale, despite other characters being recast.

I really liked Peter Cushing as the Sheriff of Nottingham and the only real shitty thing about that iconic character in this version of the story, is that he never gets to meet his end at the hands of Robin Hood. Instead, he’s murdered like a dog by his superior, who was just tired of listening to him obsess over Hood.

I thought that Richard Greene made a solid Robin Hood and since I’ve never actually watched his show, I might try and track it down. If I do, obviously, I’ll review it.

This was a thoroughly entertaining Robin Hood picture and I liked the sets, costumes and overall look of the presentation. Granted, being that this is from the UK, it’s easy to make the world of Robin Hood look right. Plus, they still have so many castles and old structures that it’s not difficult finding the right places out in the wild.

I was glad that Hammer’s most celebrated director, Terence Fisher, was able to dabble in this style of film, as he predominantly did horror for the studio.

In the end, this was a better than decent Robin Hood flick with good actors, a nice pace and an authentic look.

Rating: 6.25/10

Film Review: Planet of the Vampires (1965)

Also known as: The Demon Planet (US TV title), Planet of Blood, Space Mutants, Terror In Space, The Haunted Planet, The Haunted World, The Outlawed Planet, The Planet of Terror, The Planet of the Damned (alternative titles) 
Release Date: September 15th, 1965 (Italy)
Directed by: Mario Bava
Written by: Ib Melchior
Based on: One Night of 21 Hours by Renato Pestriniero
Music by: Gino Marinuzzi Jr.
Cast: Barry Sullivan, Norma Bengell, Angel Aranda, Evi Marandi

Italian International Film, Castilla Cooperativa Cinematográfica, American International Pictures, 88 Minutes

Review:

“I’ll tell you this, if there are any intelligent creatures on this planet… they’re our enemies.” – Capt. Mark Markary

While Mario Bava is mostly known for his horror and giallo pictures, I really liked when he did more ambitious, larger scale things like this and Danger: Diabolik.

Bava was really good at making Italian blockbusters that looked more epic in scale and production cost than a typical ghost story or murder mystery. But I guess he was just a superb director all around because even his misses are still enjoyable and have enough positives to make them worthwhile.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this specific Bava film. So long in fact, that when I had seen it previously, I didn’t really know who Bava was and I certainly wasn’t as acclimated to his work, as I am now.

This was a favorite late night film of mine, as a kid, though. I remember it being on late night cable quite a bit when late night cable was still really fucking cool when you weren’t going down the rabbit hole of infomercials.

I always loved the look and style of this film and I didn’t even realize it was Italian/Spanish back then. While it looked like your typical ’50s and early ’60s sci-fi epic, it was a lot more colorful and vibrant. I think it’s visual allure is what drew me to it and it’s that visual allure that would eventually become the visual style of giallo.

Beyond that, though, I loved the costumes of the crew, I loved the design of the ships, the simple but unique and stylized sets, as well as the look of the planet and all its weirdness.

The scene where we see a giant alien skeleton was so ominous and cool that it asked more questions than it answered and I’ve always kind of felt like it might have inspired the “Space Jockey” from Alien.

Planet of the Vampires is just a really cool, great, old school sci-fi/horror thriller. It’s one of my favorite Mario Bava pictures and honestly, it’s something I should revisit more often.

Rating: 6.5/10

Film Review: The Terror of the Tongs (1961)

Also known as: Terror of the Hatchet Men (alternative US title)
Release Date: March 15th, 1961
Directed by: Anthony Bushell
Written by: Jimmy Sangster
Music by: James Bernard
Cast: Christopher Lee, Yvonne Monlaur, Geoffrey Toone

Merlin Film Productions, Hammer Films, Columbia Pictures, 76 Minutes

Review:

“Have you ever had your bones scraped, Captain? It is painful in the extreme I can assure you.” – The Tong Leader

When I recently reviewed Hammer Films’ The Stranglers of Bombay, I discovered that this film was somewhat of a remake of that film. Watching this, I didn’t see it. I guess there are some similar narrative beats and both take place in exotic places in Asia but this is much more a proto-Fu Manchu picture than anything else.

With Christopher Lee in the lead, as the Chinese criminal kingpin, I feel like this lead to him starring in those five Fu Manchu pictures that stretched from 1965 to 1969. Hell, this probably inspired their creation.

However, this is better than those Fu Manchu movies. I think that Christopher Lee’s performance is solid in each of those, as well as this picture, but this really is the genesis of his longest run as a character other than Dracula.

I like that this takes place in Hong Kong but it still has that patented late ’50s/early ’60s Hammer style to it. I’m actually surprised that the studio didn’t recycle some of these sets into sequels for this, as Lee gives a really chilling performance and because this was different enough from Hammer’s regular output that they could’ve crafted another franchise from this, as they did with Dracula, Frankenstein and The Mummy.

I understand why this was just a one-off, though, as it’s not as good as the first installment in Hammer’s core franchises. Also, Christopher Lee was not a fan of the makeup and considered it the most uncomfortable that he had ever worn up to this point in his career. But this was his first starring credit, as his other well-known films before this had him playing the monster to Peter Cushing’s hero or mad scientist.

Once again, I thought that Jimmy Sangster wrote a pretty good script for Hammer. The sets are good, as are the costumes. The makeup passes the test for the era, even if modern HD restoration brings out its flaws more.

Overall, The Terror of the Tongs is better than I anticipated it being.

Rating: 6.5/10