Godzilla: King of the Monsters (1956) review

(5/10)

   The film that started off the whole monster franchise may be a bit dated, bland in parts, and suffering from poor storytelling, but it remains a key point in the atomic age horror films as well as a nostalgic trip back to where it all began.

PLOT: Young American businessman, Steve Martin (Raymond Burr), is traveling to Tokyo, Japan, for overseas business when he realizes that strange things have been happening around him, including the random sinking of a Japanese ship, other disappearing ships, and retellings of a monster named Godzilla from the nearest island's locals. As Steve looks deeper into the story of this monster, he finds out that it indeed does exist and may be a prevalent danger to Tokyo and its citizens. As he also figures out, Godzilla is a result of an H-bomb mutation bent on destruction. While Godzilla terrorizes, Steve and his allies must come up with away to defeat the monster and preserve Tokyo. The plot is an interesting premise marking an important point in atomic age history, but its execution is let down by poor, non-creative, bland storytelling. It had potential, it just needed to be acted on more professionally.

ACTING: The performances in this film were nowhere above decent. Raymond Burr did a subpar job of weary American, Steve Martin. He could have done better, but his work in here suited the film just fine. None of the other performances really stood out to me, however, they were just as ordinary as Barr's. There wasn't anything to get extremely excited about.

SCORE: The musical score wasn't real unique or important. A few dark themes signaled the appearance of Godzilla or a dramatic scene change, but they weren't anything to download from iTunes, metaphorically speaking.

EFFECTS: The visual effects, like in most older Godzilla films, are cheap and quite dated. The slow-moving, almost-inanimate monster seemed everything but scary. However, the stop-motion effects, though dated, seemed rather cool and innovative compared to the rest of the visuals. If the whole film's budget had gone into visual effects, the monster might have inspired a few more scares in its audience.

OTHER CONTENT: This film may have many problems, including blandness and outdated methods of filming, but there is some worth in it. Besides starting off the whole Godzilla franchise, the film itself is a nostalgic trip back to the atomic age fears and beginnings of the creature feature era of horror. The film isn't exciting, but it is fantastic with the legacy it has left. It only takes a spark to create a fire; this is that spark.

   Godzilla's debut isn't the best monster movie or atomic age horror one would ever see, but it still holds a place in horror and film history. Though bland, its nostalgic charm helps it claim a place in the horror hall of fame.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) review

(9/10)

   This iconic masterpiece of the stage and the screen not only puts Marlon Brando on the celebrity map, but also personifies the many themes of the taboo mind of the late-great Tennessee Williams. Excellent performances, filmmaking, and script authenticity make the film an enjoyable subject to watch. However, the changed ending really seemed to bother me compared to the play.

PLOT: Stanley Kowalski (Marlon Brando) and his pregnent wife, Stella (Kim Hunter), live in a small, shabby apartment in New Orleans just getting by on life as it comes. Things are normal until Stella's neurotic sister, Blanche (Vivien Leigh), comes to visit and stay for a while. From here, life in the household only goes downhill as we're informed of the loss of the old plantation house and the dark past Blanche is trying to hide, all while we witness Stanley's mistreatment of the household and Blanche's attempt at love with Stanley's friend, Mitch (Karl Malden). The plot isn't real thick in basic elements, but golden in substance. The execution of the plot is excellent up until the end scene. The events in the film line up almost exactly with the events in the play and how they're carried on. I appreciated how the censors didn't completely butcher the themes of the play at the time and how Williams carried on filming his work.



ACTING: The performances in this film are excellent. The best performance had to be from Marlon Brando as the roughneck Stanley Kowalski. Brando, in his first film, played the memorable character with great style and emphasis, putting more personality into the character than seen before. Vivien Leigh played an excellent part also as Blanche DuBois, the neurotic heartbreak. I don't think the role could have been personified as well by any other actress than Mrs. Gone-With-the-Wind herself. From her perception of reality to the scary fantasy she lives in her head, Blanche is played excellently by Leigh. The other performances were very well done as well, specifically Kim Hunter as Stella and Karl Malden as Mitch.

SCORE: The score was fairly well done for the time with a jazzy overtone and heavy dramatic themes implied, sometimes overly done. The intense, jazzy themes added a tone to the film, but the overdone dramatic score just seemed to bring it down a fair amount.



MISC. THOUGHTS: This iconic film adaptation of the famous, critically-acclaimed play by Tennessee Williams sets the tone for films of its kind in the future, studying the more taboo aspects of people and society through intense character studies, as seen also in Lolita and Repulsion in future years. The fact that the film was made almost in line with the original play is excellent. However, the end of the film is changed for the screen in such a way that it feels rushed and cheesily done. The film would've been darker and more accurate had Stella came back and embraced Stanley, but she left again as if in limbo to earlier scenes in the film. Aside from this fatal flaw in accuracy, the film is greatly iconic with dialogue and scenes executed in great style.

   The play deserved a film adaptation to shake its time, and it got one. The excellent cast, stylish execution, and hard-hitting accuracy of most of the film makes this work a masterpiece of classic filmmaking. However, the abrupt change of the ending to suit the screen gave way for a big mistake of ruining the true mood and tone for the film, fatally but also just barely.

The Screaming Skull (1958) review

(7/10)

   Though this movie may seem like terrible, B-movie garbage to some, I have to admit that I had a lot of fun watching this one. Though cheesy, the intended scares and concept of the movie's horror aspect came off as very entertaining and nostalgic, if you will, in relation to the time of the black-and-white, B-movie mania. Even with that, the performances have great potential, and the movie carries a great spirit of the horror it wants to be.

PLOT: Newlyweds Eric (John Hudson) and Jenni (Peggy Webber) Whitlock have just moved back into the large house of Eric's late wife, which has been carefully maintained by the creepy groundskeeper, Mickey (Alex Nichol), who withholds a deep respect for the dead woman's memory. The marriage is going great for the newlyweds until Jenni starts seeing strange apparitions in her home, such as random skulls everywhere and flashes of Eric's late wife. With all these apparitions of terror, she starts hearing random screams similar to the peacocks that waltz around the yard. Eric, hearing of these occurrences, even starts to think she's going insane. Is her mind getting to her or are these apparitions really coming to her? The plot is actually pretty decent if you replace the skulls with more threatening apparitions of a sort. The execution is both a letdown and a prime factor of the movie's camp. The execution makes the movie come off as ridiculous, with imagery failing to even give you a chill until maybe once near the end. However, the execution also seems to glorify the camp in the movie, making the bad seem so much more entertaining and hilarious than it really is.



ACTING: The acting performances in this movie are actually really good, though the content lets down the potential. Our two leads, Eric and Jenni Whitlock, are actually very well played by John Hudson and Peggy Webber. Anytime the leads needed to show emotion, it was performed excellently, with several blood-curdling screams from Webber and general conversation with Hudson. Along with our leads, Alex Nichol (also the director) supplied a more-than-decent performance as Mickey, the creepy groundskeeper. His performance of the groundskeeper really tried to set the mood for the movie, even though the true mood it was setting was never really reached. The movie in itself is extremely low-budget with characters; aside from these three, we have exactly two other characters: Russ Conway and Tony Jackson as Mr. and Mrs. Snow. They didn't do anything significant performance-wise, however.

SCORE: The score of the film tried to set a creepy kind of mood to freak the audience out, with operatic-type themes suggesting something ghostly. However, with all of the cheese and camp of the movie, it feels misplaced and almost laughable. It's definitely a well done horror score, but it just doesn't fit and kind of enhances the hilarity and entertainment I feel during this movie.

EFFECTS: The effects in here were really cheap. There really isn't much to say about them, considering the majority of them were skull props and occasional faded-out flashes of skulls and ghosts a.k.a. people in sheets. The one effect I thought to be decently interesting for its time would be the skull corpse near the end, for it actually stands and moves and looks a little like it poses a threat.



MISC. THOUGHTS: With all of the low-budget fails of which I have described, including the non-threatening effects, not-scary imagery, and ensuing, unintentional hilarity, you would think I would mark this movie as terrible. However, I don't have the power to say that this movie didn't entertain me one bit. The promise of needing a coffin in the beginning to the unintentional hilarity of the scares to me just come off as glorious camp. This seems like it unintentionally wanted to be a parody of its own time frame of film. The era of midnight shock-horror in the 50s and 60s were very well cheesy yet known as notorious days in early horror filmmaking, and this film seems to accidentally glorify just that. It feels almost like this is intended to be just a low-budget camp fest to glorify its own era of horror. Though it may not have been intended to come off as that, it came off as that to me and I really have to say I enjoyed the movie with this aspect in mind. It was actually a lot of fun to watch.

   This old midnight horror flick was very cheaply made and quite bad, but it was very fun to watch. The acting performances were actually pretty good and the unintentional camp made this a fun movie for me to watch, as I found it hilarious and all in good spirit of this sub-genre of horror back in its time. If you look at it from a more serious standpoint, the execution is ridiculous, the score is almost misfitting, and the effects are failed attempts, making this feel cheaper than it actually is. The factor that determines whether you like this movie or not is how much fun you actually have watching it, and for me, there was a lot of fun had actually watching this.

House of Wax (1953) review

(8/10)

Any movie I've seen with Vincent Price has been pretty good because of his haunting acting and the creepiness the film creates. This one is no exception; there's plenty of creepy imagery to be found along with Price, but does it stand the test of time?

PLOT:Professor Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) was a great artist of wax sculpting and used to own his own wax museum with his beautiful creations bound up inside. However, his museum is burned down after a jealous investor burns it down from not getting Jarrod's money. Later on down the road, Jarrod is never found and the investor is in wealth, yet, he one day is found mysteriously hanging from a noose in an elevator shaft. While the cops are trying to solve this mystery, another one is forming involving corpses vanishing from the morgue. Also, a certain Sue Allen (Phyllis Kirk) is being followed home by a strange and ugly figure, terrorizing her. Things really pick up when Jarrod is discovered not dead and crippled in a wheelchair with helpers starting his new wax museum. It's a big hit, but the wax dummies have a little too much of a striking resemblance to real people. It's a good plot executed greatly.



ACTING:The performances in here weren't the best, and might be a little dated, but some still are good today. Vincent Price played a creepy and passionate role as Professor Henry Jarrod. Nobody else really stood out like he did in this. The other shiners, however, would be Phyllis Kirk as Sue Allen, Paul Cavanagh as Sidney Wallace, and Paul Picerni as Scott Andrews.

SCORE:The score wasn't the best I've heard, but it was pretty good still. It didn't do anything real special.

EFFECTS:The effects in this movie are pretty good. The make-up effects for the character(s) are very well done and creepy. The best effects would have to be of the wax dummies melting in the fire. The camera is aimed at them at such an angle and timing that it actually does give you the creeps.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was probably a dead ringer for a good horror film in its time, especially with the introduction of the 3D effects, and probably had a high entertainment value. The movie had great dialogue and was full of suspense, but it's still rather dated. Some of the scares and thrills shot in here aren't as scary as they probably were back then, especially with the 3D. Plus, this movie is easily classified as more a horror for entertainment with a couple laughs and the 3D thrills induced in it. It's still a pretty great horror film today, but the test of time has worn it down a great bit from what it has been.

OVERALL,a great horror film with a good plot, mainly dated acting aside from Price, unimportant score, creepy make-up and wax effects, great dialogue, and lots of supsense, but a lot of the scares and such appear to be dated and for pure entertainment.

The Killing (1956) review

(8/10)

Even for this film being one of Kubrick's early works, it still screams his essence in each scene, with a clever plot and iconic scenes together.

PLOT:Mastermind Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) has done some time in the past and is now home with his wife (Coleen Gray). However, he once again plans to commit a crime and knock off a horse track with the help of some fellow companions. The companions include the likes of the $5 bookie, George Peatty (Elisha Cook, Jr.), the track bartender, Mike O'Reilly (Joe Sawyer), gun salesman, Nikki Arane (Timothy Carey) and many others. It seems like the perfect crime, but George's wife, Sherry (Mary Windsor), and her lover (Vince Edwards) get involved and things get mixed up. It's a good plot idea executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting can get kind of basic in some parts, but overall it was pretty great. Sterling Hayden played a very sufficient lead as the mastermind; however, his part didn't get real good until the crime is committed. The other shiners would have to be Elisha Cook, Jr. as George Peatty, Timothy Carey as Nikki, Mary Windsor as Sherry, and Jay C. Flippen as Marvin Unger.

SCORE:The score was pretty basic as well, but it fit the mood very well and actually wasn't a generic burden as some other basic scores can be.

CAMERAWORK:Even though this is one of Kubrick's first films, his type of camerawork is present in here. He caught some very nice shots with a lot of his usual style present. For an early start, he did very well.



OTHER CONTENT:This is one of Kubrick's first films, but that doesn't mean it's one of his weaker films by far. The plot is very well thought-out, as every aspect of the crime is tied up cleverly. The script has some very nice dialogue in it, but it is Kubrick, so what can you expect? This film is also pretty iconic from the robbery scene, in which the lead puts on a clown mask to protect his identity, and from the finale in the airport with the suitcase. This is truly one of the best classic gangster films. However, it does have its faults. One thing I found kind of flawed with the film is the character development; there is little. What we find out is presented to us in a weak manner as we are just plunged into the whole robbery story. If there had been a bit more character development, the characters would have seemed more real to us. Also flawed with this film is that some of the way its filmed comes off as cheesy. It does include some typical gangster personalities and situations, including the narration, that cause it to come off as a bit cheesy: just a bit, not too much to be considered bad.

OVERALL,a great Kubrick film with a brilliantly-executed plot, basic and great acting, well-fitting score, Kubrick's usual camerawork, thought-out plot twists, a well-written script, and a few choice iconic scenes, but there is poor character development and a few cheesy aspects to the film.

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) review

(7/10)

This iconic horror/sci-fi still remains a classic even today for its dated suspense and terror.

PLOT:After finding a fossil of a monster-like hand in the Amazon, Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) unites with couple David Reed (Richard Carlson) and Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams) with fellow scientist, Mark Williams (Richard Denning), to form an expedition party to dig up the rest of the fossil. However, they discover when they get there that the rest is nowhere to be found. They form a hypothesis that the soil may have eroded and been dragged down river with the fossil. This leads them to the Black Lagoon, where it's rumored that no one has returned. While searching there, they get more when they bargained for when they find the creature: a living version of thier fossil. The creature immediately falls in love with Kay and decides to terrorize the crew. It's a good plot executed well for its time.



ACTING:The acting in here is pretty good. I'd say that Julie Adams stole the screen as Kay Lawrence her beauty and terror both shine in here as she flees from the creature. Carlson also does a pretty good job as David as he takes control of the screen as our brave hero. The other shiners were Antonio Moreno as Dr. Carl Maia and Nestor Paiva as Lucas. I actually believe this was one of Richard Denning's lesser roles. He just didn't do the job for me.

SCORE:The score kind of got on my nerves. It was mainly just mood-fitting horror score, but it got on my nerves when they kept playing the same theme over and over again whenever the creature appeared.

EFFECTS:The effects used on the creature may be dated now, but I find it still an unsettling sight to see it in its entirety. Sure, it's a big human fish, but it still looks a bit creepy. For its time, these effects were considered pretty well done. It's still a freaky scene to see that monsterish hand creeping through the porthole of the boat.



OTHER CONTENT:This is one horror movie that everyone should know by sight. It's very iconic; the music, the setting, and the monster itself are all very well-known among cinephiles and some casual movie-watchers alike. Also, the movie is still very suspenseful and memorable, not to mention well-shot with the camera. However, it is still just a B-movie that time wasn't particularly good to. It's cheesy, dated, and not as scary as it was back then. It does have its highlights, but I feel its time has passed along with it. I actually believe if the right mind remade this movie, it would be pretty great. Yet, I am not film director, so it may be better left alone.

OVERALL,a good horror movie with a good plot, good acting, annoying score, still-unsettling effects, iconic aspects not forgotten, lots of suspense, and memorable scenes, but it's cheesy, dated, and left in its time.

No Time for Sergeants (1958) review

(8/10)

Aside from the series, this is the first Andy Griffith work I've seen, and it was pretty funny for its time.

PLOT:Will Stockdale (Andy Griffith) is a simple-minded, country bumpkin that lives with his pa near Tobacco Road in Georgia. When he's picked for the draft and nearly arrested (thanks to his pa tearing up his draft letters), he's shipped out to the Air Force barracks, where he befriends the small and jumpy Ben Whitledge (Nick Adams). They both realize later on in the movie that they both want to be transferred to the infantry, where the real heroes are. When Stockdale asks his sergeant, Sergeant King (Myron McCormick), King puts him on latrine duty and makes him PLO (Permanent Latrine Orderly). However, when the colonel find out, King has to get Stockdale classified or lose his job.  So now, Stockdale must find a way to get classified fast and also be put in infantry with Ben. If you know Andy Griffith by now, you know this isn't going to work out well. It's a simple plot executed pretty well for its time.



ACTING:The acting is actually pretty great. There really isn't a bad performance in this movie. Griffith, Adams, and McCormick come out to be a different type of three stooges; a screwball trio, if you will. They all play their parts well and to the best. The other shiners are Don Knotts as Corporal Brown, James Millhollin as the psychiatrist, and William Fawcet as Pa Stockdale. The only performance that I felt fall a smidgeon short of great was Murray Hamilton as Irvin Blanchard.

SCORE:The score was mainly made up of big band music and military themes such as "Taps", "The Star-Spangled Banner", and "When the Saints Go Marchin' In". It was pretty standard, but not bad.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was pretty great considering how the times were in comedy and such. It was a pretty funny film all around. However, I felt that it fell a little in humor from its time of release. It is just a simple screwball comedy set in the military, but I think that kind of helps its fall a bit, for the jokes don't live funny as long as the more clever laughs. Some scenes still did come off as clever and stole the humor away from some of the simple stuff, however. I also felt that the first half of the movie succeeded way over the second half from when they leave the barracks. It's still a pretty funny little movie even now.

OVERALL,a great screwball comedy with a simple plot, great acting, typical-yet-good score, some clever scenes, a great first half, and great humor for its time, but it's a little too simple which causes it to fall in funniness from its time.