The Silver Screen Oasis

Before THE CONQUEROR WORM, I made a detour with THE CURSE OF THE FACELESS MAN (Edward L. Cahn 1958).

While digging at Pompeii, a stone encrusted man is found and taken to the Museo di Pompeii in Napoli for study. Sure enough, he occasionally comes to life (probably due to the radiation leaking from the X-ray machine in the lab). And, sure enough, he's fixated on the lovely fiancee of Our Hero, one of the scientists studying him. And, and sure enough, she has primal memories of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius that wiped out Pompeii. And, and, and sure enough, he'll kill anyone (except Our Hero) who stands between him and his beloved.

Cahn, as one of the more prodigious directors of Bs, had movies all over the quality spectrum, but I've yet to see one that wasn't fun to watch, so this didn't disappoint. It is interesting to note that the exterior of the Museo di Pompeii bears an uncanny resemblance to the Griffith Park Observatory. Who knew? Also, purely by coincidence, the producer - Robert E. Kent - was the producer of DIARY OF A MADMAN. When you're hot, you're hot.

Here's a modern mummy story, "submitted for your consideration"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 ... 486794html

Fascinating, Chio! I'd love to see "Faceless Man!"

Knitty -

That's about a statue found in a mummy's tomb in Egypt that moves because of subtle vibrations between the two surfaces.

THE CURSE OF THE FACELESS MAN is about a man preserved in volcanic ash in Pompeii, Italia, that moves due to radiation from an X-ray machine.

Totally different!

Besides, one has a scientific explanation, the other...a curse! And a girlfriend. (or is that redundant?)

Had it not been for radiation, there would have been no monsters in the 1950's. But no super heroes either! It's a trade-off.

Today I watched "Pleasantville" (1998) directed by Gary Ross.

While the movie was technically brilliant and had plenty of enjoyable moments, I think it ends up being a big mess.

This is a movie about a teenage kid in the "present" who is obsessed with an old Fifties sitcom. He and his sister get zapped into the world of the sitcom. However, it isn't the actual 1950s, but a black-and-white "world" that consists of just one town where everyone is pleasant. (There is no world outside the town. All the books are blank pages.) The arrival of the outsiders, particularly the hero's hot-to-trot sister unleashes a sexual revolution that turns the black and white people into "colored' people. (They appear in color.) Art and literature magically appear as well, as does fire and rain (which apparently had never existed before.)

My biggest problem with the film was the unreality of the town. It had no real connection to actual life, and when the movie showed the black-and-white people persecuting the "colored" people, it seemed like a stretch to make "Pleasantville" be a film "about" something important instead of just a clever fantasy. I would have thought it would have been better if the hero and his sister learned that life in the Fifties had its own problems (Fear of nuclear war, McCarthyism, real racism) and then returned to their own time and place with the realization that there is no perfect place in the past, but you have to make the most of things in the present. (Which in a way, is what "Midnight in Paris" did.)

A lesser problem was the sudden switch in the hero's sister. After starting the sexual revolution in Pleasantville, she decides 2/3rds of the way through the film that she is tired a being a "slut" (her word) and becomes a studious, glasses-wearing good girl who opts to stay in Pleasantville when the hero goes back to the real world. Maybe something was cut? This seemed utterly unmotivated to me.

I like PLEASANTVILLE. It's not a perfect movie. Not one of the great ones. But most of it works for me. The elements of social consciousness elevate the story to something more than a silly comedy, yet there's plenty of light humor to make it digestible. Tobey Maguire was a personable young actor. Still personable, I guess. But not so young!

THE SPACE CHILDREN (Jack Arnold 1958) is outlandish, cheap, preachy '50s Sci-Fi. Yes, it's near-perfect.

The families of rocket scientists are living in trailers along the beach near a rocket facility in preparation for a launch. The dads engage in rocketry, the moms in mom-stuff and the children...they are aware -- as no adult can be -- of alien creatures (glowing growing pulsating brains -- I think Star Trek borrowed them later) who have taken temporary residence in a nearby cave. The children become somewhat protective of the creatures, and the creatures...well, they tend to paralyze adults and sabotage rocket launches.

Yes, science can do bad things to Our World and Other Worlds. And only the children truly understand.

Jackie Coogan as a Dad Rocket Scientist = Outlandish. Johnny Crawford as one of the children = You know that's good and cute. Raymond Bailey aka "Mr. Drysdale" as a head rocket guy = You know that rocket will end up in the cement pond.

Jack Arnold made this between HIGH SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL! (1958) and MONSTER ON CAMPUS (1958), one year after THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, four years after THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and six years before (with Mr. Lucky and Peter Gunn in-between) Gilligan's Island. What a career.

OMG! Another Arnold film I hadn't heard of. Always worth watching.

Yes, and don't forget the good ol' Professor himself, Russell Johnson, in a rather despicable role.

Oh and Red River, in case you're interested:

ChiO wrote:THE SPACE CHILDREN (Jack Arnold 1958) is outlandish, cheap, preachy '50s Sci-Fi. Yes, it's near-perfect.

The families of rocket scientists are living in trailers along the beach near a rocket facility in preparation for a launch. The dads engage in rocketry, the moms in mom-stuff and the children...they are aware -- as no adult can be -- of alien creatures (glowing growing pulsating brains -- I think Star Trek borrowed them later) who have taken temporary residence in a nearby cave. The children become somewhat protective of the creatures, and the creatures...well, they tend to paralyze adults and sabotage rocket launches.

Yes, science can do bad things to Our World and Other Worlds. And only the children truly understand.

I seen that movie and your description of that movie ChiO is right on the money!

Raymond Massey is not flattered by the short skirts he has to wear

He's no Nancy Sinatra!

On Saturday I watched "The Devil's Backbone" (2001) directed by Guilermo del Toro.

I had heard a lot of great things about this movie, and while I enjoyed it, I found I had an odd reaction to the story about an orphanage in the last days of the Spanish Civil War.

I really liked the interplay between the orphans, and I found the orphanage staff and their plight very interesting. The struggle of the orphans to stay alive after catastrophe was compelling.

However, I felt that the movie would have been just as good if there had been no supernatural element. Or, maybe, the film should have been all from the perspective of the children, and the question of the ghosts should have been ambiguous. (Were the ghosts real? Were the ghosts just the imagination of the kids?) The way I saw the movie, the only thing that "proved" the ghosts were real was that a locked door was unlocked at a specific time. Apart from that, all the ghostly appearances could have been just psychologically explained.

In a way, this movie reminded me of "The Shining," which surprised me. Again, it was the unlocking of the door that first brought Kubrick's film to mind, but the more I think about it, the main conflict of the film (child vs. adult) is similar to "The Shining."

I liked this more than any other del Toro film I've seen, but I don't think I like it as much as most other people do.

A good film Mike. I'd like to watch it again, because I don't remember much other than that I liked it and thought it of very good quality in general. My personal favorite is "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006), although for me it was hard to take, because the harshness of some scenes affected my sensitivities, due to their realism (can't abide torture). The 1993 "Cronos" is a definite must-see as well (an early effort by him) This is the synopsis: In 1535, an alchemist builds an extraordinary mechanism encapsulated into a small golden device. The invention, designed to convey eternal life to its owner, survives its maker until 1997, when it shows up with an antiques dealer. Fascinated with the strange device, Gris (Luppi) doesn't note that there's more than one person looking for it. The promise of eternal life has become an obsession for old and sick Mr. De la Guardia (Brook). He and his nephew (Perlman) will do anything to get the Chronos Invention.

Yesterday I revisited "12 Monkeys" (1995) and was blown away by it. I've watched "Flight for Freedom" (1943), "The Silver Cord" (1933) and "High Fidelity" (2000) and "Hysteria" (2011), all very good in their own categories and styles.

Recently I have also seen: "Dark Shadows" (2012), "Ocean's Eleven" (1961), "Four For Texas" (1963), "Robin and his Seven Hoods" (1964), "Carne Trémula" (Live Flesh) (1997), "Tango!" (1933), "Largo Viaje" (1967), "Bel Ami" (2012), "The Mad Miss Manton" (1938), "The King and the Chorus Girl" (1937), "It Started with Eve" (1941), "First Love" (1939), "Hotel Berlin" (1945), "Zoo in Budapest" (1933), "The Late Mathias Pascal" (1926), "The Castle of Cagliostro" (1979), "Threesome" (1994), "Splendor" (1999), "A Stranger in Town" (1943), "Melody" (1971), "The Conjuring" (2012), "Princess Mononoke" (1997), "Liliom" (1934), "Liliom" (1930), "La Reine Margot" (1994), Buñuel's "Abismos de Pasión" (1954), "The Sex of the Angels" (2012), "The Ages of Lulú" (1990), "Broadway" (1929)......I have been on quite a binge, but have only written small opinions on my FB wall ....