Monday, January 27, 2020

Bachelor Bait (1934)


William Watts works at a Marriage License Bureau, and does his job well, convincing even the most hardened of fathers to give their eloping kids a chance. But thanks to the actions of a capricious coworker, he's fired, and has to strike out on his own. This ends up working out spectacularly, as William comes up with the idea to create Romance Inc., a matchmaking business. He's a natural, and the business is soon booming, but with new found popularity comes new enemies, who'll stop at nothing to see Romance Inc. stomped to ashes...


Bachelor Bait is quite a fun ride! The comedy all lands and the romance is sweet, and the story is overall an entertaining time, which successfully goes from one thing to another, to another, etc, without fail.

It's little awkward constantly seeing William be totally oblivious to Cynthia's feelings for him. The movie does excel however in its intentional awkwardness, namely the three party date scene, where everyone's struggling to keep the conversation going (we've all been there!).


The characters are a high point in Bachelor Bait. William Watts is a nice enough protagonist, meek, but resourceful. He's believably clever, and it's nice seeing his business ideas actually work, and very well too! Nancy is a lovely girl, helping William out at every turn, and never asking for anything in return/for herself.

There's a great range of unscrupulous friends here, from the absolutely loathsome guy at the beginning, to taxi driver turned Romance Inc. lawyer Bramwell van Dusan, and the devious gold-digger Allie Summers. Bramwell starts out as a random taxi driver with a quip or two, but graduates to a main character. He's a great addition with plenty of material to give, and he even provides some heart.


Allie meanwhile is amusingly mean, and has a great vocabulary, as well as razor sharp wit. Her dialogue is crazy too! Some of it is funny, and some of it is so complex it'll/will leave you scratching your head. My favourite was probably the most simple-"Gimme a cigarette, you mug!". It's fun watching her various machinations, but she's not all bad. She's never unbearable, and knows when to call it quits. She may put up quite a front, but when the chips are down, she really does have standards, and others well-being at heart.

If I had to pick any complaint with Bachelor Bait, it's that it feels 10 minutes too long. While it's good that this extra bit finally ties the villainous Big Barney Nolan back into the plot, it feels a little too late. The plot had already resolved, but it's drawn out  further for all this. None of this stuff is bad though, so it's not that bitter of a pill, and by the end I didn't mind as much.


It's a shame we never see his coworkers at the marriage bureau again. It would've been nice to see his boss realising the truth, the asshole getting fired (or preferably something more violent), and seeing more of the girl in general, since she liked and believed in him. I actually wish the movie had gone full circle, in a way, given that two supporting characters decide to tie the knot, which would've been a perfect opportuity for seeing a certain someone issue the license. But then again, that might imply the matchmaking business died after all, so in a way I'm glad that doesn't happen.


Some examples of the great dialogue on display here are:
""
""
""

The film is aesthetically pleasing too, best exemplified in a hilarious comic vignette!


The acting in Bachelor Bait is very good! No two performances are alike, and each character is distinctive thanks not only to the writing, but also due to the players. Stuart Erwin as   Rochelle Hudson is cute as a button as Cynthia. Richard 'Skeets' Gallagher and Pert Kelton are great as the film's comic relief, and deliver a lot to the film, beyond the call of duty! They'll make you laugh and maybe even tug at your heartstrings a little. Kelton is quite monotone a lot of the time, and at first I wasn't sure if she was just a wooden actress, or if this was a deliberate character move. Thankfully it's the latter, and she gets greater range as the movie goes on, and plays monotone well!

Berton Chrurchill and Clarence Wilson meanwhile are great villains. Churchill is mean as political grafter Big Barney Nolan, while Wilson has a devilish charm similar to John Astin.


Bachelor Bait is an exceedingly fun and cute rom-com,and I definitely recommend it! It's got something for everybody...

The Monster Maker (1944)


Doctor Igor Markoff is the best in the field of glandular treatment/disorders, and has devoted years searching for a cure to Acromegaly. One night out at the opera, he sees a young woman, Patricia Lawrence, who's the spitting image of his deceased wife. He immediately takes an unhealthy interest with her, sending her dozens of unwanted flowers, and romantic notes. Patricia soon becomes upset enough that her father, a famous pianist, goes to Markoff's to dissuade him. The encounter ends with Lawrence unknowingly infected with Acromegaly, and Markoff will only cure it if he allows him to marry Patricia...


The Monster Maker is quite a good flick! It tells an interesting story, and the elements all come together very well. The film is motivated more by stakes than a bodycount, and rather than show the doctor killing and experimenting on dozens of people, it focuses more on his schemes with this one man. This works, and it's never boring. Also, because of the different [styling] to the story, when it has a happy ending it feels earned, and not like a cheat.

The writing and character relationships here are quite good, the father in particular! He's likeable enough to begin with, but once he becomes deformed, he excels! He figures out the doctor's intentions immediately, and throws them back in his face in a great scene. Unwilling to throw his daughter's happiness away for a cure, he gladly intends to destroy the mad scientist, while alluding to Frankenstein being destroyed by the 'monster' he created.


Dr. Markoff is an effective villain, with an interesting backstory. He's a creep in just about every way it's possible to be one. If ever there was a mad scientist you  wanted to see killed by his own creation, it's him!

I'm on the fence about whether lab assistant Maxine is an interesting character, or stupid. For some strange reason, she's in love with the rude and creepy doctor who shows no affection for her. There are at least three scenes in the movie where she's either upset at him or hysterical ,and he always just tells her to shut up and go back to work, every single time! Even when she threatens to go to the police! She's a very trusting woman to assume he won't kill her for that, but it turns out he's overly trusting too, as he never believes she'll go to the cops, and never does anything bad to her.

Lastly, Patricia and her boyfriend are likeable enough, though aren't as richly explored.

I also like how the movie shines a light on this lesser known disease, and in a non-judgemental way too. It never treats those suffering Acromegaly as freaks, or tries exploiting them for entertainment. It's probably ridiculous to think that films like this inspired an eventual cure for the disease, but it's a fun thought, and I like to think those doctors watched this film and took notes!

While The Monster Maker has a slower and more = approach to its subject matter, it does still have touches of the goofy, such as Dr. Markoff having his own pet gorilla, that he periodically releases for fun, and to teach his employee's lessons. These moments are appreciated, naturally.


The film is by no means perfect though. Aside from Maxine's almost inconsistent character, Patricia doesn't appear a great deal in the second half, and reacts little to events around her, particularly Markoff himself. This man has been stalking and harassing her, but little is made of this in the latter half of the movie. She just figures 'Oh well, he's a creep, but he knows what he's doing, so I'll just leave my father in his care. I'm sure things'll be fine.' Her boyfriend fares even worse. He's nice, and heroic in the end, but his total screentime wouldn't equal much.

Another issue is the title itself, which comes across as rather insensitive! There is no monster in this film, it's a guy suffering from a glandular disorder! If it was a murderer like Rondo Hatton it'd make sense, but the sufferer here is never anything but a victim.

Back to the positives, the make-up work here is good! It looks convincingly enough like real Acromegaly, and doesn't try making it look monstrous, or more grotesque than it needs to.

The acting here is quite good! J. Carroll Nash is your typical European/foreign mad scientist, and he's convincingly slimy and diabolical. Ralph Morgan is very good, acting perfectly under all the make-up he's given, and not letting it get in the way of his performance. For an actor to remain genuinely powerful and emotional when covered in rubber is a great thing!


Glenn Strange has a dual role, as both the mad scientist's servant, and also the ape. Tala Birell is good as the lab assistant Maxine. At first it seemed like her accent kept slipping from European to American, but it turns out she's a Romanian, so I guess the accent switch is just a natural product of living in two countries (assuming I wasn't imagining the whole thing). Wanda McKay and Terry Frost do ok in their roles, even if they don't have the most to do. And lastly, Ace the Wonder Dog has a good role here, looking very cute and heroic.

The Monster Maker is a pretty good horror flick, and is worth a watch...

The Crime of Doctor Crespi (1935)


Golden age director Erich von Stroheim was certainly quite a character! A fancy German aristocrat who led to America in search of a better life, and made a name for garish and epic melodramas, that  He was quite a divisive figure, not only in the quality of his movies, but also in his very identity. Some people in Hollywood were convinced he was a fake, and didn't speak a word of German. Some felt he was merely a German commoner, and others not one at all. There were some Europeans who did think he was legit though, and he did sometimes sounds kinda like Peter Lorre, so perhaps there is truth in what they say.

As for the rumor of him being lower class in origin, if that is true, I certainly wouldn't denigrate him for it, as it shows that even a 'mere commoner' can rise to become a celebrated auteur and a Hollywood artist! Of course, he was still a prick for lying, and I think his movies are ridiculously self-indulgent and pretentious, but still! And of course, his greatest legacy is undoubtedly being the inspiration for the Gabbo episode of The Simpsons!...


Noted doctor Andre Crespi is running his wing of the hospital business as usual, taking whatever cases he sees fit, and rejecting many in equal measure. One day an old sweetheart comes back into his life, begging Crespi to operate on her husband. Dr. Steve Ross, an old friend, swept Estelle off her feet, and the two fell in love, which Crespi has never forgotten, unable/refusing to believe she didn't love him, and harbouring a deep hatred of Ross. Now that he's been given the perfect opportunity, Crespi plans on drugging Ross to appear dead, then bury him alive...

1935 picture The Crime of Doctor Crespi is an immediately alluring one, due to its promising title, and spooky premise. This promise is quickly squandered when the film begins. It starts off dull, and never picks up. It's a real slog to watch!

This joins the long line of films 'based'/supposedly based on Edgar Allan Poe's literary canon. This film purports to be a take on The Premature Burial, but takes nothing but the mere concept. Before watching the film I'd read summaries describing the lead character as a madman who buries his enemies alive, but that's being generous. He only does it to the one character. The title really is correct by not pluralising Crime. He only commits one in the whole movie!


The plot is very basic. It gets the job done, but is never successfully enthralling. One thing I will praise the story for is being a 1930s film that has a proper ending! Not abrupt at all, but a proper denouement.

There are a few silly moments here too, such as it being set in a hospital where apparently the staff are too lazy to notice a man being loudly strangled to death wile screaming MURDERER! Then there's how Dr. Crespi is found out by a colleague, and after strangling him, ties him up in a cupboard for a day...then lets him go free! He basically figures "Eh, you're probably gonna be alright now, so get lost".


The acting is tolerable at best. The nurses were pretty good, and cute. For such a dictatorial director, who'd scream his lungs out at actors for batting their eyelashes in the wrong order, Erich von Stroheim is hardly a good thespian himself. He's pretty rubbish here! He gets even worse in the climax, where he literally doesn't react to seeing Ross back from the dead, and even slurs some of his words like he was smashed on-set. Von Stroheim the director would hate von Stroheim the actor!

Dwight Frye fares better, though the film doesn't do him any favours. He's relegated to the background most of the time, and I forgot he was even here until halfway through. He does eventually rise in prominence...only to be immediately knocked out. It's a shame! We finally got to see the poor man act, and he's strangled! Forget von Stroheim, I wanna see Dwight Frye as Cr. Crespi! While I briefly thought he was killed, he does return, and plays a slight role in the climax, but nothing major.

Some movies work without much music. Others simply feel like they're missing something-Otherwise good, but incomplete. Crime of Doctor Crespi however is downright hurt for its lack of score! A dull movie is made all the more unbearable by the complete absence of music. A composer seems to have finally been hired 4 minutes before the end, it makes a world of difference. One scene becomes tense, and the ending becomes romantic.


The direction for the most part here is listless, with little done to bring life to the proceedings. There are a few interestingly staged shots here and there, which I've screenshotted for you to see. You can appreciate what little this movie gets right!

I don't recommend The Crime of Doctor Crespi at all. It's got very little of worth to it.

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Valley of the Zombies (1946)


One dark and stormy night, Dr. Rufus Maynard is visited by a mysterious figure asking for blood. Disturbed by the recent spate of blood thefts, Maynard soon realises this is Ormond Murks, a scientist he had committed to a mental institution years ago for his radical theories about using blood transfusions to extend life. Most shocking of all to the kindly doctor is that Murks died five years ago!

A short time later, Dr. Maynard's body is discovered, drained of all its blood and filled with embalming fluid. His nurse and fellow doctor Susan Drake and Terry Evans find themselves suspected of the crime, and have to hunt for the real killer, before more people can die to sustain this monster's unnatural life...


Valley of the Zombies is quite a surprise! There's a huge abundance of classics from the golden age of cinema, and many are well known, but others slip through the cracks  While today's film isn't a classic, it's still very much a gem!

It starts off very interestingly, laying all its cards out on the table from the get-go. Rather than present the = slowly as the film goes on, we see the villain first thing, and find out about his past and = in detail as he monologues to his old enemy. From this point on we get the first victims (with many more to come, onscreen and off), the introduction of the two leads, and their involvement in the case.

It's   seeing these two =  onto this case, pawing at little tidbits that don't really seem to mean anything, only to uncover a mystery, following clue after clue as they're led from one place to another, widening the =. Althroughout, we also see that the villain is onto them, and it's tense knowing that as they're = though the dark, Murks is watching their every move, getting ready to...STRIKE!


Valley of the Zombies runs at a very snug 56 minutes. While you wish all good movies were longer, this never feels too short, thankfully. The pacing is good for the most part, with the character introductions being effective, the plot being set up well, and the film never rushes itself, despite its short length. The only drawback I had was that the two protagonists don't get a whole lot of screentime at the start. This ends up being made up for as the movie progresses though.

The only real disappointment is the ending. It's all staged perfectly, but the execution is a little underwhelming. The heroes don't actually contribute anything, and it's all the police who save the day. Plus the villain's death scene is pretty underwhelming, [just getting shot and falling from the building instantly, without a word].


As evident/you can tell from the title, this is a zombie movie, though some people nowadays would disagree. Not that I wanna be too harsh on them, but how silly! Zombies only became the modern day kind in the late 60s. The earlier you get in cinema, the different and more unique zombies become, whether they draw on Haitian/African lore, or other sources. This film definitely holds its rightful place as a zombie movie, and a good one at that. While modern films all blend together, this undead man stands alone.

The characters here are a good bunch. The sinister Ormond Murks is used sparingly, getting a big introduction at the beginning, then receding into the background for a while, often present visually, but not tearing at the scenery every time he appears. It's good, as we never get too much of him too soon. He returns to the forefront during the finale, where we see his = in action.


Terry and Susan make for nice leads. They're entertaining, share great banter, and they never feel dull or listless together. The police meanwhile are an alright bunch, but somewhat dopey, and rarely useful (except when they = are!).

Valley of the Zombies has a good mix of horror and comedy. None intrude on the other, and the humour all lands, with some great dialogue.
Susan: "What's the matter?"-Terry: "I wanted to call the hospital but the phone's dead"-Susan: "Dying's getting to be a habit around here."
"Look Susan, when we get there you'd better drop me off and go on back to town" "And leave you alone?" "But there's no telling what I might run into!" "Well we'll run into it together. You might need help. And I'm good at screaming!"
Terry: "If there's anything in there, we wanna sneak up on it."-Susan: "Unless it sneaks up on us first!"
Terry: "Afraid of a few cobwebs!"-Susan: "It's not the cobwebs, it's the spiders in them!"


A standout  is the acting. Robert Livingston and Lorna Gray make good leads, with a fun chemistry, and the police are all alright. But the standout is Ian Keith as Ormond Murks. Without a bit of make-up, you believe this man is a zombie, because with an imposing = and a creepy gaze, he sells the movie, and cuts a figure you really don't wanna mess with!...Except when dressed as a gas station attendant. Ormond Murks may be a master of disguise, but he suddenly looks a lot less intimidating when clad in mechanic overalls.

What effects there are here are pretty good, although it never goes that far out, which is a disappointment. I don't mind Murks not looking like a =, but I would've liked/appreciated seeing how he drains his victims! And how/why he embalms them, too!


The direction in Valley of the Zombies is good. Philip Ford and cinematographer Reggie Lanning frame the shots well, and get the maximum atmosphere and tension from them, be they slow and quiet = in the dark, quick attack scenes, discoveries of hidden bodies, or calm exploration of creepy crypts. The locations are all nice and varied too, from  bright laboratories, to abandoned houses, and dark crypts.

Continuing on from that, there's definitely a good amount of = in this film
There are other neat scenes too, such as a = car chase with a unique way of following the = vehicle!


Valley of the Zombies is a very good little flick! Not great, but certainly a surprise compared to other low-budget horror fare of the time!...

Saturday, January 25, 2020

House on Haunted Hill (1959)


On a dark and stormy night, a group is gathering together in the 'house on haunted hill'. Millionaire Frederick Loren is hosting a party to see who can stay in this house until dawn, with those who make it winning $10,000 dollars prize money. The house has a notorious history of mayhem and murder, and this becomes clear very quickly as the guests find themselves being haunted, especially sweet Nora. Meanwhile, Frederick's scheming wife Annabelle has a plan of her own. Who knows which guests will make it through the night...


House on Haunted Hill is truly one of the quintessential horror experiences, and with = William Castle behind the camera, he really made it something special. During the film's original run, the theatres were full of flying skeletons, =, and all manner of ghoulish delights. He [delighted] in messing with his audiences in creative ways, and House on Haunted Hill was one of the most famous. Thankfully while having a real skeleton on a string sailing towards you in a packed auditorium might have a = that just watching the film on your TV at home can't capture, this is still more than = of a viewing experience.


The story here is an iconic one, simple but effective to the ultimate degree. The characters and the situation they're in is set up immediately, with no long preamble necessary. From the get-go there's a sense of eeriness, and the movie builds up the macabre as it goes on. Whether or not it all holds up by today's standards is perhaps up for debate, but I think it still works, not only because it's all so classical, but also because anyone can show loads of gore, but ghostly chills like this pique the imagination a lot more!

The film is not perfect, however, as there's a pretty big problem I had. That's the laser-focus the film gives Nora. She gets the lion's share of the =, from seeing rotting severed heads, to hanged bodies, ghostly visions, etc. The most the others get is either a whack on the head, a couple drops of blood from the ceiling, or for the most part nothing! While this does make sense later on, it's still annoying! The majority of the guests end up feeling a little like non-entities, as we don't see enough of them, or how they react to what's going on around them.


Come the ending, everything comes together, and there's a great twist, although this ends up being followed by a double fake-out]]]. This might be brilliant or infuriating = and will leave you scratching your head going "Wait, so are there ghosts or aren't there?". As for my opinion, it might've been better without this =.

Then there's the ending. Out of context, it's a great way to cap off the film, [with Elisha Cook Jr. warning the audience desperately that the ghosts =]. What bothers me about it though is that it doesn't make much sense in context, given where the story goes.



The characters   Frederick Loren   while his wife Annabelle is not only =, but manipulative too. It's = seeing how she acts the innocent defenseless lamb one scene, then is a lioness in another. You don't doubt she wants her husband/hubbie dead!


Out of all the guests, only Nora and Lance get any real focus, and even then, Lance's only role is to be the love interest, and a skeptic. He's ok, while Nora is a nice enough lead. Neither get much resolution in the end though, not even on the romance front.

Older woman Ruth Bridgers doesn't do much at all, not does she even react all that much to blood dripping from the ceiling! Dr. Trent is alright, but pretty bland, not even being that interesting even in the end. Pritchard meanwhile is the oft-= voice of doom, constantly reminding everyone that the house is full of violent spirits that'll claim their souls before the night is through, and regaling them with stories of how the previous tenants met with horrible demises. One wonders why he accepted the invitation in the first place! It's a shame the film never explores this, as it could have been quite interesting.

There are also the two servants, who sadly don't appear nearly as much as they should. They look distinctive (psychotic and monstrous/ghoulish in one scene!), and lend a nice air to the proceedings. They're gone once everyone's locked in for the night though.


The acting is all good here. Carolyn Craig is good as Nora. Not only is she good at acting scared, but she also does a great job at being exasperated/frustrated   and furious. She's never one-note. Richard Long is ok as Lance, though nothing special. Same for Alan Marshal as Dr. Trent. Hulie Mitchum is funny as Ruth, though gets less and less to do as the film goes on.

Elisha Cook Jr. does a great job as the mansion's terrified owner Pritchard, helping the film's atmosphere out a lot. Leona Anderson and Howard Hoffman are convincingly unsettling in their small roles as the servants. Carole Ohmart is neat as Annabelle, getting across a few different facets. And lastly, Vincent Price is naturally the most skilled performer, and he makes the pretty nasty Frederick Loren very likeable! He's so charming, funny, and devilish, with great chemistry with his equally devious wife.


The music here is nice and ooky throughout. The sound design is very good too, lending much to the film's atmosphere, with the eeriest moment being the closing doors in the climax.

The effects are sometimes not the most convincing, but even then they're fun, and the more convincing stuff is cool! The skeleton at the end looks kinda like it's dancing, more funny than scary, but this in intentional, so it's hard not to laugh with the movie rather than at it.

The design of the mansion's exterior is interesting, too! The outside looks nothing like you'd expect. Rather than be a typical haunted mansion, it looks more like a big clinic. A spooky art-deco clinic, of course. It always looks off-putting despite its Against type appearance, and never makes one/you think "What is this, Health Resort of the Damned?"


Overall, House on Haunted Hill isn't perfect, and is downright frustrating in places, but it still oozes such a charm, and is impossible to overlook!...

Friday, January 24, 2020

Ride 'Em Cowgirl (1939)



In the 1930s and 40s, westerns were in full swing. Of course there were the famous big pictures, but there was also an absolute deluge of little ones. Short 50 minute packets of rip-roaring adventure[s], with noble but bland heroes, sinister outlaws, lots of singing, and occasional ghosts and ghouls.



Out in the not-so-old but still very much wild west, cowgirl Helen Rickson keeps the peace. The police respect her, her family and friends adore her, and local outlaws fear her. Helen's father falls in deep with some gambling debts however, and a high influential criminal uses this to frame the family for theft of $5000 dollars worth of prize money. Now on the run from forces good and bad alike, Helen must find a way to stop these crooks and clear her name...

The...um, suggestively titled Ride 'Em Cowgirl is a perfect example of these [quickie] westerns. It's got all the trappings, and a familiar story, but it manages to be a fun ride.


I went into this expecting the most basic level western, and it is that, but it also surprised me a lot with the sheer amount of effort put into it! It may be a dine a dozen story, and the male lead may be as forgettable as a whatchamacallit, but despite its short length of 53 minutes/53 minute length, Ride 'Em Cowgirl is a very snug film. The plot is effective, the action is entertaining, the characters each get their times to shine and plenty of screentime, and there are even effective callbacks to earlier in the film. For such a short and simple movie, it's a lot of fun seeing this much/level of care behind the scenes.

For a film made in the 1930s, this is quite progressive too! The lead is a badass cowgirl who's never stuck in the kitchen, washing anyone's socks, nor rescued by others/men an unreasonable amount. I also appreciate that nothing is ever made of the fact that she's a woman. No hamfisted lines/dialogue to drive the point home. Just simple straight to the point cowgirl action, with her actions saying everything that needs to be said.


Not only is the story in Ride 'Em Cowgirl a typical one, but all the old cliches are here. A single punch in a saloon causes an uproarious bar-fight where no-one is safe, and guns magically never run out of bullets[, no matter how many shots are fired]. Characters also have the unhealthy habit of gesturing or scratching themselves with their firearms. I get that you might have a real itch, but please, put it away! All of this provides a lot of life, making this a comfy viewing experience.

One interesting element to the film, which shocked me at first, is that it's set in the modern day!...Well, it iwasi set in the modern day. [Yes,] there are cars, telephones, and other kinds of nifty appliances. I quite like this. It doesn't feel like a budget-saving method (as these are elements easily enough kept out of sight on a cowboy set), and it shows to the audiences at home that just because you live in the present, doesn't mean you can't still have a cowboy/western adventure of your own!


Getting properly into the characters, they're a likeable bunch. You've got the heroic rancher/cowgirl Helen, who has a keen sense of justice. Helpful stranger Oliver is utterly unremarkable, so now that I've already forgotten most of what he does, let's move on to the other characters. Belle, former Vaudeville actress turned amateur cowgirl, is a fun and lively presence. Spunky without being obnoxious, and justifies her [presence] throughout by being a good friend, and a nice source of comedy. Then there's Oliver's sidekick Dan Haggerty, who's an amusing comic foil. He's not just a dopey klutz though, but also gets some sincere romance, straightlaced scenes, and plenty of competent and heroic moments!

Even Helen's father gets a bit of complexity to him. He's a goodhearted and loving man, but is also flawed, as he's got a gambling problem, and barely thinks twice before putting his precious ranch up as collateral.
portrays him well as a kind but flawed man


Dorothy Page is a great lead. She has just the right mix of [pure] without being bland. Milton Frome meanwhile has iexactlyi the wrong mix/perfect mix of being bland. He's nice, but completely forgettable, and I could barely remember what he even looked like throughout. Still, he never does a bad job, to his credit.

Lin Mayberry is a ton of fun as city slicker Belle, endearingly clumsy, while also being genuinely helpful, and friendly. Vince Barnett is treated very well here. He was mostly known for being comic relief, and he does fit that role here too, but he's given actual character! He's also visually distinctive, especially when standing next to the faceless man who plays the male lead.


And lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the valuable part the horses play in this picture. They're adorable, talented, and act their roles perfectly, with nary a misplaced hoof.

There are a couple of songs here, and they're alright. Nothing special, but nothing horrible either, and they're sung well. They're your [typical] tunes of romance under prairie moons, etc.

Ride 'Em Cowgirl is directed with a decent eye for visuals. The gunfights are all staged well, and the galloping horses do a good job with the races and chases. Some of the close-quarters fights can be a bit of a jumble though.


To finish, Ride 'Em Cowgirl is a perfect example of the common 1930s westerns.  It's a great mix of fun, intrigue, romance, and adventure, and is well worth a watch if you're a fan of the genre. If only the writers knew the importance of a comma! I swear, if it was Ride 'Em, Cowgirl, no-one would think anything amiss!...