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!...

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!...

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!...

The Gorilla (1939)

Businessman Walter Stevens has invited his niece and her fiancee over to his sprawling country home for their engagement, but receives an ominous warning from the murderous criminal mastermind known as The Gorilla, saying that he only has 24 hours to live. Stevens is unwilling to call the police, as they couldn't help the Gorilla's past victims, and their presence might upset the villain's possible capture, so he instead hires three bumbling detectives as bodyguards. They quickly have their work cut out for them when Stevens disappears, and the Gorilla makes his presence felt...

The Gorilla was a 1925 stage play with a lot of mileage out of it. It saw a few straight adaptions (some lost, others not), as well as comedy versions, including the heavily retooled Sh! The Octopus

The story here is pretty basic, once all the backstory is out of the way. Its main focus is more on shenanigans than a genuine mystery, and while it is disappointing that the film never tries for a =, it makes do with what it has, and never fails to entertain. The pacing is all good, and I was never bored or frustrated, desperately waiting for any scene to end.

Despite being a vehicle for the Ritz Brothers, the film doesn't trip over itself trying to introduce them as soon as possible, It takes its time setting up the story and other characters first. This is nice, and the movie never loses sight of the rest of the cast after they come into play either. There's a fairly big cast of characters here, and thankfully they never feel underused.

This is a very funny movie, with plenty of neat setpieces and creative sequences. Some of the stuff here would be effectively spooky if that the tone this was going for rather than comedy. The dialogue is consistently funny too, from the banter between the detectives, the chills Bela Lugosi gives everybody, to a hilarious dig at Kipling that surprised me for its time! My favourite exchange was:
Kitty: "Why couldn't all this have happened tomorrow?"-Norma: "What difference would that make?"-Kitty: "Tomorrow's my day off."

The characters in The Gorilla are a rich and interesting bunch. You've got the amiable but suspicious businessman harbouring a secret, the shifty butler, aggrieved business partner, and a criminal mastermind and on-the-loose gorilla who may be one and the same...

Nora and Jack are a nice enough couple. His skepticism got on my nerves at times, but he's fairly competent, and helps out enough. She doesn't get much to do but sit and watch everything play out, but doesn't feel superfluous or anything

Detectives Harrigan, Mulligan, and Garrity are bumbling dopes who rarely make any actual progress in the case, moreso just stumbling around. This began to worry me, as I was hoping for them to actually do something important. Thankfully the ending totally justifies their presence, and right after a seemingly authorative character insulted them too. They may well be morons, but they're morons who solved/busted this case wide open! Overall, they're dumb, but likeable, and never so rock stupid or useless that you want them dead, or wish they weren't in the movie.

While she can be exaggerated at times, Kitty the maid is amusing as she runs away in terror from killer gorillas, sees spooky butlers, and consistently tries/threatens to quit/retire. Peters the butler is equally fun, and you're never sure where he stand until the end.

And lastly, the villainous and mysterious factions surrounding this stormy mansion are amusing, but appeared a bit too little for my tastes. The film does provide a good amount of suspects though, which is nice. You're always/constantly left on your toes, even in the final minutes.

The acting in The Gorilla is all neat. Anita Louise and Edward Norris are fine in their roles. They're not given as much to do, but their general competency of their characters allows them to remain likeable. A welcome presence as always, Lionel Atwill is good as Stevens, but disappears fairly early on, after the first third.

The main draw here are of course the Ritz Bros. Whether or not you ind them funny or annoying depends on the person. To some they might be total anathema, to others the opposite. I found myself liking them for the most part. They can be a bit much in some scenes, but overall they are good leads.

The fun Patsy Kelly is entertaining here, though overdoes it in some spots, particularly her first scene. She went from being endearingly cute to my preferred first victim in under a minute! Thankfully she does improve after that scene, so I no longer hoped she'd get killed by the gorilla.

And lastly, there's the great Bela Lugosi, as the servant/butler Peters. Whether he's evil or not (I shan't spoil it for you!), he truly gets to shine here! No-one could make the simple act of putting = blanket as terrifying as he does. This film utilises this horror legend perfectly, never wasting him for a moment.

The Gorilla looks great. It's just as atmospheric in appearance as other films of its like, and it =. The titular animal is very good too, looking convincing in appearance and movements. I mean, it's still clearly a guy in a suit, but a very convincing suit!

The Gorilla is an entertaining send-up of old dark house movies, as well as a good film in its own right. It's got plenty of laughs and comic frights to recommend it, and is definitely worth a watch on a cosy rainy night...

The Undying Monster (1942)

The Hammond family has long lived in fear of an old family curse, which states that a malevolent wolf spirit will kill every new member until there are none left. With only siblings Helga and Oliver remaining, things are tense, especially after a deadly attack on Oliver that leaves another on death's door. Seeking to solve the case once and for all, the police call in scientific detective Robert Curtis and his plucky assistant, who investigate whether there's human foul play at work, or if the terror is indeed supernatural...

The Undying Spirit starts out strongly, setting the  tone and story immediately. It's a perfectly gloomy horror story, in the vein of The Hound of the Baskervilles. It's got everything you'd want-Misty moor, old family curse, mysterious canine, scheming butlers, and more.

The intro gets straight to the biscuits, establishing everything instantly-The characters, the curse, the first victim, etc. From this point onwards the movie slows down, and I was afraid this might be a case of a film that showed all the interesting stuff in the first 5 minutes because it had nothing else, but this doesn't quite turn out to be the case.

The mystery here is an interesting one. The pieces and players are set up well, and we have plenty of suspects to choose from. The shifty doctor who destroys evidence (quite obviously, if I might add!), the = butler and maid, and the family themselves. I had a definite suspect in mind, and ended up being correct, although my motives were off.

Where The Undying Monster falters a bit is in the story. We never see the werewolf in the first scene, which is understandable, but we never see it again until the last 5 minutes! This begins to make sense after a while, as it seems like the plot's shaping up to be [normal], but then it suddenly becomes supernatural in the last minutes, and you wish it would have set things up better. I felt the plot could've been more interesting if these elements were spread throughout, rather than dumping it all on us in the last act.

There's also the general pacing issue that the werewolf in The Undying Monster only has two scenes, and it's offscreen in one! I understand we can't see too much of the beast or it'll lose its lustre, but please show us more than that!

The characters are what would make or break a story like this, as they're the main attraction beyond the werewolf. I'd say a supernatural curse is far more interesting than they are for the most part, but these aren't bad characters. Hazel is good to start with, proactive and likeable, though she get supplanted as the lead by handsome American detective Robert Curtis. While it's annoying to see her character basically get left in the dust, especially since she doesn't get much to do after this point, Robert is a good lead, and his relationship with dotty partner Christy is entertaining.

The dialogue here is quite funny, with Christy getting the best lines.
"What a divinely gloomy old house"
"Brrr, this room is colder than a tax-collector's heart!"
"He knows more about this than he's telling"-"That's the trouble, they all do!"

The direction/cinematography here is very good for the most part with some well framed shots. Some moments are a little strange though, in that a few scenes look like the aspect ratio is wrong, like when you watch a movie that's been zoomed in too much. Some of these scenes end in a creative way, but at the cost of making you briefly wonder if you're watching an inferior cropped version.

The location work in this film in impeccable. No expense has been spared in finding a suitable location, and it can send chills up your spine even on a hot summer day. Definitely a good sign for a Gothic horror film! The actual effects though are a little mixed. The werewolf make-up isn't bad, but it's not as detailed as it could be, and we don't really see enough of it. Only a couple of close-ups, then he's human again.

Adding to the atmosphere is the score. Whether in slow tense scenes, fast paced action moments, and of course moments of pure horror, it's always effective. The film also knows the importance of silence, to great effect.

The acting here is all good, in different ways. James Ellison is your typical swaggering hero who always knows the right thing to do, while his partner Heather Thatcher really stands out as her own character. Heather Angel and John Howard are good as the Hammond siblings, getting across well their fears, anxieties, and secrets. Bramwell Fletcher is decent as the suspicious doctor. Lastly, Halliwell Hobbes is a quintessential butler, and Eily Malyon is a spooky maid, and both are good at playing servants who are hiding something.

The Undying Monster is a flawed picture, but it's still a neat slice of 1940s horror, and of early werewolf cinema. It's also great viewing for anyone who wants to learn directing experience for Gothic cinema!...