Last night we saw Jack Palance in "Man in the Attic"(1953), a remake of "The Lodger"(1944) starring Laird Cregar. Both are based on the Jack the Ripper story. I'll state right off that "The Lodger" is the superior picture. "Attic" is well produced and acted, and Palance is particularly good (though not as good as the late great Cregar), but despite the lavish production values and attention to period detail, the movie lacks tension because we know going in that Palance is The Ripper. No attempt is made to disguise that fact, unlike in "The Lodger" where scriptural feints are made to keep you guessing for at least half the movie.
What happens is that Palance, as "Dr. Slade" (a pathologist), moves into a rooming house late one night, after the first Ripper murder has been committed. He takes the attic as it's the only room available but really it suits him just fine. He doesn't want to be bothered. "I have to concentrate on my work", he tells the landlady (Frances Bavier aka "Aunt Bea"), who thinks he's nice but a little strange. Her niece "Lily Bonner" (Constance Smith) comes to stay at the house soon after. She's a Can-Can dancer with a following in London. Slade disapproves of Can-Can dancing, but falls for Lily anyway. He seems to want to save her from something. Could it be from his alter ego, Jack the Ripper?
There are moments when you think that, just maybe, Palance is not The Ripper, and that he'll be exonerated or even become the hero when the real Ripper is caught, maybe at the end of the movie. I didn't know beforehand that it was a "Lodger" remake, so I thought a surprise might be coming. But that thought was brief, because soon the plot becomes telegraphed. Midway through, it's clear that Slade is The Ripper. The only question is what will happen to Lily Bonner. Again, it's a stylishly made film, and in that respect it's eminently watchable. The trouble is that in a mystery, there's got to be something mysterious, some aspect that keeps you guessing. Here the mystery runs out halfway through, and all that you're left with is the style. That part of "Man in the Attic" is high quality, so I'm gonna give it Two Solid Thumbs Up, with a recommendation that's more than the execution of the film warrants. I give it a high recommendation for the effort of Jack Palance and the other actors. See it for something "not bad" to watch, or if you're a Jack the Ripper completist. ////
Much better was another film we saw beforehand on the same night. It was a short one, just 49 minutes long, so I'm not sure we can even call it a movie, but it was released as one, in theatres in England so I guess that makes it official. It's called "The Ghost of Rashmon Hall"(1952). Valentine Dyall stars as "Dr. Clinton", a parapsychologist who is narrating the story of a haunting to a group of houseguests. They are gathered at the home of "John" and "Phyllis" (Alec Faversham and Anne Howard), an old, formerly decaying mansion they bought for next to nothing and restored. No one wanted it because it's said to be haunted by it's former owner, a self-styled necromancer. The guests make a round of comments. Most believe the ghost story is hogwash. Dr. Clinton assures them that it isn't - "I've seen the ghost myself". He then tells the tale of how he was summoned by John and Phyllis to investigate their experiences in the house.
The budget is low and the special effects rudimentary. Some look like "now you see it, now you don't" home movie effects on a 8mm camera. The thing is, though.........they're effective. Cheap doesn't always mean cheesy. Sometimes it just means inexpensive, as in "that's all the money we had". But when your heart is into it, a little money can go a long way. It's the energy of the effects and their intent to scare that come through in the finished product.
The telling of the tale sets an unsettling tone. I had never heard of Valentine Dyall but apparently he was Britain's Vincent Price, tall with pronounced features and a mellifluous voice. He's gentlemanly but with an undercurrent of disquieting threat. You think it's because he's insistent that the guests believe him, but perhaps there's an additional reason. John and Phyllis, the owners whose story he is telling, sit quietly as he recounts it. The action is intercut in flashback. I thought it was frighteningly suspenseful. Two Big Thumbs Up for "The Ghost of Rashmon Hall". You might find it under a different title on Youtube ("An English Ghost Story"), but look it up by either name and don't miss it. The picture is slightly soft but in this case it adds to the ghostly atmosphere. And it's sharp enough not to take away your enjoyment of the film. Highly recommended for tonight, before Halloween! You won't be able to watch it tomorrow cause you'll be out Trick or Treating..... :) ////
The previous night we were back with Bela Lugosi in "Murders in the Rue Morgue"(1932), his first major film after "Dracula" (he had a co-starring role in "The Black Camel", a Charlie Chan movie, in 1931). In "Rue", Lugosi plays "Dr. Mirakle", a Mad Scientist who is trying to initiate evolution by injecting human blood into an ape. He's got the beast locked up in a cage in his lab, but lets it out when he needs a human guinea pig. The ape carries off young women, who become subjects in Lugosi's blood experiments.
Holy smokes is Bela bad. He's got a torture chamber in his basement, and there's a scene which is extreme even by today's standards and would surely be canceled by the wimps of the 21st century. If Lugosi was evil in "Voodoo Man", he's positively malevolent in "Rue". At least in "Voodoo" he had a semi-legit motivation. He was trying to reanimate his wife. The great Leon Ames ("Meet Me in St. Louis") plays one of Dr. Mirakle's students, who discovers what he's doing and tries too late to intervene. His fiancee gets kidnapped by the ape and is next up for the experimental transfusion. If "Voodoo Man" broke the bank on weirdness, then "Rue Morgue" has the market cornered on savagery. As written by Poe, it may be a commentary on evolution. That's the way I see it, though admittedly my views are not in the mainstream.
The movie is staged like a play, with theatrical performances and costuming. Lugosi began his career on the stage in Hungary in 1901, so he was a veteran actor by the time he attained stardom on the silver screen in the early '30s. I think he was a lot better than he's often given credit for, though indeed he didn't get a chance to stretch out. For sheer horror, though, he can't be beat, and with "Dr. Mirakle" he's playing perhaps his most merciless role. Two Big Thumbs Up for "Murder in the Rue Morgue". This one looks like it's been restored in addition to the picture being razor sharp. It's only an hour long, so you can watch it on a double bill with "The Ghost of Rashmon Hall". That's the route I'd take tonight, if I were you. Even if you're going to a Halloween party, you can still get to bed by 2 am if you start the flicks shortly after Midnight. /////
So there you have it. Sorry the reviews weren't as full bodied as you've come to expect, but I had three films to cover, and I'm working on my book as well. I'm also getting in the Halloween spirit myself. Gonna watch the traditional "Mr. Toad/Ichabod Crane" dvd tonight, as well as another movie. Have a nice evening and a great Halloween in case I don't see ya tomorrow (though I'll try to). I send you Tons of Love as always!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment