Much like yesterday’s offering of Summer of Fear, today’s horror on the lens is a made-for-tv movie directed by Wes Craven.
First televised in 1984, Invitation to Hell is a wonderfully over-the-top depiction of what happens when an engineer (Robert Urich) sells out and goes to work for a big evil corporation. Long story short, Satan (in the form of Susan Lucci) takes over his family. Admittedly, this film does start slowly but, in the end, it’s a lot of fun.
Today’s horror on the lens is a 1978 made-for-TV movie that was directed by Wes Craven. Originally entitled Stranger In Our House, it was retitled Summer of Fear when it was released into theaters in Europe. Personally, I think Summer of Fear is a better title. It has a fun R.L. Stine feel to it.
As for the film itself, it tells the story of what happens when the recently orphaned Julia (Lee Purcell) moves in with her cousins in California. At first, Julia fits right in with her new family but, slowly and surely, her cousin Rachel (Linda Blair) comes to suspect that Julia might be a witch. And hey, who can’t relate to that? Seriously, everyone has that one cousin…
And, it’s actually pretty good. Working within the confines of what could and could not be shown on TV in the late 70s, Craven managed to make an effective little thriller.
Today’s horror on the lens is a haunted house film from 1992. In Amityville — It’s About Time, Jacob (Stephen Macht) buys a new clock for his home but what he doesn’t realize is that the clock comes from the infamous Amityville House! Soon, everyone in the family is acting strange. Has the clock brought evil spirits with it or–
Well, let’s not even consider the other possibilities. Of course the clock is full of evil spirits!
As I watched this film on YouTube last month, a lot of it seemed very familiar. I quickly realized that this was because Amityville — It’s About Time used to show up on HBO all the time when I was a kid. And while I never sat through the whole film, I did always somehow seem to manage to catch the most gruesome bits and pieces whenever it was on. And yes, it did give me nightmares!
Of course, the movie would not give me nightmares today but still, it’s good for what it is. Some of the scare scenes still work, especially the one involving the dog. Stephen Macht makes for a good psycho and, in the spirit of Halloween, you can even forgive the plot for not making a bit of sense.
Interesting to note: The uber annoying Lenny is played by Jonathan Penner, who would later find some fame as a three-time contestant on Survivor.
(Also, needless to say, this film is rather tame by today’s standards but it’s still NSFW!)
Watching Plan 9 From Outer Space is a bit of a Halloween tradition around the Shattered Lens Bunker and, if you know anything about me, you know that I’m all about tradition!
First released back in 1959 and directed by the infamous Ed Wood, Plan 9 From Outer Space is often described as being one of the worst films ever made. Well, every year, I take it upon myself to defend Plan 9 From Outer Space by pointing out that 1) as opposed to a truly terrible film like Man Of Steel, Plan 9 From Outer Space was made with next to no money, 2) Gregory Walcott does a fairly good job in the lead role, and 3) the film, at the very least, does seem to be sincere in its attempt to promote world peace. Add to that, the film is way too much fun to watch for it to be truly the worst film ever made.
So, seriously, can we at least give Ed Wood the amount of respect that we usually give to Tommy Wiseau?
Enjoy Plan 9 From Outer Space! And remember — can you prove it didn’t happen?
As I mentioned in a previous review, I’ve only got a few months left before I’m going to have to make out my list of the 16 worst and the 26 best films of 2014. With that in mind, I really need to get caught up on reviewing some of the films that might appear on those two lists. For the most part, I try to review every single movie that I see but, occasionally, a movie or two will slip through the cracks. And now, with Oscar season approaching but not quite arrived, seems like as good as time as any as to try to get caught up by reviewing two films that came out earlier this year: Renny Harlin’s The Legend of Hercules and Paul W. S. Anderson’s Pompeii.
The Legend of Hercules is a film that I first saw with my BFF Evelyn way back in January. And while I meant to review it after I first saw it, I simply never got around to actually doing so. Some of that is because, when Kellan Lutz first showed up on screen, Evelyn said, “Nice tits,” and I ended up laughing so hard that I nearly fell out of my seat. This led to Evelyn spending the entire film trying to make me laugh again and, in between all of the whispering and the giggling, we undoubtedly missed out on a lot of the film.
However, I recently rewatched The Legend of Hercules on Cinemax and I was quickly reminded about the other reason that I hadn’t gotten around to reviewing it. There’s really just not that much to say about The Legend of Hercules. It’s just not a very good film but yet it’s not bad in a fun way either. It’s just boring. As played by Kellan Lutz, Hercules wanders through the ancient world and he does all the stuff that you would expect Hercules to do. Actually, he does all the stuff that you would expect any character in a rip-off of 300 to do. The film could have just as easily been called The Legend of Eammon, an Irishman in Greece.
In fact, I’d really like to see a movie called The Legend of Eammon, an Irishman in Greece. Get on it, someone.
According to Wikipedia, The Legend of Hercules had a budget of 70 million dollars, which makes it a bit odd that the film itself just looks cheap and generic. At one point, Hercules fights a lion and the CGI is so bad that, for a few minutes, the movie looks like one of those senior projects that students occasionally upload to YouTube. (I was half-expecting to see a comment apologizing for the “crappy special effects” flash across the screen.) During the film’s many fight scenes, director Renny Harlin does that thing where every punch is shown in slow motion. It gets annoying after the hundredth time.
A few words about Kellan Lutz. I happen to like Kellan Lutz. I think he’s been likable in other roles. But, in The Legend of Hercules, he really did spend the entire movie looking like he was wishing that he could be anywhere else. But can you blame him?
For a far more enjoyable trip into the past, allow me to recommend a film that came out a few months after The Legend of Hercules, Pompeii.
Now, before I review Pompeii, I should admit that, as you all know, I am a history nerd and, as you all might not know, I’ve always been fascinated by the Roman Empire. The summer after I graduated high school, I took a trip to Italy and I actually walked through the streets of Pompeii. My two main memories of Pompeii: while we were touring an ancient brothel, an Australian man lay down on one of the slabs. My other memory is that it was a very windy day and I was wearing a skirt so I can legitimately say that not only have I visited Pompeii but I’ve flashed Pompeii as well.
Anyway, Pompeii the Movie tells the story of the final days of Pompeii the City. A Celtic slave and gladiator named Milo (Kit Harrington) is sent to Pompeii where he, in quick order, meets and romances the noble Cassia (Emily Browning), establishes a friendly rivalry with fellow gladiator Atticus (the always intimidating Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), spots the evil Roman General (Kiefer Sutherland) who killed Milo’s mother, and then eventually has to run for his life as a cloud of ash and a river of lava crashes down on Pompeii.
Pompeii is a lot of fun. Harrington and Browning have a lot of chemistry, all of the actors are obviously having a good time with their melodramatic dialogue, and Kiefer Sutherland was born to play an evil Roman. As opposed to the Legend of Hercules, Pompeii looks good and the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius is genuinely impressive. Perhaps best of all, the film actually allows things to play out to their natural and logical conclusion. For once, history is not changed just to force a happy ending on the viewers and Pompeii is all the better for it!
So, in conclusion: forget about The Legend of Hercules and give Pompeii a chance. Actually, you’ve probably already forgotten about The Legend of Hercules so just try not to suddenly remember it. But seriously, Pompeii is better than you might think.
I have always felt that film critics and bloggers should be open and honest about their biases. Most critics, of course, claim that their reviews are solely based on the merits of what they’ve seen and that they leave their personal political or religious beliefs out of it. That, needless to say, is complete bullshit and I’ve never quite understood why some people are so terrified over the prospect of being revealed to be just as biased as everyone else in the world. The fact of the matter is that critics are supposed to be opinionated and readers have a right to know exactly where those opinions are coming from.
With that in mind, allow me to let you know my mindset before I attempt to review Left Behind.
First off, you should know that I come from a Catholic family. On my Dad’s side, I’m Irish. On my mom’s side, I’m Italian and Spanish. Put those three together and basically, you’ve got a big and fiercely Catholic heritage to deal with. Therefore, I have to admit that I really don’t know a whole lot about the whole Evangelical Protestant background from which Left Behind apparently sprung. (In fact, the only thing that I really knew about the Left Behind books is that, apparently, most of the book’s Catholics get left behind.) So, who knows? Maybe some of the issues that I had were just a case of me not being a member of the film’s target audience.
Secondly, you should know that I love being a contrarian. I love any excuse to express an opinion that goes against the majority because, quite frankly, I think that there’s way too much groupthink going on when it comes to film reviewing. Far too often, it seems that critics have already decided which films that they’re going to love and which films that they’re going to hate. I knew that the critics were going to hate Left Behind so I was really hoping that the film would somehow be good. That way, I could write a review defending it and, best of all, I could annoy a lot of people. After all, the only thing worse than organized religion would be organized hipster douchebags.
(I’m looking in your direction, A.V. Club commenters….)
On the other hand, another part of me hoped that the movie would be really, really bad. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a truly bad film and, in another few months, it’s going to be time for me to make out my list of the 16 worst films of 2014. And since I can only list films that I’ve actually seen, I need to step up my game and see more bad movies. I mean, A Million Ways To Die In The West and Transformers 4 are a good start but they can’t make up the entire list…
Fourth, I was really hoping that Nicolas Cage would somehow be responsible for redeeming Left Behind. I hoped that he would either give a brilliant performance or he would give a performance so weird that the film itself would become oddly watchable. A lot of this is because Cage was so good in Joe that it kind of breaks my heart to see him throwing away whatever critical respect he may have regained by appearing in Left Behind…
And finally, I’m on vacation! Why is that important? Because it meant that, when Jeff and I went to Left Behind, we saw it in a theater that we’ll never have to visit again. As such, we didn’t have to worry about running into anyone we knew. Yay! (The theater, incidentally, was nearly empty. Jeff and I were the youngest people there…)
So, with all that in mind, Left Behind was really, really bad.
Nicolas Cage plays Rayford Steele and let’s just start with a bit of praise. Rayford Steele is a great name! Anyway, Rayford Steele is a pilot who, one day, is flying an airplane and thinking about cheating on his wife (Lea Thompson), who just happens to be an Evangelical Christian! (How religious is Mrs. Rayford Steele? So religious that she apparently carries her bible with her everywhere.) Rayford has picked the flight attendant that he’s going to cheat with. He’s even got brand new U2 tickets that he’s going to use for enticement because, apparently, Left Behind takes place in the 20th Century.
And then suddenly — his copilot vanishes! Several passengers on the plane vanish! Children all over the world vanish! It’s the Rapture, a point that becomes clear as soon as Rayford takes a look at a vanished flight attendant’s date book and sees “BIBLE STUDY” written in all caps.
Even worse, apparently every flight controller in the world was a Christian because there’s nobody on the ground to help Rayford land his plane. Uh-oh!
Also on the plane (and unraptured) is a reporter named Buck Williams (Chad Michael Murray) and, let’s just be honest — Buck Williams is not as good a name as Rayford Steele. Shortly before boarding the plane, Buck met Rayford’s daughter, Chloe, (Cassi Thomson) and they bonded over their mutual atheism.
(Chloe might as well have been wearing a Neil deGrasse Tyson t-shirt.)
Of course, post-rapture, Chloe spends most of the day desperately searching for her mother and her younger brother. Riots are breaking out down on the ground. Airplanes are falling from the sky. Will Chloe survive?
(Ha, Chloe! Where’s your Neil deGrasse Tyson now!?)
One thing that I did find interesting is just how quickly society collapsed after the Rapture. It’s almost as if everyone in the world decided, “Now that the children are gone, let’s burn this place down!”
To be honest, it all felt a bit like a SyFy original film. SyFy films are almost always divided in half, with 50% of the film dealing with someone in either a plane or a boat while the other half of the film deals with that person’s son or daughter trying to lead a group of idiots to safety and hopefully avoid the monster. It’s tempting to think of what a SyFy version of Left Behind would look like. It would probably be a lot more fun than this one…
Anyway, the problem with Left Behind is that it’s just so boring. The film takes forever to get going and then, once everyone vanishes, the film tries to generate some suspense as to what happened but we already know it was the Rapture so why drag it out? The dialogue is flat, the performers do just enough to get by, and it’s obvious that the majority of the film’s budget was spent on Nicolas Cage. This, of course, is what I expected but I was hoping that Nicolas Cage would at least go crazy. Well, he doesn’t. In fact, he’s remarkable restrained and this film, if nothing else, proves that Cage can deliver even the worst dialogue with conviction and a straight face.
But we don’t want a restrained Cage in a film like Left Behind! We not only wanted him to go crazy, we needed him to go crazy! And he didn’t and, as a result, the film is even more disappointing than it would be otherwise.
Now, you may have noticed that I referred to Left Behind as being a “horror (?)” film in the title of this review. My argument there is that the film is obviously meant to scare nonbelievers. Indeed, this film was actually advertised with a pull quote from Satan. (“Please don’t take nonbelievers to this film.” — Satan.) Unfortunately, I think that Left Behind missed an opportunity. If the filmmakers had strictly focused on the horrific implications of being left behind — as opposed to trying to be both a sermon and a disaster movie, it probably would have been a lot more effective. Seriously, The Exorcist is probably the most effective religious film ever made.
Now, I do have to take issue with some of Left Behind‘s critics. Quite a few critics have made it a point to say, “Even if you agree with the film’s worldview, you’ll be annoyed by the bad acting and the bad directing…” Uhmmm …. no. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. Usually, people will enjoy any film that supports their beliefs, regardless of how terrible it is. That goes for all people regardless of religion or ideology. We all enjoy having our beliefs confirmed.
But, yeah — Left Behind is pretty bad. Is it the worst film of the year?
Well, the year’s not over yet.
So, last night, my boyfriend and I watched Nurse 3D because, based on the trailer that was released way back in January, we thought that it would be a sexy, fun, and enjoyably lurid movie. Do you remember that trailer? In case you need a reminder, here it is:
So, we finally got around to watching the movie and oh my God, you guys — sometimes trailers lie! I know, I know — it’s a shock. I’m still struggling to deal with it myself!
Actually, technically, the trailer for Nurse 3D doesn’t really lie. The trailer tells us that the film is about a nurse who is obsessed with another nurse and who spends the majority of the film wearing only a bra. And that’s true! But, somehow, the trailer also makes the film look like it’s a lot more fun than it actually is. The trailer reveals that Nurse 3D is meant to be something of a satirical tribute to the exploitation films of the past. What it doesn’t reveal is that the film largely does not work.
In Nurse 3D, Paz de la Huerta plays Abby Russell, a nurse who also happens to be a serial killer. When we first meet her, she’s wandering through a club in a black lace, see-through dress. In a narration that de la Huerta delivers in an emotionless drone, Abby explains that men are a disease that has been created in an “alcoholic petri dish” and that is now “infecting innocent vaginas.”
“There is only one cure for the married cock,” Abby tells us, “Only me. I’m the nurse.”
Abby, we discover, specializes in murdering married men who are on the verge of committing adultery. Sounds like a good idea for a movie, right? Well, don’t get too attached to it because, once we get through the opening credits, that entire storyline pretty much disappears.
Instead, Abby becomes obsessed with a new nurse named Danni Rogers (Katrina Bowden). One night, after Danni both has a fight with her boyfriend (Corbin Bleu) and gets yelled at by a jerk of a doctor (played by Judd Nelson), Abby invites Danni out to a club. Abby gets Danni drunk and drugged and soon they’re making out on the dance floor. The next morning, Danni wakes up in Abby’s bed. When Danni refuses to spend the day with Abby and quickly leaves, Abby reacts by trying to destroy Danni’s life…
And that plot line goes on for a while until, eventually, the filmmakers remembered that this was supposed to be a 3D film and, with the exception of one man hurtling towards the camera after being tossed off a rooftop, nothing in the film has really lent itself to whole 3D thing. So, suddenly, Abby goes from being coolly calculating to being batshit insane, essentially so that she’ll have an excuse to toss medical equipment straight at the camera.
(I’m going to guess that this all probably looked really impressive in 3D but since we were watching the film in 2D, who cares?)
And then, eventually, the movie ends.
I like what Nurse 3D was trying to do. The film is obviously meant to pay homage to the classic exploitation films to the past. That was obvious in everything from the overwritten narration to the hilariously fetishized nurses uniforms to the unapologetically sordid nature of the entire plot.
However, the film’s execution left a lot to be desired. For all of it’s attempts to celebrate over-the-top exploitation, the film never quite seems to understand what makes those films so memorable in the first place. Perhaps if Nurse 3D had stuck with being a film about a nurse who kills cheating husbands, the film would have worked. But, instead, it just becomes yet another film about an obsessive friend who turns out to be a psycho and who, fortunately for her, is lucky enough to be surrounded by people too stupid to pick up on the most obvious of clues.
And it doesn’t help that, whatever the joke was that Nurse 3D was trying to tell, it’s obvious that Paz de la Huerta was not in on it. In many ways, her character is meant to be a throwback to the great and deadly femme fatales of yesterday but it takes more than having a good body to be a femme fatale. You have to have style and that’s totally what her performance is missing. Scarlett Johansson could have worked wonders with the role of Abby Russell but Paz de la Huerta just seems to be lost.
That’s actually a pretty good description of Nurse 3D. It started out on the right track but, obviously, it lost its way.
Okay, so technically, the Italian 1980 film The Pumaman isn’t really a horror film. However, it does fit in with Halloween because it’s about a super hero and who hasn’t dressed up as a super hero for Halloween? (Well, I never have but I’m sure a lot of other people have!)
The Pumaman is actually a paleontologist named Tony (Walter George Alton) who, though he doesn’t realize it, is the last in a long line of Pumamen. Fortunately, an Aztec mystic shows up and lets him know. When Tony expresses some doubt, the mystic responds by tossing him out a window.
And you know what?
It’s a good thing that Tony has learned the truth about his heritage because the evil Dr. Kobras (Donald Pleasence, who reportedly considered this to be the worst film he ever appeared in) has an evil scheme to do something evil. To be honest, I’m not sure what Dr. Kobras is trying to do, though it has something to do with an ancient mask and mind control.
I watched Pumaman a few months ago with my friends from SyFyDesigns.com. I have to admit that I was not a huge fan of the movie but everyone else seemed to enjoy it. The Pumaman himself is kind of a boring hero but Donald Pleasence is a lot of fun as Dr. Kobras. Plus, the haunting Theme From Pumaman will get stuck in your head (don’t say that I didn’t warn you…).
Enjoy!
This is part two of my attempt at partaking in a October horror marathon. The first part of which can be found here.
October 5th (Watched two because I didn’t have time on the 4th): ‘Frankenstein’s Army’ (dir. Richard Raaphorst)
‘Frankenstein’s Army’ is a WWII found footage film with a weirdness and creativity that makes for one fun, goofy and clever experience…if you can get past the headache inducing sound design.
The film is about a small squad of Russian soldiers, behind enemy lines, who stumble upon an eerily abandoned church. What they find inside is a lab of a decedent of Victor Frankenstein, who has been experimenting with the bodies of soldiers (friend and foe) and turning them into mindless monsters mixed with machinery of all sorts.
The film is shot in a found footage style and it actually works. The explanation behind it is essentially they are trying to make a propaganda film. There is the usual question as to why they are still filming during certain scenes, but I actually think the film as a whole would not have worked as well had it been filmed conventionally.
The best thing about the film is easily the production, at least visually. There are some really well done long takes, often with characters in the background doing things that one might miss if they aren’t paying attention. The costume/monster designs are wonderfully weird and creative. They definitely had fun with the concept, and it shows.
The only issue I had was the sound design, which was mindbogglingly annoying. I mean really bad. So screechy, scratchy and just plain irritating. I understand that because of the nature of some of the monsters and their machine parts that it would require these sorts of sounds, but ultimately they add nothing to the experience except a headache. However, this might only be me. Others might not have the same response, so I won’t really hold it against the film – I just probably will never watch it again.
Overall this is a fun, if hollow, film worthy of at least one viewing. The performances aren’t great, and the dialogue is exactly what you’d expect from this sort of film. There is no subtext and no real scares. Still, it is so creative and so bat-shit crazy at times that it would be a shame to pass it up if given the opportunity. Especially when it is a lean 84 minutes.
‘The Midnight Meat Train’ (dir. Ryûhei Kitamura)
‘The Midnight Meat Train’ is a brutal and violent horror film, that is unfortunately dragged down by some scripting and pacing issues.
The film stars Bradley Cooper as a photographer who, after being told to be a bit riskier in his search for great photos, finds himself face to face with Vinnie Jones, a butcher who is brutally murdering people on a train. Cooper begins to follow Jones in an attempt to gather evidence of the murders, all the while the darkness of the situation taking its tool emotionally on him.
The biggest issue I had was the pacing of the story as well as the characters. It is a weird situation in which I simultaneously wished it would slow down in terms of character development, while also picking up the pacing for the horror. There is such a rapid shift in the emotions of the characters that – although valid – happen way to abruptly. What is worse is that it isn’t like they don’t have enough time to draw this out. Because they do…almost too much so, to the point that I was also wishing they’d hurry up with the horror elements.
This wouldn’t have been too big of an issue if not for the fact that it made me lose interest in a lot of what was happening. I wasn’t invested in the characters or the horror because of it, and so any attempts at creating suspense were lost of me – leaving me with only the graphic and brutal kills on the train, which just aren’t my thing. I can handle gore, but find it utterly pointless – and distasteful – when there is little to no meaning behind it.
It wasn’t all bad though, with the stand out being the direction. There is some really great camerawork, especially in a scene set in an apartment. I also liked the visual contrasts between the surface and train scenes; and Vinnie Jones was cool, calm and terrifying. The ending was also great, where there is a reveal of a mythical plot line that is alluded to throughout most of the film. It is a very weird tonal shift, and goes a long way towards adding meaning to a lot of what came before it…sadly it is a case of too little too late.
Overall I didn’t hate it, but an hour in I was just ready for it to finally be over…and imagine my dismay when I realized there was another 40 minutes or so left. It is the sort of horror film in which its failings are harder for me to ignore, as I might in another film, given the content. If you are looking for just a gory horror film in which the shock value is simply the brutal violence, then this might be for you. If you are looking for something with a bit more substance, than you may want to look elsewhere.
October 6th: ‘Black Christmas’ (dir. Bob Clark)
‘Black Christmas’, considered to be one of the first ever slasher films, is an efficient, effective and highly enjoyable horror film – one I will definitely revisit often.
The film is set during Christmas at a sorority, the members of which are being harassed by someone making creepy prank calls. As many of them leave for the holiday break, one goes missing, setting off a search for her and the person calling the house. As the remaining sorority sisters try to deal with this, they begin to be killed off one by one by a killer who may potentially be someone very close to them.
The only issue I had was with a particular mannerism of the killer. The film took on a first person perspective whenever he appeared – which was effectively spooky- but there was quite a lot of moaning and weird grunts coming from him at the same time. They were meant to be eerie, and in the end worked because of the nature of his mania and the calls to the house – but it was ultimately more annoying than unsettling.
But I can easily overlook this minor issue because of just how well made the film is. There is a genuine feeling of suspense here, partly because of the whodunit nature of the murders; and also because of the closeness of the killer throughout the events of the film. You never know who it is, what will set him off, or who will be killed next – but you do know he is there, waiting.
That said, it isn’t necessarily a scary film per se, but an unsettling and bleak one. The sort that gets under your skin and sticks with you. However, with that, it has to be said that through all the bleakness, there is also a great sense of humor to the story. There is also actually a maturity and depth to the script that I wasn’t expecting. This might be set in a sorority, but it isn’t about partying and dim witted topless girls, like so many slashers that came after it. The women here are smart and mature, dealing with important family and relationship issues. This added a lot to my investment in the characters, and so made the fear of their potential demise all the more suspenseful.
The direction is great – Christmas makes for a perfect setting, at least visually. There is solid pacing and an effective slow build throughout. I was surprised how well the mystery it creates in its first few scenes holds up so well even when things slow down a bit halfway through. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that even when it might not be focused on its creepier slasher elements, it instead is focused on those previously mentioned characters – again making the suspense as the killer stalks them all the more effective. There is no real resolution to the story, but the film is less focused on the actual killer and more focused on building an atmosphere and a story that is almost mythical.
Lastly, as someone who isn’t too knowledgeable in regards to the genre, it was easy to initially think that a lot of the tropes in play were cliche…but once I took into consideration the fact that ‘Black Christmas’ came out in 1974, and was really the start of most of these, they actually added a level of admiration to my already high level of enjoyment. It might not be as good as something like ‘Halloween’, which clearly drew some influence from this, but it deserves to be considered just as much of a classic. This is easily the best film I’ve watched so far for this horror series, and one that I’d add to my list of favorite horror films of all time.
*Side note, it is absolutely hilarious that director Bob Clark also directed ‘A Christmas Story’.
For today’s selection of horror on the lens, we offer up the odd 1965 horror/sci-fi/beach movie hybrid, Frankenstein Meets The Space Monster. Despite the movie’s title, it’s not about Frankenstein. Instead, it’s about an astronaut named Frank who is actually an android. When his latest mission into space goes wrong, Frank ends up crashing in Puerto Rico. Now malfunctioning, Frank causes some major chaos. Can his creator, Dr. Adam Steele (played by character actor James Karen, who years later would appear in Return of the Living Dead), track Frank down and put an end to his reign of terror?
And what about the Martians? Android Frank isn’t the only threat in Puerto Rico. A group of Martians have landed and are determined to kidnap any girl wearing a bikini so that they can use them to repopulate their race. We’re told that every woman on Mars — with the apparent exception of Princess Marcuzan, played with evil haughtiness by Marilyn Hanold — has been killed as the result of an atomic war. Assisting Princess Marcuzan is Dr. Nadir (Lou Cutell), a short, bald Martian with pointy ears.
One of the oddest things about Frankenstein Meets The Space Monster is that, despite being a standard — if wonderfully nonsensical — low-budget B-movie, it features a great soundtrack!
Enjoy!
