Review: For a Few Dollars More (dir. by Sergio Leone)


“When two hunters go after the same prey, they usually end up shooting each other in the back. And we don’t want to shoot each other in the back.” — Col. Douglas Mortimer

For a Few Dollars More is the moment Sergio Leone’s western style starts to feel fully formed: larger, stranger, more emotionally bruised, and far more confident in its ability to turn silence into suspense. Released in 1965, it serves as the second leg of Leone’s “Dollar’s Trilogy,” following A Fistful of Dollars and preceding The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It shares the earlier film’s basic ingredients—dusty towns, morally compromised gunmen, crooked institutions, and Ennio Morricone’s unforgettable music—but it is not simply a bigger repeat. Leone takes the stripped-down revenge-and-gold framework of the first movie and gives it a darker emotional center. This is a western about obsession, damaged masculinity, and a world in which violence does not restore order so much as expose how little order existed in the first place.

Clint Eastwood returns as the Man with No Name, although he is called Manco here, and he is still the same lean, poncho-wearing opportunist viewers met in A Fistful of Dollars. He moves through the film with that familiar mixture of cocky calm and barely concealed menace. Manco is a bounty hunter, collecting rewards for dead criminals with an efficiency that makes his work feel almost casual. There is comedy in his early scenes, especially in the way he manages an absurdly large number of wanted men, but the humor has a sharp edge. Manco is not a conventional hero. He is charming because he is capable, because he has style, and because Eastwood knows exactly how little effort the role needs. A squint, a pause, or a hand resting near a gun does more than most full pages of dialogue.

The major difference is that this time Eastwood is not alone at the center of the story. Lee Van Cleef enters as Colonel Douglas Mortimer, another bounty hunter, and his presence gives the film its real dramatic charge. Mortimer is older, more formal, and more openly haunted than Manco. Where Manco seems motivated largely by money and survival, Mortimer carries himself like a man pursuing something much more personal. Their relationship begins as a rivalry, with both men circling the same targets and testing one another’s abilities. Leone gets a lot of mileage out of the contrast: Eastwood is loose and youthful, Van Cleef is rigid and calculating; one looks like he has wandered in from the wilderness, while the other has the manner of a retired officer who never truly left the battlefield.

Their eventual partnership is what makes For a Few Dollars More so satisfying. It is a buddy movie in the least sentimental sense possible. Neither man becomes especially warm or expressive, and their bond is built less on trust than on mutual respect for professional competence. They know the other is dangerous. They also know that the other may be necessary. Leone stages their alliance with a kind of deadpan amusement, particularly when Manco and Mortimer try to outdo each other with increasingly elaborate shooting demonstrations. Those sequences are entertaining because they are absurdly masculine, but the film never lets the spectacle become completely weightless. In this world, skill with a gun is not a sport; it is a qualification for survival.

The villain, Gian Maria Volonté’s El Indio, pushes the film decisively into darker territory than A Fistful of Dollars. Volonté had already played a memorable antagonist in Leone’s previous film, but El Indio is far more unsettling than Ramón Rojo. He is not merely greedy or power-hungry. He is psychologically ruined, driven by trauma and by a sadistic need to revisit it. His recurring pocket-watch motif, paired with Morricone’s chiming melody, becomes one of the film’s great inventions. The tune begins almost innocently, but Leone gradually turns it into a signal of dread. Every time El Indio opens the watch, it feels as though time itself has stopped and everyone nearby has been sentenced to wait for death.

The backstory tied to El Indio is where the movie reveals just how much more disturbing its narrative ambitions are. Leone and his screenwriters introduce subjects that are much uglier than the genre’s usual tales of outlaws and frontier justice: rape, suicide, and the lingering horror of sexual violence. The film does not handle these ideas with contemporary sensitivity, and it is not interested in exploring their victims with the depth they deserve. Still, their presence changes the atmosphere. El Indio’s trauma is not abstract; it is tied to a violent violation and the suicide that follows it. That history does not humanize him in any easy way, nor does it excuse him. Instead, it explains the repetitive, self-destructive pattern of his cruelty. He is obsessed with an event he cannot undo, and he converts that obsession into violence against everyone around him.

That theme of obsession runs through nearly every important character. Mortimer’s pursuit of El Indio turns out to be rooted in a personal wound that has shaped his entire life. His bounty-hunting career, disciplined exterior, and almost mechanical precision are revealed as part of a long-delayed act of vengeance. Manco, meanwhile, is obsessed in a different and less tragic way: with winning, with money, and with proving that he cannot be manipulated. Even the gang’s massive bank robbery has an obsessive quality. It is overcomplicated, theatrical, and clearly more about El Indio demonstrating power over his men than about securing wealth. Leone’s characters do not simply want things. They become imprisoned by them.

The plot itself is fairly direct, though Leone fills it with enough betrayal and shifting alliances to keep it lively. El Indio and his gang target the bank in El Paso, using a jailbreak as part of a larger scheme. Manco and Mortimer separately infiltrate the group, both pursuing the reward on El Indio’s head while working toward their own goals. From there, the film becomes a tense contest of patience. Leone is never in a rush to deliver a payoff. He lets scenes breathe, often lingering on faces, boots, hands, doorways, and empty spaces. In another director’s hands, this could feel slow. Here, it feels like the movie is daring the audience to notice every tiny movement before the gunfire begins.

That visual patience is one of Leone’s greatest strengths. For a Few Dollars More is full of faces that feel weathered by the landscape around them. The film’s close-ups are almost confrontational, catching sweat, stubble, suspicious glances, and flashes of fear. Leone makes the human face as important as the wide-open Spanish locations standing in for the American West. He also understands that scale works best through contrast. A showdown can begin with an extreme close-up of a man’s eyes, then pull back to reveal two tiny figures facing each other in a vast, empty space. The result is both operatic and intimate.

Morricone’s score deserves equal credit for making the movie feel larger than life. The music is less a background element than another character in the story. Whistles, bells, guitar, percussion, and that eerie watch melody give the film a sound unlike the traditional Hollywood western. It is playful in some moments and nightmarish in others. Most importantly, it makes the climactic duel feel like the culmination of everything the film has been building toward. The final confrontation is not just about who draws first. It is about memory, guilt, revenge, and whether a person can ever truly escape the worst moment of their life.

If A Fistful of Dollars was Leone proving that he could reinvent the western with attitude, For a Few Dollars More is him demonstrating that the formula could carry genuine darkness. It is still stylish, funny, and gleefully exaggerated. It still has impossible gunplay, swaggering antiheroes, and scenes designed purely to make the audience grin. But beneath all that is a colder film. Its violence is tied to trauma. Its men are defined by grudges they cannot release. Its most memorable villain is terrifying not because he is invincible, but because he is already spiritually broken.

Eastwood remains iconic, but Van Cleef is arguably the film’s emotional anchor. His performance gives the story weight without ever becoming melodramatic. Volonté, meanwhile, creates one of the great spaghetti-western villains: volatile, wounded, cruel, and unforgettable whenever that pocket watch begins to play. Leone would go even bigger and more ambitious with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but For a Few Dollars More may be the trilogy’s most focused character piece. It takes the sparse coolness of its predecessor and adds scars, grief, and a genuinely haunted sense of purpose.

Review: A Fistful of Dollars (dir. by Sergio Leone)


“When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, you said, the man with a pistol’s a dead man. Let’s see if that’s true.” — Joe

When examining the films that fundamentally reshaped a genre, 1964’s A Fistful of Dollars stands as an undeniable cornerstone. Directed by Sergio Leone, this movie didn’t just accidentally stumble into creating a new genre; it grabbed the classic American western by the collar, dragged it into the mud, and spat on its shiny boots. This was the first leg of Leone’s “Dollar’s Trilogy,” and honestly, looking back at it now, it’s kind of crazy to think about how much of an underdog this production was. It was made on a shoestring budget, shot in Spain with a bunch of Italian and Spanish actors speaking different languages and then dubbed over, and it featured a lead actor who was mostly known for playing a lovable cowboy on a little American TV show called Rawhide. Nobody expected A Fistful of Dollars to become a massive international hit, but it did, and it permanently altered the cinematic landscape.

The story itself feels incredibly familiar today, but that’s only because it has been copied and homaged about a million times since. Unapologetically lifting the plot from Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo, the film follows a gritty, chain-smoking drifter who rides into a dusty, miserable border town called San Miguel. But the fun part about this cinematic lineage is that Yojimbo wasn’t entirely original either. Kurosawa openly borrowed the core concept from Dashiell Hammett’s hardboiled detective novels, specifically Red Harvest and The Glass Key. Both of those books featured a lone, cynical protagonist who manipulates warring criminal factions fighting it out for control of a corrupt town. So Leone was essentially taking a Japanese interpretation of an American noir trope, stripping it down, and repackaging it as a western. Once our drifter arrives in San Miguel, he quickly realizes the town is torn apart by two rival gangs: the Baxters, a family of American gun-runners, and the Rojos, a ruthless group of Mexican smugglers. Instead of playing the traditional white-hat hero who immediately picks a side and saves the day, our guy does the exact opposite. He decides to play both sides against each other, hiring himself out to the highest bidder, switching loyalties at the drop of a hat, and essentially bleeding the town dry for his own profit. It is a brilliantly cynical setup that completely subverted what western audiences were used to seeing at the time.

And then there is Clint Eastwood. Now, pop culture famously knows him as the Man with No Name, but that is actually the result of a very clever piece of US marketing. In A Fistful of Dollars, his character absolutely has a name: Joe. The American distributors thought the mysterious, anonymous angle sounded cooler for the posters, and the moniker stuck so hard over the decades that most people forget he literally introduces himself as Joe to the locals early on in the movie. Regardless of what you call him, when Leone cast Eastwood, American studios were apparently confused, wondering why an Italian director would want a TV actor to lead a movie. But Leone saw something in Eastwood’s squint, a kind of rugged, lazy menace that was perfect for this new brand of anti-hero. Joe isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s greedy, he’s manipulative, and he kills people without losing a wink of sleep. But he has an undeniable coolness to him that is just magnetic. The costume design plays a massive part here too. The weathered brown poncho, the stubble, the short cigar clamped in his jaw, and that iconic hat all combined to create a look that felt lived-in and dangerous. Compared to the impeccably groomed, brightly dressed cowboys of the 1950s, Eastwood looked like he actually smelled like sweat, horse hair, and gunpowder.

Of course, a conversation about A Fistful of Dollars is totally incomplete without talking about the villains, because Leone knew how to cast bad guys who were genuinely terrifying. Gian Maria Volonté plays Ramón Rojo, the main antagonist, and he is absolutely phenomenal. Ramón isn’t just a cartoonish thug; he is smart, cold-blooded, and utterly devoid of mercy. There is a famous scene where Ramón is demonstrating the accuracy of his rifle by shooting at the heart of a man he has just murdered at long range, and Volonté plays it with such a creepy, casual indifference that it makes your skin crawl. The Baxters are mostly just pathetic pawns, but the Rojos feel like a legitimate, organized threat, which makes the stakes feel incredibly real. You genuinely believe that if Joe slips up even once, these guys will brutally torture and kill him without a second thought.

Visually, A Fistful of Dollars is an absolute masterclass in atmosphere. Leone was working with a limited budget, but he used what he had to create a style that felt massive. He employed these extreme, lingering close-ups of people’s eyes, sweaty faces, and flies buzzing around, which gave the film an almost unbearable tension. Then he would suddenly cut to these massive, sweeping wide shots of the barren Spanish desert, making the characters look like tiny, insignificant specks in a cruel, uncaring world. The violence was also shockingly graphic for the time. People didn’t just clutch their chests and fall over gracefully like they did in older westerns. They bled, they grimaced in agony, and the gunfights felt loud, chaotic, and messy. Leone stripped away the romanticism of the Wild West and replaced it with a gritty, dirty reality that felt much more authentic, even if it was entirely a fabricated Italian fantasy of America.

You also absolutely have to talk about Ennio Morricone’s legendary musical score. It is basically a character in the film itself. Before A Fistful of Dollars, western soundtracks were mostly made up of traditional orchestral arrangements and folksy songs. Morricone threw that playbook out the window. He used electric guitars, twanging banjos, screaming trumpets, whip cracks, choral chants, and even a bizarre, wailing coyote sound that sounds like a human having a mental breakdown. The main theme is so incredibly catchy and weird that it burrows into your brain and stays there for days. The music didn’t just support the action on screen; it told the audience exactly how to feel, ramping up the tension during the standoffs and giving Eastwood’s character a larger-than-life aura. Without Morricone’s score, the Spaghetti Western genre simply would not exist as we know it.

The pacing of the movie is something that modern audiences might need a minute to adjust to, but it is completely intentional. Leone was in absolutely no rush to get from point A to point B. He wanted to linger on the tension, letting scenes breathe and stretch out to almost uncomfortable lengths. When Eastwood is staring down a group of thugs in the street, Leone holds the camera on their faces for what feels like an eternity. You can see the sweat dripping, you can see the fear building, and by the time the first shot is finally fired, the release of tension is almost physical. It is a slow burn that requires a bit of patience, but it makes the eventual bursts of violence so much more impactful and satisfying. It is the exact opposite of the fast-paced, action-packed blockbusters we get today, and that deliberate slowness is a huge part of its strange, hypnotic charm.

Despite all of Joe’s outward greed and manipulation, there is a subtle emotional core to the film that keeps you totally invested. It comes in the form of Marisol, a woman who is being held captive by Ramón Rojo and used as leverage against her husband. When Eastwood sees the absolute misery of this family, his cold exterior cracks just a little bit. He risks his entire scheme, and his own life, to sneak Marisol and her son out of town in the middle of the night, giving them money to start over. It is a beautifully quiet, understated scene that proves there is still a shred of humanity left underneath all that grit and cynicism. He doesn’t make a big speech about it or ask for thanks; he just does it because it is the right thing to do. It gives the character a moral center without turning him into a traditional good guy, which is a really difficult balancing act that the film pulls off perfectly.

The climax of the film is where everything comes together in a spectacular display of style and sheer badassery. After getting brutally beaten by the Rojos, Eastwood escapes and returns for revenge, utilizing a makeshift iron chest plate hidden under his poncho. Watching him walk slowly down the empty street, taking bullet after bullet to the chest without flinching, while the electric guitar wails in the background is just pure, unadulterated cinema magic. He outdraws Ramón in a final, agonizingly tense standoff, proving that his wits and his nerve are just as deadly as his revolver. It is the perfect payoff to the slow build-up of the entire movie, cementing Joe as an absolute icon of pop culture.

And this endless game of cinematic telephone didn’t stop with Leone. Just as A Fistful of Dollars was heavily “inspired by Yojimbo“—which itself transplanted the 1920s pulp noir concept into the 1860 Edo period—it went on to inspire a whole new wave of imitators looking to put their own spin on the formula. The most obvious example is the 1996 action flick Last Man Standing starring Bruce Willis, which takes the exact same plot of warring factions and a lone drifter playing them against each other, but moves the action to a Prohibition-era Texas border town. It is wild to trace that DNA from a 1920s pulp novel to the 1860 Edo period, to a 1960s Italian western, and all the way to a 1990s Bruce Willis shoot-em-up, proving just how durable and universally cool this basic storyline really is.

Looking at A Fistful of Dollars today, it is easy to see the cracks in its foundation. The dubbing is notoriously clunky, some of the supporting performances are a bit wooden, and the fact that it is a direct rip-off of a Japanese masterpiece is impossible to ignore. But honestly, none of that really matters in the grand scheme of things. Leone took a great story and injected it with so much style, so much attitude, and so much raw energy that it became its own completely distinct entity. As the first leg of Leone’s “Dollar’s Trilogy,” it laid the foundational blueprint that he would later perfect with For a Few Dollars More and absolutely master with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. But there is something special about this first outing. It has a rougher, scrappier, and more experimental vibe that is incredibly fun to watch. It is the movie that killed the old western and birthed the new one, and for that alone, it deserves every bit of its legendary status.

Missile X: The Tehran Incident (1979, directed by Leslie H. Martinson)


The international terrorist and casino owner known as The Baron (Curd Jurgens) has stolen a Soviet-made nuclear warhead.  With the help of Prof. Nikolaeff (John Carradine), the Baron is planning on dropping the warhead on an international peace conference that is being held off the coast of Iran.  American Alec Franklin (Peter Graves) and Russians Konstanine Senyonov (Michael Dante) and Galina Fedorovna (Karin Schubert) want to prevent the Baron from doing that but, in order to stop the Baron, they’re going to need the help of Leila (Pouri Baneai), a member of the Shah’s secret police.

Missile X was a German-Italian-Spanish co-production that was shot on location in Tehran with the full cooperation of the Shah of Iran.  The film goes out of its way to attempt to present the Shah-era Tehran as being a modern and welcoming city, the type of place that anyone would by a fool not to choose for a vacation.  The Shah’s secret police are portrayed as being friendly and heroic and the only time the name “Ayatollah Khomeini” is mentioned is when Alex and Leila are listening to a radio and a news report mentions that Khomeini is far away in Paris.  Leila turns off the radio in the middle of the report, as if to say, “There’s someone will never have to think about again.”  Unfortunately, for both the film and the world at large, that was the case.  In an example of truly bad timing, Missile X was not released in the United States until December 10th, 1979, six days after Khomeini officially took control of Iran and a month into the Iran hostage crisis.  By the time the film was released, the Shah had long-since fled Iran and was seeking asylum and medical care in the United States.

As for the film itself, imagine a Bond film with no car chases, no exciting action sequences, no creative gadgets, and no one-liners.  Imagine also that the main Russian was played by an American who don’t even attempt to speak with any sort of accent.  On top of that, imagine if James Bond himself came across less like a ruthless super spy and more like an insurance executive trying not to overspend on the company account while on a business trip.  Curd Jurgens actually did play a memorable Bond villain in The Spy Who Loved Me but he sleepwalks his way through Missile X.  Not even giving him a mute henchman with a knife-hand can make the Baron seems dangerous.  Even if you can overlook all of that, the Baron’s plan never makes sense.  What does he have to gain from blowing up a peace conference?  Alec and Konstantine both agree that the Baron’s actions will probably start World War III and lead to the end of the world but it’s never explained why the Baron would want that.  Presumably, the Baron would end up getting blown up with everyone else.

Of course, you don’t have to imagine any of this.  You can just watch Missile X — The Tehran Incident.

Horror On The Lens: Monstroid: It Came From The Lake (dir by Kenneth Hartford)


Monster_aka_-Monstroid,_It_Came_from_the_Lake-_poster_1980

Today, we have a little indie film from 1980.  This film was released under several names, including Monster.  However, I prefer the title under which it has been included in several Mill Creek box sets: Monstroid: It Came From The Lake!

Monstroid tells the story of what happens when a monster emerges from a lake and starts killing people in Columbia.  Superstitious villagers blame a local woman whom they believe to be a witch.  Even though the town priest (and no horror fan should be surprised to discover that the priest is played by John Carradine) claims that he can exorcise the evil spirits that have possessed her, the villagers would rather burn her at the stake.  Meanwhile, the local Big Evil Corporation has sent in Travis (James Mitchum) to take care of the monster!

And what a monster!  Listen, there’s a lot of negative things that I could say about this low-budget film but the monster is simply adorable and must be seen by anyone who appreciates the rubber monsters that populated horror films in the days before CGI.

Plus, how can you resist a film that features not only Robert Mitchum’s son but John Carradine as well?

Enjoy Monstroid: It Came From The Lake!

A Movie A Day #334: Charley One-Eye (1973, directed by Don Chaffey)


Welcome to the old west, where life is brutal and unpredictable.  Ben (Richard Roundtree) joined the Union Army so he could kill white men.  When his commanding officer caught Ben in bed with his wife, Ben was forced to commit murder and go on the run.  When Ben stumbles across an unnamed Indian (Roy Thinnes) with a bad leg, Ben forces the Indian to accompany him.  Despite Ben being loud, cruel, and mentally unstable, an unlikely friendship develops between Ben and the Indian, cemented by their mutual hatred of the white man.  When they find a deserted church, Ben and the Indian settle in and start to raise chickens.  The Indian’s favorite chicken is a one-eyed bird that he has named Charley.  Meanwhile, the Bounty Hunter (Nigel Davenport), a British racist, retraces their every step.

Richard Roundtree made Charley One-Eye after shooting to fame as John Shaft.  This film was his attempt to show that he was capable of playing more than just the black private dick that’s a sex machine to all the ladies.  Ben is a world away from Shaft.  There’s nothing smooth or charming about Ben, who never stop laughing or talking about how much he wants to kill a white man.  (Though the character introduces himself as being named “Ben,” the end credits simply read, “The Black Man … Richard Roundtree.”) The Indian is also half-crazy and given to fits of laughter.  The Bounty Hunter never laughs.  Whenever these three aren’t talking, the sound of buzzing flies is heard.  Death and decay are all around.

Don Chaffey was a British director who best known for films like Jason and the Argonauts and One Million Years B.C.  Charley One-Eye was a strange departure for him and he would never make another film like it.  It has elements of the Blaxploitation genre and Spaghetti western fans will recognize Aldo Sambrell in the tiny role of a Mexican bandit.  But it is really neither blaxploitation nor a western.  It’s a slowly paced, sometimes boring character study of two outsiders.  Both Roundtree and Thinnes give good performances, though their characters are sometimes hard-to-take.  The only thing that makes Ben and the Indian tolerable is that their enemies, like the Bounty Hunter, are a hundred times worse.  There is a weird religious subtext running through the entire movie and the ending will leave you wondering whether the director of Jason and the Argonauts was actually calling for armed revolution.  Charley One-Eye is uneven and it goes on for at least thirty minutes too long but it is still an intriguingly strange movie.

One final note: Charley One-Eye was produced by none other than David Frost, the British media personality whose post-presidency interview with Richard Nixon was recreated in Frost/Nixon.

A Movie A Day #138: Navajo Joe (1966, directed by Sergio Corbucci)


Duncan (Aldo Sambrell) and his gang are the most ruthless and feared outlaws in the old west.  When first seen, they are destroying a Navajo village and shooting everyone that they see.  Duncan even steals a pendant from a young Indian woman.  When that woman’s husband, Joe (Burt Reynolds), discovers what has happened, he sets out for vengeance.  With Ennio Morricone’s classic score playing in the background, Joe kills one gang member after another.  When Duncan and his gang lay siege to the town of Esperanza, Joe approaches the townspeople and offers to defend them.  His price?  “One dollar a head from every man in this town for every bandit that I kill.”

Following in the footsteps of his friend and fellow television star, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds went to Italy in the 1960s and made a spaghetti western.  Navajo Joe was his second starring role, after Operation CIA.  Reynolds has always described Navajo Joe as being one of the worst movies ever made but, with the excepton of Deliverance, Burt says that about every film that he has ever made.  (Burt has also complained that the wig he wore in Navajo Joe made him look like Natalie Wood, which is true.)  While it never reaches the height of some of Sergio Corbucci’s other westerns, Navajo Joe is a frequently exciting movie, featuring one of Morricone’s best scores and a lead performance that is never as bad as Burt claims it was.  At first, it is strange to see Burt Reynolds playing such a grim and stoic character but, by the time he is throwing dynamite at Duncan’s gang, he has grown into the role and proven that he could actually play something other than a giggling good old boy.  As usual for a Corbucci western, both the outlaws and the greedy and ungrateful townspeople stand in for capitalism run amok. Like many spaghetti protagonists, Joe is an outsider who fights to save a town full of cowardly people who will never accept him.  As Joe explains, his ancestors were in America long before any of the townspeople’s ancestors.  America is his land but the forces of progress and greed are robbing him of his home.

Navajo Joe may not be a classic but it’s a solid western featuring one of Burt Reynolds’s most underrated performances.  If you have ever wanted to see Burt Reynolds smile while scalping a man, Navajo Joe is the film to see.

Horror On The Lens: Monstroid: It Came From The Lake (dir by Kenneth Hartford)


Monster_aka_-Monstroid,_It_Came_from_the_Lake-_poster_1980

Hi there and welcome to October!  This is our favorite time of the year here at the Shattered Lens because October is horror month.  For the past three years, we have celebrated every October by reviewing and showing some of our favorite horror movies, shows, books, and music.  That’s a tradition that I’m looking forward to helping to continue this year.

So, let’s start things off with a little indie film from 1980.  This film was released under several names, including Monster.  However, I prefer the title under which it has been included in several Mill Creek box sets: Monstroid: It Came From The Lake!

Monstroid tells the story of what happens when a monster emerges from a lake and starts killing people in Columbia.  Superstitious villagers blame a local woman whom they believe to be a witch.  Even though the town priest (and no horror fan should be surprised to discover that the priest is played by John Carradine) claims that he can exorcise the evil spirits that have possessed her, the villagers would rather burn her at the stake.  Meanwhile, the local Big Evil Corporation has sent in Travis (James Mitchum) to take care of the monster!

And what a monster!  Listen, there’s a lot of negative things that I could say about this low-budget film but the monster is simply adorable and must be seen by anyone who appreciates the rubber monsters that populated horror films in the days before CGI.

Plus, how can you resist a film that features not only Robert Mitchum’s son but John Carradine as well?

Enjoy Monstroid: It Came From The Lake!

Happy October!