Reviews

I am consistently saddened by the shallow reviews people give 50's monster movies here on IMDb. Sci-fi is a vehicle for making comments about problems in our society, so that we can grow into a better, more tolerant race.

This movie deals with slavery, intolerance, monarchy vs. democracy, and a pagan religion that uses human sacrifice. Those are some pretty big issues to deal with, and nobody is talking about them in their reviews! I think the problem is that Mystery Homo Theater attracts the kind of people that are like Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons. They are losers, they've been picked on their whole lives, and they have absolutely no chance of having sex with another human - EVER! These people have no depth and don't understand the big ideas dealt with in these old sci-fi, horror films. For once in their sad lives, they unite with a group and get revenge for everything they've had to endure from "cool" people. They take out their frustration by attacking these movies, but in the process they fail to see the deeper meanings and make themselves look like unintelligent, under-educated fools.

The ending (even though it is sad) is totally consistent with the theme of this movie. This race should've been erased by the Great Flood. God was trying to get rid of a humanity that had lost its way, but these guys cheated death. They should not exist. In 5,000 years, they didn't grow into kinder people. They were the same morally bankrupt society that used slaves and worshipped false idols with human sacrifices. They were living on borrowed time and they had to go. ALL of them, even the girl at the end.

I think this is an awesome movie for its budget. Watch it like you were watching Citizen Kane, and try to appreciate what the producer and writers were trying to accomplish.

I've been watching the DVD set in chronological order. Season 1 was OK, but when I started watching the season 2 Bakshi episodes, I got really excited. The backgrounds, the music, the new villains all had me really interested. Then I watched this train wreck and knew something was up.

The writing in these Bakshi episodes is the big problem. The stories are thin to non-existent, and there's so much padding (Spiderman swinging through the air monotonously forever)that it's excruciating to watch.

This episode starts off really promising, with some kind of insectoid villain that has captured human slaves and is forcing them to mine for him. After a great set-up, the story devolves into non-sensical garbage with tons of errors and plot holes that would insult even a five year old.

The problems: 1) Spiderman flies some kind of plane/rocket to an island where the action is taking place. Giant insect robots tear apart his ship, but he escapes. As I watched this, I was wondering how he would get back to NYC. Well guess what? At the end of the episode, the ship is in perfect condition and he uses it to get home. WTF!?! The robots tore the ship in half! I can just see a whole generation of children watching and scratching their heads as they were being dumbed down. 2) Spiderman continuously refers to the villain as "He". The problem is that Spidey has never seen the villain and doesn't know what's happening on the island. Spidey has been running around the island and battling monsters. The villain could be he, she, it, them, whatever! It's just another example of a lack of attention to detail by the writers. 3) The villain keeps talking about the place as being an asteroid. Huh!?! I thought it was an island... 4) When Spidey finally confronts the villain, he decides to run off and stop a rocket ship full of ore. He leaves the villain behind in the castle with his henchman, Igor. Spidey blows up the ship and comes back to the castle where he is calmly talking to a freed slave. Huh!?! Did I miss something? What happened to the villains? They were in the castle, where are they now? How did the slaves get free? We never see the villains again and get no explanation about what happened to them. All we get is a re-hashed montage of Spidey's previous exploits.

I read somewhere that another series called Rocket Robin Hood was also produced by Bakshi, and he decided to use a lot of footage from that series on Spiderman. He must've done it with this episode because it "just don't make sense"!

After seeing Faster Pussycat a couple years ago, I was so impressed that I decided to hunt down and watch all of Russ Meyer's movies. Well, it's been quite a disappointing quest, and Lorna is just more of the same.

First of all, the script is very amateurish. You can tell Mr. Meyer is still groping his way as he tries to tell an effective and engaging story. The characters are one dimensional. They're almost caricatures of themselves. The only time one of them seems real is when Luther apologizes to Lorna near the end. Also, the rape scene is totally unbelievable. Lorna tries to fight this guy off for a few minutes, and then gets turned on by having this guy force himself on her? It just doesn't happen that way. Talk to any woman and see what they say about it. Plus, this guy had been on the run, and brushing his teeth would've been the last thing on his mind. I seriously doubt anyone would want to suck face with him!

Second, is unlikable characters. NOBODY in this film is likable, and most are detestable. Luther sounds like Russ Meyer's alter ego - a sexist, over-sexed, low class loser. The preacher is just annoying, and it doesn't make sense why he's even in this film. Jim, the husband, is completely useless. Lorna is an unappreciative, stupid jerk. The convict was a completely heartless, murdering, raping smack-off. Maybe Mr. Meyer was trying to convey something with their unlikableness, but I haven't figured it out yet and I don't really care at this point.

Third, is Lorna Maitland. This woman has nothing going for her except HUGE hooters. I love boobs, but hers look kind of strange. You can tell Mr. Meyer was trying to turn her into the next Marilyn Monroe or Jane Mansfield, but she just didn't have what it takes. Her face was definitely not attractive. The extreme close-ups of her face were scary. And her acting skills weren't very good or believable. It's just another case of Russ Meyer's obsession with giant breasts clouding his judgement (kind of like Vixen).

Last, is the ending. When Lorna dies at the end, Jim runs over to her and falls to his knees begging her to "Forgive me. Forgive me." Forgive him for what!?! He was out working in the salt mines all day, while she was at home screwing some dirtball on their one year anniversary. Lorna was a miserable bitch. I don't understand why Jim would want her to forgive him.

All-in-all, this movie doesn't have anything going for it in 2012. There's not much nudity, Lorna isn't very attractive, and the story isn't very interesting. To be fair, this was made a couple years before "Faster Pussycat". I guess Russ Meyer just needed more time to hone his craft.

This film was made in England and it shows. It opens with a plane full of filthy rich snobs flying back to Europe after attending some grandiose wedding. We have the "pleasure" of meeting Diana Penrod, who is unhappily married to the pilot. This miserable, ungrateful wench does nothing but complain about her husband, who has done nothing wrong. Her main complaint is that he ignores her because he's too interested in flying. Oh my, how horrible! The poor little darling has to be married to a millionaire, go to weddings of the elite and royalty, and fly to exotic places. Maybe she should go see a psychiatrist to help her deal with such a terrible and unfair life. I was really hoping that they would feed this jerk to the lions, but she becomes the heroine of the movie! In 1957, this would only happen in Britain. She's too independent and unsupportive of her husband. It's this kind of attitude and mind-set that has led to present day British women being the worst women in the world - completely useless and deluded, stomping around trying to prove they can do anything a man can do, but failing miserably. If British women are so wonderful, then why are there so many British men living in Thailand married to Thai ex-prostitutes?

Anyway, some of the good things about this movie: 1) The location footage of African wildlife looks great in color and was probably a real treat for viewers back in the 50's before documentaries became so prevalent. 2) No Jane, so there is no Ozzie & Harriet in the jungle story-line. 3) The native dance scene at the end was awesome! The music sounded like recordings I've heard from Africa, and the costumes were great. 4) A superb ending that features mysterious caves, an isolated and evil village located on the top of an unreachable karst, native dances, white sacrificial victims, and Tarzan playing the bongos! The ending almost makes up for the first hour of the movie (which really wasn't that bad).

This is a fine and interesting film to watch, but I didn't think it was as good as most of the people writing reviews here. I'm looking at it from the perspective of film noirs made from 1940-1960, not as a fan of old movies.

Things I liked: Alan Ladd and his character Raven. I love how Raven is so not the typical red-white-and-blue American. He's anti-social, he abuses women, he kicks people down stairs, he kills cats he likes, and he kills people for money. Ladd is very consistent and makes this totally one-sidedly, cold-hearted character believable.

The cinematography was gorgeous and rich black & white. I especially liked the scenes in the factory. They were shadowy, with great contrast and perfectly exposed. There was even a real exterior shot when they were on the roof of the chemical plant at the end, trying to get down to its owner and save him. I didn't expect any exteriors in a 1942 movie, that was a nice surprise.

The evil owner of the chemical plant. I wonder if Mr. Burns from The Simpsons was modeled after him. He's a pathetically greedy man. He lives in his own little world, detached from humanity because of his enormous wealth. He's feeble and physically impotent. His first lines in the movie were even "Excellent!" when his staff were reporting in to him. This guy is Mr. Burns' grandfather, for sure.

Things I didn't like: There were too many times when unbelievably stupid things happened in the script. Why pay Raven with "hot money" to send him to jail, so he wouldn't talk? Just kill him. It's way too convoluted, and they left themselves open to revenge by a killer if the plan didn't work (which it didn't). Gates could've gotten his chauffeur to do it.

How does Gates identify Raven on the train? Nobody knows what he looks like, they're just looking for a man with a deformed wrist. How does Gates know the man with the bandaged wrist is not Raven? I don't understand. Did I miss something?

Why did Raven want to kill Ellen when they got off the train? The police already know he is there and why. Just let her go.

Why did he save her life in Gates' mansion? Before, he wanted to kill her, now he saves her. Why? What changed his mind? I don't think this is explained well enough.

Later, at the club, he drags Ellen there with him so he can use her dressing room to get to Gates. Immediately, they are spotted and Raven runs away with Ellen. Why oh why would he ever take her with him? It makes absolutely no sense. She's no good to him any more, and she'll only slow him down (or leave a trail so the police can find them).

At the factory, Raven and Ellen slip down into a hole and Raven STUPIDLY allows the metal door to slam shut. Unbelievably, seconds later, the police find this exact door, in the dark, and know it's the place where Raven went, even though they didn't see where Raven went and were nowhere close enough to possibly know that this was the exact metal door Raven escaped into. Then, to top it all off, the police turn on their screeching sirens on the way to the train yard, which now informs Raven that the police know where he is and in which direction he is traveling. Why telegraph your intentions to this dangerous criminal? Just play it cool and try to grab him quietly without hurting Ellen.

Why kill the cat (which is your luck) while they're trapped in the train yard? Just let it go. It'll just run off and shut up.

Finally and most importantly, why didn't Ellen confide in her boyfriend and tell him what was going on with her investigation of Gates' and his boss' suspected criminal activity? It would've saved her and Raven tons of aggravation, and would've saved Raven's life and other lives. I'm sure they could've worked out an amnesty deal for the killings early in the movie if Raven would've cooperated. After all, the victims were traitors selling government secrets to the enemy. Ellen's stupid and unnecessary silence condemned Raven to death.

As far as Veronica Lake goes, I didn't think she was half as beautiful as people on IMDb describe her. She's got a silly looking face, terrible hair style, and a scrawny, little body. Plus, she always has a goofy look on her face, like she's perpetually constipated. And what's up with her voice and affect? Was that what they called acting in 1942? Also, those two song and dance routines gotta go! They were terrible and totally incongruous with the rest of the movie and especially Raven's mentality!

All in all, this is a decent movie, but the script takes way too many liberties and doesn't respect the intelligence of the viewer. Maybe this was OK in 1942, but this flick just doesn't hold up well 70 years later.

Most of the Monogram Chan's fall somewhere between mediocre and horrendous, but this one was actually interesting. It had some thought put into it and definitely made the most out of its small budget. One of the previous reviewers said the movie was too claustrophobic. This is one of my biggest complaints about Monogram Chan's, but Dangerous Money does a great job of avoiding that. There are many different sets and scenes on the boat, plus there's the added bonus of all the different scenes on the island, which included some exterior beauty shots.

Another aspect of this movie I liked was the absence of Bumbleham Brown. He always seems to take over and dominate the scenes he's in, which usually detracts from the mysterious mood that has been created. In Dangerous Money, Chattanooga and Jimmy Chan are more in the background and less obtrusive. I love the last scene where Charlie strangles his moronic son for almost killing Chattanooga. I wonder if they did that because so many viewers had fantasized about doing it themselves over the years?

At certain points, the story is difficult to follow, so make sure you have the remote ready. There are a few things that don't make sense, like why the hell did the criminal gang want Rona Simmonds to come to Samoa? It makes no sense, she could identify the missing objects of art. Did they want her to verify that they were authentic? They obviously didn't do it to lure her to her death because they never tried to kill her. Why did Freddie Kirk contact her father to come to Samoa?

Another nice thing about this film is that it is in the public domain. The print that I watched from archive.org was crisp and sharp, with good contrast - black and white at it's best. Also, keep your eyes on Miss Simmonds breasts. I swear that they inflate or deflate as the situation calls for. It's mind boggling.

If this is indeed an example of film noir, it is definitely "noir lite" - tastes crappy, less filling. What's next? Will The Wizard of Oz become the next noir sleeper? Suspense is more of a chick flick where a budding romance can't happen because the woman is married. The main problem I had with this movie was the juvenile script. It is a slap in the face to any normal adult. There were too many preposterous, unbelievable things that happened in this film. Where do I begin?

1. How the hell does Joe Morgan (a dirty, abrasive, unlikeable man) be allowed to enter the office of the Ice Follies without knocking and get a job instantly? Then, because of ONE idea, he gets promoted to be Harry's assistant. Then, he makes a pass at the owner's wife. Then, he takes over the business while Mr. Leonard goes to Chicago. Then, he takes over Mr. Leonard's wife. Huh? What!?! It's absolutely ridiculous. It's an insult to any paying customer. There is no way this could EVER happen in real life. It's just too unbelievable. Plus, Joe is just an ignorant jerk that runs roughshod over everybody. In normal life, he would be shunned and sent packing.

2. Why do the Leonard's allow Joe to come in and take over their lives? They have everything - a gorgeous and modern penthouse, a cabin in the mountains, fame, and prestige. Mr. Leonard didn't get all this by being stupid and letting people control him (especially a greasy nobody like Joe). It just doesn't make sense. It's too unbelievable.

3. Some dame from Chicago amazingly hears about Joe's success in L.A. and comes to see him. She gets a room across the hall from Joe. When she sees him, he gives her the brush off, but she continues to stay in the room pining away for this grease-ball. He repeatedly pushes her away, but she stays! What?! Never - no way. It would never happen. Plus, where does she get the money to stay there all this time? She doesn't work, and the film doesn't address this.

4. Near the end, Mr. Leonard comes to see Joe in Joe's office, which used to be Mr. Leonard's office. Joe kills him and stuffs him into a roll top desk (pretty amazing that he could fit in there - maybe he was one of those Shriners that come piling out of that little car at the circus). Anyway, Joe has the desk chopped up by the janitor and burned in the basement furnace. Huh? Did I miss something here? If the janitor chopped up the desk, he would definitely see Mr. Leonard's body. Later, we see the furnace and the door is too small for the desk to fit through, so the janitor must've seen the body. It just doesn't make sense and it is never addressed in the movie. Also, Joe tells Roberta that he murdered Mr. Leonard because Leonard was "needling me from behind a gun". Huh? You're telling me that Joe with NO gun overpowered and killed somebody that has a gun? Sorry, can't believe it. Having achieved what he has in life, there is no way that Mr. Leonard can be the bumbling, stupid, incompetent fool he is in this movie. It just doesn't happen that way. Again, it's just too unbelievable.

5. Joe's old flame who is now living across the hall from him gets some dirt on Joe in the form of a letter. She confronts him with it and he slaps her around. This damning letter is never mentioned again. It was supposed to contain info on why Joe left NYC in such a hurry, but it's never revealed why. Then, this dame puts a round of slugs into Joe at the end of the movie. What!?! Why didn't she use the letter against him? Why was this letter ever brought into the film? It makes no sense. Joe's mysterious past hinges on this letter, and we're left high and dry. All the shots talking about Joe's past and this letter are absolutely useless - just like the script - USELESS!

6. At the end, when Roberta is going to jump through the circle of knives, Joe loosens one of the screws that holds one of the knives in place. The only problem is that there are thousands of people in the audience that can see him do this! WHAT!?! Give me a break! It's so ridiculous, that it's insulting. Maybe if Joe was in the dark while Roberta was lit with a spotlight, I could deal with it. But, just like in most of this flick, the lighting is too bright and even.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but I'm starting to get carpal tunnel syndrome. The title is Suspense, but there isn't much (any) suspense here. The script is atrocious and unbelievable. The sets are nice, and for a Monogram film it looks pretty good. BUT, if you want to see real noir, go watch Kiss of Death, Detour, Kiss Me Deadly, Murder My Sweet, etc.

I think the other reviews of this episode are making a mistake by taking this one too literally. There is another way to interpret the events of this show. The last scene shows the protagonist in a jail cell 3 months later. If he and Doggett stopped the murder of his wife, then why is he there talking about not being able to escape the jail of his character? If you interpret the show literally, you could say that by withholding evidence regarding the murderer's brother, he got a jail term. I posit another way of looking at it.

Everything we saw before the final scene was his confused and deluded rendering of what happened with the murder. He actually killed his wife. He snapped. He's dazed, confused, and disoriented. He is mentally unbalanced. Everything we see before the final scene is a jumbled fantasy from a mentally deranged person. He didn't go back through time, he's just fantasizing. He gets his face slashed by Mr. Spiderweb Hand in reality, and he mentally lashes back by making this guy the murderer in his fantasy. The only way he can get a 2nd chance is in his mind.

This 2nd way of looking at this episode is a lot like what happened in an old noir movie called Detour. The whole movie is the star's delusional recounting of events involved in the deaths of two people. Were they accidents or did he murder them? We never know because we see everything through his eyes. Everything is his mentally unbalanced fantasy, except for the last scene in a Nevada diner. I wonder if Chris Carter and company used Detour for inspiration here?

Anyway, it's a very thought provoking episode that could be interpreted at least two different ways.