Your source for retro horror movie and book reviews

Posts tagged “sexist

Universal Monsters in Review: The Invisible Woman (1940)

invisiblewoman

Have you ever had one of those moments when you question precisely what it is you’re watching? I had one of those during the screening for The Invisible Woman. Now, to be fair, the “Invisible” films have had a rather rough go at it as far as quality, in fact, the only movies from the “Invisible” production line I like are the original, The Invisible Man, and Invisible Agent, and you can thank Peter Lorre for that one. And I guess that gives you a bit of a spoiler on my thoughts for this rendition. While watching, I was really wanting to like the movie, I really did try. The major problem with The Invisible Woman, for me at least, was that it was trying to do one thing while simultaneously circumventing those attempts. The Invisible Woman started out as a comedy, Shemp Howard from The Three Stooges was in the film for Christ’s sake, and the movie was, at first, calling attention, through comedy, certain discriminations/sexism against women. The volunteer for the “invisible” project was after all a working gal whose boss was a certifiable pig. And I feel, at the beginning, the film achieved its goal of making light of a rather dark subject. But as the film progresses, the plot unspools into a heap of intangible wool. It made no sense…the woman was strong and could save the day, but couldn’t control herself and needed a man to save her? The message the movie is presenting is confusing. Does making a movie that semi resembles some sort of pro- women’s right as a comedy mean the subject is laughable? Then again, we need to remember the era in which the film was made and not interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. Anyhow, that’s the beans on how I feel regarding the movie, let’s see what our honored guest has to say about The Invisible Woman.

The Invisible Woman

By: Matt Shaw

‘Hiya Matt.’

‘Hi.’

‘I was just wondering if you fancied doing a film review for me?’

‘Hey? What do you mean – I mean, I know what you mean but… What do you need?’

‘I’m doing a series of blogs about Universal Monsters and just wondered if you wanted to review one of the films…’

‘Erm. Can do. Not really my strength but – sure. Which one?’

‘You can choose from these.’ <List given>

‘Oh, I’ll have The Invisible Woman.’

‘You’re on!’

And then I forget about the conversation only to be reminded months later. Panicked, with the review due shortly, I go off to download the film Bride of Frankenstein. Not sure how my brain went from one to the other but – meh – a lucky conversation on Facebook and I realized my mistake and soon found myself watching the correct film on YouTube. And – you know what – I wish I hadn’t bothered. Still… I did bother so I might as well review the turd. I mean “film”. Try and guess what I thought about it before you get to my verdict at the end of this review and – remember – I’m a horror author, not a film critic.

invisiblewoman2

The Invisible Woman was released in the 1940s. It has that “old film” charm with the black and white footage and grainy specks here and there which normally trick you into thinking you’re watching an intelligent movie classic – you know, the type of pretentious shite you were forced to endure at school as part of life lessons. Unfortunately there is nothing intelligent about this film, nor – in fact – are there any lessons to be learned. It is also lacking any charm. In fact, how the studio survived with the release of this festering cesspit is beyond me, but – there you go.

Starring Virginia Bruce (The Wicked Witch no less) as the Invisible Woman (Kitty Carroll) and John Barrymore (as the eccentric Professor Gibbs), it also stars John Howard as Richard Russell, the millionaire playboy character on the verge of bankruptcy after years of living life to the full and paying towards Gibbs’ inventions. But none of these characters, or performances, will stand out compared to one of the other characters and – no – I’m not referring to Shemp Howard (one of the Three Stooges). I’m referring to Charlie Ruggles who played George, the butler to Richard Russell – a character who stands out for the wrong reasons. In fact – Charlie Ruggles deserved to never work again and – quite frankly – I am too irritated to check to see if he even did. The character was a bumbling idiot, given most of the “slapstick” scenes and delivering them a bull in a china shop. No… Not a bull. What’s bigger than a bull? Ah. An elephant. His oafish “acting” and over the top mannerisms doing nothing more than to fuel my hatred for the film and all involved.

‘George! Call for an airport!’

‘AIIIIIIRPORT!’

‘No, George… Call for an airport on the telephone.’

Oh, how I rolled around the living room laughing my quite frankly massive bollocks off.

Or…

George and Richard are in heated debate. Richard goes up the stairs and George goes up the ladder next to the stairs, only to do a somersault when he reaches the top, landing in a heap on the floor.

Someone call 999! I’m dying from laughter.

Now I know what a farce when I see one. I studied it at school with the likes of Dario Fo. I enjoy a good farce when they are done correctly but – here – there are so few scenes of comedy that when it does happen (poorly) it does nothing to serve the film and just feels painfully out of place. Anyway, fuck off, I’m watching Universal Monsters. I want horror. I’ve been duped. I don’t want some piss poor attempt at comedy. If I wanted something funny – I’d watch something by Seth Rogen…

invisiblewoman3

Oh, the irony.

The plot of the film itself is fairly bog standard. An inventor who invents a machine that turns people invisible. The investor gets excited because he thinks it will solve his money problems. After putting an advert in the paper – a woman (Kitty) gets in touch to be the test subject. But – wait for it – three crooks also hear of the machine and want to steal it for their boss! So – Kitty goes invisible and seeks revenge on her boss (she works as a model) who learns the error of his ways after getting literally spanked by Kitty. She then goes with Gibbs to Russell’s lodge to prove the machine works (and hear we discover how sexist films were back then) and they end up falling for each other and – boom – the crooks show up and kidnap the professor and the girl having already stolen the machine from back at the lab. Everything is wrapped up nicely with the Invisible Woman teaching them lessons in the space of about four minutes and the credits roll. That’s all there is to it and I’m sorry for the spoilers but – seriously – you’ll thank me. This film is a crock of shit with it’s dire “comedy”, flat acting, so-so music and… Fuck me… I’ve got something good to say… Hold your pants, this is big…

invisiblewoman4

The effects, given this, was made in the 40s are actually pretty good. With regards to the invisible effects anyway. Don’t mention the lightening towards the end of the movie. So – yeah – there you go – a positive in this shit pie. Good effects. But, if you’ve read my books, you’ll know I don’t like happy endings so… Remember when I said was sexist? Sexist and degrading to women. Check out these lines, babycakes:

‘It’s me, Mrs. Jackson.’

‘You can’t possibly be Mrs. Jackson! She’s in the kitchen where she belongs!’

Or…

‘Any girl insisting on becoming invisible can’t be easy on the eyes!’

‘Hiding your stout figure…’

It’s okay, though. The rumor is Hollywood is remaking the film and casting an all-female cast with the exception of the invisible man.

‘Of course, you chose to go invisible… With a penis that small, why wouldn’t you?’

‘He didn’t need the machine for us to not be able to see that!’

<Women laugh>

Anyway, I’m not sorry for this negative review. The film portrayed women to be either thick or deranged. This isn’t a hero piece. The male characters – with the exception of the Playboy – don’t fare any better on the stupidity scale and, quite frankly, the screenwriters should have been blacklisted just to fuck them off from the scene before they could do any more damage to the brains of those foolish enough to try their work out.

invisiblewoman5

This is not a good film and it’s no surprise I struggled to find a torrent with which to view it…

Thanks for reading now, if you’ll forgive me, I’m off to pour bleach in my eyes and drill a hole in my head – into which I shall be pouring sulphuric acid.

Peace out, homies.

Matt, The.

mattshawpic

Matt Shaw is the published author of over 100 titles – all readily available on AMAZON. He is one of the United Kingdom’s leading – and most prolific – horror authors, regularly breaking the top ten in the chart for Amazon’s Most Popular Horror Authors. With work sometimes compared to Stephen King, Richard Laymon, and Edward Lee, Shaw is best known for his extreme horror novels (The infamous Black Cover Range), Shaw has also dabbled in other genres with much success; including romance, thrillers, erotica and dramas. Despite primarily being a horror author, Shaw is a huge fan of Roald Dahl – even having a tattoo of the man on his arm; something he looks to whenever he needs a kick up the bum or inspiration to continue working! As well as pushing to release a book a month, Shaw’s work is currently being translated for the Korean market and he is currently working hard to produce his own feature length film. And speaking of films… Several film options have been sold with features in the very early stages of development. Watch this space. Matt Shaw lives in Southampton (United Kingdom) with his wife Marie, his bastard cat Nellie and three rats – Roland, Splinter and Spike. He used to live with Joey the Chinchilla and Larry the Bearded Dragon but they died. At least he hoped they did because he buried them. You can follow Matt and delve into his work by following his site at www.mattshawpublications.co.uk AND on the altar of Facebook at  www.facebook.com/mattshawpublications.co.uk

 

Did you like what you read here? Be sure to subscribe to our SPAM FREE newsletter. Keep in the loop with new book releases, sales, giveaways, future articles, guest posts, and of course…a free eBook copy of Strange Authors, an anthology that includes some of the weirdest and vilest writers in the horror community. (click below).

freebookposter

 

 

 


Universal Monsters in Review: Revenge of the Creature (1955)

revenge1

The safe word today is, science runs amok! A familiar theme with Universal Monsters. And come to think about it, nearly all of the monsters, at one point or another, have been tethered to mad science. Even Dracula, who in Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein, ole Draco mixes himself up in some strange business with bolts and laboratories, in an attempt to resurrect the infamous monster in his own image. And lets not forget the amazing Werewolf of London, to which the werewolf curse is passed on to a botanist who then attempts to use science to cure himself. The main theme people typically walk away with is that science never solves anything, but that doesnt sound right, does it? No, science in itself is not the enemy, nor is nature singularly the enemy either. Maybe we can look from the perspective of the characters, and with those characters, sure, nothing ever seems to go right. Considering, if science is by definition man’s way of understanding nature and the world around him, mankind sure seems to always blunder any attempt to understand his world. The more these characters force to understand nature, the more we get the impression that maybe there are some things we shouldn’t know. Last night, during my first screening of Revenge of the Creature, the running thought in head during the duration of the film was basically the idea of man attempting to concur nature, and failing, because nature is something that cannot be tamed or easily categorized (yup, borrowed that one from Fox Mulder). And perhaps there are some things mankind should not know, or perhaps is not ready to know. The Gill-Man returns in form with some excellent script writing for this round-about sequel to Creature of the Black Lagoon. I found myself routing for the monster, especially due to its mistreatment and shameful exposure for paying customers of the Ocean Harbor Oceanarium, which became, for a time, the new Freak Show. Well, I think we’ve all had enough of my own ramblings, lets see what our esteemed guest has to say regarding, Revenge of the Creature.

Revenge of the Creature

By: Jeffery X. Martin

It’s not easy being the missing link. People keep trying to capture you for research, and there’s no Anti-Vivisectionists League for bizarre aquatic creatures. If they can’t capture you, then they just try to shoot you. Tranquilizers, bullets, anything that can be fired out of a gun, humans will shoot it at you, just because you’re different. Oh, and forget dating. It’s one thing to have psoriasis or contact dermatitis, but full-on scales and gills? No woman puts that on her list of likes.

revenge2

The end of The Creature from the Black Lagoon shows our old buddy, the Gill-Man, in precisely that situation. He’s been dynamited, shot, and after eons of hunting for a nice girl, he finds one. But as soon as he tries to take her home, the humans get all twitchy. They take the girl back, and they shoot the Gill-Man a few times for good measure. That’s a bad day, y’all, and if I were he, I would want revenge, too.

In 1955, the Gill-Man returned in Revenge of the Creature. There’s not much actual revenge in the movie, but the story of the Creature does take an interesting turn. Although we were led to believe the creature died in a hail of bullets at the end of the first film, that’s not the case. He is captured with ease back at the Black Lagoon and taken to the Ocean Harbor Oceanarium, a waterpark much like Sea-World. Scientists there hope to study the Gill-Man and find out what makes him tick.

This goes exactly as well as you think it will.

revenge3

Revenge of the Creature is a low-budget production. It stars John Agar, and that makes it feel even more low-budget than it actually is. He’s not an actor normally associated with high-quality work. He’s handsome, all right, but what did it get him? In this movie, he’s nothing more than a giant chin and hormones, as he tries to get into the pants of the “lady doctor,” played by Lori Nelson.

Nelson’s character finds herself in one corner of a love square between John Agar, the Creature’s caretaker, Joe Hayes (John Bromfield), and the Creature himself. Every main male character in the movie (including the Creature) is a sexist schmuck, attempting to mold Nelson into some kind of precious doll that needs to be protected. Never mind that she’s a brilliant student of ichthyology, perfectly capable of taking care of herself. There are so many “step aside, little lady” moments in this film, she may as well be doing the Electric Slide instead of walking.

Joe and John Agar fight over her. The Creature and Joe fight over her. John Agar and the Creature fight over her.  No one wants to fight alongside her, or get to know her as a human being because that would make their testicles fall off.

revenge4

The main point of the film involves the scientists’ attempt to communicate with the Creature. I’m not sure why this is important. It’s not like the Gill-Man has read any good books lately and would love to discuss them. Their big idea for communication is teaching the Creature involves shocking him when he does something wrong. This kind of Pavlovian conditioning elicits responses, but that’s no more communication than someone grunting when they stub their toe.

At least the Creature still looks cool. In a movie filled with wonky science and terrible human relations, he’s the high point. He’s got those huge eyes, webbed hands, and the tendency to open his mouth wide, gasping for air, when he’s on land. He’s a scary monster, difficult to humanize, because you cannot tell his intentions from his face. He can’t raise an eyebrow, give a sly glance, or smirk. There’s no way to tell what he’s thinking, which may make the Gill-Man the scariest of all the Universal Monsters.

revenge5

It’s a shame this sequel isn’t better. It feels cheap and the script is shallow. If anything, it feels like Jaws 3-D was a remake of Revenge of the Creature. In a lot of ways, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen the other. While the shark is an eating machine, the Creature just wants to fertilize some eggs and go back home. Maybe, in that way, the Gill-Man is also the most human of all the Universal Monsters. The Frankenstein Monster and Dracula have their own particular pathos. It’s part of why we love them. The Creature from the Black Lagoon has no personal demons to be dealt with, no extended back story. He has aught but the instinct to survive.

This singularity of vision makes the Creature hard to love, but easy to fear. It certainly makes him worthy of a better sequel. This isn’t it.

jeffmisery

Jeffery X. Martin, or Mr. X to you, is the published author of several stories that are sure to shock, including those in the Elder’s Keep universe and Tarotsphere. He also published a fantastic tale in The Black Room Manuscripts. You can find his work on Amazon. When Mr. X is not writing creep mind-benders, he’s the host and/or contributor to several podcasts and blogs, including, but not limited to, Pop Shiftier and Kiss the Goat.