Goliath and the Barbarians (1959)

As you would expect fron the peplum genre Goliath and the Barbarians (Il terrore dei barbari) has nothing whatever to do with Goliath. But it’s still fun.

This one is set in the Dark Ages rather than in the world of antiquity. In the 6th century AD Belisarius and Narses reconquered Italy for the Eastern Roman Empire but it was a short-lived triumph. A new barbarian foe, the Lombards, swept into Italy in the latter part of that century. This forms the background to this movie.

The Lombards are the bad guys, but they make a formidable enemy when they kill the father of Emiliano (Steve Reeves). Emiliano vows to have his revenge, and pretty soon he is slaughtering lots of Lombards. Since he’s big and he has the strength of ten men he earns the nickname of The Goliath, thus justifying the English-language release title.

The baddest of the bad guys is Igor (Livio Lorenzon). He’s one of the generals of the Lombard king, Alboino. He’s not just nasty, he also covets the beautiful daughter of another of Alboino’s generals. The very exotic beauty Landa (Chelo Alonso) is the daughter of Delfo (Andrea Checchi), but she’s not interested in the brutish Igor.

Landa soon finds a man she does fancy. He claims to be a simple woodcutter who rescues her when her horse throws her. He’s big and he’s handsome and he’s a nice guy and she falls for him in a major way. He’s pretty keen on her as well. What she doesn’t know is that her hunky woodcutter is actually The Goliath! And thus the enemy of her father. And dear old Dad wants her to be nice to Igor because he doesn’t have many allies at the barbarian court and Igor would be a very powerful ally.

Meanwhile Emiliano continues to cause mayhem in the ranks of the Lombard armies. Delfo actually captures him but releases him after he proves his strength (which seems like a slightly odd command decison). Delfo has other problems - Igor is plotting against him.

Goliath and the Barbarians lacks the supernatural elements and the monsters that appear in so many of my favourite movies in this genre. It’s a fairly restrained offering and while I generally prefer the more outlandish peplum offerings it’s still fine entertainment.

Steve Reeves plays the role the way he always played these roles, which is fine by me. Chelo Alonso is delightfully and outrageously sexy as Landa and gives a spirited performance. Livio Lorenzon is a marvellous villain and most of the supporting actors are more than adequate.

This one is part of a double-header DVD release from a small outfit called Wild East, paired with Goliath and the Vampires. It appears to be a slightly cut version of Goliath and the Barbarians but it’s a very nice letterboxed widescreen print and vastly superior to the usual run of pan-and-scanned peplum releases.

It’s too low-key and too sensible to be a really great peplum but it’s still worth having.

The Love Machine (1971)

The Love Machine was based on Jacqueline Susann’s third and final novel. Her books are authentic trash masterpieces which I highly recommend and the film captures their glamorous sleazy atmosphere perfectly.

Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) is a handsome young local newscaster determined to reach the top in the world of network television. Greg Austin (Robert Ryan) runs the IBC television network and when his wife Judith (Dyan Cannon) assures him that women will swoon over the young newsreader he decides to take a chance and promotes Stone not only to the position of anchor of the network’s national news but also head of the entire news division.

This proves to be both a stroke of genius and a fatal error. Pretty soon Stone is virtually running the network and when Greg Austin has a near-fatal heart attack Stone finds himself really running the network. His sudden elevation to the pinnacle of success seems to be largely due to the influence of Judith Austin with whom Stone is having an affair. When Greg Austin is finally sufficiently recovered to take back the reins of power he finds that this will not be as easy as he thought. Robin Stone has no intention of relinquishing his position and (unfortunately for Greg Austin) he’s been so successful that firing him is almost impossible.

Stone’s position does have one major weakness. He has been as ruthless in his pursuit of women as in his pursuit of power and his habit of quickly discarding lovers has made him many enemies. When he tries to give Judith Austin the brush-off he discovers that the boss’s wife doesn’t take kindly to such treatment. And Judith Austin is not a woman to make an enemy of. Stone’s violent out-of-control behaviour towards women will also prove to be a factor undermining his apparently secure position.

The film covers similar territory to the over-praised Network, written by Paddy Chayefsky and directed by Sidney Lumet. While critics gushed over Network they had nothing but scorn for The Love Machine but the latter is in some ways more effective, linking sleazy business practices and the media’s contempt for its audience to the general atmosphere of moral squalor of the television-movie-media world and to the moral collapse of the 70s. The message seems to be that if your personal moral code is that of an alley cat you probably won’t behave any better in your professional life.

I can’t say that I disagree. Certainly the movie is effective in demonstrating that Robin Stone treats the viewers of the mythical IBC network and his colleagues the same way he treats his women.

While it’s often dismissed as pure camp The Love Machine has much in common with the glossy 1950s melodramas of Douglas Sirk. The look and the style of the movie represent Sirk updated to the 70s.

John Phillip Law’ performance was criticised as being colourless and wooden but in fact it’s right on target. Robin Stone is the perfect celebrity and the perfect media manipulator - he believes in nothing, he merely reflects whatever his audience wants him to be. He’s a mirror for other people’s narcissism.

Robert Ryan is excellent. Greg Austin is really just an older and less crude version of Robin Stone. He’s a step on the evolutionary path that eventually produced Stone. David Hemmings is impressive as the homosexual fashion photographer who is the closest thing Stone has ever had to a friend. He’s a cynical opportunist, but with Stone’s cruelty. Jodi Wexler is also quite good as fashion model Amanda, one of the many women Stone beds and then discards. She has made the fatal mistake of thinking that free love has something to do with love.

The movie has glamour and sleaze but the most overwhelming characteristic of the world it describes is its complete nullity - these are people who live in a moral and intellectual vacuum and any contact with real life is fatal to them.

While it lacks the over-the-top high camp magic of Valley of the Dolls it’s essential viewing for lovers of sparkling trash.

Red Blood, Yellow Gold (1967)

Red Blood, Yellow Gold (Professionisti per un massacro, Professionals for a Massacre) is a fairly routine but still entertaining 1967 spaghetti western.

The basic plot idea is well-worn but there are enough twists to keep it reasonably interesting.

Three Confederate soldiers do a deal to sell Confederate arms to the Union but the Yankees find themselves double-crossed. Everybody in this movie gets double-crossed. Anyway their defence that their treason doesn’t count because they blew up the Union soldiers involved afterwards doesn’t help them and they are sentenced to be executed. They are reprieved at the last moment when the Confederate commander realises he can make use of these three resourceful thieves. So they’re sent on a sort of Dirty Dozen mission with the promise they will gain their freedom if it succeeds.

They have to track down a wagonload of gold that’s been stolen from the Confederacy by one of its own officers, Major Lloyd (who proves to be a very nasty piece of work). They’ll get a bonus if they bring back Major Lloyd’s head. Several plot twists later the gold has fallen into the hand of a cut-throat family of Mexican bandits. Everyone wants the gold and there will be a lot of corpses before this is over.

The three thieves are Chattanooga Jim (Edd Byrnes), Fidel Ramirez (George Martin) and defrocked priest and dynamite enthusiast Steel Downey (George Hilton). The acting is passable enough and Hilton is pretty good. Gérard Herter as Major Lloyd makes a suitably menacing and mendacious villain.

There are plenty of spaghetti western clichés in this one. There’s a Gatling Gun which serves no plot purpose except that Gatling Guns are cool so this movie has one. There are coffins. There are explosions. And then more explosions. Thousands of rounds of ammunition are expended.

Technically this movie is nothing special but the action moves along at a brisk pace. Director Nando Cicero does a competent job and while he does nothing to put any kind of personal stamp on the film he does understand the basic principles of the spaghetti western - if you’re not sure what should happen next blow something up or have a fist fight start for no reason at all.

This is a spaghetti western that plays things with tongue planted firmly in cheek. You don’t want to think too much about this one. It’s not going to tell you anything profound about the human condition so if you’re looking for art you’d best look elsewhere.

It’s extremely violent but the violence is not graphic at all by spaghetti western standards. The version I saw was presumably uncut or fairly close to it judging by the running time although I certainly can’t swear to it.

I picked up the DVD on a bargain table and apart from the fact that it’s all-region I can’t tell you anything about it. There’s no indication on the disc or the case of a company name. That’s not a good sign but at least it’s an acceptable print and in the correct aspect ratio. And it was cheap!

This is at best an average example of its genre but if you like mindless fun with machine-guns and dynamite (and what right-thinking person doesn’t) then there’s no reason you won’t enjoy this picture.

Assassination in Rome (1965)

Assassination in Rome was released on DVD by Dark Sky paired with another eurospy thriller, Espionage in Tangiers, in one of their drive-in double-feature releases.

Espionage in Tangiers is not too bad but I’m afraid that Assassination in Rome will be a bit of a disappointment for eurospy fans. This Italian-Soanish-French co-production is more a straight crime thriller with a bit of international intrigue thrown in but it doesn’t have the engaging silliness of the better eurospy flicks.

Hugh O’Brian is an American newspaper reporter in Rome who gets involved in the case of a missing American engineer. The engineer’s wife (Cyd Charisse) is an old flame of the reporter’s. There is stolen microfilm hidden in the sole of a shoe, and a couple of small-time thieves have found the shoe but don’t know what it contains.

There are no gadgets, no stunts and there’s virtually no action. That means the movie has to function mostly as a straightforward crime movie but the characters are insufficiently developed for it to hold much interest.

That’s not to say it’s a truly bad movie. It’s just a bit too pedestrian.

Director Silvio Amadio went on to make a couple of giallos but he shows little sign here of any great mastery of visual style.

The romantic triangle fails to engage us because there’s little chemistry between the two leads. Hugh O’Brian does the bare minimum required to earn his pay cheque.

Cyd Charisse does make a real effort and she’s the best thing in the movie. She certainly adds some class. Surprisingly she made several movies in this genre and she’s extremely good as a glamorous villainess in the underrated 1967 Maroc 7. In this film however she isn’t given much of an opportunity to show what she could do.

The movie is presented in the correct aspect ratio but it’s not 16x9 enhanced and the print isn’t fantastic. The double feature DVD is worth a look if you can pick it up cheaply and you’re a hardcore eurospy buff but really Assassination in Rome is only for completists, or perhaps for serious Cyd Charisse fans.

The Creature Walks Among Us (1956)

The Creature Walks Among Us was the third of Universal’s gill-man movies, a series that started so promisingly with The Creature From the Black Lagoon in 1954 and then went downhill fast.

There were quite a few 50s sci-fi/horror movies where the monster turns out to be not entirely evil, or not entirely to blame, but there are none with quite such a sympathetic monster as The Creature From the Black Lagoon. That element remains in the sequels. The big problem with The Creature Walks Among Us is that very little of anything happens. There’s not even plot to sustain a 60-minute movie, and it runs for nearly 80 minutes.

A expedition sets out for the Florida Everglades to find the famous gill-man. It’s led by Dr William Barton (Jeff Morrow). Perhaps rather unwisely he agrees (reluctantly) to allow his wife Marcia (Leigh Snowden) to accompany him. Their marriage is not going well and it’s soon obvious that one of the other expedition members is intending to make a play for her. This domestic drama occupies more of the film’s running time than the monster.

The monster is captured of course, but he’s been badly burned. His gills have been destroyed. The scientists now make a lucky discovery - the creature has lungs as well. If they can get his lungs working they can save him. What they don’t realise is that once he starts using his lungs he will start losing all his aquatic features and mutate into a land creature! Yes, it’s very silly, but the science will get even sillier. We are treated to some truly extraordinary scientific nonsense. We are informed that no new type of living creature has appeared on Earth for 400 million years. We also learn that if we can increase the red corpuscle count that will automatically change the creature’s genetics.

This type of ludicrous technobabble is the reason I watch science fiction movies! For me this is one of the movie’s saving graces.

Of course once the creature has completed its mutation into a land creature a problem arises since it can no longer survive in its original aquatic environment.

The scientists spent a great deal of time debating whether nature or nurture is the reason for the creature’s savagery, although it really isn’t particularly savage. It seems to be adapting fairly well to captivity. While the creature is doing OK, that domestic drama mentioned earlier is starting to get out of hand. The creature will become the unwitting victim, caught up in Dr Barton’s increasingly desperate attempts to hold on to a wife who clearly wants out.

The special effects and the makeup effects are good and the underwater sequences are impressive (although some are in fact out-takes from the first movie).

John Sherwood as director is competent if uninspired. The acting is reasonably good.

The problem is the script and the lack of action. There’s virtually no action at all until we’re almost 40 minutes into the movie. There are some decent ideas but they’re not sufficiently developed. The result is a movie that is just a little too dull.

The final scene however almost redeems the movie.

Universal’s DVD presentation is faultless and includes a commentary track.

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

I saw Sergio Leone’s A Fistful of Dollars many years ago. Seeing it again I found it it to be more impressive than I’d remembered in some ways, and less impressive in others.

The plot was inspired by Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo. Kurosawa in fact sued the producers and in the settlement was given the Asian rights to the movie. As a result he made more money out of Sergio Leone’s movie than he made out of any of his own. The producers of A Fistful of Dollars probably should have fought the case more energetically since the resemblances are mostly superficial. Leone certainly got the idea from Kurosawa’s movie but the end result was a very different movie.

A mysterious stranger rides into a town on the US-Mexican border. The town is totally lawless and is dominated by two rival gangs, the Rojos (who deal in liquor) and the Baxters (who deal in guns). The stranger, the famous Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood), sets about playing both sides off against each other and enriching himself in the process.

Much bloodshed and mayhem ensues. By the end of the movie the coffin-maker, the bartender and the bell-ringer are pretty much the only ones left alive in the town of San Miguel.

Interestingly enough this wasn’t the first Italian western. There had been a couple of dozen Italian westerns made in the early 60s. They had been more or less straight copies of the style of American westerns. There had also been a string of German westerns, successful in Europe at the time but now entirely forgotten. A Fistful of Dollars became an international hit by breaking the mould and going its own way stylistically. In doing so it established the template for the spaghetti western genre. It has most of what would become the standard tropes of the spaghetti western - coffins, machine-guns, large amounts of very graphic violence, moral nihilism and extreme style.

Equally interestingly Clint Eastwood wasn’t the first choice for the lead role. He wasn’t even the fourth choice. Charles Bronson and James Coburn were among the actors who turned the role down or anted too much money. Eastwood got the part because he was cheap. It proved to be a stroke of good fortune for both Leone and Eastwood. Eastwood provided most of his own wardrobe and had a considerable influence on the way the central character was portrayed, most notably by arguing that he should have a lot fewer lines. So that whole image of the mysterious spaghetti western hero who has very little to say was as much Eastwood’s creation as Leone’s. Eastwood felt he needed to be much more enigmatic that he was in the original script.

Eastwood’s performance holds up exceptionally well. He redefined the western hero.

Stylistically the movie is a triumph in spite of the absurdly low budget. Leone and his director of photography, Massimo Dallamano, make great use of the Spanish locations. The visuals are superbly integrated with the sound design and the music of Ennio Morricone. Leone was probably the first director to realise the potential of post-dubbing to enhance action movies - you can make a pistol shot sound like a cannon!

While it’s often been lauded as the first of a new breed of adult westerns it is in fact the first of a new breed of adolescent westerns. It reflects a rebellious teenager’s view of the world. I happen to love spaghetti westerns but I certainly don’t regard them as being adult westerns in the sense that John Ford’s The Searchers is an adult western. The idea of the all-pervasiveness of corruption and the complete absence of any kind of moral compass might have been refreshingly different at the time but they quickly became clichés.

These are perhaps minor quibbles. This movie is all about style and the stye still stands up after nearly half a century. The spaghetti western did to a large extent save the western. That the western survived as a genre in American movies into the 21st century is largely due to Clint Eastwood, and to say that Eastwood was influenced by Leone would be a understatement of epic proportions. Eastwood’s first great western as a director, High Plains Drifter, is pure spaghetti western.

The Australian Blu-Ray release looks terrific and comes loaded with extras including a very informative commentary track by Sir Christopher Frayling. Among the many interesting snippets he gives us is that The Man With No Name did have a name. His name is Joe. The Man With No Name idea was thought up later by the American distributors and apparently the mention of his name was deleted from some prints.

The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues (1955)

There’s nothing like a good monster from the deep movie. And unfortunately The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues is nothing like a good monster from the deep movie. But it does feature a man-in-a-rubber-suit monster so it can’t be all bad.

People keep turning up dead on the beach in some small seaside town somewhere in the US. They have radiation burns, which immediately causes the locals to suspect the oceanographic institute nearby. Because, you know, oceanographers are well-known for dabbling in stuff like death rays and atomic energy. Well as it happens the work of Dr King at the Pacific Oceanographic Institute is mostly concerned with death rays and atomic energy.

Two government investigators are despatched to the town. One of them is an oceanographer whose work mainly focuses on death rays and atomic energy. I’m starting to think that whoever wrote the screenplay had a pretty serious grudge against oceanographers.

The radiation burns are caused by a beam of radioactive light coming from the ocean floor. And of course where you have beams of radioactive light you can be pretty certain you’ll have monsters as well. It’s actually the monster who is causing these people’s deaths - he keeps tipping them out of their boats and once in the water they’re zapped by the beam of radioactive light. Now if none of that makes any sense to you that’s probably because you’re not an oceanographer.

The government men are not the only ones on the scene. There’s also a glamorous blonde spy. She looks every inch like a glamorous blonde spy but unfortunately she doesn’t do much. It seems than being a spy mostly involves lying on the beach working on your tan. It’s not as exciting as being an oceanographer but it’s probably a lot safer. She has an accomplice to do her dirty work for her, which is one of the perks attached to being a glamorous blonde spy.

Luckily the movie only runs for 80 minutes but even at that length it’s slow and ponderous. If you want to make a monster-from-the-deep man-in-a-rubber-suit movie that takes itself seriously you need to be pretty good. Universal got away with it with their Creature from the Black Lagoon but the makers of The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues don’t have what it takes. The safest approach to take to this sort of thing is to go for pure fun, as Del Tenney did so successfully with The Horror of Party Beach. Sadly there’s not a lot of fun to be had with The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues.

The acting is dull, the special effects are unexciting, the plot is predictable. At the end we discover that There Are Things We Should Not Tamper With.

The monster is very very silly, which is one of the few good things about this movie.

This movie is available in Region 4 paired with another low-budget sci-fi/horror feature, Attack of the Giant Leeches. It’s a truly horrible print but I guess this is a movie that nobody is likely to bother doing any kind of restoration on.