The Raven (1935)

In the 1930s, Universal Studios was primarily known for its monster movies; the box office successes of Dracula and Frankenstein would kick start a new era of horror movies that lasted until 1936. Universal’s monster movies have left such an indelible mark on pop culture that it is easy to over look that other horror movies the studio produced in the era; most notably the three movies based off the works of Edgar Allan Poe (The Murders in the Rue Morgue, The Black Cat, and The Raven) - with Bela Lugosi appearing in each one.  The three movies may not be up to par with the likes of Bride of Frankenstein but they are fairly enjoyable and feature some of Lugosi’s best work.  In fact, The Raven may feature my favorite Bela Lugosi performance of all time.  It is far better showcase for Lugosi’s acting abilities than his most famous role, Count Dracula. If you have read the blog before, then you know that I am not a big fan of the 1931 Dracula.  It has its share of brilliant moments but, for the most part, it is a fairly dull movie. While Lugosi is genuinely creepy as Dracula, his performance is fairy one dimensional – though, I blame this more on script, which gives Bela very little to work with. 

In The Raven, Lugosi stars as the world famous surgeon, Dr. Vollin, who has a fairly eccentric hobby – he builds the torture devices that appear in the works of Edgar Allan Poe.  Vollin always seems to have Edgar Allan Poe on the brain, regardless of the situation.  When a young ballerina, Jean Thatcher (Irene Ware), is injured in a car accident, Dr. Vollin is asked to perform a surgery on her (the movie emphasizes that he is only man qualified for this job).   After the surgery is a success, Vollin and Jean form a bond, and the doctor becomes smitten with the much younger woman – much to the chagrin of her father.  After Judge Thatcher makes his objections known, and orders the doctor to stay away from his daughter, Vollin completely loses his mind and, with the help of a disfigured convict (Boris Karloff), he plots his revenge.

 There are a few interesting touches to The Raven that separate it from most horror movies from that era:

1.       It is heavily implied that, had it not been for the meddling of her father, Dr. Vollin and Jean would have ended up together.  While Dr. Vollin does have his eccentricities, he can turn on the charm when the situation calls for it and it’s not too surprising that Jean would be attracted to his personality.  When Jean, in a show of gratitude, does a dance interpretation of “The Raven” on the stage, Dr. Vollin is genuinely moved by the gesture.  It is also clear that Jean is one of the few souls that Dr. Vollin can actually open up to; there is a sense that she could have brought some normality to his life but, unfortunately, fate dealt Dr. Vollin a rotten hand. After Judge Thatcher confronts Dr. Vollin, you can feel his entire world come crashing down.  He is a broken man.  That doesn’t justify attempted murder on his part but it’s hard not to feel some sympathy towards him.  Lugosi takes what could have been a one dimensional character and makes him a tragic figure – at the end of the day he only wanted to be loved.   

2.       The Creepy Assistant was a staple in 1930s horror movies; the most famous example is probably the hunchbacked Fritz in James Whale’s Frankenstein.  These characters were either deformed and/or mute, and generally lacked any sort of empathy – they obeyed their masters without question.  Naturally, The Raven takes this trope and turns it on its head by making the creepy assistant, Edmond Bateman, the most sympathetic character in the movie.  Bateman is an escaped convict and wants to disguise his identity by having Dr. Vollin perform plastic surgery on his face. Vollin does perform the surgery, but disfigures Bateman’s face.  Vollin promises to fix it, but only if Bateman helps him with his revenge.  Bateman reluctantly agrees.  While Karloff does play second fiddle to Lugosi in this movie, he does manage to give Bateman a spark of humanity (even the bad make up job can’t hide this fact).  Bateman, despite his criminal past, has a moral conscience but is stuck between a rock and a hard place – he wants to help Jean but he also wants his face restored back to normal.  He does attempt to warn Jean about Vollin but she either won’t listen him (out of fear), or he gets thwarted by Dr. Vollin. 

3.       The heroine in 1930s horror movies was usually a naïve innocent, or a fairly good natured sort who made the best out of a bad situation.  Therefore, it is actually surprising just how callous Jean is towards Dr. Vollin and Edmond Bateman.  After Judge Thatcher orders Dr. Vollin to stay away from his daughter, Jean doesn’t put up any resistance and immediately runs into the arms of Dr. Jerry Holden, who is a complete dullard (which is on par for this type of movie). It should also be noted that actress Irene Ware has much better screen chemistry with Lugosi than she does with Lester Matthews; which leads one to believe that she is only with Holden to please her father.  Jean completely discards Vollin and doesn’t stop to think how her actions might affect him. When Dr. Vollin invites her to his house for the weekend (along with a few other guests) she takes Jerry with her and even jokes about how Vollin is “in love with her.”  It doesn’t even occur to her to reject Vollin’s invitation; which would make more sense given the circumstance.  Judge Thatcher speaks for the audience when he wonders why Jean would accept the invite. The answer being: If she didn’t there wouldn’t be a movie.  When she first lays eyes on Bateman, she lets out a scream.  It is interesting to see this type of insensitive behavior from a 1930s heroine; though, I’m not sure if this was intentional. The filmmakers probably assumed we would side with Jean and, therefore, find all her reactions completely reasonable.  

The Raven moves at an incredibly fast pace. It is incredibly efficient in its storytelling and doesn’t waste a lot of time – the opening scene is Jean getting into a car accident, followed by Dr. Holden claiming that only Dr. Vollin can perform the necessary surgery.  It doesn’t bore you with needless subplots and there is no cringe inducing love scene between the two juvenile leads; instead it shines the spotlight on two its two legendary stars, Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff. 

Credits
Cast: Bela Lugosi (Dr. Vollin), Boris Karloff (Edmond Bateman), Irene Ware (Jean Thatcher), Lester Matthews (Dr. Jerry Holden), Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Thatcher), Spencer Charters (Col. Bertram Grant), Inez Courtney (Mary Burns), Ian Wolfe (Geoffrey ‘Pinky’), Maidel Turner( Harriet).

Director:  Lew Landers
Writer: David Boehm (based off the poem by Edgar Allan Poe).  
Running Time:  61 min

Dracula (1931)

When I finally caved in and bought a DVD player, one of the first DVD sets I purchased was “The Monster Legacy DVD Gift Set,” which included fourteen movies, and small busts of Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, and the Wolf Man; all for the reasonable price of fifty six dollars! It was money well spent as I was concerned.  As a kid growing up in the 80s, the local station used to play these movies every Saturday night (and a few Hammer movies thrown in for a good measure).  There were books in the school library devoted to the classic monsters and I frequently checked them out.  Therefore, it pains to me say that I find the original Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, to be incredibly dull. It is the one film in the collection that is an absolute challenge to watch; House of Dracula may be a terrible movie, but at least it is entertaining.

The first twenty minutes, set in Transylvania, are superb and heavy on the atmosphere: Terrified villagers warn Renfield not to go up to Castle Dracula; the eerie scene of Dracula’s brides rising up from their coffins; the wonderful tracking shot of Dracula staring directly into the camera; and  Dracula slowly descending down a stairway that is covered in spider webs. These are all spine-chilling scenes and it is easy to understand why audiences in the 1930s were terrified by them.  The movie takes a turn for the worst when it switches locations to London and turns into a photographed stage play.  

 

This criticism isn’t anything new, in his 1967 book, “An Illustrated History of the Horror Movie,” Carlos Clarens writes,"The sequence of Renfield at the castle has a pleasant Gothic flavor, but, as soon as the action moves to London, the picture betrays its origins 'on the boards,' becoming talky, pedestrian, and uncinematic. We are told, when we should be shown, about the “red mist” that heralds the arrival of the vampire and about the werewolf seen running across Dr. Seward’s lawn.”

This is absolutely correct! Of course, one might argue that the movie is scarier because it doesn’t show us these things and allows us to use our imagination instead. That argument doesn't apply to this movie; the lack of visual effects is due to necessity rather than artistic expression. This was a fairly low budget movie, after all.  The “werewolf running across the lawn” bit is great example; if this was accompanied by a creepy sound effect, or score, then it might be a chilling  moment, instead all we are given is David Manners’ half hearted line delivery.  A wolf running across your lawn isn’t something you see every day, but Jonathan Harker doesn’t seem all too concerned about it.  Manners wasn’t particularly happy to be cast in Dracula and it shows; much to his chagrin, he would  be cast as the juvenile lead in two more Universal Horror movies, The Mummy and The Black Cat. The limitations of Manners’ acting are even more apparent when you compare his performance to that of his leading lady, Helen Chandler, who is a more interesting, and livelier, performer.  Chandler’s performance is uneven, but she is very good later on in the movie when Mina, after having been bitten by the Count, tries to fight her more basic instincts. The scene where she flirts with Jonathan and then stares his neck, waiting to make her move, is a wonderful moment and Chandler is quite scary with her wide eyed stare.  It is the only real noteworthy moment in the final twenty minutes. 

It doesn’t help that most of the second half is set in Dr. Seward’s parlour; most of the time, the camera remains stationary as actors walk into frame, say their lines, and then exit. This portion of the movie drags on and often feels like a proud parent recording their children in a high school production (sans the nonstop zooms). This is a dull group of actors: Edward Van Sloan plods through the scenery while delivering endless exposition while everyone else scratches their heads in confusion.  Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye (as Renfield) will occasionally show up to breathe some life into the proceedings, but otherwise it is completely aimless. There is never any sense of urgency among the protagonists and, as a result, it doesn’t feel like the movie is building towards anything:  Jonathan repeatedly objects to Van Helsing’s methods; Mina keeps acting strange; Van Helsing ticks off Dracula; and Renfield tries to warn Mina about “the master.”

After a half hour of this nonsense, the movie finally switches locations to Carfex Abbey, Dracula’s new “home.” Hey, maybe we’ll be treated to an exciting one on one face off between Dracula and Van Helsing.  Dracula views the professor as a worthy adversary, so maybe the two of them…..NOPE (spoilers for an 85 year-old movie)……the famed count is killed off screen (his death is signified by a barely audible groan). This ending doesn’t hold a candle to the one in Frankenstein (also released in 1931): Victor Frankenstein finally takes responsibility for his actions and faces off with his creation inside a wind mill. This is a genuinely exciting scene sparked by Boris Karloff’s terrific turn as the Monster.  

Dracula is remembered today for Bela Lugosi’s iconic performance as the Count; his stilted line delivery and theatrical mannerism, which would be a debit to most actors, helps add an air of mystery to Dracula. There are historians that claim the Spanish – language version (shot at night time on the same sets as the Browning production) is a superior movie and from a technical stand point they are correct. Unfortunately, Carlos Villiarias, as Dracula, lacks Lugosi’s screen presence; he often makes funny faces to express his anger.  While Dracula is Lugosi’s most famous performance, it is by no means his best:  I prefer his turn as the demented, broken necked shepherd, Ygor, in Son of Frankenstein.  The more over the top Lugosi is, the more enjoyable his performances are.  It is really Dwight Frye that steals the movie with his creepy performance as the tragic Renfield; the likable real estate agent that is driven into madness by Dracula. The shot of him standing at the bottom of a ship’s stairway, staring into the camera with a mad look in his eyes and a huge grin plastered on his face, is one of the most unnerving moments in movie history.

Dracula is a mixed bag – an exciting twenty minutes, followed by nearly an hour of boredom (with a few bright spots thrown in).  If it is every on television, or streaming online, I recommend you watch the opening twenty minutes and then promptly find something else to watch.

Cast: Bela Lugosi (Count Dracula), Helen Chandler (Mina), David Manners (Jonathan Harker), Dwight Frye (Renfield), Edward Van Sloan (Van Helsing), Herbert Bunson (Dr. Seward), Frances Dade (Lucy), Joan Standing (Maid), Charles Gerrard (Martin).
Director: Tod Browning
Screenplay:  Garrett Fort (adapted from the 1924 stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston).
Based on the novel by Bram Stoker.
Running Time: 75 min.

The Mummy (1999)

How does Stephen Sommers manage to get quality actors to star in his movies? This is a question that has often puzzled me. Sommers is, at best, a poor man's Steven Spielberg. It is clear he has spent a lot of his time studying Spielberg's movies, but has learned very little from them. The Mummy is one of those rare films where an excellent cast is able to salvage a ridiculous screenplay and make it immensely entertaining. In fact, the cast is so good that they often make  Sommers look like a competent director. It's no coincidence that the The Mummy is the best (and only good) movie Sommers ever made.

The Mummy is a remake of the 1932 classic starring the great Boris Karloff, but whereas that film was a tragic, supernatural romance, Sommers' version is an adventure film in the vein of Indiana Jones. There is tons of action, but very little scares.  In fact, the weakest aspect of the film is the mummy itself, as played by Arnold Vosloo. Vosloo actually has a pretty good screen presence, but he isn't really given much to do until the last half hour of the film. Unfortunately for a significant portion of the film, the mummy is brought to life with extremely unconvincing CGI. A lot of time was spent on designing the look of the mummy, but in the end it looks more like an Altered Beast  reject than an actual movie villain.

There are a couple of odd decisions that Sommers makes in his screenplay, like how Imhotep's resurrection could, in essence, bring about the end of the world. In the 1999 film, Imhotep's resurrection brings about plagues on the Egyptian people, escalating in them being covered with boils and turned into mindless zombies controlled by Imhotep. You can argue that it ups the stakes, but it's rather silly plot device that the characters essentially shrug off.  In fact, The Mummy's biggest asset, its quirky sense of humor, is often its biggest drawback as well; it's hard to develop any sense of urgency when your  lead characters are constantly cracking jokes and remain in high spirits the entire time. I was also never able to buy that Imhotep would mistake Evelyn for a reincarnation of Anck-Su-Namun, largely for the fact that the two look nothing alike. It also doesn't help that in the sequel, The Mummy Returns, Sommers completely negates this plot point by having Meela, the real reincarnation of Anck-Su-Namum, showing up and, even more inexplicably, revealing that Evelyn is actually the reincarnation of Seti's daughter. 

The 1932 film, as well as the 1959 Hammer remake, were much more limited in their scope; neither Imhotep (Boris Karloff) nor Kharis (Christopher Lee in the remake) wanted to bring about the end of the world, they were motivated by love and loyalty; Imhotep wants to be reunited with his long lost love Ankh-es-en-Amon while Kharis seeks to punish those they have defiled the tomb of princess Ananka.  Kharis is aided in his revenge by the fez wearing Mehemmet Bey, a member of a religious sect that has made it their mission to protect the tomb of Ananka. It's interesting to note that the 1959 film is more of a reworking of Universal Mummy films from the 40s (The Mummy's Hand, The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Ghost, and The Mummy's Curse) than the Karloff original. In each successive film, the mummy of Kharis (played by Tom Tyler in the first film, Lon Chaney, Jr. in the sequels) sets about murdering those responsible for opening the tomb of Ananka and is abetted by a fez wearing cultist; his journeys take him from the sands of Egypt to the swamps of Louisiana. 

In fact, Sommers' movie owes a greater debt to the The Mummy's Hand than it does to the Karloff original.  The Mummy's Hand begins on a flashback set in Ancient Egypt and shows how Kharis attempted to resurrect his beloved Ananka, only to be punished for his efforts. Sommers begins his movie in a similar fashion; Imhotep is having an affair with Anck-Su-Namun, the mistress of Pharaoh Seti I. It comes to an abrupt end when Seti wises up to their love and is then stabbed to death by both of them. Imhotep flees, while Anck-Su-Namun commits suicide. Imhotep's attempt to resurrect her are interrupted by Seti's guards and he is buried alive with fleshing eating scarabs. 

The original 1932  movie begins with an archaeological expedition, lead by Sir Joseph Whemple, discovering Imhotep's mummy. While Sir Joseph and his friend, Dr. Muller, are outside having a discussion, Whemple's impatient assistant reads from the Scroll of Thoth and revives Imhotep; this encounter with the living mummy drives him insane and it is later revealed  that he died laughing in an asylum. It's a nice bit of understated direction by Karl Freund; Imhotep is never actually shown rising from his sarcophagus, instead his resurrection is hinted at by a small glint in his eyes and slight movement of his right arm. This is in direct contrast to the fire and brimstone that signals Imhotep's revival in the 1999 remake. 

In The Mummy's Hand there's a secret cult trying to protect the secret of Ananka's tomb, one of their members happens to be Professor Andoheb, curator of the Cairo Museum. When an expedition led by archaeologist Steve Banning sets out to find Ananka's tomb, Andoheb, by burning tana leaves, resurrects Kharis and orders him to kill members of the party. Sommers does a slight variation of the plot in his remake; the Madjei are a religious order devoted to keeping the location of Hamunaptra (where Imhotep attempted to resurrect Anck-Su-Namum) secret; one of them happens to be Dr. Terrance Bey, curator of the Cairo Museum. The Medjai, however, are actually good guys and their leader, Ardeth Bay, aids Rick and Evelyn in defeating Imhotep. In the Karloff version, Imhotep (in the guise of Ardeth Bay) actually helps Frank Whemple (Sir Joseph's son) find the tomb of Ankh-es-en-Amon. The idea of a mummy exacting his revenge on those that defiled his beloved princess' tomb is taken from The Mummy's Hand. In the 1932 movie, Imhotep only kills those who stand in the way of him being reunited with Ankh-es-en-Amon; he is a much more sympathetic character than Kharis in the four Universal films (and Hammer remake) and Imhotep in the remake. In his remake, Stephen Sommers essentially took the character of Imhotep and injected him with steroids; he is extremely buffed and dispatches of his victims by sucking the life force from their bodies. He can also change shapes (he turns into sand a couple of times) and control the elements of nature. 

The strongest similarity between The Mummy's Hand and 1999 remake is that they both are laden with comedy relief.  In the former,  it comes in the forms of Banning's assistant Babe Jenson and The Great Solvani, a magician who happens to be touring Egypt and agrees to fund their expedition. In the latter, it comes in the forms of the backstabbing Beni and Jonathan, Evelyn's never do well older brother.  Banning strikes up a romance with Solvani's daughter, Marta, while in the remake, Rick O' Connell, strikes up a romance with Evelyn. The romantic subplot is the one area that Sommers vastly improves on; in the original the romantic lead was the rather dull actor David Manners (who also co-starred in Dracula and The Black Cat) . Imhotep is a much more interesting character than Frank Whemple, therefore we find it frustrating that Helen (the reincarnation of Ankh-es-en-Amon) would fall for such a bore; he's a bigger stiff than Imhotep in mummy form. The romance in The Mummy's Hand feels rather forced; Marta goes from disliking Steve to falling in love with him in a span of five minutes. The romance between Rick and Evelyn, on the other hand, feels natural to the story line and is extremely believable due to the chemistry of the actors - it is easily the best part of the movie. 

I rather like The Mummy, despite Sommers' hackneyed screenplay and unimaginative direction. Whatever limitations Sommers has as a filmmaker, he some how managed to hit the jack pot with the actors he assembled for this film; Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and John Hannah could have easily phoned in their performances and collected paycheck, but they manage to bring such warmth to their roles that we (or at least I) don't really mind that Imhotep is nowhere to be seen in the first hour (except in the prologue).  In fact, had Sommers dropped the whole Mummy angle and just focused on the misadventures of these three characters, it would probably be one of my all time favorite films. Oh well, at least it makes for an entertaining two hours.  Brendan Fraser is probably one of the most frustrating actors in movie history; he is a talented actor and can often wow you with an amazing dramatic performance (he managed to hold his own opposite Ian McKellan in Gods and Monsters) only to follow it up with a vehicle that is not worthy of his talents (Monkeybone, Dudley Do Right, etc.) It's quite a shame. Rachel Weisz is equally lovable as the slightly clumsy, but brilliant Evelyn. After Evelyn has accidentally resurrected Imhotep, she accepts full blame and makes it her goal to right her wrong. Too often summer blockbuster movies will gloss over the fact that the lead character is often to blame for everything that has gone wrong, The Mummy, on the other hand, doesn't take the easy out and holds its characters responsible. John Hannah steals the film with his comic portrayal as Jonathan, who also happens to be an exceptional pickpocket. Jonathan is probably the most interesting character in the film, he's a complete scoundrel and has never done an honest day's work in his entire life, but we suspect that underneath that somewhat slimy exterior there is a decent guy waiting to emerge. That's why the ending is extremely satisfying, because instead of giving Jonathan a "heroic" death, Sommers allows for him to survive at the end. 



Credits
Cast: Brendan Fraser (Rick O' Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evy Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Kevin J. O' Conner (Beni), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bey), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Erick Avari (Dr. Terrence Bey), Patricia Velasquez (Anck Su Namun), Stephen Dunham (Mr. Henderson), Corey Johnston (Mr. Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Mr. Burns), Bernard Fox (Winston Havlock).

Director: Stephen Sommers.
Screenplay: Stephen Sommers.  Stephen Sommers, Lloyd Fonvielle, Kevin Jarre. (screen story)
Running Time: 125 min.

The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini (1966)

The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini is an amazing movie! It's amazing that producers Samuel Z. Arkoff and James H. Nicholson could pull together so much talent and make such a bad movie. American International Pictures (A.I.P) is often credited for being the launching pad for many prominent actors and directors (Jack Nicholson and Francis Ford Coppola, to name a few), but it was also where many actors finished their careers as well (Karloff, Rathbone, Peter Lorre, and Buster Keaton).  Therefore, it is a real curio to see Boris Karloff and  Basil Rathbone sharing the screen with former Disney star Tommy Kirk, Nancy Sinatra, Aron Kincaid, and would be starlet Susan Hart (future wife of producer Nicholson).  Karloff at least seems to be having fun in his extended cameo, while Rathbone can never shake off his embarrassment.  The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini is a disaster of movie, but like most disasters you are compelled watch, despite your better judgement.

The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini is often considered to be the last of the A.I.P Beach movies, but I think a more accurate description would be that it was a failed attempt at trying to reinvent the formula. The beach setting had out lived its usefulness, so the most logical thing was to take the party on the road. In Ski Party, our gang of lovable beach bums relocated to the slopes of Denver. In Ghost in the Invisible Bikini, the party is moved to a......haunted house. This was not the first attempt by A.I.P to meld the beach movie and horror genres; in 1965 they released Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine, which had Vincent Price co-starring with beach movie regulars Frankie Avalon and Dwayne Hickman.  It's interesting to note that Karloff, Price, and Peter Lorre all had cameos in the first three beach movies; Priced played a beatnik poet (Beach Party), Lorre, the owner of a gym(Muscle Beach Party) and Karloff, an art critic (Bikini Beach).

Not only is there a change a scenery, but a change in the cast as well. It is apparent that A.I.P was hoping that a different cast of characters would breathe life into the tired formula; the only returning character is Harvey Lembeck's dimwitted motorcyclist, Eric Von Zipper. Tommy Kirk and Deborah Walley are given the Frankie and Annette roles, while Aron Kincaid is given the role of the dopey party goer; a role usually reserved for Jody McCrea. The problem is that there really isn't a central character that the audience can relate to. Who is the main character in The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini?  In theory, Chuck (Tommy Kirk) should be the main character, but he is off screen for significant portions of the film and often takes a backseat to  Bobby's (Aron Kincaid) histrionics. The previous films centered around Frankie and Annette's often turbulent relationship; you may not necessarily like the characters, but at least there was a solid framework to hang the story on. The budding romance between Chuck and Lili (Deborah Walley) seems like an afterthought on the part of the filmmakers. When Lili first meets Chuck she is a bit apprehensive towards him, but changes her tune at the flip of a switch. Chuck and Lili's romance should be the heart of the film, but the film makers abandon it to make way for nonstop rock n' roll numbers and "hilarious" slapstick comedy. Walley isn't really given much to do, except play the damsel in distress at the film's climax.

The same flaw applies towards the Bobby/ Vicki story line. Vicki (Nancy Sinatra), for some inexplicable reason, hopes to spark a romance with Bobby, but he has wandering eyes. This nearly costs Bobby his life as the woman he keeps drooling over, Sinistra, is a would be a murderer. Luckily for him, her eye sight is extremely poor and instead of offing him, she ends up destroying a knight's armor and a bust of Julius Caesar.  This subplot takes up the entire midsection the film, only to be forgotten in the last half hour. This is a recurring theme in  The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini, a character or story line will be introduced, only to be discarded later on. It is an extremely overcrowded film. Other than continuity, why bring back Eric Von Zipper? He doesn't really add anything to the proceedings. In the previous films he was the main villain, or at least tried to be, in this film he is a helpless bystander.

If IMDB and Wikipedia are correct, then the scenes with Karloff and Susan Hart were added after principle photography had finished, thus adding more unnecessary characters into the mix. Boris Karloff plays a Hiram Stokely, a recently deceased carnival man who has 24 hours to do one good deed if he wants to enter heaven. The catch is that he must do it from the confines of his crypt, so he sends down Cecily (the title character) to make sure his heirs (Chuck, Lili, and the eccentric Myrtle Forbush) get their rightful share of his fortune. His shady lawyer, Reginald Ripper (Basil Rathbone), hopes to scare away Hiram's beneficiaries, so he can keep the inheritance for himself. This is the movie's plot, but again, the film doesn't treat this story line with any real sense of urgency. Even worse is the fact that Cecily, despite being a ghost and being able to go unobserved, is pretty useless for the most part. She, on occasion, will play practical jokes on Ripper, but she rarely lifts a finger to help the protagonists; at least for the first 75 minutes of the movie. Cecily will often pop into frame (she is tinted blue for a ghostly effect), mug it up for a few seconds, and then promptly disappear.

At the film's climax, when Lili is in danger of being cut in half by a buzz saw (while tied to a log), Cecily stands in the corner and screams at Chuck to save her. Why doesn't Cecily stop the buzz saw herself?  She does dispose of Reginald Ripper by jamming his gun with her finger, but that could have easily been avoided had she acted a lot sooner.  The filmmakers try to imply that she is influencing the movement of the characters by having her whisper stuff in their ears; at one point she pops into frame and tells Vicki to wear a bikini, because it will get Bobby's attention. This idea never comes off as well as it should, mainly due to the poor execution of the gag;  a character will often be in mid sentence when the film suddenly freezes, just then Cecily materializes into frame and whispers something into his/her ear. After having dispensed her advice, Cecily abruptly disappears, the film resumes, and the character will repeat what Cecily just said. It happens a couple of times throughout the film, but it's only real function is to make Susan Hart's role seem bigger than it actually is.

The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini is a complete mess of a film, but it's a beautiful mess; the cinematography by Stanley Cortez is extremely first rate. It's a shame that his talents were wasted on an extremely silly film like this.  He creates a genuinely spooky atmosphere, especially during Sinistra's musical number in which she seemingly melts into the shadows. The musical numbers themselves are pretty forgettable, though I do have a soft spot for the song "Geronimo," performed by Nancy Sinatra. It's not a great song, but it is rather catchy. Plus, forgettable rock n' roll songs were a staple in the beach movies, so why should The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini prove to be the exception?

Other things I like about The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini:

1) The double act of Tommy Kirk and Aron Kincaid is fairly funny at times; Kirk is such a bland actor that he perfectly balances out Kincaid's over zealous performance. The problem is that the film only pairs them together for a few scenes, thus wasting a potentially funny comedy team. Their scenes together play like a mini-remake of the wax museum scene in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein; Kincaid is the scaredy cat, while Kirk tries to be the voice of reason. However, just Lou Costello in the earlier film, Kincaid's fears are justified. I rather like Aron Kincaid, he's a fairly energetic and fun performer to watch. He also later voiced Killer Croc on Batman: The Animated Series; that alone makes him awesome.

2) The opening scene with Hiram and Cecily is fairly amusing and often funny, especially when she drops the bomb that he is dead. Karloff is pretty adept at comedy, so is Susan Hart for that matter (she is genuinely funny in Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine as the bikini clad fembot). There's great interplay between the two actors that it's a shame that it amounts to very little as this scene is pretty disconnected from rest of the movie.

Interesting piece of trivia: the opening shot of the film (of Cecily in a red hood walking through a cemetery) was lifted from the Vincent  Price/ Roger Corman thriller The Haunted Palace. A.I.P was known for it's an extreme cheapness and would often lift footage from their previous films to pad out the running time of their latest release.

3) Nancy Sinatra is by no means a good actress, but she has a likable screen presence. You almost  care about the plight of Vicki....I say almost, because the character completely vanishes in the movie's second half. Though, she is in the final shot of the film; her and Bobby are dancing and having a groovy time, when all of a sudden Cecily materializes into frame. Bobby goes in for a kiss, but Cecily disappears. Bobby and Vicki shrug if off and resume their dancing. Fade to black. The end.

4) The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini maybe one of the earliest postmodern films in that the characters are constantly acknowledging the fact that they are in a movie. In one scene, Eric Von Zipper and his gang spot Reginald Ripper entering a secret passage and Zipper remarks that he looks like "Sherlock Holmes." The movie film will often cut back to Karloff commenting on the action as if he is a member of the audience; he's watching events unfold from a crystal ball inside his crypt.

There a plenty of amusing moments in the movie, but for every good idea there are, at least, two bad ones. It's an extremely disjointed picture that could have been easily improved in the editing room, or if they had taken the time to rewrite the script. Instead of adding more characters, they should have written a few out of the script. Buster Keaton was originally slated to played Chief Chicken Father, but, sadly, passed away before filming began. The filmmakers, rather than write out the character, decided to recast the role with
Benny Rubin and let's just say he doesn't hold a candle to the Great Stone Face.

Credits
Cast:  Boris Karloff (Hiram Stokely - The Corpse), Susan Hart (Cecily - The Ghost), Tommy Kirk (Chuck Phillips), Aron Kincaid (Bobby), Basil Rathbone (Reginald Ripper), Deborah Walley (Lili Morton), Nancy Sinatra (Vicki), Patsy Kelly (Myrtle Forbush), Harvey Lembeck (Eric Von Zipper), Jesse White (J. Sinister Hulk), Quinn O' Hara (Sinistra), Bobbi Shaw (Princess Yolanda), Benny Rubin (Chicken Feather), Francis X. Bushman (Malcolm), Piccola Pupa (Herself), Andy Romano (J.D.), Albert Nelson (Puss), Myrna Ross (Boots), The Bobby Fuller Four (themselves).

Director: Don Weis
Screenplay: Louis M. Heyward, Elwood Ullman.
Running Time: 83 min.