Squrpleboy

I cannot understate how much I disliked this film. Ad-libbing in front of a camera while stoned for an hour and a half should and could be done so much better. The acting is poor, the cinematography is garbage and the plot is non-existent. The only somewhat entertaining portion of the movie is when Jack Nicholson's character shows up -- at least he has a personality and some interesting things to say -- but he has 15 minutes of screen time and then we're left with Fonda's mannequin impression and Hopper's annoying dirt-bag schtick for the remainder of the film. Even worse, if you eliminated all the scenes of the main characters riding motorcycles set to music the movie might be 1/2 an hour at best. I can't believe this was critically lauded AND nominated for 2 Oscars. My favourite part was the end scene -- both because the movie was over and because I very much wanted to do the same. Maybe I needed to be stoned immaculate to enjoy this.

Rio Lobo is easily one of the worst Westerns I've ever watched. Laughable dialogue and delivery from some of the worst actors I've ever seen (I can't single any one out because they are all sooooo bad); I wouldn't be surprised if every scene was comprised of the first take. The sets and cinematography are late 60's television quality at best, like you'd see in a corny episode of Star Trek or The Monkees. John Wayne emotes with all the passion of someone reading off the back of a cereal box (he never was a truly good actor) but Jack Elam is worth a few chuckles with his over-the-top crazy, old drunkard routine. That's worth one star. I'll give it another star for a couple nice landscape shots but that's being generous. Apparently this film is a "remake" of two other Howard Hawks/John Wayne pictures but for the life of me I can't imagine why. With the excitement of the revisionist and Spaghetti westerns already in full swing when Rio Lobo was released this film comes off as a lazy and embarrassing throw-back to the Westerns our grandpappies might have liked.

The Hammer horror films of the '50's - '70's hold a special place in the hearts of those who love the classic genre, but the reality is that they truly are outdone by the original Universal Pictures predecessors in every way.

With this version of The Mummy (1959) we are treated to a "re-imagining" of the story of the eerie, and macabre love story of an ancient Egyptian priest who will sacrifice everything for the forbidden woman of his desires, ultimately becoming the undead creature that is the (movie) Mummy. As it happens, it is a fairly mundane and hackneyed plot that has seen itself used many times before and since with one "monster" or another transposed in the lead villain role. This is the just first sign of a studio looking for a quick buck, in my opinion.

Where the film succeeds is in the wonderful sets and vibrant, Technicolor film process. Artifacts from ancient Egypt look real, the swamps dank and dreary, the interiors and costuming are wonderful with everything popping for the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the main character's performance or physical image.

Christopher Lee's portrayal of the Mummy flat out stinks. It's nice to know that by the time he was making films with Lucas, Burton and Jackson he had attained that level of consummate and revered acting, but he certainly did not have it here. Putting aside the fact that he had several mishaps and accidents on the set of this film which "supposedly" impeded his performance I don't buy that that is what you are seeing in this film; he was hired for his menacing height and little else. His movements come off not only as awkward but laughable at times, his make-up leaves almost no room for emoting and even his eyes seem to emit little of the inner turmoil he is supposed to be going through. (Yes, he has to be somewhat stiff and undead but let's be honest here, really.) This is the director's fault; you shoot scenes until you have something believable, not just to get them "in the can". Peter Cushing gives his usual, reserved and genuine performance, but the Mummy's role itself is a mess.

The worst part of the whole thing is that the Mummy costume and make-up are just terrible. Whereas the make-up used on Boris Karloff in the original The Mummy (1932) still holds up even by today's standards for authenticity, ghoulishness and wonderment, Christopher Lee's character is given something that looks like a kid smeared a concoction of mud-pie and plaster over his head. The details are negated and lost in rudimentary form. The bandages that should have wrapped his body for 4000 years are quite obviously a dirt-covered body-suit all fitting comfortably into separate legs, torso and arm pieces ---- you can even see a zipper-seam in the back! Preposterous.

This version of The Mummy will remain a "classic" by default, whether for time-won nostalgia or the simple love of the title character amongst the pantheon of old-time movie monsters, in general. Having seen it though, I can't recommend it or re-watch it knowing there have been superior versions both before and since.