Book review - "Joan Crawford" by Scott Eyman (2025)

 Very good book. Eyman loves to step up when redeeming maligned figures. He's sympathetic to Joan but doesn't gloss over her negative qualities. Solid research. A few too many smart ass asides.

Movie review - "Matinee" (1993) ***1/2

 A film that's impossible to dislike though you can also see why it didn't make many waves comercially - a William Castle type filmmaker visits Key West during the Cuban Missle Crisis. The characters are interesting - a beatnik poet JD, a kid whose father is in the services, a monster mad kid, the Castle filmmaker (John Goodman), his startlet girlfriend (Cathy Moriarty), an anti war kid and her woke parents. I'm not sure the plots are that great - Castle needs some money, there's some young romance. They throw in a spectacular cinema collapse at the end - I'm not sure that was worth the money. They should have had real aliens invade.

But there's so much love for film, filmmakers, buffs, and a recall of the period - like I say it's a real sweetheart of a film. Goodman and Moriaty in particular are great fun. Cameos from Dick Miller and John Sayles.

Movie review - "Riot" (1969) **

 A really strong director would've made this sing. Buzz Kulik can't bring it. It should be good: solid story, real life locations, taciturn Jim Brown teams well with more chatty Gene Hackman.

But it's so lethargic. No excitement in the riot, or suspense in the siege, or sense of urgency. All the elements are there. I think James Poe wrote a good script.

A disappointment.

Movie review - "Dillinger" (1945) **1/2

 A massive hit in its day, made a quasi star out of Lawrence Tierney and really launched writer Phil Yordan. (William Castle also worked on it.) Tierney is the best thing about it, with his intensity, Cagney-liked clipped voice, lack of morality and presence. His character isn't really defined -what drives him? Neither is that of Anne Jeffrey who plays his gal - she finds him sexy enough to not turn him in then betrays him, it seems.

There's a strong support cast including Edmund Lowe and Elisa Cook Jnr, and memorable moments such as Dillinger shooting two old people. It seems far more influenced by Warners 30s movies (eg Dillinger takes over an established gang) than facts... I kept forgetting this was about Dillinger then occasionally a fact would sneak through, like a black gangster, or escaping with a fake gun or going to watch a movie at the Biograph with a woman in a red dress.

It's not a hidden gem, it's underwhelming in many respects, but it does have interest.

Movie review - "The Tingler" (1959) **

I loved this on the small screen. On the big screen it was a slog - badly directed and blocked, clumsily written. I kept falling asleep. Vincent Price props it up single handedly.

Actually that's not fair - the basic story is really good with a bright idea and decent twists (it was the husband etc ) even if it does borrow liberally from Diabolique. The thumping heartbeat was spooky as was the dash of colour.

But I didn't enjoy this. See it on the small screen!

Book review - "Crackpot: The Obssessions of John Waters" by John Waters

Bright collection of essays from one of the greatest director raconteurs (up there with Kevin Smith). It was originally published in 1986 but this edition updates it with some more recent articles, including the making of Hairpsray and several speeches from the Independent Film Awards which tend to over-rely on the one joke structure - Waters advising people in ways to be shocking ("have affairs", "when you accept an award say you deserve it"). This got repetitive and made me realise a lot of Waters' shtick is based on this. But when he writes from the heart - about Buddy Deaners, or teaching in prison, or his love for stuntmiesters like William Castle and actors like Pia Zadora, or review Hail Mary by Godard - he can't be beaten, and he's always funny.

Movie review - "When Strangers Marry" (1944) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Cult noir which promised a bigger career as director for William Castle than eventuated - he could clearly do a great job on a two week shoot... but that didn't necessarily mean he'd do a better one on a three week shoot.

It's tight and crisp - it clocks in at a little over an hour and there's still time for a music number (Dean Jagger and Kim Hunter pass via a Harlem club and they do a dance) but you don't feel cheated. The story (mostly from Philip Yordan) is neat and has a solid fnal twist. Castle's handling is fresh, the atmosphere is evocative. There are some clunky moments, and a surprisingly large amount of humour involving a dog but you forgive it.

The chief benefit is the cast - young Kim Hunter is excellent as the bewildered heroine, Dean Jagger is ideal as her mysterious husband (who looks as though he could be a killer), and young Robert Mitchum has charisma to burn as the best friend (his acting is a little awkward at the end, but it's great to see him).

I don't want to over hype this film - it's probably the sort of movie better discovered than hyped - but it was entertaining.

Movie review - "Cave of Outlaws" (1951) **1/2

I was intrigued by this - a Western set in a cave, with location filming at some famous caves in Arizona. The cast was strong - MacDonald Carey, Alexis Smith, Hugh O'Brian, Victor Jory, Edgar Buchanan, Russ Tamblyn (as Carey as a boy). But it never quite hit home.

It starts well - Tamblyn being part of a gang that robbed a train, and hiding some gold in the cave. Tamblyn spends 15 years in prison and comes out as Carey, trying to find it. He's dogged by inspector Buchanan, everyone wants to lend him money because they assume he's going to be rich. Alexis Smith wants some of that money to set up a newspaper.

I loved all this. But the film goes off in different directions - maybe it was just different to how I thought it would go in my head, but it felt unsatisfactory. There's all this awesome story set up that isn't used - like Tamblyn's father who forced him to take part in the robbery and was killed (why not keep him alive? Why not use ma?), or the posse leader who beats up Tamblyn brutally at the start to find out where the gold is (why not see himagain?), or the fellow gang members (why not use one of them? or a relative of them?). Why spend so much time on Alexis Smith's missing husband - who cares about him? Why not have him as part of the gang (or the son of someone in the gang - or posse?)  Why not have head villain Victory Jory tied up with the original robbery? Why have Edgar Buchanan be the one who shoots Jory and sidekick O'Brien, and not Carey?

I wish there had been more scenes in the caves and also that Smith had been more genuinely treacherous - the role is a bit of a nothing. Or had a second girl character who was treacherous to give it some variety. And the plan to get a bullet by doing a duel is dumb- very dangerous! Why not just take out the bullet.

Still the cave setting is different, the cast strong. And there's some bright dialogue and scenes where people try, like the duel.

Movie review – “Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story” (2007) ****

Enormously enjoyable documentary about the life and films of one of America’s most fondly remembered producer-directors – to a section of the public anyway. You can tell which section when you see the several directors who talk with glowing affection about Castle – Joe Dante, John Landis, John Waters. All with a common thread: males who were about ten when Castle was in his heyday. Because that was the target market for Castle’s films: baby boomers, male, who loved the gimmicks. As Waters (who has written about Castle often and well, and was inspired to use gimmicks in his own career) points out, after seeing 13 Ghosts all people talked about at school the next day was seeing the skeleton – no one talked if the film was any good.

William Castle’s story is a prime example of the maxim that everyone has their moment. He lost his parents at an early age, and became obsessed with theatre after seeing Bela Lugosi on stage as Dracula. He went to work in the theatre as a stage manager and actor, and eventually went out to Hollywood and got a job at Columbia. He became a journeyman director, doing all sorts of films (one quite highly regarded - When Strangers Marry – even if it surprisingly isn’t discussed much here.) He got the rights to a book he really liked only to see Orson Welles pinch it and turn it into Lady from Shanghai - although Castle got to work on it.

 

Castle's moment came in the late 50s when he mortgaged his house to fund his own production, Macabre. From all accounts an unremarkable film, Castle's fear that it would flop motivated him to ballyhoo the crap out of it and it was a big hit. It unleashed a popular series of horror films, all better remembered for their gimmicks rather than their quality.

Castle promoted himself as much as his movies, even appearing in them at the beginning in introductions. Few directors were as well known to the public (one that was, Hitchcock, was inspired by Castle to use a gimmick to promote Psycho). Still, a great showman, nice guy, shrewd businessman, talented producer, workmanlike director - and he left a real legacy. The sort of theatricality and showmanship in something like The Tingler (which puts the audience in the film) is missed today.

Eventually the tide ran out around the mid 60s and Castle's films lost their lustre at the box office. He had a massive late career windfall when he bought the rights to Rosemary's Baby in galleys but Paramount wanted Roman Polanski to direct, so he was forced to produce. (A good move - Castle was never much of a director, strictly functional in his control of the medium - the two most famous films he was associated with, Rosemary and Shanghai, were from other directors).

I have a theory he went to his grave thinking "if only I'd directed Rosemary's Baby people would have taken me seriously" but he wouldn't have done ten percent good a job; he was too interested in pennies.) He fell seriously ill during the late 60s and so couldn't cash in on the success of Rosemary's Baby. None of his follow ups did as well (he even directed a film starring Marcel Marceau which flopped badly) but he lived long enough to see his legend grow. He probably smoked too many cigars for his own good - he was only 63 when he died but looked twenty years older.

This is everything a documentary on Castle should be - warm, funny, with great photographs and talking heads (Castle's daughter is very likeable - she has his nose - and Roger Corman even pops up). John Waters is the best value - part of me wished he'd narrated the whole thing. In film extracts, Castle is a little stiff in his introductions for someone so publicised - I think Hitchcock had more natural charisma, as well as being the better director.

Web review - "Splatter" (2009) *

I love Roger Corman and Joe Dante, so I wanted to love this too, but it's not very good. It looks cheap as anything - like it was shot on old VHS. In the series' defence this was relatively early days for digital but it doesn't hold up well. Corey Feldman has fun as the rock star who kills himself and then invites potential beneficiaries to his will to a mansion and sets about killing them.

There's some humour and broadly drawn characterisations. I got the William Castle throwback but those films had more charm and atmosphere than this. I only saw a 30 minute version - apparently three episodes cut together, whereas there are 10 out there (different versions of people being killed). I get the gimmick but it means we never have time to invest in the characters or their relationships. The splatter feels tacked on.

Movie review - "Texas, Brooklyn and Heaven" (1948) **

Guy Madison was a handsome kid who made bobby soxers sigh in a short appearance in Since You Went Away but who was soon exposed to be a particularly wooden actor - never better demonstrated than in this romantic comedy. It's a kind of young-folks-in-the-big-city lark, complete with female lead Diana Lynn who played a variation of this part in My Friend Irma. Both get up to adventures - he's a newspaper journo turned aspiring playwright, she's a hitchhiker who winds up in a swim suit on Coney Island, there are wacky pickpockets, crusty old bartenders, zany little old ladies, theatre producers, shenanigans with a horse, etc.

It's like the book for a musical only there aren't any songs and it isn't in colour. Also, the leads are basically failures - Madison doesn't make the grade as a playwright, Lynn isn't much good at anything, neither of them make a go of it in New York City, and it turns out they both really want to raise a ranch for horses in Texas. Then why leave Texas to go to New York? Madison gets an inheritance - he could have just spent it on the ranch and that was that.

The supporting cast try and it moves along at a fair clip. Audie Murphy pops up at the beginning as a newsroom boy in Madison's paper. You can glimpse the famous Dallas Book Depository. But this is pretty ordinary. Directed by William Castle!

Movie review – “Polyester” (1981) **1/2

John Waters in Douglas Sirk/Ross Hunter territory, with a bit of William Castle thrown in. It’s a melodrama about a long-suffering suburban housewife (Divine) – hubby runs a porno theatre and cheats with his secretary, mum taunts her, son is hooked on glue on stomping on feet, the daughter is a tramp who wants an abortion, the hunk down the road (Tab Hunter) is actually a louse.

 

Ocasionally this is tiresome, in part because there’s no real overall story, just a series of bad things happening to Divine (who is passive most of the time). 

But some of it is hilarious eg drive in playing a triple feature of Maguerite Duras films – and Waters really goes there (eg abortion satire). Like the William Castle pictures, when watching it without the gimmicks you can’t help thinking ‘gee this would be better with the gimmick’ so you kind of feel like a second class citizen. 

 

Hunter doesn’t strike the right note in his first few scenes but gradually grows more comfortable and he’s very well cast. (It's not a very big part - due to his fee being relatively expensive for Waters - and he doesn't appear for a while).

Movie review – “Mr Sardonicus” (1961) ***1/2

A rare William Castle period movie – set in the 19th century, it’s about a doctor (Ronald Lewis) summoned to the house of his former love (Aubrey Dalton) to work on her disabled rich husband (Guy Rolfe). Rolfe’s part was surely meant for Vincent Price, whose voice might have given this more kick; having said that Rolfe is pretty good. 

 

The Sardonicus make up is effective and I enjoyed the story – with it’s leech torturing of young girls, creepy graveyards, made up European country setting, Oscar Homolka as a hulking servant, decent twists (eg Sardonicus can’t eat or drink at the end), final shot.
 

Most of all there’s the appearance of Castle himself at the beginning of the film and towards the end announcing a poll whether Sardonicus has been punished enough – what a producer! Dalton is pretty but her character is a bit unsympathetic – I kept expecting her to be punished, too.

Movie review – “13 Ghosts” (1961) ***

No wonder kids loved William Castle films – he made it feel like you were in the movie. Not only did he get exhibitors to distribute special glasses, he speaks to the audience at the beginning telling them how to use glasses to view ghosts, he provides subtitles to let them know when it’s time to use them, has a ten year old boy as the hero, and he appears at the end. 

This actually isn’t a bad ghost story – yes I’m being generous but it’s quite spooky. It’s about a family who move into a haunted house – dad is an absent-minded palaeontologist, which is different, mum sort of hangs around and is exasperated, there’s a hot elder daughter with the name Medea (Jo Morrow), and a younger brother… very Andy Hardy. The daughter romances a lawyer (Martin Milner), the boy bonds with a creepy old lady. There’s Ouija boards, séances, dodgy adults, kooky dads, dinosaur skeletons, dark rooms, and thirteen ghosts to choose from (including a lion tamer who lost his head). Good fun, brightly done.

Movie review – “I Saw What You Did” (1965) **1/2

After a string of successful films at Columbia, William Castle moved his operation over to Universal – not that you can really discern any change in style. It starts off as a sort of cute teen comedy about two teenage girls who, while babysitting on their sisters, make prank calls. They call one lady, who is then promptly murdered by her husband in the shower – she calls him a freak beforehand (is he a cross dresser? I wasn't sure). It’s a shocking sequence, taking this from teen film to horror in the blink of an eye. 

 

In a way it’s not unlike Psycho, which went from heist to horror – although that didn’t feel as much of a gear shift. The girls make a return prank call, say “I saw what you did and I know who you are”. They’re intrigued by the guy’s voice and go to investigate…

 

Although the prank call component feels dated, stranger danger is just as relevant as ever, giving this an unexpected contemporary quality. What gives it extra kick is the climax involves the killer going one of the teens and her younger sister who are alone in the house. This is really scary - Castle films often had very strong endings and this is no exception. (Although I was thrown by another gear shift - the teen goes from severely traumatised to happy go lucky in the blink of an eye.)

 

Joan Crawford is top billed but is actually in quite a small role as the killer's (John Ireland’s) neighbour. I’m guessing they thought about having her play the killer but for the story to work the killer has to be a guy – to get the girls interested int racking him down. 

 

John Ireland is very good, and the writing displays some genuine flair as to how teenage girls act and think when they're on their own.

Movie review – “Straight Jacket” (1964) *** (warning: spoilers)

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? made old movie stars genuine box office attractions for the next couple of years, especially Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, the two big drag queen icons. Apparently this was originally meant to star Joan Blondell and Crawford only replaced her after Blondell was injured, which sounds strange – Crawford was always a bigger name especially in this sort of movie. Maybe this fact was wrong.

Anyway, Joan gives a typical “Joan Crawford” star performance – eyebrows flaring, a bit over the top but totally committed and right for the role, professional and strong. She plays a lady who married a younger man who was cheated on her (Lee Majors!); she found out and chopped his head off and so was put away to the nut house for 20 years. The story gets going when she’s released into custody of her daughter (Diane Baker).

Crawford supposedly flexed her muscles behind the scenes on this film – Anne Helm was originally cast to play the daughter, but Crawford had her fired and replaced with Baker – but Baker was a better actor than Helm. (She specialised in pretty ingénues with dark sides who were outshone by the female star.) Also she allegedly insisted on a big close up after Baker’s break down at the end – but dramatically it was entirely right that she got a close up.

There’s long slabs of time when not much happens in this film – not uncommon in psycho biddy movies – but the shocks, when they come are good: Joan lopping off Majors’ head, Joan waking up to find heads in the bed next to her, the axe murders (one of a dodgy looking George Kennedy), the finale. There’s also plenty of camp value, with Joan either being insane or going insane in various scenes, Joan trying to seduce Baker’s boyfriend, Baker going nuts – plus Pepsi Cola product placement, and a performance by some old guy who was head of Pepsi Cola. Directed in so-so William Castle style. But fun.

Movie review – “Homicidal” (1961) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

William Castle not only rips off Psycho (visiting a motel, a blonde driving in a car in the rain with headlights behind, a Martin Balsam lookalike investigating, mother complex), he rips off himself - there are heartbeats on the soundtrack, a mute old woman, a bland pair of juvenile lovers, an old rickety house... all things that were in The Tingler.

After a bland flash back there is a terrific opening sequence where a beautiful woman (Jean Arless) pays a bellhop at a hotel money to marry her - but then she stabs the justice of the peace to death. She then goes to an old house where she's been staying with a mute nurse in a wheelchair and money is to be inherited by a weird looking kid, Warren. You'll guess from the moment you see "him" that the man is actually a woman - but you know something? Knowing this doesn't really detract from the story, it's just so weird. A bit sordid.

Castle's direction is functional, and makes the story look like the episode of a TV anthology - this would have been far better had he only produced and gotten someone else to be behind the camera (he could have still done his introductions). And it's never as gripping after that opening sequence. But it does have a fascination due to the dual man and woman role. Also I love the fright break towards the end of the film when audiences are given a chance to leave the theatre - it's terrific.

Movie review – “The Tingler” (1960) ***1/2

Enormous fun courtesy of William Castle. A lot of it is straight up melodrama, kind of filmed in the style of something like Alfred Hitchcock Presents - TV acting and simple direction with a melodramatic plot (eg Vincent Price's scenes with his unfaithful wife, the ingenue couple who want to get married, the stylised black and white photography on TV sets). But when it gets going it's great; the initial idea is a good one - Vincent Price is a scientist who believes there's a creature in our spine with causes the tingling, and tries to extract it - and the creature may be a bit fake looking but I think it's really effective.

And there's a great deal of imagination throughout: a man kills his deaf mute wife through her inability to scream (played by Judith Evelyn who, in a nice touch of film irony, was tormented by Vincent Price on stage in Angel Street); there's a running bath tub where we see blood coloured red in an otherwise black and white movie (a body emerges from the bed - like Hitchcock and Jimmy Sangster, Castle had obviously seen Les Diabolique); Castle at the beginning and Price during the film encourages the audience to scream to survive the tingler; Price takes an LSD trip; the tingler attacks a movie theatre at the end, and the movie theatre plunges into darkness and climbs under chairs (what showmanship!); the shock ending. You want to see it in a cinema with electrocuted chairs but it's still pretty fun.

Movie review – “The Old Dark House” (1963) **

Hammer made its reputation with fresh versions of stories done by Universal – Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Mummy, the Phantom of the Opera. So here’s their take on the JP Priestley novel which was filmed by James Whale in 1932 – it’s considerably different from that movie, not to the good. The director of this one was William Castle, who plays it all for laughs.
The plot has been changed so it’s about a dopey American car salesman (Tom Postyn, who you might recognise as Newhart’s dumb friend on Newhart), delivering a car to an associate (Peter Bull) in a mansion. He turns up and Bull is dead, but his weird family is there. Then the film turns into a version of The Cat and the Canary, i.e. people must stay alive in order to inherit money.

This is an odd movie – not really scary, or funny, though I think it’s meant to be both. Kids might like it (eg the Noah’s arc sequence where Postyn stumbles upon a bunch of animals); it will also help I you’re a fan of Postyn, who takes up most of the running time mugging and reacting bug-eyed. Personally I found him irritating, and wished bigger parts were played by the more talented support, including Peter Bull, Robert Morley and Jeanette Scott. Some perks: enjoyable photography and design, interesting death with a woman impaled with kitting needles (it needed more people to die – or a greater threat), the drawings for the credits are done by Charles Addams. Not a success at the box office, partly because censorship meant it couldn’t be seen by young kids.