The Corpse Vanishes (1942)

Ah the B-movie. Where would we be without these cheesy tales of horror and suspense? They were never more than mildly satisfying in their heyday and are only worth watching now because they are laughably bad by modern standards. Such is the case with The Corpse Vanishes. While there is probably no way of doing a bad film “right,” this one leaves me thinking that there could actually be a pretty promising story underneath a lot of muck.

A number of brides have been dropping dead at the altar only to have their bodies disappear before the coroner arrives. News reporter Patricia Hunter is on the case at first just for the juicy gossip but she and a doctor team up after discovering a shocking clue that piles mystery on top of intrigue. The women weren’t suddenly dying after all- they were being placed into a near-death like state by poisoned orchids mysteriously delivered to each bride just before walking down the aisle.

The culprit turns out to be they shifty Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi), a botanist and mad scientist. He poisons the brides-to-be and whisks them away to his secret basement laboratory in order to transfer their bodily fluids into his wife in an attempt to keep her forever young. As Patricia and Dr. Foster put the pieces together, it become a game of cat and mouse as Dr. Lorenz sets his sights on the young and lovely Patricia.

While all the medical and scientific advancements in the last few decades would still leave The Corpse Vanishes as a laughable story today, the idea of a scientist finding a way to preserve youth through unscrupulous means wasn’t a bad plot for the 1940s. The execution of that little idea is where everything started to go wrong.

Dr. Lorenz’s setup is all too much. I understand the desire to keep his wife looking young. I understand the need to snatch up young girls in order to serve that purpose. What I can’t wrap my head around is why it has to be brides. All of his targets are young women, which makes sense, but let’s face it- despite what nostalgia might like you to believe, even in the 1940s there was no guarantee that a young bride was a virgin, so that can’t be the reason. Lorenz is really taking a big risk, assuming the bride will even smell the orchid and be affected. He’s also taking a large risk by trying to beat the coroner to the punch and making off with the near-dead bride.

It’s all too complicated and intricate to make any sense. If all he needs is young women, he could easily pluck them up off the street. Or he could set up a front business as a funeral parlor for his little scheme. The way he tries to get away with it dooms him to failure from the get-go. This setup may be necessary in order for the good guys to find the clues and connect the dots but it’s too intricate and unnecessary to suspend disbelief.

The writing is pretty much on par for weak B-movies and the acting follows suit. The good guys tackle their roles the best they can but even they fall victim to awkward lines and stiffly delivered discoveries. Bela Lugosi does a lot of scowling and doesn’t use many big words. His accent isn’t as pronounced as it was a decade before with Dracula but it still aides him in sounding evil and mysterious.

The one obvious sticking point for The Corpse Vanishes is that there aren’t any vanishing corpses. Sure, everyone at the church believes the would-be-bride to have died, but she’s really just been heavily sedated. Maybe I’m being too picky on that one but I really hate false advertising.

Fortunately, this film is a short one, coming in at just 64 minutes. For added amusement, check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version. I watched it with the MST3K treatment and they certainly didn’t miss any opportunity to fill this pause-ridden film (at least while Lugosi is on screen) with hilarious comments.

RATING: 0.5 out of 5

Dracula (1931)

This might very well be another case of me not being able to grasp the significance and influence of a film because I have seen it lampooned and referenced a thousand times before but I just couldn’t get into this film. One of Universal’s landmark monster movies, I wasn’t as tense, shocked or surprised as much as I thought I would be. That doesn’t mean this incarnation of Dracula doesn’t have any bite; it just means it never really bit me.

I think the biggest problem with this adaptation of the fabled vampire is that it is based off of a stage play instead of the novel by Bram Stoker. This means that a number of the most exciting parts of the story were left out because they never made it into the play. Granted, it would have been very difficult to include many scenes from the book into a stage play but I read the book shortly before watching this film and had my hopes up.

At only 75 minutes long, it surprised me how slow the pace was at times. I actually found myself getting a little bored at times. This was mostly to do with seemingly long stretches without much dialogue at all. Maybe it was something to do with Bela Lugosi’s thick Hungarian accent. Or maybe it was just an atmospheric effect left over from the theatrical version. Maybe it was just the style of the time to use shadow and looming figures in silence. Whatever it was, it just felt off for me. All I know is that there was never a shortage of dialogue in the book.

Most of the sets were large and impressive, though I never personally imagined Dracula’s castle as dilapidated and decaying. The London scenes are handled very well with its prim and proper Victorian style architecture and upper class furniture. It really helps bring home the contrast the characters are experiencing with the invasion of this foreign monster.

In the end though, Dracula doesn’t do it for me. I had similar difficulties with Frankenstein but not with Universal’s other monster hit The Wolfman. It might emanate from the fact that I have read both Dracula and Frankenstein, which are top notch tales and movies almost never live up to the books they are based on. The Wolfman isn’t based on a novel, just werewolf mythology in general.

Maybe future viewings will increase my appreciation for what Dracula attempts to do with the story. I am certainly mature enough in my love for cinema to recognize that my cultural upbringing may have also gotten in the way from truly receiving this film. Time will tell. For now, Dracula was a near miss.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

The Wolf Man (1941)

It’s rather difficult to adopt the right mindset when viewing an old film like this. It’s hard to remember that what looks so cheesy now was actually quite terrifying back in the day. Fortunately, I was really impressed with The Wolf Man. It wasn’t very hard to see what audiences would have shrieked about and some of the film techniques that are employed are quite laudable despite their antiquity.

The Wolf Man was a completely original story, as opposed to Dracula and Frankenstein, which were based (somewhat loosely) off books. It documents the sad story of a well-to-do young man coming back to his hometown after many years and tragically falling prey to the subject of local lore. One night he rescues a passerby from a wolf attack but is bitten. As it turns out, the wolf was a werewolf, and the young man now becomes one when the moon is full.

Fast pacing (only 70 minutes long) thrusts the story along, barely giving the audience time to catch their breath between frights. It’s concise, it’s complete, and it’s convincing (for the standards of the day). With largely believable acting and a good sense at what makes us jump, it’s no wonder that The Wolf Man has become the stuff of legends and is held among the pinnacle of the early studio monster films.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959)

Two words: classically awful. Ed Wood’s disasterpiece has long been hailed as the worst movie ever made. Truth be told, it’s not the worst ever, but it is pretty darn bad. The reason it’s not the worst ever made is that people can hold it in some kind of reverence, and film students can be shown this movie as an example of what can go wrong with the film-making process and how not to treat a project.

Granted, someone gave Ed Wood money to make this film, which is bad enough, but it could be worse. There are many independently produced films made on shoe-string budgets that underachieve on a greater scale than Plan 9. At least this movie is watchable.

It seems that even the actors and perhaps the director never took the concept completely seriously while making Plan 9 From Outer Space, which allows us to enjoy ourselves while watching it. Instead of being frustrated with the director’s shortcomings, we can laugh at it. And while the movie wasn’t intended to be laughable, a bad movie you can laugh at is still better than a bad movie that you can’t laugh at. Easily the best bad movie I’ll ever see.

RATING: 0.25 out of 5