Quick List: 25 Films That Get an E for Effort

The same year they released Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953), Bud and Lou also released this film. This time it involves Boris Karloff doing Dr. Jekyll for the first time in his career, after doing a ton of other horror characters to this point. A true horror character is Mr. Hyde, so this is also a good one for Halloween. Not so much, is this a good film in general, but it is a good one for October. This is also the second time the boys have met Boris Karloff, as he appeared in their follow up to the successful Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), with their 1949 murder mystery, Abbott & Costello Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff (1949).

You can tell the budget cuts are effectively wrecking the rest of the film. The story is simple. The acting is pretty bad and the song numbers in between certain parts of the movie are downright awful. Bud and Lou, as usual, save the day and save this film. Boris does all he can to make it work too. The eerie atmosphere captured at night during all the chase scenes is pretty cool too. There's even a nice rooftop chase that can be called movie fun. You get to enjoy another fun/scary adventure with Bud and Lou. The boys play American cops in Edwardian London, who get involved with a monster, who changes from a gentleman to a murdering beast. Also don't be surprised, but you guessed it! So does Lou. It still is good enough film to earn an "E" for effort.

5.1 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

Attack of the 50-Foot Woman (1958), although from a technical side is a failure, has that extra punch, that keeps it as a film worth seeing. The now defunct, film studio, Allied Artists, was well-noted as producing many low-budget films. You should check the numbers on this film. It actually made a nice profit, especially in 1958 numbers. It was most likely a hit on the drive-in movie circuit or double-billed with other movies. It was part of the shrinking/growing, size-changing humans, science fiction, movie-craze, of the late 1950s and 1960s. The film was also part of that hot-rod phase of the 1950s. Fast cars were all the rage in the movies at this time and firmly in grip of the general, pop-culture observers' conscience. It included, that rock n' roll style, heard predominantly in the 1950s. So, the writers of this film, throw in this dramatic, 1950s-styled subplot of betrayal, alcoholism, infidelity and murder plots. It was a way to distract the audience away from the terrible special effects, that comprised most of the negative parts to this film.

Also, being low-budget, this film couldn't spend too much money on the cast. It's the cast, that also makes this film, such an interesting one to watch. While running away in an angry-rage, from her cheating, selfish husband, unstable socialite, Nancy Archer (Allison Hayes), nearly crashes her car into a fireball, which turns out to be an alien spacecraft, in the shape of a white ball. She is exposed to a 35-foot tall, alien giant, but eventually escapes. Unfortunately, when she tries to plead her case, to her fellow towns-people, she is brushed aside, like the unstable alcoholic she is. As the days go by, she begins to grow. The special effects used in this film, is what hurts the film. They look more like 1938 practical effects, then 1958 practical effects. I do think, if director Nathan Juran, could have acquired a redo on the special effects, he would have taken it and made a better movie.

The mechanics are pretty simple. Back then, you would shoot separately, the main shot, which contained the background of the scene. You would then shoot separately, footage of Allison Hayes, probably in a room at the studio, in front of a dark wall. Then in post-production, they basically ran the footage of her, moving around, overtop of the background footage. The dark wall allowed the special effects team to adjust the contrast or brightness, so the wall would blend in and she would look like a giant on the screen. The problem was, that you could see the background, through her body, which probably means, either there were too many dark shadows on her body, the footage was shot too dark or they had cheap, faulty equipment, that couldn't execute the matting effectively. You can tell that was the issue in this film, because the alien spacecraft, which was in the shape of a white ball, worked in the matting process, because it is a bright, white ball. It had no dark spots or shadows, spoiling the matting special effect. What is most amazing? Is the fact, that they left all of these defective shots in the finished movie, without fixing them, but that was the process for films, made on the low-budget circuit. Shoot it, edit it and get it in the can, like an assembly-line of cheap movies, created for drive-in theaters, all across the country.

I don't understand why they went with the bad matting shots, when the shots of her, walking by the miniature buildings, looked better. Why not just shoot everything with miniatures, creative backgrounds and strategically placed shots? Why take a chance with defective matting? It's because we have the B-Team working on this movie. I would have just edited those parts of the special effects out of the film. The scenes with the miniatures look fine, compared to the matted effects. It's basically how the trailer was edited. Nancy begins to grow starting at the 38 minute mark of the film. It happens when her husband and her nurse, find her enormous, fake, cardboard plaster of an arm, hanging off of her bed in the bedroom. It's the 1950s indication to the audience, that she began to grow the night before. What is strange in this part of the story, is the character of Nancy disappears throughout most of the rest of the film. After her initial growth-reveal at the 38 minute mark and one more scene with the giant fake hand, she is in bed, off camera, while the other characters, try to figure out a way to cure her. They also engage and attack the alien giant, during this part of the film too.

Nancy finally makes her iconic, 50 foot tall, film appearance, at the 55 minute mark of the film. Wrapped in a bedsheet bikini, sporting new blonde hair, the 50 foot bombshell, hell-bent on finding her husband and that little witch, Yvette Vickers, breaks out of the house she was recovering in. It's a battle of the bombshells, although someone has a huge advantage. My guess was, the absence of Nancy in the film, was a way to save money on special effects, but also a way to keep secret, the big reveal of Nancy crashing through the roof of her house. It is amazing how big this bedroom was in this house, that contained her 50 foot body. It was a major abuse of the believability factor. She also has become, somewhat of, a mindless rampaging giant, yelling out Harry's name, as she lumbers along, in her search for him. The directing on this scene is really bad. The giant fake hands are so bad, they are good. It is kind of, like going to a discount theme park ride. When she goes to pick up Harry in her giant, fake hand, the cameraman, intentionally keeps the Harry doll out of the shot. She also keeps her hand out of the shot, because I'm sure it looked really bad. The effects used are head-scratching effects. Even Ed Wood's hubcaps weren't see-through in Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959). It's the human drama and the effect this film has had on popular-culture, that makes it relevant. It's also the effort by the cast and the mood established, when comparing these characters to their acting doppelgangers, that gives it that E for Effort. It's why it has become a cult-classic since its early days in the drive-ins.

4.4 (E- MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

The great thing about seeing Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), in the 21st century is how good it looks in HD Blu-ray quality. This really improves the quality of the film, as it is presented the way it was supposed to be. It looks like it did the first time it was ever shown in theaters, maybe even better. No more, are the years, that were spent viewing it on UHF channels or VHS quality television. It really looks good seeing it today. This doesn't necessarily rule out the flaws this film has. These flaws garnered the mixed reviews, that came out when Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), was first released in theaters. Since its release though, the film has garnered a cult following and has reached modern classic status among the fans of the B-movie flavor of cinematic fun. Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), is another Star Wars rip-off movie, from the years following the release of Star Wars (1977). Not only does this film look like Star Wars (1977), but the story is also a direct adaptation, remake of the Magnificent Seven (1960) and to that extent, the Seven Samurai (1954). On top of that, Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), has in the cast, one of the lead actors from the Magnificent Seven (1960), Robert Vaughn, returning as one of the seven champion-outlaws of this galactic war. A lot of this film reminds me of Star Trek too. Sam Jaffe plays an old man named Dr. Hephaestus, who has been placed in a mobile, life-support machine, who resembles Jeffrey Hunter/Sean Kenney, as Captain Christopher Pike on the original Star trek series (1966-1969). Some of Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), even reminds me of George Lucas' THX1138 (1971). The sound effects in this film resemble the sound effects heard on Battlestar Galactica (1978).

There are a few glaring holes in the continuity, editing and plot of Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), especially in some of the space battles, involving actress Sybil Danning as Saint-Exmin. It was a blaring reminder of the sloppy writing, directing and acting, that peered its ugly head out periodically in this film. As usual, Sybil Danning is beautiful in her Valkyrie warrior regalia, but it is painful to see her acting. Her costume looks pretty good, as was with most of the other costumes, hair and make-up, seen in the film. The dialogue in this film goes off the rails in some places, especially Saint-Exmin's ridiculous explanation of sex in her culture. The main hero of the film, who is obviously the Luke Skywalker of the film, is Richard Thomas as Shad. For most of you who don't know Richard Thomas, he is most famous for being John-Boy on the Waltons (1972 to 1981). Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), was obviously his attempt to get attention towards a post-Waltons career, after his television series ended the following year. Although I applaud his attempt, considering he is really the only one in the film who shows a range of emotions, I still think the choice of casting him here was a bad idea. The one huge problem for Shad, is the design of his ship, looks like a giant man-part. There are some tedious moments in the film. The pacing does slow down a little, but that is in order to set everything up in the plot.

The main influence for this film though, mostly comes from the Magnificent Seven (1960). In the case of Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), this time, inhabitants of a farming planet named Akir decide to hire space outlaws, in order to launch an attack on the tyrannical ruler, known as Sador (John Saxon). John Saxon is the bad guy, who follows in Eli Wallach's Calvera shoes, from the Magnificent Seven (1960). The costumes do enhance the idea of the Star Wars rip-off. Some of the costumes are good in this film and some are bad. The film does have a very 1980s style to it. Not being able to avoid that style, makes the appearance desired from the film, look a little cheesy. Most of the special effects are pretty good in this film. Some of the effect choices however, seemed confusingly bad. It made you wonder, "why did they do that effect like that".

What makes this film intriguing to film-buffs, is the art direction was done by a young Jim Cameron. Jim Cameron would later go on to become James Cameron and direct Titanic (1997). Also, the soundtrack was composed by legendary film composer, James Horner, who also would move on, to compose the soundtrack for Titanic (1997). Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), was produced by legendary, B-movie producer, Roger Corman and his New World Pictures. He actually had his own special effects production company built, so they wouldn't have to pay someone else, to do the effects for this movie. Either way, the set pieces and art direction are pretty good in this film. The effects seem slightly improved, when watching it on a streaming service today. Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), deserves an E for Effort and should be seen by film-buffs.

5.1 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

The Evil of Dracula (1974), or as it is known in Japan as, Chi o suu bara (1974), is part three of a Japanese horror trilogy, called the Bloodthirsty trilogy. The other films in the set are Vampire Doll (1970) and Lake of Dracula (1971). Michio Yamamoto, directed all of them. It's interesting to note, that the Japanese also have a fascination with vampire lore, just like Europe or North America does. There are a number of stories, featured in Japanese cinema or television, about vampires. In the 1970s, Toho Studios was cutting back on expensive special-effects movies and was funneling their budgets more into, fantasy and horror films, that were more down to Earth on a human level and not effect-heavy stories. They also saw the success, that England's, Hammer Studios had in the 1960s, with their successful run of Dracula films.

Also remember, Toho Studios, was the owner of the Godzilla franchise, which was also feeling the effects of low-budget angst, in the 1970s. One of the great aspects of Evil of Dracula (1974), was the exceptionably, well-done, cinematography and camera work, seen in the film. Japanese filmmakers were always, very good at the cinematography, found in their films. The framing, that cinematographer Kazutami Hara used in Evil of Dracula (1974), helps capture the eerie, gothic aura, needed for a vampire film. Hara also was the cinematographer for Vampire Doll (1970) and he eventually landed the job on Return of Godzilla (1984 - AKA: Godzilla 1985). In fact, most of the Godzilla/Toho Studios, monster-guys, were working on Evil of Dracula (1974). What little special-effects were used in this film, they were designed by Teruyoshi Nakano, who worked on all the 1970s, Godzilla films. The soundtrack music in this film, is composed by Riichirô Manabe, who also did the music for Godzilla vs. Hedorah (1971) and Godzilla VS Megalon (1973).

On the acting-side of the equation, Katsuhiko Sasaki, who plays the Renfield-like, Professor Yoshie, was also working on Godzilla VS Megalon (1973) and the Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975). Our Japanese Dracula, known only as the Principal, was played by Shin Kishida. Kishida shows up in Godzilla VS Mechagodzilla (1974), the same year as this film. Kishida is the new principal at the local girls school, who has his dead wife stored down in a sepulcher in the basement. You know, the kind of sepulcher, that anybody can just lift up and grab a quick look at the dead person in it (just kidding), which is what the new school assistant, Professor Shiraki (Toshio Kurosawa), does for some unknown reason. Shiraki is caught looking at the dead wife, by the principal, which provokes Dracula, into knocking Shiraki out. The next day Shiraki awakens, thinking it was all a dream, but the damage has been done. As the plot of Evil of Dracula (1974), moves along, Shiraki, some of the school girls and the tiny town they are in, becomes threatened, by a nightmarish situation, from this school of vampires.

If it wasn't for Shin Kishida, putting his heart and soul, into his vampire performance and the fact, that the writers tried to put together a half-decent story, Evil of Dracula (1974), would have been even worse, than it was becoming. I am not saying it is a bad film at all. Nor do I think, it is great either. Like I said earlier, this film is shot very well. The music is good and does give off a cool, psychedelic, 1970s, electronic vibe to it. The film tries to bring this 19th century character, into the 20th century and tries to do it 1970s, Japanese style. What begins to hurt the film, is poor acting, mostly by the school-girl actresses, a boring pace, that begins to slow down the plot and a film, that had so much promise, until it crashes and burns, by the end. This film, ends up being a bad-deal, as we finish out this trilogy. Evil of Dracula (1974), is the worst of the three films. I still recommend seeing this film however, especially of you decide to watch, all three of the films in this series. Evil of Dracula (1974), deserves an E For Effort. It is a Toho Studios horror classic.

5.2 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

It turns out, that Baron Frankenstein (Peter Cushing), survived his fate in the last film, the Evil of Frankenstein (1964). In fact, director Terence Fisher (who has already directed two of these films), pulls some trickery with the audience, by hinting at the beginning of this film, that the Baron, was preserved, in the frozen, icy waters, down in the valley below his castle, from events at the end of the last film. Fisher then reveals, that the Baron is just doing another experiment, but on himself this time. Whatever the point to it was, what is obviously true is, Baron Frankenstein is still alive and ready to get busy, with another one of his experiments.

It's also interesting to note, that Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), was released ten years before Peter Cushing, made his appearance, as Grand Moff Tarkin, in Star Wars (1977). The title of this film was a play on words for Brigitte Bardot's 1950s, sexy, drama-romance, ... And God Created Woman (1956). This Hammer production, takes the Frankenstein series into a different direction, by trying to capture the positive results, that the Bride of Frankenstein (1935), had for Universal Pictures. You could tell in the production values for this film, that they were beginning to cut back the film budgets, at Hammer Studios. Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), had a look of cheap, lower-budget quality, compared to the previous, Hammer Frankenstein films. In the real world, Hammer films would would eventually run out of gas, by the end of the 1970s.

Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), does come-off as a silly film, but I think the idea to be campy, is right there in the title. The goal is obvious. Create a female monster, using very sexy parts. Cushing's Baron Frankenstein, is barely in the film. The way he is represented in the film, felt like, he wasn't the central character anymore. That also made things disappointing and lowered the rating on this film. Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), removes, in part, the scientific side of the Frankenstein mythos and interjects the idea of, soul transference, thus bringing in a more metaphysical tone to the film, thus moving the genre-mix closer to the science-fiction side of the equation. I still recommend Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), especially if you are watching it, along with the other films in the series, because it isn't every day, that you get the joy of seeing, Peter Cushing at work.

5.2 (E+) = 5 IMDB

What this franchise struggled the most with, was the carefree way of bringing Jason back to life, film after film. Jason was killed by Tommy Jarvis and his sister back in the fourth movie and in the last movie, he was replaced by a copy-cat killer (there is more to that film's plot, but I don't want to give too much away). Jason appeared in flashbacks and dream sequences, but ultimately he has been dead through one whole movie. We thought Tommy was going to become the new Jason possibly, but as this film opens up, that is not the case. Tommy has been recast with a completely different guy (Thom Mathews). Tommy, with the aid from the guy, who played Arnold Horshack (Ron Palillo), from Welcome Back Kotter (1975-1979), accidentally unleashes Jason back onto the world.

The filmmakers do a funny shout-out to James Bond, just before the beginning credits. It is stylized like the Bond opening credits. Jason walks out, turns to the camera and swings his machete, just like Bond shooting his gun, as seen through a gun barrel. When Friday the 13th was releasing these films, almost on a yearly basis, the Bond franchise was all the rage during this time. They were very popular films in the 1980s. Friday the 13th wanted to spoof that. The plot to this film, does mention why we haven't heard the name Camp Crystal Lake in the most recent films lately. The townsfolk, near the lake, changed the name to something else. They wanted to forget about the horrible past, that is connected to the name Crystal Lake. This time around, a small group of counselors have a school bus, full of little kids, staying with them, at the camp site.

Even though its really just the Jason show now, they at least still remind us, that it is Friday the 13th. They usually say Jason comes on Friday the 13th, but can you imagine the scheduling conflicts for him? How does he fit in his knife-throwing, practice-time? It must really be tough for him, especially later in his career, when he visits Manhattan and fights Freddy Krueger. We do get treated to, Alice Cooper's "He's Back (The Man Behind The Mask)", song, found in this movie. It was the lead tune on his album, which came out the same year this film did. It does work well as the theme song for this film too. We still have to deal with the timeline issue, which this franchise never did, because Tommy looks about five years older from the last film, making it possibly (if you add up the other films), about 1995 or 1996.

There is a terrible, comic-relief portion in the film, where we see Jason taking out a bunch of paint-ballers. It's the classic situation, found in these films, where you start to hate these unlikeable characters so much, you want Jason to kill them. About a quarter of this film contains an actual plot, while the rest of the film was cheesy, unrealistic, formulaic, redundant sequences, containing Jason killing dumb campers. You end up rooting for Jason, because the rest of the characters, including Tommy, are boneheads. I guess rooting for Jason is the point. Unbelievable character connections are made in this film. Case in Point, the sheriffs daughter meets Tommy for 30 seconds and now will do anything for this guy, even insult her father. It's not an awful film, just very confusing.. I'll still give it an "E" for effort.

4.9 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

After a quick recap and clips from the previous couple movies, director John Carl Buechler, gets right into the thick of things in this film. It's interesting how the writers completely wrote off any mention of mother Vorhees. That part of the character background seems to have faded away. Jason is just a killer, who won't die and keeps coming back for more, is all they really say in the prologue. At least they are using the name of Camp Crystal Lake again, which seemed to vanish for a few movies. After the credits roll, we are introduced to a young girl, named Tina, who witnesses her father dying. So, in the last film, after Tommy Jarvis puts Jason back into the lake and we are introduced to Tina in this film, it seems another 10 or 15 years go by, totally messing up the Friday the 13th timeline even more. In the next scene, Tina looks like she is about 18. After all the loose timelines from all these sequels, the passage of time, has gotten out-of-hand. if you add up all the films in this franchise, this one takes place around 2008. Paramount now has 20 years, in real-life, in order to catch up to where the franchise's actual story is. Fortunately, everything in the movie looks like it's 1988.

We, also learn quickly that Tina caused the accident to her father, due to the fact that, she has telekinetic abilities. I guess while they pulled the body of her father out of the lake, they didn't notice the guy with the hockey mask on, floating. not too far away from him. Now at 20, Tina has returned to the lake, and yet again, for no real explanation, her powers accidentally wake up and unleash Jason back into the world. Also in the mix, Tina has to contend with her conniving shrink and special abilities physician, Dr. Crews (Terry Kiser). Crews, who is just in this situation, in order to capitalize on her abilities, is trying to figure out the secret to her powers. He has no real interest in helping Tina. He just sees fame, fortune and power. Dr. Crews is a real jerk. It appears she also has premonitions or visions of possible futures too. It's telekinetic girl verses Jason. Her power does escalate rather unbelievably quick in this film, with a ridiculous ending to the film. The ending is an ending that does pay homage to the better aspects of the Friday the 13th series, but still has an unexplainable resolution.

Unlike Michael Myers in the Halloween movies, we do get a look behind Jason's mask a lot in these films. It shows the decay he has gone through. He is a true undead character, that keeps coming back for more. I only wish it was with a much meatier plot. There is a scene in this film, where Jason is targeting a woman in the lake. During this night scene, she is swimming in the lake and the music sounds like it's an homage to the Jaws films. These movies always tried to parody moments from other famous films. I noticed Jason is a heavier breather in this film, then he was in previous films too. When Tina uses her telekinetic powers, bad effects are used, such as a flying TV obviously on wires. There also are your typical, bad acting moments spread throughout the film. No matter what part of the movie it is, whenever anyone steps outside, they immediately go into fear acting mode. They just have to look good and scream real loud. Use that formula. We don't care about the rest. There are some weird edits that are seen in the film, but probably were done for the sake if time constraints. All these movies stay at a constant 90 minutes. This film is a little better than the last two films, but still only deserves and "E" for effort.

5.1 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

Known in Japan as Gojira tai Gaigan (1972), this was the second Godzilla film, which was released during the difficult, psychedelic, cheap-budgeted, 1970s section of the Showa-era of Godzilla. Godzilla VS Gigan (1972), continued the idea of Godzilla being a superhero and protector of Earth. In the previous two Godzilla films, All Monsters Attack (AKA: Godzilla's Revenge -1969) and Godzilla VS Hedorah (AKA: Godzilla VS the Smog Monster - 1971), the main goal was to bring the audience down to the kids level, by making the main human character, a ten year old kid. That plot-tactic created a connection, between the imagination of a kid and this idea of a 300 foot tall, radioactive lizard, who protects the Earth from evil monsters. Plus, they had to compete with Daiei Studios, Gamera films, that were being released, every year at this time too.

In Godzilla VS Gigan (1972), the film producers decide to change that plot direction slightly, by making the main characters in the film, more college-age characters, who totally represent the early-70s student, in dress and style. Our main guy, Gengo (an actor I haven't seen before in a kaiju film, Hiroshi Ishikawa), is an advertising illustrator artist, who is asked to come for a job, at the new, enterprising theme park, known as Monsterland. It is a suspicious organization, who's headquarters, is incased inside a life-size replica of Godzilla. A mysterious tape appears in the plot, that holds the key to what these guys are up to and very soon we realize, they are another group of Japanese space-aliens, who want to wipe-out the human infestation of Earth, so they can have the planet to themselves. The problem is, they turn into cockroaches when they die. It is a pretty stupid character concept.

In fact, there are a handful of stupid moments in this film. Moments, so bad, that if you lived in 1972 and was watching this film, you would see the writing on the walls, that the Godzilla franchise was in trouble by this time. Economic and budgetary issues, continued to plague the qualify of these films in the 1970s. That economic issue was most evident, in the fact, that most of the monster scenes in Godzilla VS Gigan (1972), was stock-footage, from a bunch of the older, 1960s, Toho Studios, kaiju films. What is good about this film, is Toho Studios producer, Tomoyuki Tanaka, brought back the music of legendary, Japanese film-composer, Akira Ifukube, but even that sounds, like stock media in the background of the scenes. In fact, none of the actors in this film look familiar. They all look, like the back-up actors, that Toho had in their budgeted stashes.

The desire to gauge these films towards the kids, was even as insulting to the kids, as it was to the adults. In an attempt to draw a contrast between Gengo, the artist and Godzilla's fight with Gigan, they have Godzilla talking this time, with Manga-type word balloons above the heads of the monsters. It looks really bad in the Japanese version. At least, for the American version, they had to remove the word balloons, so all you see are the monsters communicating, with terrible sound effects, that sound like their roars, are playing backwards. You thought the worst thing you saw, was seeing Godzilla fly in the last film, Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971)? No, no, no, movie-buffs. The worst is seeing Godzilla have a chat with Anguirus, who sounds in the English version, much like Paulie from the Rocky movies. This film was known as, Godzilla on Monster Island (1972), which was the title of the film in North America, all the way through the 1970s and 1980s. The title wasn't changed to "VS Gigan" in the states, until it was released on VHS in the 1990s, during the rise of the Heisei-era of Godzilla. The Godzilla on Monster Island (1972), English version, is the better version. I always say, watch the Japanese versions, with English subtitles of these films, but of you have to watch this film in English, try to find the version from Godzilla on Monster Island (1972). The current English version, that was made for the recent Blu-ray release, isn't as good.

Godzilla VS Gigan (1972), still has, the signature, 1970s-styled, pyro-techniques (at least the new footage, that was shot for this film) and, that great science-fiction/kaiju feel to it. The destruction of the miniature cities, the explosions and the monster wrestling, that was common for these films, still looks like the work of cinematic artists, who are working as hard as they can. However, the budget cut-backs, that Toho had to do, was killing a franchise and it is very evident in these early 1970s Godzilla films. With a very basic plot, silly monster confrontations, dizzying character profiles and a stock-footage itch, it is tough not to fail this film, but I will still give it an E For Effort (just barely), because I really do think the film would have been better, if it hadn't been made during the small financial collapse, that the Japanese film industry was going through, at the time the film was made. Godzilla VS Gigan (1972), still does look like something, that took a lot of work. Plus, even as stock music, I can listen to Akira Ifukube all day long. Did I even mention, that Gigan is assisted by King Ghidrah, in a big fight with Gojira and Anguirus?

4.5 (E) = 5 IMDB

Known as Gojira tai Hedora (1971), in Japan, this film, for decades in the United States, airing on SD television stations or viewed on VHS players, was known as, Godzilla VS the Smog Monster (1972). Once we got into the 21st century and entered into the Blu-ray/streaming era of cinema entertainment, plus western distributors got permission from Toho Studios, to exhibit the original Japanese versions in the states, was when this film went back to its original, intended title, Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971). Now that we have both versions of the film to watch, I'll let you know here, that it isn't a big deal, if you watch the Japanese version or the English-dubbed version. Both are sufficient, for a good view of this film, but buyer beware. First off, make sure you can see this film in all of its widescreen, theatrical-aspect glory. If you are watching the 4:3 version, it cheapens the quality of the effects, camera-work and the over-all intentions, that director, Yoshimitsu Banno, was trying to convey. Trust me, this film needs the help. I have noticed many things in the widescreen versions of these films, that weren't in the old 4:3 versions, because they were cut-off on the sides. I always say, a foreign film is better in its original language, with English subtitles, but if you don't like reading, then find the original English language version from Godzilla VS the Smog Monster (1972). It is pretty good, in fact, from the 1950s to the 1970s, the English-dubbed versions of many Japanese films, were produced well. However, beware of cheap 21st century imitations. The current, English-dubbed version of Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971), is not as good as the original, Godzilla VS the Smog Monster (1972), plus the original Smog Monster, English version of the film, has the English-version, theme song, "Save the Earth". This is one of the more memorable parts of this film and the only good part to the English version, other than the voice-acting. The song is missing on the current, English-language versions of Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971).

So, why do I mention these things, about aspect ratios and language versions? It is, because I grew up with these films in the 1970s, through the 1980s and was a huge fan, who watched them relentlessly for decades. I love Godzilla. But, I was used to seeing the fuzzy, 4:3, VHS or UHF channel, quality, that we had, during those decades. There also was, no such thing, as the Japanese versions. Those were unattainable, unless you lived in Japan. It wasn't until the late-1990s, with the debut of DVDs, the concept of widescreen (or letterbox), restoration processes and all of the other upgraded doors, that were opened up, during the DVD era (and beyond that to Blu-ray and 4K streaming), that it created a whole new perspective to these films. Seeing them in their true theatrical, crystal-clear quality, is a gift for us. For me, it was like, watching brand new films. The original Japanese versions of all the Godzilla movies have been a joy to see. You can see an aura of authenticity in these versions, that wasn't felt in the original English versions. It sends these films into a new level of enjoyment, perspective, critical discussion and their role in film history. Today, Gojira is a world-phenomenon, on both sides of the Pacific.

As things apply to Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971), the film has its problems, but equally, it has its strengths. There is a lot going on, that makes it interesting to see. We also need to remember, what was happening in the real-world, when this film was produced. Director Banno, wanted this film to be a commentary, on the real-world environmental destruction, that the world was facing and the evil monsters, that could climb out of the muck and sludge, that we were standing on. From a Gojira and Toho standpoint, a lot was happening on that front too. As the 1960s came to an end, Toho Studios, as well as, most of the Japanese film industry, was in crisis. Studios were either losing money or shutting down entirely. Toho slashed budgets on all of their films in the 1970s. Gojira tai Hedora (1971), had a budget, that was half of what the budget would have been for a Godzilla film, proportionately, in the 1960s. Also, add the sad fact, that legendary creator of Gojira, Japanese special-effects master, Eiji Tsuburaya, died in 1969. Long time Godzilla director, Ishirô Honda, wasn't doing the films anymore and was replaced with the new kid on the block, Yoshimitsu Banno. Gojira was now alone and left in new hands, as the 1970s dawned.

Along with the environmental angle of the film, Banno also wanted to capture the psychedelic look of the early-1970s, the teen-age rebellion movement and the dance-club atmosphere, seen in that decade, all over the world. Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971), is a time-capsule to 1971 Japan and the gritty, grainy, 35mm film stock, along with the color, gives this film a unique look, that is different from other Godzilla films. So, this film has a meaning to it. It has a message to it. It is well-crafted and fits most text-book styles, pertaining to film-making. It also introduces a new soundtrack for Gojira, keying-in on that psychedelic angle and it births, the new, Godzilla theme, that would become famous, as being the goofy Godzilla theme. The new theme song is part, of what hurts this film.

Hedorah is a product of constant pollution, all over the world. He starts as a tadpole (yes, that's right, a tadpole) and becomes a giant, sludgy monster, spewing smog all over Japan (get it, smog, the Smog Monster). He is actually, an intimidating, slightly scary creature, even though he is a just a pile of sludge. It's Godzilla, that is the problem in this film. I'll explain. Up until the mid-1960s, Godzilla was considered a global threat to the world, but as the 1960s came to an end, he was hoisted up to being Earth's protector and superhero. It was a subtle change at first, but the Gojira films of the 1970s, would eventually, turn Godzilla into a campy shadow of his former self. The new Godzilla suit used in this film is nicely done, but what Banno does to the monster-lizard's personality, lands Godzilla, in-between a boxing kangaroo and the Power Rangers. Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971), is the famous movie, that shows Godzilla flying. Yes, it looks ridiculous.

Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971), is not a great film, nor is it a bad film. It is a middle-of-the-road, science-fiction film, but not one of Godzilla's best. This is a film, that I call, an "E for Effort", which equals a 5/10. I still recommend seeing grade-E films. Even though, Godzilla VS Hedorah (1971), is embarrassing and painful to watch, while Godzilla is reduced to a cartoon superhero character, the film does have an interesting theme to it and some of the interaction, between Gojia and Hedorah, is unique for a classic, Showa era, Godzilla film. The early 1970s saw Godzilla become a hero and even though it seemed, way over-the-top, it solidified his character as a force of nature, as well as, a protector of Earth. It is something handled much better, in the newer, 21st century, incarnations of Godzilla, but in 1971, looked silly. But, it is, what it is. Godzilla rises from the sea, to protect the planet, from an environmental disaster, 1970s style.

5.2 (E+) = 5 IMDB

AKA: His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz

In this dip into the Oz universe, is Princess Gloria, stuck in one of those classic situations, where the King wants her to marry the rich old guy, but she is in love with someone else. Meanwhile, another girl, named Dorothy, is captured and made a prisoner in the castle. Also, a scarecrow is put up in one of the local fields. To thwart the Princess' love for Pon, the King has the wicked witches (in really bad costumes), freeze her heart. The scarecrow comes to life and falls in love with Gloria. Since her heart is frozen, Gloria now wanders around like a unemotional zombie not caring at all. The evil witch Mombi beats all the hay out of the Scarecrow and he needs to be rescued by Dorothy and Pon.

The actor portraying the Scarecrow looks like he is a clown performer, in fact, the Scarecrow looks more like a clown than a scarecrow. Probably another reason why early audiences didn't like these films, bad costumes and make-up. After Gloria wanders off, the rest of the crew runs into the tin woodsman, who is in a much better costume then anyone else, even though parts of him look like they are about to fall off. Then he cuts off Mombi's head. Next up is the Cowardly Lion. who actually looks kind of cool, but still a guy in a lion costume. They do attempt some effects in this film, such as the Scarecrow underwater. Not bad attempts for 1914.

As the film rolls along in its totally unorganized fashion, we also see another reason why audiences didn't react well to this film. They shot these films in the forests, streams and lakes that can be found just about anywhere. All they were giving the audience was people in bad costumes running around in someone's back yard, not visiting an enchanted world. This dizzying story, fraught with strange little dancing skits, doesn't give the audience of the day what they were looking for. This film was re-released after its initial run a second time as the New Wizard of Oz and it actually did better just because of a title change, because the Scarecrow is not a very exciting character in this film and that part gets lost by the time you get to the end. No wonder it did better. This kind of storytelling needed some more time for the artform of filmmaking to grow some more. It needed to wait until 1939.

4.4 (E- MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

The Incredible Melting Man (1977), looks, every bit, like a polished, seasoned, TV production company, produced a science fiction film, about a lost astronaut, inflicted with a terrible condition, wandering around the hills of southern California, terrorizing the public, while his friends at the space agency, try to save him. Then, Moe, Larry, Curly and Freddy Krueger come into the production and make, another movie. Then, they merge the two movies together into this mess. I decided to look into this situation, with the obvious differences and from what I have read, that is exactly what happened to this doomed production.

Director, William Sachs, who has plenty of good credits in his resume, along with a fine group of seasoned actors and legendary, make-up genius, Rick Baker, started shooting this movie and those parts of the film, are the good ones in this movie. Studio producers then came in, did reshoots on all those scenes, which are truly embarrassing and re-edited the film, in a completely different way. The only thing, that the producers decided to do, that I feel worked in the film, was making the Incredible Melting Man (1977), into a full horror movie and not a parody of itself, which Sachs had originally intended to do. Sachs uses, in his filmmaking process, interesting styles of camera-work, lighting and editing, as well as, strategically-placed, audio edits and voice-over techniques. The film looks really good in some parts. The melting-man is what kills the film.

Rick Baker's creature effects are ok, but they too, suffer from the re-editing and change of direction, that the film took. At one point in the film, we get to witness the melting man's right eye-ball fall out of his head. Unfortunately, later in the film, we can see actor, Alex Rebar's, real eye, poking out behind all of the creature make-up effects. The melting effects worked much better in long shots, back shots and low-lighted scenes. The dripping effect of his skin falling off his body looks cool in some shots. There are plenty of miscues in the film and terribly embarrassing moments, which means, maybe Sachs was right. Make the film a parody of itself, because the melting skin and bones, are a metaphor, for a mess of a film, on the way.

4.6 (E MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

Abbott and Costello wanted to make color films, but Universal Pictures did not, so Lou's independent film company, Exclusive Productions, funded and produced Jack and the Beanstalk (1952). Even though it had the full backing of Lou Costello, as well as Bud, this film was still considered an independent film production and it shows in some of its design. The boys still give the audience a good performance, albeit on the kids side of the equation. By 1952 Bud and Lou had been relegated to the "just for kids", type-of audience. The boys style of comedy had evolved more towards a younger audience. The musical interludes, acting and over-all quality in Jack and the Beanstalk (1952), seemed average at best. Bud's singing voice is obviously dubbed. There is however, inherit qualities to the film, that makes it worth watching. It does give a good effort, even though the cash wasn't there.

The allure to this film is all about Bud and Lou. The greatness that they expressed from the movie screen in the 1940s, is what kept this 1950s film afloat. It shows how wonderful they were, even in an average film. It shows how dedicated they were to their craft. There are some cool, stylized animations, drawn backgrounds and art designs, that depict the beanstalk fairly well. There are a couple of cringeworthy, creepy characters, that pop up in the film however. The Giant has a magical, talking harp, that also talks. It is constructed with a wooden head nailed to the top of the harp. The wood-carved, puppet-looking head, is oddly designed and it seemed creepy. Another oddly depicted character was Jack's (Lou Costello), cow, Henry. Henry has red make-up and lipstick smeared on her nose and cheeks, in an attempt to remind the audience, that Henry is a female. When she begins to cry, because Jack has to sell her, it looks like the poor animal was punched in the face. The idea just wasn't executed well.

The story found in Jack and the Beanstalk (1952), does utilize all of the entertaining aspects, about the fairy tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. However, some of the pacing, related to bad songs and an over-all, B-movie atmosphere, brings this film down to E For Effort level. Also remember, that Jack and the Beanstalk (1952), was produced, with the opening/closing scenes in sepia-tone and the rest of the film in color. The VHS era and airings of the film on television, has spawned versions of Jack and the Beanstalk (1952), that have the opening/closing scenes in black and white. Make sure you are watching the color/sepia-tone version of the film, since that is the originally intended version of the film. The copyright for Jack and the Beanstalk (1952), was never renewed by the last owner, RKO Pictures, so it has been in public domain status for the last 45 years. You can find many different versions of this film on YouTube.

5.1 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

So, another attempt by L. Frank Baum brings us more donkey costumes and other animal assortments, acted out by people who look more like they are at Mardi Gras then Oz, trying to pass off another dizzying plot line involving a magic cloak that the townspeople want to give to the most unhappy person in the land. The only real indication that this film is part of the Oz series is the title card in the beginning. Nothing else really ties it in with the other movies or books. It is really a film about another Baum "Oz" character, Queen Zixi of Ix.

It also sounds like there are different versions of this film out there, however, the version I saw on YouTube was 41 minutes long, which is just about all of it. Try to avoid the 23 minute versions that sprung out from old 16mm prints and VHS versions. Also, many copies come with no music, so use a silent movie soundtrack off of YouTube, while you watch this. The music does help.

One of the main characters is Nicodemus, the mule (or a guy in a bad mule suit - Fred Woodward), who really kills the grade for costumes, because it looks so bad. Also, director J. Farrell MacDonald, managed to shoot some really weird scenes with the mule in it, such as having Nicodemus rubbing his behind on a tree. There were some good costumes too, such as the rolling Roly-Rogues. They look pretty cool. There are also some improving effects that look good for 1914, such as layered, multiple images of the characters used for the cloak meeting at the start of the film. What makes this one hard to watch is once again, the spastic storytelling and performances that make this presentation look like Mardi Gras, not Oz and with no real story in sight. No discipline.

4.7 (E MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

This is not a good film, however there are some things, that make it worth seeing. The plot is plain and the acting is pretty tough to take, especially for something produced in the 21st century. However, a Marvel alumni, who eventually will show up as Trish Walker (aka: Hellcat), in 2015, on the Netflix original, Marvel TV series, Jessica Jones (2015-2019), Rachael Taylor, plays a tough third grade teacher/environmental activist, named Teri, in Man-Thing (2005). It is one of the reasons I give this film an E for Effort. Seeing her work prior to Jessica Jones, is something interesting to see. It explains why she got the Trish Walker role. There are no other actors of note in this film. There is a Stan Lee cameo, albeit in photo form, in a group of missing person photos on a wall. So, at least we have that too. What is surprising about the quality of this film is the special effects are pretty good. It is a good mix of practical, physical effects and early CGI. The swamp setting was shot in Australia and the filmmakers did a decent job with the set-designs and art direction.

Man-Thing (2005), totally gives you the feeling of being like a Sci-Fi channel, original TV movie, which it is, but it was originally supposed to be released in the theaters. Test screenings sent it directly to television and it premiered on the network, begrudgingly by Marvel executives. It did get a theatrical release in other countries, so it was able to keep the theatrical film tag. Man-Thing (2005), has that low budget aspect, a meat-and-potatoes, get-it-all-out, plain script and no noted actors at all. It is not a critical favorite and not really a fan favorite either. The tone set in the film is treated more, like the Man-Thing is fighting all humans, instead of being the anti-hero, sacred, respected entity, that was seen in the comics. It is more like a horror film, than a film about a horrible-looking, but noble character from Marvel Comics. Man-Thing (2005), will appeal to horror fans more, especially those, who like scary creatures, who come out of the swamp, chasing after bad human idiots.

This film was released during the days of Marvel's dark-times in the movie theaters. The box-office successes were few and far between, especially with the critics and the fans. This pre-MCU era, consisted of badly received films, like Daredevil (2003), Hulk (2003) and Elektra (2005). It was a tough time leading up to the great success of Iron Man (2008) and the dawn of the MCU. Man-Thing (2005), fell into this void of bad Marvel films and I can understand why it wasn't well-received. It may be the bottom of the barrel for Marvel (theatrical), films, but I still feel it deserves a look-see, especially since the Man-Thing character, finally made his MCU debut in the Disney+, one-shot episode of the Werewolf By Night (2022). Contrasting it against the new version of the character, makes Man-Thing (2005), seem a little bit more interesting, thus making it a little bit better.

4.8 (E MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

After having some success in the past with Stargate (1994), Independence Day (1996) and The Patriot (2000), director Roland Emmerich also became known as the science fiction, disaster-film guy, because of his quick run, in just a five year span, between The Day After Tomorrow (2004) and 2012 (2009). Both were very popular movies. Throw in White House Down (2013) and the remake of Midway (2019), and any other high-powered, action-packed, directorial effort, that Emmerich has done and that is what you get in Moonfall (2022).

Moonfall (2022), takes the conspiracy theory idea, that our Moon is hollow, was built by space aliens and creates a disaster film of orbital proportions. That's right! The Moon is crashing into the Earth and it takes our gathered heroes, for this time around, to save the world. As usual, Emmerich gathers an all-star cast (a staple in disaster movies, as far back as the 1970s), lead by Halle Berry, Patrick Wilson and Game of Thrones alum, John Bradley. There's even a gratuitous two minute cameo by Donald Sutherland.

Everything that happens in this movie happened already in another Roland Emmerich film. With each scene, I saw something that came from one of his other films. It was a carbon copy of everything that came before it. Let's call it a highlight film of his previous work. The cast makes the film work. Bradley is set up as the comedy relief, just like he was in Game of Thrones (2011-2019). Some of the dialogue is cheap and silly. The build up for the film is slow and it's a little too long too. It's not a terrible film, nor is it good either. I think I'll give it an "E" for effort. I would still go see it in theaters for the special effects spectacle on the big screen. There are however, much better Roland Emmerich choices out there. Independence Day (1996), just happens to be a favorite of mine.

4.9 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

It isn't so much the special effects, that kills Mutiny in Outer Space (1965), as much as, the bad acting, horrible soundtrack and the creature effects, looked really bad. The monster-fungus looked like wet hair, rolled up from the salon floor. The story is slow and wrinkly, but it is about a lunar fungus, wreaking havoc on a space station. There really isn't much more there to go with. The version of the film that I saw, was in 4:3. The audio sounded like it was uploaded to the streamer I used, incorrectly. What was good about Mutiny in Outer Space (1965), was the human part of the plot. There are a lot of strong, confident, female characters in the film. It showed, that the audience in 1965, was looking towards the future.

In Mutiny in Outer Space (1965), director, Hugo Grimaldi, explores the ideas of time spent in space, human endurance in zero-gravity, the vastness of space corrupting the human mind and the effects space travel has on the physical body. They even explained how the fungus, which can't stand cold temperatures, is attached to the outside hull of the spaceship, even though we know, space is cold and frigid. I won't tell you why or how it is, but they did fix a believability question, by explaining that plot point to us. The film is an E for Effort and is recommended, as a viewpoint from a 1960s, science-fiction, low-budget perspective. You can tell, that the producers of this film tried their best, but the budget just wasn't there.

4.9 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

The Neptune Factor (1973), is rightfully so, an E for Effort film. It comes right out of the B-movie world of cinema. It is a low-budget, science-fiction, adventure film, featuring a hand-full of classic film actors. It's a story of earthquakes, beneath the ocean, that put an undersea lab in danger and the crew of the submarine, sent to save whoever's left. Even though the special effects are archaic, even for 1973, the underwater photography, which utilizes miniatures, is very professional.

The low-budget aspect of the film, does affect the slow plot however. A lot of responses, to certain moments in the film are, "I saw that coming a mile away", type-of responses. It's not a great film, but it's not a terrible film either. It's a classic example, of an evolutionary process, in technical-heavy films, related to budgets and how far the source-material can work, with the resources available, plus it has Ernest Borgnine and Walter Pidgeon in it. Pidgeon has experience in submarine films. Remember him in Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961)?

4.4 (E- MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

With the success of the third film, New Line Cinema wanted more, so they started fast-tracking the production on this film right away. They knew they had a franchise to sell to the public. They added over two million dollars to the budget for the fourth film, compared to the budget seen on the third film. This time director Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2 - 1990, Long Kiss Goodnight -1996), takes a crack at the Freddy Kruger legend. The role of Kristen Parker (played by Patricia Arquette in the last film), is now played by Tuesday Knight. Arquette said she didn't want to get stuck in the horror genre forever, so she backed out. The Dream Warriors are back from the last film. Ken Sagoes returns as Kincaid and Rodney Eastman returns as Joey. Brooke Bundy returns as Elaine, Kristen's mother. There are no recognizable actors in this film. It was a way to keep the budget tight. Robert Englund returns again as Freddy Kruger. Maybe he is the one, who gets all the money, after doing four of these films so far. It's a franchise.

We return to the scene of Freddy's supposed demise in the last film, at the car, junk pile, where Freddy's remains were left. He has captured Kincaid as revenge from the last film. Apparently Freddy has been slowly powering back up and with not much explanation, he is back for more chaos. We do get to see a tiny bit of extra acting range from Robert Englund in Dream Master. He was able to do a few things with the character, not seen yet in other films. He was able to utilize his acting prowess in new ways. He isn't just Freddy the whole time. He is however, still utilized in the wrong ways. His talents are a little wasted in these films. There are some holes in the script and the usual, "the audience has to accept everything" atmosphere, is seen throughout the plot. Some of the effects are good (claw marks on locker) and some are bad (weight lifting). The story has become slow, boring and formulaic.

Dream Master is, kind of, a lifeless sequel. Most of the time, I was trying to figure out, if we were still in a dream sequence or not. Maybe that is the point. Maybe you aren't supposed to know the difference, just like the characters don't really know. Sometimes that kind of an approach, comes across as being a bad plot issue. If your audience is having a hard time, with keeping up with the direction of the film, then the film might be out-of-control. The small unknown cast doesn't generate enough energy, like the cast in the previous film. This film looks very low budget, because of the cast changes. I do think it was funny, that the movie Alice sees at the theater is Reefer Madness (1936). She eventually gets sucked into the movie by Freddy. The dog who pees like a blowtorch, is pretty funny too.

5.0 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

So, Freddy comes back and forth, from film to film, with no rhyme or reason as to how he is still alive. That is one of the problems with this franchise. The carefree attitude of, "just accept things as they are", to the audience. Lisa Wilcox returns as Alice, the character that the franchise began to center on in the last film. Stephen Hopkins is your director this time. There is a plot to the film, but it is a little bit slow and lifeless. It's the acting, that really hurts this one. Danny Hassel, who plays Alice's boyfriend Dan, also from the last film, does his best acting, impersonating Robert Englund. The rest is low budget acting at its best. It is not the fault of the actors though. They are handed one dimensional characters. Case in point - Alice's father; All we know about him is he is a recovered alcoholic and that's it. So, every time he is on the screen, even when hell is breaking loose, every thing goes back to the alcoholism and nothing else. They are one-dimensional.

This film starts to get even sillier, when the plot idea is, Freddy begins to channel himself through Alice's unborn child. It is a ridiculous notion, especially if you count what the original film started. The original film had Freddy just killing in the dream world. Now the script allows for him to get to the real world even easier. They do get creative with some of the effects. The filmmakers come up with some interesting scenarios for how Freddy commits his crimes. The interesting ways he kills his victims. One character is a comic book artist. His dreams always are depicted like comic books. Some of the sets, effects, art direction is really good (comic books) and some of it is pretty bad (spiders). I am impressed about how easy it is for people to fall asleep in these movies though. I would kill for that kind of sleep abilities. The film ends with no rhyme or reason as to why these things are happening. It's the classic plot device of telling your audience to just go with it. The franchise is becoming a parody of itself. At least we still have Robert Englund, doing his best, to bring Freddy to life, at this point in the timeline. I still give the film an E for Effort.

4.5 (E MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

This is the second Oz film that was released that currently is not considered lost. It comes four years after the first one was released, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910). That film was the first attempt at the classic Wizard of Oz tale that we all know and love. It isn't a great film, but for 1910 it was ok. And, it also established a measuring stick for what these films should be like moving forward. It allows a film fan to ask if The Patchwork Girl of Oz (1914), is better or worse.

The IMDB has this film listed at 81 minutes long, but the copy I saw was only 61 minutes long and there is a section in the film that is missing. In fact, one of the cards comes up and says "missing footage" and then explains what happens during that missing footage. So, because there is missing footage, you can't really criticize the story too much. Just be happy that the film still exists at all.

The Patchwork Girl is a sewed-together, life size, raggedy doll-like person, who immediately becomes annoying. She starts trouble and bounces around like a spastic acrobat on caffeine. She was created by a weird magician, who has the strangest walk. My groin was hurting just watching him move around. The whole cast are new characters to us, however, the Scarecrow does end up having an important part in the film and you do see the Tin Woodsman, The Wizard and the Cowardly Lion, albeit briefly.

There are a lot of strange things going on here. Some things didn't make sense, nor did it seem very family-friendly. The Magician's wife, Margolotte, tells Ojo (played by Violet MacMillanthe, the Dorothy of this story, even though she's a boy), that, "servants with lesser brains do better work". The big cat, Woozy, tells Patchwork Girl, "if you make me mad enough a can shoot lasers out of my eyes and burn our way out" and some of the townsfolk of Hopperland try to cut off the Magician's leg. All very weird ideas for a children's story.

On the positive side (and this is where comparing it to the 1910 version comes in handy), I did notice that the silent filmmakers started to get away from the staged theater approach they were doing at the start of the century. A lot of early silent films just look like recordings of stage plays. This film actually does some close-ups and different camera angles. There actually is a slow zoom utilized in one shot at a pivotal point of the film. They also did a very good job on certain special effects that made objects animate by doing stop-motion camera work. This is evident a lot during the creation of Patchwork Girl and various other parts to the film. You can see the pioneers of the day learning new tricks with their newfound technology.

5.2 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

Released: July 23rd, 2021 Viewed: July 28th, 2021

Looking back over the last 12 years, since the first GI Joe film came out (GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra - 2009), the landscape, that this type of film inhabits, has changed some since then. In the years since 2009, a new type of film-franchising has taken the world by storm. Of course, I am talking about the cross-over franchise universes that are the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the DC Extended Universe. Both have managed to create self-contained film/TV universes, teaming with characters and worlds, full of stories to tell, for the next many decades to come. It even has helped earlier franchises, such as Star Trek and Star Wars, find/expand their franchise limits even further as well. Heck, even the Legendary Pictures Godzilla/Kong Monster-verse seems to be working also. Looking at this new form of film franchise creation, from a Hasbro production perspective, creates a certain problem for the success of this film.

When looking at Hasbro's success since the first Transformers (2007), came out, the money is definitely there, but the critical response has been a difficult road for the toy/entertainment giant. That is the part we want to concentrate on here and not the monetary value of the IPs. We should be honest here and say that Hasbro's best film was Battleship (2012), which never got a sequel and maybe, half of the Transformers movies were better than fair. We also should note that, the first two GI Joe movies were not really great either. Could Hasbro do something to correct the course that this seemingly damaged IP has? Can it learn a lesson from what came before it without being a modern day film cliché? What really is worse is, these are just the beginning of the hurtles that Snake Eyes: GI Joe Origins (2021), needs to face in order to be good.

Snake Eyes picks up on many film clichés, new and old, such as, the fact that it copied the X-Men Origins concept by making it GI Joe Origins. I saw some Guy Ritchie inspired text placements (see Wrath of Man - 2021), throughout this film. Many of the motorcycle scenes looked like they were pulled right out of Akira (1988). It even had the standard superhero lineup that happens right before the big climactic fight scene commences. There's even an after credits scene. In fact this totally looked like a carbon copy of a Marvel attempt. Also, don't release this film in a year that is already teeming with Asian-inspired, action-type, plot lines. We just saw the release of the Mortal Kombat (2021), remake. A new Kung Fu (2021), show just debuted on the CW. Plus, we have been gearing up for the last 18 months for the soon to be released Marvel film, Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021). There is going to be content saturation that will effect originality.

The producers try to salvage the GI Joe film series by placing all its hopes on exploring the origin of one of its main characters. The problem stems from the fact that this type of character has been seen before and may not be as original an idea after all. They decide to pick a character, who is mostly a faceless, dark, shadowy, ninja type of persona. He is always seen that way in the GI Joe films, known for wearing a dark black hooded mask, who usually doesn't say much either. Now we have a backstory about this guy, which doesn't hold your attention much, because the character was so one dimensional already. We learn how he becomes Snake Eyes and what contributions the snakes play into his story, but that aspect starts to counteract the whole original form of the character. You begin not to care. It is a GI Joe story, but it becomes boring and dull. There are some good action scenes that seem hampered at times by the slow script. The excellently choreographed stunts begin to look all too familiar.

That by no means implies that this is a horrible film. Not by a long shot. There are some good points to this film. Some interesting aspects that make it compelling to watch. If you look at this film based on basic technical film principles then it is a perfect film. It has all the polish, professional perfections that any Hollywood film made today has, but after 125 years of movies, that isn't always enough. The film was way too long and when we finally get to the part of the movie centered around that pivotal moment when we finally learn the GI Joe connection with Snake Eyes, is fumbled. That great moment when these two huge pillars of the plotline first meet, becomes almost an afterthought.

What saves this film is the excellent acting by the superb, almost completely, Asian cast. One of the great aspects of Snake Eyes, who is from Asian-descent, named after a pair of dice, is completely American (since he was captured as a young child and grew up in Los Angeles), gets thrown into a situation in this film taking him all the way to Japan and he can only speak English. He is that real American hero, who needs his captors, allies and enemies to speak English to him or else those big speeches at the start of fights won't fall on deaf ears. So by casting a good, competent, professional group of Asian actors, who can articulate their lines well for the main character, as well as, for the audience, is done quite well in this film. The acting is top notch in this one. It brings in the non-perfect, human aspect of the equation, that makes Snake Eyes' character more interesting.

There also are many cool camera shots of Tokyo and other surrounding areas of Japan. I enjoyed some of the action scenes that did have an aura of familiarity to me. I am giving Snake Eyes an E+ for Effort and I still recommend seeing the film in theaters to support the excellent work of the Asian cast. GI Joe fans might like this exploration into their most famous and popular character, but for everyone else in the audience this film may feel too long, familiar and at times boring. I just hope GI Joe fans weren't as mad as I was when that pivotal moment, when Snake Eyes learns about the Joe Organization, ends up being less exciting then a yawn. The snakes were silly too, but nerve-wracking.

5.2 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

The leader of the B-movie industry, in 1977, was Roger Corman. To most film history buffs, Corman was noted as being the most successful B-movie producer in film history. His films were cheaply made, but he knew how to exploit their money-making potential, through the drive-in sector, double-billings, direct-to-video releases, over-seas distribution, you name it. Even though Corman himself, director Luigi Cozzi, the cast and most records pertaining to the creation of this film, can prove that this film was well into development stage, when Star Wars (1977), was released in theaters, Starcrash (1978), was labeled a "rip-off" and a production taking advantage of the unprecedented success of Star Wars, when it was released in the U.S., in March of 1979. It was released by New World Pictures with generally negative reviews from critics, but has developed a cult following since. The budget was $4 million dollars in 1978. Star Wars (1977), was $11 million dollars in 1977, so you can see the budget difference. In 1978, the difference of $7 million dollars was a lot of money. The remastered HD versions they have for streaming services and Blu-ray releases, today, for this film, look great. The HD remastering makes the low-budget effects and the art direction look better. The matted sequences look cleaner than what we were used to seeing on old VHS copies or on UHF television channels, back in the pre-HD era.

The best part about this movie, is the fact that Corman was able to get the great John Barry to do the soundtrack for this film. It's amazing how his music helps enhance the B-movie images seen in front of us on the screen. Barry is responsible for many great film compositions, most notably the James Bond films from the 1960s-1990s. He was so crucial to the success of this film, that his credit in the beginning of the film, has the biggest font of anyone else in the film. The film was shot at Cinecittà Studios in Rome, Italy, which apparently was Christopher Plummer's most favorite place in the world, so that explains why he did this movie. Even before this film, Christopher Plummer, who played the Emperor, had a great career going at this point. He was a classic, Hollywood actor and ended up having a legendary career after this film too. He is well known by us sci-fi film nerds, because of his appearance in the film, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991), as General Chang. He got fan-favorite love for that character from the Star Trek fan base.

The most striking of the characters was Stella Star played by the exquisite Caroline Munroe. Munroe had that classic, alluring, tribal beauty, like Raquel Welch in One Million Years B.C. (1966) or Linda Harrison's Nova from Planet of the Apes (1968). The British beauty had her lines redubbed by actress Candy Clark, in the American version of Starcrash (1978). This is another example of not having enough money for a successful film. They couldn't fly Munroe to Los Angeles to record her lines, so enter Clark. Munroe was busy working on the James Bond/Roger Moore film, The Spy Who Loved Me (1978), while working on this film too. She also had to be dubbed in the Bond film too. Also in this film, the Hoff himself, David Hasselhoff makes his appearance at the 53 minute mark of the film. It is one of his earliest screen appearances and one needed to be seen, mostly for fun reasons.

The effects, for the most part, did have the technological-styled look of the late-1950s/early-1960s. There are many shout-outs to different movies from the past. Not just Star Wars, but the work of Ray Harryhausen, Star Trek and Planet of the Apes (1968). The scene with Munroe and the robot Elle (Judd Hamilton-body actor), on the beach, looks like the same beach used in the Planet of the Apes (1968). That was another problem with this film. It does get a little bit silly in parts. The robot expresses what he calls, "robot chauvinism" in one scene, which was a funny line, but ridiculous. His voice and accent are all wrong for this character. He has a southern, western accent, which makes no sense (actor Hamilton Camp did the voice of the robot Elle for the American version). If this film takes place in another galaxy, how would the accent of the American south be there. This must be way, way into the future. In today's terms, the characters in this film resemble a discount version of the Guardians of the Galaxy (2014). I also saw things in this film that looked like they were inspired by the classic silent films of French filmmaker Georges Melies. The outer space battles look like they were inspired by the video game Space Invaders (1978). It was the outer space scenes, that showed off the really bad side of the special effects. It looked like Legos in space. The matting effects looked good, along with some of the set designs and camera shooting styles, but the space scenes are embarrassing to see..

These are the reasons I am giving this film a grade of an E for Effort (5/10). This film is not a bad film, but it isn't a great one either. The film has aspects in it, that make this film, "a need to be seen" movie, especially for film junkies. It has the soundtrack by John Barry, cult-classic characters, the Roger Corman brand and even the archaic effects are good in a couple places. Along with those aspects, the interesting cast and the general design of the film are the good parts. The HD remastering of the production is a big help these days. Starcrash (1978), definitely is a great homage to the science fiction movies of the 1940s, 50s and 60s, unfortunately this 1978 production has special affects from that same time period. I would rank the special effects just below Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-1981), level. At least you can't see the wires, plus the film has that great, 1970s mood to it, which includes beautiful women in space-bikinis. It is a perfect example of a film, that came from a sub-genre known as the Star Wars rip-offs, even if it didn't mean to be.

4.6 (E MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

So, I'm not going to bash this film as bad as others have, but I'm also not going to say this film is great by any stretch of the imagination. When this film came out in 1997, it was bashed so bad by the critics, was quickly becoming a box office flop and the idea of Shaquille O'Neal being the main actor in anything, was totally turning me off and the rest of the world. I never even thought of seeing this movie back then, because of all the bad press. On top of all the bad press, DC comics-produced movies were meeting a major downturn in quality and success during this time. This film was released two months after the disastrous release of the hated Batman & Robin (1997), film. Things would actually not begin to improve for DC until 2005, when director Christopher Nolan released Batman Begins (2005). Also, forget about Marvel during the 1990s. They had nothing really going on up to this point, although things would change for them, moving forward, with the release of Blade (1998), the following year. So, it's fair to say that comic book fans in 1997 were not happy to begin with.

It is fair to say, that some creators of motion pictures sometimes tend to mess things up when they are pet-projects. That is how things kind of rolled out here with the production of this film. Shaq was a big fan of the character of Steel. Television producer, David Salzman and legendary music performer, with money to burn, Quincy Jones, also loved the character. When a major NBA superstar says he wants to make a movie about Steel, then you just do it. That's where the trouble begins. They hired legendary television, director/producer/writer, Kenneth Johnson, to direct this film. Why they would hire a television guy to direct a major motion picture? Well, let's check his resume. Johnson was responsible for the creation of some of the best moments in fantasy/science fiction television history, from the 1970s to 1990s. He has huge titles on his list. TV shows like, The Bionic Woman (1976–1978), The Incredible Hulk (1977–1982), V (1983-1985) and Alien Nation (1989-1990), just to name a few. He definitely had the experience in fantasy, science fiction and comic book adaptations. The problem was it was for television and that is what comes out of the screen in Steel (1997). It feels like a cheesy TV show, not a major motion picture.

It is true this film has terrible dialogue, silly one-liners and certain moments in the film, that really make you want to shake your head. Having Shaquille O'Neal as your main character is not a good choice. Someone at Warner Brothers, should have gotten into Salzman's ear and convinced him to get Shaq to just be a producer on the film and hired a real actor for the job. You get scored on your pre-production as much as the production and post-production too. It sounds like the choice of Shaq was a huge turn-off for many theater-goers and critics. What also made things annoying to the fans for this film, was the blatant ignorance towards the original source material and the removal of the true story of Steel. Without getting into the full backstory to this character too much, Steel really shouldn't be around without Superman nearby. Steel is an important supporting character to Superman and that aspect was totally ignored in this movie.

Maybe, I am used to watching the CW/DC superhero shows, that we see today in the 21st century. As I witness the demise of the, once respected, Arrowverse, from the CW and the coming end to those shows, Steel (1997), doesn't look any worse than the weaker days of the Arrowverse. Maybe Steel (1997), was ahead of its time, because it follows the same formula as those shows. This speaks volumes, because Steel (1997), should have been a TV movie. There are some good moments in this film, mostly related to Iron's relationships with his friends and family. The writers do try to build a good foundation with the main character, by developing the family Iron has around him. This includes his grandmother, but also could include his Uncle Joe (Richard Roundtree) or his commanding officer, Colonel David (Charles Napier).

So, with all these negatives floating around in the press, total avoidance of the original source material and egos sabotaging beloved characters, you have a recipe for disaster. Throw in bad interactions between characters, a cheesy TV aura and some messy editing and you are going to score low on your film. I still don't think this film is as bad as some say, so I am going to give it an "E" for Effort. It is interestingly funny, seeing Steel's arch enemy, Nathaniel Burke (played fairly well by Judd Nelson), trying to pick a fight with O'Neal's, John Henry Irons, while looking up at Iron's, like he's talking to someone on top of the Washington monument. The interaction between the two characters just looked silly. This film can go either way. It can be fun at times, but also has some painful moments in it.

4.6 (E MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

Released: May 14th, 2021 Viewed: May 21st, 2021

When it comes to dealing with two different plot lines, those plot lines don't always come together. In the case of this film, one plot unfolds involving a young kid, who has valuable legal information that can put away a lot of bad people in the government. After an attack on him and his father and escaping from the bad guys, he runs into Angelina Jolie, who is a forest fire ranger and expert survivalist, in the middle of nowhere, thus plot number two unfolds.

Hannah (Jolie), is on tower watch and Conner (Finn Little), our kid on the run, following instructions from his father, follows the creek and eventually runs into Jolie at the tower. As you would know it, the bad guys set a fire at a rest stop in order to draw the town's attention away from them and their job of killing the kid and any other witnesses. Thus brings in, at no surprise, the whole forest fire angle of this film.

What comes after that is a dull, average, action film that works better on a network crime show. Which, is an interesting notion, because the film was also released on HBO Max at the same time it was released in theaters and the theater I was in was the size of a gift shop. It fits that. But, things are not terrible for this film. On it's base level it is just fine. It is polished just like anything else with 21st century film/digital technology. That is it though. It has just an average appeal and pace to it.

The characters are basic and it's a shame too, because with a seasoned, popular supporting cast like, John Bernthal, Nicholas Hoult and Game of Thrones alumni, Aidan Gillen this could have been something. John Bernthal was the stand-out actor. Everything you liked about him from Walking Dead (2010 - Present), to the Punisher (2017), is here too. One of the surprise characters, that I wasn't expecting, was Medina Senghore as Allison, Bernthal's Sheriff Ethan's pregnant wife, who ends up being the character you most want to root for. She is a breakout character and fits nicely in with Bernthal's stand-out sheriff.

I was questioning the believability factor when it came to some of the scenes in the fire and with a lightning storm, but they sell it enough, that it provides that modern age cheesiness found in films like this. If you take away the 21st century special effects however, then any twelve episodes of Chips are better than this is. This may have been just an extra vehicle for Jolie to ride with to help jack up interest for her, before her MCU debut happens in the Eternals (2021), coming out later in the year.

Its not a horrible film. Not by a long shot. The pace of the plot is boring and it takes awhile for things to get going. I am still going to give it an E for Effort, which means, I still recommend seeing it. It still provides the escapism that Hollywood provides and even though it has a slow build-up and pace it still has enough interesting things going on that makes it fine for an hour and a half. Save your money and watch this movie on HBO Max. I do hope you have a huge TV though.

5.2 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB

The Transformers movies have slowly been dropping in quality and substance for a while now. The first Transformers (2007), was very good. The third film, Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), was good, but actually the best Hasbro film, since then, has been Battleship (2012). Bumblebee (2018), wasn't too bad either, but it has been a rough-going, since the early days of the Michael Bay-directed, Transformers movies. Things don't improve here with the seventh installment in the franchise either, but there are some good points to be found too. In Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023), I was impressed with the special effects and CGI used in the film. Also, the writers and animators, produced a group of interestingly creative characters, directly related to the robot designs and their personalities.

Our main antagonist, is a fan-favorite character, first introduced in movie theaters, in the great animated film, Transformers, the Movie (1986). He is a giant, planet-sucking, Transformer-God, known as Unicron (voice of Colman Domingo). Unicron has an interesting resemblance to Marvel's, planet-eating, cosmic entity, Galactus. Without getting into the plot too much, our main, human character in Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023), is Noah Diaz (Anthony Ramos). Noah, is a guy, with a sick little brother, no insurance and no job. He is an ex-soldier, trained in electronics (of course), who becomes the new Shia LaBeouf, Mark Walberg or even, Hailee Steinfeld, lead character of the franchise. In Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023), we are now in the the 1990s. Optimus Prime (voice of Peter Cullen) and the Autobots, find themselves embroiled in another fight, not with the Decepticons this time, but with new bad-guy robots, the Terrorcons. As the film moves along, Noah begins to form a bond with the Autobot, known to fans, as Mirage (voice of Pete Davidson). Eventually, Mirage has to give parts of his body to Noah, in order to create a protective suit, so Noah can fly around, shoot lasers and look a lot like Iron-Man. In order for Unicron to gain the power he needs, towards access to unlimited planets, he has the Terrorcons search for the Trans-warp Key.

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023), is one of the movies, I will be adding to my E for Effort List. I still recommend "E for Effort" films, because there is still enough in the film, for either, an entertaining night or at least, an interesting one. They are films, that could have been really good, but for some reason or another, one huge blemish, technical problem or a behind-the-scenes stigma, causes the film to go off course. This also could be related to story substance, related to budgetary headaches, which affects the pacing of the film. It is the idea, that if the director, Steven Caple Jr., could change or fix one thing, it could be the difference between a bad movie or a great film. It gets an "E For Effort". In this case, for Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023), the blemish in the room, develops into a blatant copy of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This film has its moments, but is bogged-down by a familiarity, that ruins parts of the movie. I still recommend the film, especially if you decide to watch the whole franchise together. You need to include this film in the viewing rotation, especially once you see the very end of this film, because it looks like, Hasbro has some interesting things, in-store, for the future of the franchise. There also is a pretty talented voice-cast in this film too. Along with Pete Davidson, this includes the Maximals characters, Ron Perlman, as Optimus Primal and Michelle Yeoh as Airazor. Peter Dinklage is cast, as the voice of Scourge, the right-hand Terrorcon to Unicron, which looks every bit, like he is a herald for Unicron, just like the Sliver Surfer is a herald for Galactus.

5.1 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB