While there were certainly exceptions, cinema in the 1940s wasn't exactly known for its horror. Not least following the introduction of the Hays Code, discrete visualization of genre elements was commonly reduced to a small corner of any picture, with a very light tone characterizing all too many. Factor in substantial dialogue that spoke of events and violence instead of scenes that showed them, and the lasting value that titles of the era can claim for modern viewers is generally fairly little. In the case of 'The flying serpent,' consider as well that despite whatever we might imagine to follow from the premise (something more closely related to Larry Cohen's 1982 film 'Q: The flying serprent,' perhaps, or 1957's 'The giant claw'), the story that writer John T. Neville devised actually borrows very heavily from 1940 Bela Lugosi film 'The devil bat.' Suffice to say that by the time only part of the runtime has elapsed great doubts are surely cast in one's mind, and this 1946 feature treads on thin ice.
In fairness, "Quetzalcoatl" looks decent enough, if nothing special. The production values here aren't the top of the line among contemporary fare, but they're not bottom dollar, either. The art direction is pretty swell, and the costume design, hair, and makeup are nice. The cast give earnest performances. One would prefer more originality, but in and of themselves the root ideas of the story are suitably enjoyable. Then again, the movie requires viewers to take a significant amount at face value, for the storytelling rather falls apart in the details. We go from a prologue establishing ancient lore, to a modern day setting in which an Aztec god is manipulated by men; it's unclear to me why Dr. Forbes would be called before the grand jury, let alone his daughter. And so on, and so on, as the narrative involves a lot of Just So story beats and plot development. 'The flying serpent at least carries itself more sincerely than some of its kin, with a more appropriate tone, but that only gets one so far.
I don't think this is bad. It's just not particularly remarkable, and strictly speaking the writing is notably stronger in that horror flick from which it lifts key ideas. It comes of better than some other 40s horror in some important ways, but still shares much in common with its brethren, and it doesn't bear enough especial strength to stand out in a crowd. All the right parts are here, and there's simply too little vitality to make much of an impression. Still, for better or worse 'The flying serpent' is effectively par for the course when it comes to genre pieces of the timeframe; you could do better, but for something very light, it's decent enough for an hour on a lazy afternoon. By no means should anyone go out of their way for this, but if you do come across it, leave it for an occasion when you want to "watch" something without any need to actively engage with it, and maybe that's the best way to appreciate it.
In fairness, "Quetzalcoatl" looks decent enough, if nothing special. The production values here aren't the top of the line among contemporary fare, but they're not bottom dollar, either. The art direction is pretty swell, and the costume design, hair, and makeup are nice. The cast give earnest performances. One would prefer more originality, but in and of themselves the root ideas of the story are suitably enjoyable. Then again, the movie requires viewers to take a significant amount at face value, for the storytelling rather falls apart in the details. We go from a prologue establishing ancient lore, to a modern day setting in which an Aztec god is manipulated by men; it's unclear to me why Dr. Forbes would be called before the grand jury, let alone his daughter. And so on, and so on, as the narrative involves a lot of Just So story beats and plot development. 'The flying serpent at least carries itself more sincerely than some of its kin, with a more appropriate tone, but that only gets one so far.
I don't think this is bad. It's just not particularly remarkable, and strictly speaking the writing is notably stronger in that horror flick from which it lifts key ideas. It comes of better than some other 40s horror in some important ways, but still shares much in common with its brethren, and it doesn't bear enough especial strength to stand out in a crowd. All the right parts are here, and there's simply too little vitality to make much of an impression. Still, for better or worse 'The flying serpent' is effectively par for the course when it comes to genre pieces of the timeframe; you could do better, but for something very light, it's decent enough for an hour on a lazy afternoon. By no means should anyone go out of their way for this, but if you do come across it, leave it for an occasion when you want to "watch" something without any need to actively engage with it, and maybe that's the best way to appreciate it.