Veronica Lake was born on 14 November 1922 as Constance Frances Marie Ockelman. I mention that only because I think it’s an awesome name.

She played notable femme fatales in a number of film noirs. I know her mostly for Sullivan’s Travels. She filmed it while being 7 months pregnant — something she originally hid from writer-director Preston Sturges. (Although generally considered Sturges’ masterpiece, it isn’t one of my favorites.)

But she was a leading lady of the Hollywood Golden Age. And like so many, Hollywood abandoned her by the late 1940s. People still tell stories of her being “difficult.” But I think she was smart and a great actor. And that is normally what got women in trouble in Hollywood of the time.

Don’t feel too bad for Veronica Lake. She was a strong woman. And she held her head high her entire life. She did die young due to the effects of heavy drinking during bad times in the late 1950s and early 1960s. But I think we should be angry at the treatment of her and not sad for her given that she did better than most of us would.

Late in life, she produced the only truly psychotronic film she was ever in: Flesh Feast. It came out in 1970 but it was made in 1967. And it is a wild film!

Sadly, much of the film doesn’t work that well. The direction by Brad F Grinter is a lot like the worst work of Doris Wishman. The sets are over-lit but still use too few lights. The script is almost unintelligible. It has a single (wonderful) idea, which the script very obviously hints at throughout the first two acts.

But the reveal that “the leader” is actualy a very old Adolf Hitler is pretty good. And everything after that is great too. The acting is also pretty good. And it has some good special effects — including a scene where a leg (of a dead person) is sawed off that made me squirm.

Overall, it’s better than They Saved Hitler’s Brain. I think all psychotronic fans should watch the whole thing. But for others, just check out the last 6 and a half minutes. Lake plays the doctor. A regional Florida actor, Douglas Kennedy, may have played Hitler. No one is credited. I think he’s rather good!

Here is the whole film to celebrate Veronica Lake’s birthday:

---

Veronica Lake via Wikimedia. It is in the public domain.

Millennium Films released Crocodile in the United Kingdon on 13 November 2000. They only released it there — at least for a couple of years. It went directly to video in most countries.

This is despite Tobe Hooper directing it. But that’s why I’m writing about it now. I think the film is pretty good. I pretty much always hate teens and college students in horror films. This annoyance is wonderfully brief here. We get to the killing fast!

But the film’s biggest problem is the computer-generated crocodile. It looks terrible. These digital effects soiled a couple of decades of film. It is what the Yamaha DX7 did to pop music of the 1980s.

This reminds me of Jaws. The mechanical shark wasn’t great. And it didn’t work well. As a result, the film depended on the barrels. And that’s why it works so well. When a barrel pops up, you know the shark is there but you can’t see it. That’s terrifying! (I know, because I had nightmares for years when I was a kid!)

Hooper does his best to hide the crocodile until later in the film. But the tools to do it well just aren’t there. And ultimately, the audience has to see the monster in all its glory. And its glory is not glorious!

The film is still worth seeing. The story’s good and it’s fun. But you can’t look at it and think, “Wow! People were impressed by this?!” Because they clearly weren’t. It got a theatrical release in very few places. It’s best to think of this as a direct-to-video film.

As for Tobe Hooper, well, like all of us, he had to make a living. And I don’t blame him. I don’t blame anyone. Everyone did a good job. That includes the special effects people, who were just dealing with the technology and budget they had.

---

Crocodile (2000) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Jacques Tourneur was born in Paris on 12 November 1904.

He started his career in France as an assistant director and editor. But in the early 1930s, he also directed a few feature films. In 1934, he moved to Hollywood. (He had lived in the United States as a child with his father, Maurice Tourneur, who was a noted filmmaker in his own right.)

In Hollywood, Tourneur continued to work as an assistant director. And he directed a number of short (usually around 10-minute) films. Starting in 1939, he directed mostly feature films. And in 1942, he made what is probably his masterpiece, Cat People. Of course, producer Val Lewton, who would work more with Tourneur. The two also worked together on I Walked with a Zombie and The Leopard Man.

From there, Jacques Tourneur moved on to do bigger-budget films. But in the 1950s, he became a freelance director — eventually directing a lot of TV. He directed one of my favorite episodes of The Twilight Zone, the heartbreaking “Night Call.”

Not surprisingly, the good men at American International Pictures saw a good opportunity in Tourneur. So they hired him to direct what would be his last two films: The Comedy of Terrors and City Under the Sea.

After that, he retired and went back to France where he died in 1977. Americans could learn a bit from the French. Don’t work until you die!

Let’s celebrate Jacques Tourneur by watching what I still revisit often, The Comedy of Terrors. It’s got a great cast. The screenplay by Richard Matheson is way better than most of what he wrote for AIP. And the overall production is just lots of fun. It features a romance that I can totally get behind. Just don’t read about Joyce Jameson. Instead, imagine her living happily ever after with Peter Lorre!

---

Jacques Tourneur via TCM under Fair Use.

Medusa Distribuzione released The Beyond in Italy in early 1981. It wasn’t until 11 November 1983 that Aquarius Releasing released the film in the United States.

The Beyond is one of my favorite films. This isn’t surprising. Lucio Fulci is one of my favorite directors. It is arguably his best film.

But it is an aquired taste. It doesn’t go for strict realism. The standout scene features an army of tarantulas. And they don’t look real at all!

Americans overvalue realism. People justify this with the idea that realism keeps you immersed in the film. But that isn’t really true. Inconsistency pulls viewers out of a film. Put unrealistic spiders in Alien and it will destroy the narrative reality. But in a Fulci film? It all hangs together.

Strangely, the effect of watching The Beyond is visceral. There is nothing especially intellectual about it — at least as a viewer. Just sit and let it take you over.

The film is part of the Gates of Hell trilogy. Like most horror trilogies, it really isn’t. The first film, City of the Living Dead, is about one of the gates of hell opening. But the last one, The House by the Cemetery, doesn’t feature any gate of any kind. It’s a good film but hardly the way to finish off a trilogy.

Of the three films, The Beyond is the best. (But I admit that I’m rather more obsessed with City.) If you’ve never seen it, you must! It is essential viewing. And if you’ve watched it a dozen times, it’s still worth watching again!

---

The Beyond (1981) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Claude Rains was born on 10 November 1889.

Most people know him for playing Captain Renault in Casablanca. And, of course, Senator Paine in the tedious Mr Smith Goes to Washington. And I quite like him in The Paris Express — an unusual and enjoyable film noir.

But we are here for The Invisible Man. Just because it’s in the song “Midnight Double Feature Picture Show“? Of course not! Well, maybe a little. But it is a remarkable film. And Rains’ first feature.

(Before moving on, there is a parody of the film as “Son of the Invisible Man” starring Ed Begley Jr in Amazon Women on the Moon. It gets to the heart of one thing that is always on my mind when watching the original: Is Claude Rains’ penis swinging around as he runs naked?)

It isn’t close to my favorite Universal horror film. But it’s still really good. Of particular note is the quality of the special effects. But Michael Weldon noted something I had never noticed, “A major technical flaw: when the naked Invisible Man runs through the snow, he leaves shoe prints.” I just think it’s interesting. It really doesn’t matter.

Another good thing is that, like most of the Universal horror films, this one is short: just 70 minutes. It moves along at a brisk pace. No time to get bored.

And even though you almost never see Claude Rains (for good narrative reasons, I think we can all agree), he’s really great. He’s possibly the most unlikeable character in any of the other Universal films. So let’s celebrate his birthday by watching this iconic film.

---

Claude Rains via Wimimedia. It is in the public domain.

MGM released Child’s Play on 9 November 1988.

I like this film well enough. Because it’s well-made and fun. But people — And critics! — love the film. And I don’t really get that.

Michael Weldon wrote in his second guide, “It’s way too much like the old Twilight Zone episode ‘Talking Tina’…” But he’s wrong about the title, which is “Living Doll.” And I think he’s overstating to say it is too much like the episode. But he is right that the idea for Child’s Play is not new.

But it is part of a horror subgenre that I love. Let’s call it “murder doll.” One of my all-time favorite films fits here, Dolls. And more recently, Benny Loves You is a classic.

This subgenre works well with low budgets. A great example of this is Killer Piñata (2015). It was made for just a few thousand dollars. And it doesn’t look great. But it’s a hoot! (Note: a sequel came out a couple of years back, Bride of the Killer Piñata. I haven’t seen it yet but it looks very much like the original.)

And there are others like the micro-budget films CarousHELL and Llamageddon.

The subgenre is good for that. Most people can forgive bad special effects when the monster is a space alien llama, a pissed off carousel unicorn, or just a creepy doll. Not that Child’s Play had a low budget. But it could have been made with a low budget. And it probably would have been better!

But it’s still a fine film. It’s helped a lot that Chucky is an incredibly creepy doll. And it pairs well with Brad Dourif’s creepy “death camp doctor” voice. So let’s celebrate the 37th anniversary of Child’s Play by watching the film. But this will be my last. There are just too many other killer doll films to see!

---

Child’s Play (1988) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

20th Century Fox released Magic on 8 November 1978.

As a kid, I saw Magic in the theater. The MPAA (Bastards!) rated it R. But my parents let me see lots of movies I shouldn’t! I also read the novel. I was really into magic when I was young.

It’s not a great film for kids. I didn’t identify with the whole love story. But I’ve revisited it as an adult. It holds up well. I genuinely like it. But I’m shocked that it was made or even that the novel was published.

Producer Joseph E Levine gave William Goldman a million dollars for the screenplay! That’s $5 million today. For what? A story about a ventriloquist who goes insane? That’s almost as common as “boy meets girl.”

But I get it. There aren’t that many original stories. It’s all about the rendering. And Goldman (as usual) does a fine job of rendering this story. What’s more, it does end well in a sweet way that resonates with me.

Just the same, it isn’t nearly as good as “The Ventriloquist’s Dummy” in Dead of Night. And I prefer supernatural ventriloquist stories. My favorite is the exceptional Devil Doll.

I still think everyone should watch Magic. It works. And it looks great. The budget ends up on the screen in terms of production design, filming, and acting.

So let’s celebrate the 47th anniversary of Magic by watching this free copy:

---

Magic (1978) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Lucille La Verne was born on 7 November 1872.

I didn’t know who she was before today. Although she has a fair number of film credits, she wasn’t really a film actor. She was a big star on Broadway and as a touring actor. In fact, she eventually ran her own company.

She started acting as a child. She played Juliet and Lady Macbeth back-to-back at the age of 14. This was the hallmark of her career. She was always a very versatile actor. And she made it to Broadway at the age of 16.

In addition to acting, she wrote and directed plays — including on Broadway.

But I’m talking about her today for one reason. In her best-known film role, Lucille La Verne provided the voice for the Evil Queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

I’m not a huge fan of Disney animated features. But the first five of them were amazing. After Snow White, Disney produced Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi. When I was a kid, I found them all terrifying. They are not kid films!

(Note: there is something of an exception. The Reluctant Dragon was a feature. But most of it is live action. The animated part is very light and silly. Interestingly, it is the only early Disney feature that I did not see as a kid!)

Anyway, La Verne performed as the Evil Queen as her final performance. It doesn’t look like she did any more theater. And she definitely didn’t do any more films. But it is a fine performance. In fact, it’s really the only performance in the film that anyone remembers!

So let’s watch Snow White to celebrate Lucille La Verne’s birthday!

---

Lucille La Verne via IMDb. It is in the public domain.

Bryanston Distributing released Blood for Dracula in the United States on 6 November 1974. Many other companies were responsible for its distribution elsewhere. West Germany and Japan saw the film months before it came to the US.

It is a remarkable film. It looks beautiful. And the script is sly. The problem is that it is a comedy in the mold of Steven Spielberg’s 1941. That is: it’s a great film but one that is almost impossible to find funny. Dracula falls to the floor and licks the blood of a virgin who was just deflowered. I know it is funny in theory. It’s funny in the way The Metamorphosis is.

What I most like about it is that Dracula is anemic and weak. And he lives a life of boredom and pain. No one would want to change places with him. He is the most pitiable vampire ever.

There is one part of the film that’s hard to take. The hero rapes a 14-year-old virgin girl so that Dracula cannot take her. That might be okay if the girl didn’t quickly get into the rape. I don’t know quite what to think about that. But the whole idea of virgins drives me crazy. I don’t even know what the concept means anymore. And I certainly don’t think having coitus changes the nature of blood. But Catholics believe in transubstantiation, so who knows?!

Regardless, the last ten minutes of the film are awesome. Dracula finally gets the virgin blood he needs. So he’s all set for the final confrontation. Mario the handyman (with a ridiculous Brooklyn accent) chops off all Dracula’s limbs before staking him. It really is worth sitting through the rest, which is largely just a melodrama with a hint of danger

If I seem a bit down on the film, that’s doubtless just because I’m not keen on vampires as characters. I want vampires to rip out throats. When I see two tiny holes, I don’t know what I’m supposed to think. Do vampire fangs have holes in them that they suck blood into? Vampire films should always be extremely bloody. And they never are.

But Blood for Dracula is definitely one of the better vampire films. At least Dracula is a villain, which is something you can’t say for a lot of vampire films over the past few decades. So on this 51st anniversary, let’s watch it. But I won’t hold it against you if you skip to one hour and 38 minutes!

Personally, I think you are better off watching Dracula AD 1972. But that could be just me. It combines the Gothic with the Groovy.

---

Blood for Dracula (1974) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.

Orion Pictures released RoboCop 3 in the United States on 5 November 1993. (Columbia Pictures released it earlier in the year in Japan.)

I highlight the film today because I really like it. Critics hated it, of course. And I would like to highlight Richard Harrington’s review in The Washington Post. He called it “downright silly.”

Wow! I bet that came as a shock to the filmmakers! In my own review, I wrote that it was “the silliest of the RoboCop films.” But note the difference. All of the RoboCop films are silly! A critic complaining that the third film in the series is silly shows he didn’t follow the first two.

But Harrington wasn’t the only idiotic critic. The film has a 9% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. They all show the same ignorance of the earlier films — thinking they were somehow serious.

What’s more, they seem to all miss the intent of the film. MPAA rated the first two films R. It rated the third PG-13. Clearly, the producers figured the brand had reached the point at which it was basically for kids. The main character in the film is a little girl! And the TV series following it was aimed at kids. Get a clue, critics!

I think the first film is probably the best. But I only ever watch RoboCop 3 anymore. It’s mindless fun.

And this gets to something I still don’t understand. Hollywood now produces a ton of silly films. And critics are mostly fine with that. As long as a film has a big enough budget, critics treat it as serious art.

I don’t particularly care. But why do they attack films like RoboCop 3 while pretending that Wonder Woman is serious art? Critics take themselves very seriously. But their work is silly — way sillier than the films they dismiss.

So let’s have some fun and watch RoboCop 3!

---

RoboCop 3 (1993) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.