Fiction vs. Fiction: Mr. Sardonicus (1961)

 A random bit of luck got me a copy of the original Short Story that become William Castle's Mr. Sardonicus.   It came in a big old Book from 1987 that I paid a whole $1 for.

Nobody demanded this but screw it.

Let's see what Mr. Castle and company changed for the Screen...

VS

What's the Same?

The Story is pretty much the same between both versions.

A Doctor is called to a far-off land at the behest of a former love.  He meets her Husband- a Lord with a strange disfigurement.

He's pressed to cure him...or else.

He says that he uses a weakened form of poison to fix his face, but it was a lie.  It was just water and his own guilt over robbing his Father's grave.

The pair go on to live happily ever after, while Sardonicus is punished by fate, unable to eat or drink.

What's Different?

So... there are a few key differences.

That shot of Guy Rolfe in his mask is one of the iconic parts of the Film.
It is not in the Book.

At all.

In addition, the weird Butler/Assistant is in the Book.
In the Film, however, he's partially disfigured as a result of a punishment from Sardonicus.

This plays into his later betrayal as part of the 'Punishment Poll' Ending in the Film.

Another big one- what makes the Doctor help Sardonicus.

In the Film, the Butler (below), he threatens to disfigure the woman.
In the Book, Sardonicus explains that (like in the Film), it is a marriage in name only.
If he won't fix his grin, he will *ahem* consummate the marriage against her will.

Good change, Mr. Castle.

Last big change....

In the Film, we learn that the Doctor was *faking* the deaths of these dogs used to find the right amount of poison to not kill Sardonicus, dragging them out visibly for the charade.

In the Book, he was just actually killing the dogs with poison.
Damn!
Why?!?

In the Book, the Doctor mentions that he heard the legend of a 'starving man' wandering the lands.
In the Film, he is betrayed by the Butler, who doesn't tell him that he was really cured.

What a twist!

Final Thoughts

The Film version is honestly a bit better. 

It gives more nuance to everyone involved.  The random Butler has a back story, for instance, and ties into the ending.
In the Book, he's just a guy who shows up once and that's it.

The Film is certainly more lurid than the Book- aside from the you-know threat of forced marital relations- and that may not be your preference.

The Book has some good parts to it, of course, and you wouldn't have a Film without it.

Now go on Etsy to start selling these already- the Copyright has no doubt lapsed.

The Story is still a fun one, so track it down.  The Film is just a more expanded and interesting version.

WTF Cover Art?!?: The Tingler

I don't know for sure who made this.
I don't know why they made this.
I don't know why this exists.

In spite of my questions, someone posted this bizarre mix of original Poster and bizarre painting on Facebook, so...enjoy?

Just to be safe, I blocked out a little bit of this.

I definitely have many MANY questions about this whole thing...

1) What?
2) Huh?
3) Do the people on the Poster see what is out there?
4) Is she making out with a Tingler?
5) Why is it glowing?
6) WHAT?!?
7) Are there more of these?

I have no explanations.  All I can do is share this insanity with the World.

You're welcome?

May Monster Madness: Bug (1975) {Re-Post}

***While I was too late to get to a new Bug Film for May Monster Madness, I can at least Update and Repost a Review that barely anyone saw***

People often forget just how many films are actually adaptations of books. For example, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is based on a dark Book called Who Censored Roger Rabbit?  A Dumb Movie like First Blood (cool as it is) is based on a book by the same name.  In the 1970s, there were a series of silly book-to-film adaptations though- Night of the Lepus being a stand-out.  The closest thing we have come lately is Meg, a film that has been 'in-development' since 1997.  Good luck with that.  Mind you, Zoo is going to be a Mini-Series now, so...all bets may be off.  Some odd Studio adapted a strange short story titled- really- 'The Hephaestus Bug' and made today's Film...

I am putting the year on here so nobody gets it confused with that Movie of the same name where Ashley Judd does drugs and freaks out in a hotel.  Alright?

****

The movie begins by introducing a nice, small town that is Christian and completely non-threatening.  After enough time setting up that and are random supporting characters, an earthquake occurs. It shakes up all the people in Church, but everyone is alright. Little do they know that something more dangerous has occurred though!  Later that night, a cat stumbles upon a cockroach, or so it thinks.  The Bug does an unseen action and causes the cat to light on fire!  Jesus, movie, stop picking on the cats!  First Beware! The Blob and now this!  What did they ever do to you?!? Eventually, some people become victims of the bugs as well, the high point of which is a truck explosion.

As luck would have it, this town has an Entomologist on staff, who serves as a High School Biology teacher.  He goes to great lengths to study the creatures, becoming more and more secluded from his friends and family.  Hell, even his wife gets put on the back burner (no pun intended) in favor of the bugs. The real joy of this film is just watching how his character progresses into insanity. To be honest, everything is just window-dressing. He is the star of the movie and the bugs are the supporting actors.  The bugs are a bit more believable than The Tingler (another William Castle production) most of the time, although the real bugs used help disguise the effect. Never once do they logically explain how the bugs shoot flames either. Oh, they certainly try!  They do about as well as most 70s films do to explain pseudo-science.

As the film progresses, it manages to get crazier and crazier. The lead puts together a super-private lab designed to study these amazing creatures in great detail. Other than his sanity, there are no consequences. Oh, except for the bit where one bug lights his wife's hair on fire. As a bonus, this takes place in the same kitchen set used for The Brady Bunch show. Don't worry, the film has more than just flame-throwing bugs.  As time goes by, the bugs strive to break free.  The climax of this involves a group of them escaping their confinement and forming words on the wall.  How are they this smart?  Does it have anything to do with our scientist friend forcibly mating what he thinks are the smartest ones?  They never say.  The finale is a bit lazy, unfortunately, as the bugs kill the scientist and get sucked back into the ground by another earthquake.  Can you say Deus Ex Machina, kids?

The movie is honestly pretty good, even if it barely explains any of its own science.  The film has its own sort of charm and is honestly a very good Character Study.  I realize how silly the Movie's Plot is (which is why it is here), but I honestly like this movie.  Unfortunately, the DVD presentation is, how can I say it nicely, minimalistic.  No Trailers, Commentary or anything.  You want the Movie- here it is.  That's it!  I should also note that this movie is directed by Jeannot Szwarc, the man behind such 'Classics' as Santa Claus: The Movie, Jaws 2 and Supergirl. It is still good though- I just felt like mentioning that.  If you like 70s horror, check this one out.  I'm not a liar liar, hair of fire...

*****

Buy the DVD!: Thirt13n Ghosts (2001)

Can a good DVD redeem a bad movie?

No, but this one sure gives it the old 'College Try.'  Let's skip the 'Here's Who William Castle Was' Bio and go right to '13 Ghosts' Revealed...

It takes you down a nice, long video (made up of footage from the film) and all of the way to...

 A Display Case full of 12 random objects.  They represent each one of the Ghosts (as the 13th is a plot point).  If you click on one of them, you get...

A video 'explaining' the background of each of the Ghosts.  They are the most interesting part of the film, so why not?

The Vignettes are weird, freaky and Edited strangely.  They are also pretty short, but kind of neat.

Hmm...maybe the people that put these together should have done the movie too (assuming for the sake of the joke that they were, in fact, different people).

Neat feature for a not-so-good movie.

60's (Enjoyable) Trash: 13 Ghosts

It was better the first time.  Today's film is William Castle's 13 Ghosts, not to be confused with the Remake.  That film sucks.  This film is fun, albeit silly.  To be fair, Castle tried to make films that were usually about as deep as a puddle.  His big thing was giving you fun movies and throwing gimmicks in to raise them.  One film had theatergoers sign a fake liability waiver for if they died, while they actually wheeled out a plastic skeleton during House on Haunted Hill's scene featuring one as well.  What does this film have going for it?  Well, people who saw it in Theaters were given special Ghost Viewers.  Basically, they had a blue filter screen and a red filter screen.  The shots of ghosts were tinted blue and the ghosts themselves are tinted red.  So, basically, if you looked through the blue filter, you would see no ghosts.  If you looked through the red filter, you would see them in 3-D.  Mind you, you could just forego the filter (as I did- watching it in my house in 2013) and just see the ghosts normally.  The plot is silly and trite, so I'll just save it for the review.  To find out more about the *better* version of the film, read on...

Like usual, Castle shows up at the beginning and tells you what I just told you about the viewer.  He presents as using the blue filter for 'if you don't believe in ghosts' and the red filter 'if you believe in ghosts.'

Mind you, he also told you that you 'voted' in Mr. Sardonicus, even though he only made the one Ending.

Our hero is a Professor who is bad with money and has to support his family.  When his long-thought-dead Uncle turns out to be actually dead, they inherit the house.

Oh and they inherit the Maid, played here by Margaret Hamilton.  The running joke: they think that she may be a Witch.

If I have to explain this to you, I'm very sorry (for you).

The film's ghost scenes are *supposed* to be viewed with the Ghost Viewer- which is actually a prop in the film- and not just staring at the screen.  As such, the film prompts you.  That's unique, huh?

The Ghosts are kind of interesting.  They are themed, like a lion and a headless trainer or a Cook that murdered his wife and lover in the kitchen.

That said, their appearance can get a little blurry since they're big, red globs.

Stuff starts to get freaky as the spirit of the Uncle appears as some sort of Zombie and scares the daughter (who appears to be in her late-20s).  Freaky.

As it turns out, the Lawyer- Adam-12's Martin Milner- knows about the money and wants to chase the family out to get it.

While this sounds like a Scooby-Doo plot, do realize that this film predates even the original show by 9 years!

The guy's scheme falls apart when the *real* ghost of the Uncle shows up and scares him into lightly-climbing under a bed rigged to slowly crush whoever is under it.

Off-camera, the family finds all of the money and laughs about what just happened.  It's funny because a man was crushed to death in our house...LAST NIGHT.  Ha.  The End.

This is a silly piece of 1960's fluff.  The film is a real product of its time.  That said, I love it!  It's super-cheesy, gimmicky and doesn't exactly aim to be anything especially deep.  With a few exceptions, Castle really aimed for a certain market.  They were made for teenagers/young adults to go see on Friday nights while they try to 'round the bases.'  In 2013, the films are silly and dated.  They were a bit creaky back in 1960 too, so that's no big change.  I live for this kind of stuff.  Is it a good movie?  To most people, probably not.  To me, it's a glorious piece of cheese.  You like cheese?  Sure you do!  If you have only seen that piece of crap movie about ghosts trapped in see-through plastic walls, you need to see the original.  Much like House on Haunted Hill, it's just plain better.  Do yourself a favor and enjoy this fun film.  Take us away, dated split-screen effect...

Up next, I find some obscure crap to watch under the pretense of it being Veteran's Day.  I'm sure that it will be great too.  Stay tuned...

Castle Crasher: Mr. Sardonicus

You should all know this name: William Castle. Even if you have not seen any of his films, you should at least know the name. The man got famous for his film gimmicks, even if his films are not as memorable. Another strange honor given to Mr. Castle is that he is a very popular subject of movie remakes. Of his works, there have been remakes of The House on Haunted Hill (plus a sequel to that) and 13 Ghosts. The only person who seems to be more popular in this department is Vincent Price (House of Wax, House on Haunted Hill, etc). I'm not here to talk about those films today though. I am here to talk about a Castle original. Of course, by a 'Castle original,' I mean that it is based on a book (i.e. 1975's Bug). It is an odd little film with an odd little gimmick. I will get into that part later. Let's begin...

Mr. Sardonicus

Our film begins in London- only in some exterior stock footage- at a hospital. A brave, smart and super unrealistic doctor is helping a young girl who can't feel her legs. In true General Hospital fashion, he manages to do it, all the while being the most gallant man ever created in the history of mankind. He gets a mysterious letter and tells his assistant that he has to go. One travel montage later and he is in a vague, made-up country in Europe. By the way, since this movie is set during the late 19th Century, the trip takes months. He runs into the ticket taker as he leaves who proceeds to give him the old 'don't go to that house' routine. Interesting idea in 1931's Dracula, but this film was made in 1961! He shows up and meets his old girlfriend from years past. She acts very strange about the whole situation and does the 'saying something without saying something' bit. If you want to avoid genre cliches, look elsewhere, is the gist of it. He runs into a maid who is being 'treated' with leeches & puts a stop to it. He also runs into Krull, the weird assistant to the titular house-owner. Something is weird is going on in this house and only one man can explain it: Mr. Sardonicus.

*

The man finally makes his entrance and...wow, is he strange! He is wearing a plastic mask that covers his face. A pre-cursor to Jigsaw or just a crazy man- you decide! He does not eat around the others and just generally acts odd. He goes to his basement and meets up with a bunch of random women from town. What do he and Krull have in mind? The movie is sort of vague about the whole thing, but, whatever it is, it ends when the girl pulls off his mask (off-camera). She screams and it all goes to hell. More vagueness until our villain decides to explain the situation. It goes back to several years ago when he was once happy with his wife and father. His father bought a lottery ticket and left it in his coat. When he died that night, he was buried in it. Lo and behold, the ticket is a winner and our man begrudgingly decides to dig him up. When he opens the coffin, he is scared dramatically and runs away. When he gets home, his wife sees his face and screams. Why? This is why. Back in the present, he explains how he got rich, bought the title of Baron and how he wants his face to be fixed. Is there a doctor in the house? Oh right, there is!

*

You ever wonder how a movie continues for another forty minutes after the big reveal? Find out here, of course. Our hero initially refuses to do anything for Mr. Sardonicus, but relents when his choice is either do it or watch the woman be tortured. We get a long series of scenes of him testing his formulas on animals, which proves to be tormenting to his potential patient. He pressures the doctor to finally test on him, which he does. Before this, however, we get a scene where he explains what a syringe is. The whole 'old-timey setting' thing was fine in The Abominable Dr. Phibes, but really arbitrary here. You don't have to stick to the story this tightly, Castle. His curing method proves to be odd. Basically, he injects Sardonicus with some fluid and locks him in a room that contains his father's dead body. Yeah, he kept it, by the way. After a bit of theatrics, the man comes out and is cured. He agrees to let the doctor leave with the woman (his wife, by the way) and stays behind to let the treatment stick. At the train station (way to re-use sets, William) they get stopped by Krull. He explains that the master cannot open his mouth. The doctor explains that he gave Sardonicus a placebo.

*

This is where the ending gimmick comes in. Castle re-appears and explains that we, the viewer, get to vote on whether or not we Sardonicus gets the good ending or the bad ending. We 'vote' via cards given out at the theater. Since I only rented the movie, I didn't get one. The bad ending involves Krull coming back and lying about catching up to the doctor. He proceeds to eat all the food as Sardonicus suffers. The End.

*

This movie is actually good, but definitely has some faults. To begin with, the stagy is a bit dated and does not hold up too well. Secondly, the whole 'voting' angle is a lie, as only one ending was ever shot. The confusion about this came when a second ending was 'discovered.' This was actually an alternate version made for drive-ins in which Castle told viewers to flash their lights to vote, as opposed to the cards. The acting is pretty understated, although the man playing Krull is quite good. Our hero is just so bland and only really shows any spine in the last twenty minutes. As the villain, Sardonicus does a good job, but does not stand out in comparison to Castle's most famous villain actor: Vincent Price. Mind you, that is a big performer to live up to! All that said, the movie was enjoyable and did get the desired effect. I can't ask for much more from a William Castle film. Even Price himself admitted in 1989 that Castle was much more flash than substance, albeit in a loving way.

*

Next up, an early Ed Wood film. This one involves crime, police and surgery. Stay tuned...

Castle Crasher: Bug (1975)

People often forget just how many films are actually adaptations of books. For example, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a dark book called Who Censored Roger Rabbit. Dumb movies like First Blood (cool as it is) is based on a book by the same name. In the 1970s, there were a series of silly book-to-film adaptations though- Night of the Lepus being a stand-out. The closest thing we have come lately is Meg, a film that has been 'in-development' since 1997. Some odd studio adapted a strange short story titled- really- 'The Hephaestus Bug' and made today's film...

Bug (1975)

I am putting the year on here so nobody gets it confused with that dumb movie where Ashley Judd does drugs and freaks out in a hotel. This is much better, no matter whose play it is.

*

The movie begins by introducing a nice, small town that is Christian and completely non-threatening. After enough time setting up that and are random supporting characters, an earthquake occurs. It shakes up all the people in Church, but everyone is alright. Little do they know that something more dangerous has occurred though. Later that night, a cat stumbles upon a cockroach, or so it thinks. The bug does an unseen action and causes the cat to light on fire. Jesus, movie, stop picking on the cats! First Beware! The Blob and now this! What did they do to you? Eventually, some people become victims of the bugs as well, the high point of which is a truck explosion.

*

As luck would have it, this town has an entomologist on staff, who serves as a High School Biology teacher. He goes to great lengths to study the creatures, becoming more and more secluded from his friends and family. Even his wife gets put on the back burner (no pun intended) in favor of the bugs. The real joy of this film is just watching how his character progresses into insanity. To be honest, everything is just window-dressing. He is the star of the movie and the bugs are the supporting actors. The bugs are a bit more believable than the Tingler (another William Castle production) most of the time, although the real bugs used help disguise the effect. Never once do they logically explain how the bugs shoot flames either. Oh, they certainly try. They do about as well as most 70s films do to explain pseudo-science.

*

As the film progresses, it manages to get crazier and crazier. The lead puts together a super-private lab designed to study these amazing creatures in great detail. Other than his sanity, there are no consequences. Oh, except for the bit where one bug lights his wife's hair on fire. As a bonus, this takes place in the same kitchen set used for The Brady Bunch show. Don't worry, the film has more than just flame-throwing bugs. As time goes by, the bugs strive to break free. The climax of this involves a group of them escaping their confinement and forming words on the wall. How are they this smart? Does it have anything to do with our scientist friend forcibly mating what he thinks are the smartest ones? They never say. The finale is a bit lazy, unfortunately, as the bugs kill the scientist and get sucked back into the ground by another earthquake. Can you say Deus Ex Machina, kids?

*

The movie is honestly pretty good, even if it barely explains any of its own science. The film has its own sort of charm and is honestly a very good character study. I realize how silly the movie's plot is (which is why it is here), but I honestly like this movie. Unfortunately, the DVD presentation is, how can I say it nicely, minimalistic. No trailers, commentary or anything. You want the movie- here it is. I should also note that this movie is directed by Jeannot Szwarc, the man behind such classics as Santa Claus: The Movie, Jaws 2 and Supergirl. It is still good though- I just felt like mentioning that. If you like 70s horror, check this one out.

*

If you liked those bugs, wait until you see what evolution does to ants. Stay tuned...