Deloris Fuller and Edward D. Wood, Jr. (with a special appearance by the Devil himself!)
in a sceen from Wood's oddly poetic "Glen or Glenda?)
There is a movie critic out there who labeled Edward D. Wood, Jr. "the worst director ever" and it's a label that has stuck. I don't know who that person was, but I've been told it was Michael Medved. Well, I hope Mr. Medved made that statment when he was young, ignorant, and unaware of the true depths of crapitude to which movies can sink.
Not only are there far worse movies available than Wood made, but if you actually bother to watch and pay attention to his films, you can't help but notice that many of them have a weird sort of poetry in the dialogue... and sometimes even in the imagery.
Yes, Edward D. Wood Jr. is an example that love of filmmaking and films doesn't make up for a lack of talent. He's a text book of example of this. But the heart he put into his movies does show through, and, particularly in "Glen or Glenda?" he delivers a product that makes it clear that he was NOT the worst director ever.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Wood made good movies--there's a reason he's filed under the "Hall of Shame" category here at Cinema Steve. I am saying that anyone who says he was the worst director ever is either parroting some critic who didn't know what he or she was talking about, or they need to watch more movies.
What follows are reviews of all the films from Edward "Eddie" D. Wood Jr. that I've seen, including a couple that he only wrote the scripts for. If you have an interest in experiencing these films first hand, I recommend "The Ed Wood Collection: A Salute to Incompetence" from Passport Video. It presents six of his films, including his most famous work "Glen or Glenda?" for a very low price (less than $9 if you order it from Amazon.com.
"The Ed Wood Collection: A Salute to Incompetence" is a great way for the curious film affecianado (or hoster of Bad Movie Nites) to get Ed Wood's best-known works for very little money. The prints from which the films were taken were all in excellent condition, making this one of the better value-priced DVD collections you'll probably ever see.
For more information about all the movies discussed on this page, other opinions, or to buy your very own copies of the films, click on the links to the right of each entry.
| Glen or Glenda? (aka "I Changed My Sex" and "He or She?" Year of Release: 1953 Steve's Rating: Five of Ten Stars Starring: Edward D. Wood, Jr., Lyle Talbot, Timothy Farrell, Deloris Fuller, and Bela Lugosi
A police inspector (Talbot) puzzled by the suicide of a transvestite seeks out experts to broaden his horizons. Meanwhile, the business of the world continues, with God (Lugosi) dictating how things will turn out, even if it means that cross-dressers like Glen (Wood) will be miserable because they're different in an unaccepting world. "Glen or Glenda?" is not a good movie. It's technically inept in just about every conceivable way and it's message is so unclear so as to be indecipherable, except for the part where it makes a plea for tolerance to those who different from the rest of us. While this is not a good movie, it's a movie that I can't help but like for its strange imagery. I also can't help but like it, because this is the film where the rhythm and odd poetry present in Wood's dialogue is heard the clearest. Try to listen as the film unfolds. Don't get distracted by the incomprehensible mix of images that unfold (which aren't so incomprehensible if you pay attention... if you give this movie some thought, all the pieces start falling into place). If you listen to the dialogue, you will notice that the characters have a sound to them that is very unique... a sound that we've never heard in cinema before, and a sound that we've never heard since. It's not Shakespeare, but it is unique and interesting. Wood's "voice" is also heard very loudly and effectively in "Revenge of Dr. X"; it's a film that's more painful to watch than "Glen or Glenda?", but the Poetry of Ed Wood is nonetheless present. As for watching this movie... as badly put together as it is, there are dozens upon dozens of critics that have failed to notice even the most obvious elements in the film. Bela Lugosi is not playing a "mad scientist". He is God/The Supreme Being in this movie... and the "Pull the strings!" line that so frequently gets mocked spells that out so clearly that I'm baffled that so many commentators describe his role in the film as "incomprehensible" and his lines as "inane babbling". And if you consider the Narrator's lines in conjunction with those spoken by Lugosi, then the fact that his character is God becomes even more clear. Perhaps if critics and movie lovers spent more time paying attention to what is on the screen in front of them instead of looking for ways to show of their wit and self-presumed intelligence, they'd notice some of these very obvious aspects in this movie. So, just like Ed Wood, Jr offers a plea for tolerance and understanding toward transvestites and transsexuals with this movie, I'm going to offer a plea for understanding toward this movie. Give it a second look and try to forget about all the stuff you've been spoonfed about how worthless Ed Wood movies are.
"Glen or Glenda?" is not a good movie, but it's not as bad as some critics make it out to be. It's a film that the attentive viewer will watch with fascination as it unfolds. (The inattentive viewer can have lots of fun, too... just like 90% of critics and reviews have when watching it. It remains a film that will enliven any Bad Movie Night line-up.)
|
|
| Jail Bait (aka "Hidden Face") Year of Release: 1954 Steve's Rating: Four of Ten Stars Starring: Herbert Rawlinson, Lyle Talbot, Dolores Fuller, Timothy Farrell, Clancy Malone, Steve Reeves, and Theodora Thurman
Hoping to save his son, a kindly old plastic surgeon (Rawlinson) is forced to give a gangster (Farrell) a new face. While "Jail Bait" probably shouldn't be counted among Ed Wood's best efforts and the rating I've assigned it is a very, very low 4. The acting is universally bad, although in the case of Rawlinson and Talbot, I think the performance is more a result of what they had to work with and WHO they had to work with than a lack of talent; both men have been much better in other films. Talbot was never particularly amazing, but he was far better in "Trapped By Television," for example. (Although, it might speak volumes of Rawlinson's professionalism that he was willing to deliver a classic Ed Wood lines like "This afternoon we had a long telephone conversation earlier in the day." Although, why no one on the set didn't say, "Hey, Ed... should this line be 'We had a long telephone coversation earlier this day' or 'This afternoon we had a long telephone conversation'?" I can't possibly imagine.) The story is also padded and drawn out, first by a pointless bit of older footage of a boring burlesque dancer and then by a handful of overwrought scenes of questionable value. Basically, Wood crams 45 minutes of excitement into a 70-minute running time. There are some interesting ideas plot-wise, though. I think that with a more competent director, a better cast, a script that had been revised by someone who could read, and a budget of more than $32 for sets and make-up--even the most generous and most imaginative of viewers couldn't possibly consider the shabby set that is the home of gangster Vic Brady's kept woman "fancy", no matter how much the characters insist that it is--this could have been a decent crime drama. It might even have been touching at times, with its message about supportive fathers and love between family members. But, none of that is the case, and this ends up being a weak effort, even by Edward D. Wood, Jr. standards.
Still, there's enough quirky charm here to make "Jail Bait" worthy of adding to the line-up for a "Bad Movie Night." Just know that the title is misleading--its taken from a line delivered by Fuller's character, where she refers to her brother's unregistered handgun as "jail bait"... the phrase must have meant something different in 1953, or at least to Ed Wood.
|
|
| Bride of the Monster (aka "Bride of the Atom") Year of Release: 1955 Steve's Rating: Three of Ten Stars Starring: Bela Lugosi, Loretta King, Tor Johnson, Tony McCoy, Harvey Dunn, Paul Marco, and George Becwar
A mad scientist (Lugosi) captures those who venture to close to his dilapitated house and subjects them to expierments intended to create a new race of radioactive supermen. When he captures a nosy female tabloid reporter (King) can it be long before his simpleminded assistant (Johnson) falls in love with her and turns on him? "Bride of the Monster" is one of those movies that's so bad it's fun to watch if you're in the right mood and with the right group of friends. It's perfect to include in the line-up for a Bad Movie Night, because it's full of strange characters that are badly acted, situations that are badly explained and sets that are badly made, but it moves fast and has just enough redeeming features that it will keep you entertaining and laughing. (What's more, the story actually makes some degree of sense, assuming you buy into the whole mad scientist creating atomic monsters thing.) But this is also a sad movie. Sad because it features an old and broken-down Bela Lugosi so prominanantly. When watching this movie, I feel the same sort of sorrow I felt while watching Peter Cushing in "The Masks of Death", because in both cases the ravages of age and illness are so visible on both men. It's sad to see such great talent at the point where it is about to be taken from the world forever. Lugosi's presence in this film is made twice as tragic because it's such a shoddy piece of work and because of a clumsily executed homage to one of Lugosi's greatest films, "White Zombie". (There are extreme close-ups of Lugosi's eyes, he does the same weird hand gestures he did while playing the Zombine Master, and the female victim appears hypnotized in a flowing white gown. Unfortunately, Lugosi's eyes look as old and tired as he is, the hand gesture seems out of place, and the gown is nowhere as stylish as the one in "White Zombie".) Although Lugosi fans will feel a twinge of sadness to see him in this movie, they can take heart in the fact that he is treated better by both the script and the director than he was in any other of the films he did in his last decade on Earth. They can also take heart in the fact that Lugosi gets to act in this film. Wood lets him show a greater range than any role Lugosi had played since "The Black Cat" and "Son of Frankenstein". No matter how old and frail Lugosi appears in this film, no matter how cheap and pathetic the quality of the sets around him, there is no denying that he gives a powerful performance. Reportedly, Ed Wood promised Lugosi that "Bride of the Monster" would return him to stardom, and he certainly did all he could to deliver on that promise. Lugosi's scenes with George Becwar--where we learn of his character's tragic past and the depths of his madness--is great stuff. It's perhaps the best scene that Wood ever filmed. In fact, every scene that features Lugosi in this movie probably ranks among the best Wood ever filmed, and the weakness of the rest of the cast only helps to accentuate that even as a broken old man, Lugosi was an actor with great ability.
The scenes and the strange police captain and his pet bird in "Bride of the Monster" are really all the evidence that one should need to put a lie to the claim that Wood is the worst director ever. It takes actually watching the film to realize this, though. That said, this would be a far better viewing experience if someone actually knew how to edit a film properly took a crack at reworking it.
|
|
| The Violent Years
(aka "Female," "Girl Gang Terrorists" and "Teenage Girl Gang") Year of Release: 1956 Steve's Rating: Four of Ten Stars Starring: Jean Moorhead, Barbara Weeks, Joanne Cangi, Gloria Farr, Therea Hancock, Timothy Farrell, Arthur Millan, I. Stanford Jolley, and Lee Constant
The neglected daughter of a socialite and a workaholic newspaper editor forms a gang of other girls who receive everything but attention from their parents. Together, they go on an ever-escalating crime-spree that involves gas station robberies, the rape of young men, and even the desecration of the American flag! "The Violent Years" is a film written by the infamous Edward Wood, a screenwrite and director whose flims only redeeming qualities were that the passion he had for filmmaking managed to show through the cheap sets, bad acting, and incompetent direction, and the quirky sort of poetic cadence that was present in his dialogue. (Of course, also present were awful lines like, "It's hard for an old friend to sit in judgement of an old friend.") Although one might think that another director at the helm of this movie might elevate above Ed Wood's usual low standards, but it happens that William Morgan is about as skilled a craftsman as Wood. That said, this film still has has its decent points. First off, it has a message that is equally valid today. Parents need to do more parenting--as in, they need to set aside their own interests and desires for the years when they should be focusing on guiding and nurturing the young lives they've brought into this world--if we're to pull American society out of the tailspin it's been in for the past 50 years. It's delivered in so hamfisted a fashion that it makes "Reefer Madness" seem subtle, but it's a message that I wish would reach reach the appropriate ears and one that I wish would be heeded. It also features a nice reversal of the oft-featured gang-rape scene in these sorts of youth crime films, and perhaps one of the most creative executions of a car crash in a film where the budget didn't allow for a car crash. Oh... and just about every female character who you might want to see in tight clothes is indeed wearing tight clothes. If only real life had so many firm bosoms in tight sweaters! On the downside, we've got some pretty horrible acting that's matched only by the film's horrible casting. The teenage wild things, who are around 15 or 16 years old according to the film's story, are played by actresses who are obviously in their late 20s or early 30s, something which lends an air of rediculousnesses to the story. Further, we once again are treated to some of the cheapest looking homes of rich people that have ever been put on film. (Ed Wood kept writing about fancy homes, but the sets in his movies never rose to even being close to believable on that count.) Of course, there's also plenty of "so bad they're good" moments in the film, such as the pajama party, the shoot-out, and the aforementioned rape scene which is on one hand as creepy and disturbing as it needs to be, but undermined by an illogical simultaneous escape scene.
Like Ed Wood's other message picture, "Glen or Glenda?", "The Violent Years" delivers a point that is worth taking to heart--while the previous film asked for tolerance of those who are different, this film calls for parents to live up to their responsibilities and presents us with an over-the-top example of the consequences of parental neglect. This film isn't quite as strange as "Glen or Glenda?", nor as poetic, but it's still a decent story. It's also a film that will brighten the line-up of any Bad Movie Night while delivering its message wrapped in tight sweaters.
|
|
| Plan 9 from Outer Space
Year of Release: 1959 Steve's Rating: Three of Ten Stars Starring: Gregory Walcott, Mona McKinnon, John Breckinridge, Dudley Manlove, Joanna Lee, Criswell, Tor Johnson, Tom Keene, and Bela Lugosi
Aliens from some unnamed planet come to Earth to animate the dead because... well, because that's what Plan Nine calls for! Will your stupid mind be able to comprehend future events like this that may effect us in the future? "Plan 9 From Outer Space" has been touted as the worst movie from the worst director in history. Once again, I will grant that this is one damn awful film, but it is far from the worst movie I've seen, and anyone who labels it as the "worst movie ever" either needs to see more bad movies or has the sort of "stupid, stupid mind" the space aliens rail against in the film. That said, the film has some of the worst sets I've seen outside of a high school stage production, effects to pathetic even a mother couldn't love them, dialogue so strange and nonsensical that it's a marvel the actors were able to deliver the lines, a script so disjointed and confused that I hope the film was mostly made up as production progressed. These negatives all result in a film that hovers somewhere around a low 4 and a high 3 in the ratings. For all its awfulness, "Plan 9" has a strangely entertaining quality. Part of the attraction of the film is that whenever you think that it's gotten as dopey as it can possibly get, it manages to sink to a new low (or rise to a new height, depending on your point of view). Another thing that makes the film worth seeing is the aforementioned bizarre dialogue. Like other Ed Wood scripts, such as "Glen or Glenda?" and "Revenge of Doctor X", there is a curious sort of poetry to the writing... a rhythmic quality that makes it interesting to listen to. (It's also fascinating to watch actors deliver lines that come across like no one in the scene is really paying attention to what anyone else is saying or doing.)
If you're looking for a film to round out a Bad Movie Night, you could do alot worse than adding "Plan 9 From Outer Space". Give it a shot. You will find its absurdity surprsingly fun.
|
|
| Night of the Ghouls (aka "Revenge of the Dead") Year of Release: 1959 Steve's Rating: Four of Ten Stars Starring: Criswell, Duke Moore, Kenne Duncan, Valda Hansen, Paul Marco, Tor Johnson, Johnny Carpenter, Jeannie Stevens, and Bud Osborne
A conman posing as a medium (Duncan) has set up shop in the old mansion where a mad scientist used to make his monsters. Lt Bradford (Moore) the police department's unofficial expert on the supernatural goes to investigate. The medium may be a fake, but who is that strange woman in black who kills teenagers who are make out in the nearby woods? And who is the woman in white who appears and dissapears at will? Given that this is a film from the mind of Eddie Wood, will be ever find out?! "Night of the Ghouls" has been described to me, by someone who's watch more Ed Wood films that any sane person should, as the best film he ever made. For most of the film's running time, I thought my friend had to be crazy to make such a claim, but the scenes grafted into the film from a early Wood horror short titled "Final Curtain" and the film's climactic minutes are actually pretty creepy. Yes... Ed Wood DOES manage to invoke a sense of dread instead of just making something dreadful. (And he even throws in a twist ending that no one will see coming.) Wood also seemed to have made more of an attempt to maintain an internal continuity in this film than he has in any other of his film's I've seen. It's reflected in the fact that Lt. Bradford is on his way to enjoy a night at the opera when he is called to investigate the strange going-ons at the old house... so he goes on his assignment in evening dress, so his clothes match those he wore in the scenes taken from "Final Curtain" and placed here. This being a film from Ed Wood, however, one can't expect attention to detail taken too far, now can we? Wood may have done a stellar job (by his standards) on maintaining this film's internal continuity, but he screwed up in almost every way when we look at the big picture it's part of. "Night of the Ghouls" is the sequel to "Bride of the Monster," but the only details he gets right between the two films is that the comic relief character played by Paul Marco is named Patrolman Kelton, the hulking manbeast is named Lobo, and there was a mad scientist who once lived in a house and made monsters. He gets Bradford's name wrong (it was Lt. Craig), the location of the house wrong (it wasn't by Lake Willow but rather by Marsh Lake on Willow Road), and Lobo was very much dead at the end of "Bride." (That last one might not be a mistake, given some of the revelations that take place late in "Night," but I have a hard time giving Wood the benefit of the doubt.) "Night of the Ghouls" is another sad little movie from Edward D. Wood, Jr. Unlike most of his output, this film actually does manage to achieve what he was going for in a couple of spots. Interestingly, some of those bits were scavanged from an earlier movie, one that Wood perhaps spent more time on than he did his pater efforts. Plus, as mentioned, Wood actually tries to maintain continuity from scene to scene. On the very heavy downside, though, the film meanders and wanders through its storyline worse than "Plan 9 From Outer Space" or "Revenge of Dr. X." Most people with better things to do than watch Ed Wood movies will probalby not even GET to the good parts, because they'll have turned the movie off, because it doesn't seem to hold a focus for more than a minute at a time. The wandering nature of the screenplay drags the film down from a low 5 to a low 4. Yes, this may well be Ed Wood's finest effort--I still think that honor probably goes to "Glen or Glenda?" but I understand my friend's point having sat through the film. I also consider this another bit of evidence that Wood WASN'T the world's worst director. That's not to say you'll miss anything if you spend your time watching something else!
(Speaking of watching something else.... Remember how I said that this is a sequel to "Bride of the Monster"? Well, some who like to pass themselves off as film critics or reviewers have stated it's a sequel to "Plan 9 from Outer Space". If you come across someone making that claim, you are witnessing an idiot in action. And he or she is a lazy idiot, because anyone who WATCHES "Night of Ghoul" who has also seen "Bride of the Monster" will easily pick up on the connection. There are NO significant links to "Plan 9" in this film.)
|
|
| The Revenge of Doctor X (aka "The Venus Fly Trap" and "The Double Garden") Year of Release: 1970 Steve's Rating: Two of Ten Stars Starring: James Craig
A rocket scientist--no really!-- (Craig) on the verge of a nervous breakdown travels to Japan for rest, relaxation, and the pursuit of his true love: botany. While there, he turns into the ultimate ugly American--treating the cute Japanese girls like dirt (even the topless ones) and making a monster by applying Frakenstein's research methods to a hybrid plant he's created. "The Revenge of Doctor X" is one of those movies that is so bizarre that at points you will think it's a spoof of the "mad doctor/monster maker" genre that flourished during the 30s, 40s, and 50s. However, other parts are so dismally made that you realize the comedy is unintentional. (Highlights include the homo-erotic exchange between Craig's character and his assistant as he heads out for vacation; the whole beach sequence; the monster creation scene; Craig's presentation of the doctor's theory of the origin of man; the film's climax; and the lesson learned that when in Japan, always look up... things will fall from the sky whenever there's a dull moment.) In the "good" column, we have Craig's utterly over-the-top, unintentionally hilarious performance; it's too bad it's wasted in such a weak movie. The monster ALMOST makes it to the good column... but then we see that it has venus flytrap feet to match its venus flytrap hands. Also in the good column is that screenwriter Edward D. Wood Jr's unique way with words shine through in the dialogue and crazed rants delivered by James Craig. It makes Craig's performance even funnier.
"The Revenge of Doctor X" is a possible candidate for a Bad Movie Nite, but it almost has too much flabby padding and too many dead spots to be truly entertaining. Perhaps with 20 minutes edited out this could be great fun, but as the film stands, great patience and tolerance for bad movie making is needed to get from funny bit to funny bit.
|
|
Copyright ©2008 Steve
Miller. All Rights Reserved