The other night I popped in my DVD of Bert I. Gordon's giant
arachnid epic EARTH VS. THE SPIDER (1958) to revisit something I knew I would
enjoy. I was coming off a run of pretty crappy first time horror film viewings
so I just wanted to see something fun that I could count on to entertain me. It
had been several years since my last watch (why does that sound confessional?)
so I was surprised to note that the film is only 72 minutes long. Cool, I thought.
Fun, fast and over before you know it! Woo boy, was I wrong.
Don't misunderstand me - I still really enjoyed watching
EARTH VS. THE SPIDER but this time I noticed things I had ignored in the past.
For instance - the sheriff of the small mountain town is very dubious about the
teenager's claims of a giant spider but still immediately calls for a tanker
truck of DDT to deal with the situation. That's an odd plotting shortcut as I
would have expected him to first be confronted with proof of this outrageous
claim before calling in such extraordinary (and expensive) resources. I suspect
this was done to keep the film short but it stands out as a strange move for
such a skeptical authority figure.
Next I was amused to note just how long the hose from the
DDT truck had to be to reach the spider's lair. The film makes it clear with
all the footage of
Carlsbad Caverns that the
brave group of spider hunters are venturing very deeply into the cave. The
workers just keep unspooling hose the entire time with nary a peep about the
distance. That is one very long hose!
Third, and most distressing to me, is that even at this
short length the film has stretches of dullness that could have been easily
shortened. The second time we watch characters descend a hillside to examine a
wrecked truck or walk a long distance into a cave I kept thinking that the
editor had fallen asleep or stepped out for a smoke. Of course, I know that this
footage is in the film to push the movie to feature length but it makes the
whole thing feel overlong even with this brief running time.
While I enjoyed watching the film it was strange to notice
these problems this time around. My memory was of an engaging if low budget
giant monster vs. teenagers tale but what I got was a fairly average AIP effort
that shows its weaknesses all too clearly. It's still a fun film for me and I
assume for fans of genre cinema of the 1950's, but I think Mr. BIG did better
work. Or did he? It might be time for a career retrospective.
5 comments:
This is one of several movies my dad saw when he was younger and couldn't remember the title. I made his day when I showed him the double feature of War of the Colossal Beast and this one. What are your favorite and least favorite BIG movies?
I was disappointed when I first watched this and the spider didn't have that cool skull-head on him!
Stevie - Yeah! The lack of a skull head would have pissed me off! Luckily I never saw that artwork until after I'd already seen the film.
Nick - Fave BIG films - THE MAGIC SWORD, TORMENTED, WAR OF THE COLOSSAL BEAST. Least fave - KING DINOSAUR, BEGINNING OF THE END. I still need to see several of his later work like THE MAD BOMBER and BURNED AT THE STAKE.
I have a hard time not enjoying his movies from the 50's and 60's. However, King Dinosaur is one of those movies where they use lizards as dinosaurs and I'm not a fan of those. I would throw out Empire of the Ants as another least favorite. I haven't seen his latest movie from last year, though I suspect it's not very good.
You would be right - SECRETS OF A PSYCHOPATH (2015) is pretty bad. I caught it on Amazon streaming the other night.
Post a Comment