Troy and I poke our heads into a Universal Studio haunted house, spot vaudeville act Olsen & Johnson and run away. Well – not really. But our first viewing of this nearly forgotten comedy horror film is not the fun we might have hoped. Did we enjoy it at all? Give the show a listen and we’ll point out the highs and lows.

GHOST CATCHERS (1944) stars a number of very talented actors and singers but it also stars Olsen & Johnson – or, as I will eternally think of them, Faster & Louder. Nearly none of their supposed gift for humor translates effectively from the stage if this film is any indicator. The movie’s silly plot is actually two different story ideas welded together with four songs and a lot of flat jokes. For both of us the film squandered what little goodwill we may have had for it in a certain horsey scene, but we’ll let you discover that along the way. We were surprised that a couple of the songs were pretty great but when a horror comedy’s highlight points out that it is more successful as a musical than anything else, there is a problem. (And we even get the title of the best song wrong in our discussion!) But funny is in the eye of the beholder so you may actually enjoy this odd Universal effort. And did we mention Lon Chaney’s very small role?

 
If you have any comments about this film or vaudeville more broadly [email protected] is the place to write. Thank you for listening. 

It has been far too long since Troy and I gathered around the male bag….uuuhh…MAIL bag to find out what folks listening to the podcast think! Or, at least if they want to make fun of me. I’ll take any attention, so - cool!

 
We are months behind checking out the email account so some of these messages date back to 2023. I apologize about this but also think sometimes the wait is worth it. I mean what other show has a discussion of Bruno Mattei, Japanese comedy/drama film series Tora-san, WAR OF THE WORLD’s symbolism and the thousands of film appearances of actor Morris Ankrum. Clearly, The Bloody Pit is filling an important niche in the movie discussion podcast world! And did I mention we have a visit from Vincent Price? Or possibly his ghost. With a cold. It’ll all make sense when you listen to the episode. Maybe. 

And if you’re interested in the podcast mentioned in the show that dives into the Golden Age of Ninja movies, you can give it a listen at this LINK. 

For those who want to contribute to the next email episode [email protected] is the place to send your thoughts. And thank you for listening! 

WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953) and INVADERS FROM MARS (1953) are two of the most beloved of the dozens of science fiction movies from that paranoid Cold War decade. Author Mark Clark joins me to compare and contrast them as we look at the massive differences in scale, budget and point of view that give each film its unique feel. Recent Blu-Ray releases allow a fresh evaluation of these movies and we dig into them from angles both personal and societal. Spoilers rise from every sandpit, so be aware!

 
We tackle the magnificent WAR OF THE WORLDS first, examining the elements taken from the source novel as well as from the classic Orson Wells radio adaptation. We discuss the story structure and the cast of amazing character actors familiar at the time from both radio shows and film. Design concepts and the faint traces of the book’s tripods are touched on before we dig into the film rushed to theaters to compete – INVADERS FROM MARS! The William Cameron Menzies production design is discussed as well as the ‘trashy science fiction magazines’ that seemed to inspire some the incredible images. We argue a bit over our preferred length but both of us wish there was less military stock footage slowing things down. The alternate British ending is brought up and I detail how I wish the American version ended. We do go on! 

If you have thoughts on either of these Martian invasion movies [email protected] is the place to send them. Thank you for listening. 

Mark Maddox returns to the show as we continue our journey through the first six Star Trek films. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME (1986) is one of the most popular of the series and stood for decades as the most profitable entry. The humor and clever plotting of the story still works nearly forty years later with the original cast shining with few exceptions. Of course, we pick at the minor complaints I have with the movie while Mark tells me I’m a killjoy who can only be happy with darkness and violence. That might be (slightly) true but I will leave that mirror reflection as something for others to examine alongside me as I make fun of Mark for sillier things. Much sillier things!

 
We discuss the film’s production including our thoughts on the Eddie Murphy connection and how it would have changed all future Trek films. I lament the deletion of the pregnancy detail and the possible stories that could have come from it. I question the odd visual choice for depicting the time travel sequence while Mark’s respect for me falls even further into a hole. Those hoping for the two us to argue will have a few moments of fun. The strangest of these comes from our discussion of cringy 80’s humor with Mark somehow unable to remember one of the most common derogatory terms of the period. That man’s mind is going!

 
If you have thoughts on Star Trek IV or the series in general [email protected] is the place to send them. We’ll be back soon to tackle V – oh, my! Thanks for listening. 

I am joined by the bane of my podcasting existence John Hudson and the much nicer Bobby Hazzard to heap praise upon EATING RAOUL (1982).  This is the film I’ve always though of as ground zero for Paul Bartel appreciation and more than forty years later I think it still holds up as the perfect introduction to his comedic sensibilities. If you laugh your way through this film, chances are good that you will love his other movies as well. Even the ones that don’t involves running over little old ladies to win a cross-country race or cannibalism. 

We jump into the discussion by detailing our history with Bartel’s work and what each of us find so appealing about his screen persona. All three of us bring some tales of the production history to the table with the start and stop nature of the filming process leading to information about locations and casting. We do eventually get to a synopsis of the plot and spoil most of the funnier moments so be aware that you should probably watch the movie before listening to us giggle our way though the many deaths by frying pan. Our peanut gallery has returned for this episode taking the time to laugh with and at us during the show. Long time podcast fans will recognize Beth and Steph from previous episodes but we also get some very funny contributions from Laura as well. Luckily, she keeps John in line and I will take any help I can get corralling the monkey-mad Mr. Hudson. Strap in for this one, folks and stay out of the hot tub!

 
The show can be reached at [email protected] where we’ll be thrilled to hear from you. You can also find the show on our Facebook page and wherever odder podcasts are downloaded. Thank you for listening. 

I welcome writer Holger Haase to the show to discuss the 1960’s Dr. Mabuse films! Holger has written an essay published for Kindle called ‘The Many Masks of Dr. Mabuse: Mabuse in the 1960s’.  Reading this prompted me to finally talk directly to Holger. The two of us have known each other for decades but it took our mutual love of these German crime films to use the internet to speak in a non-text based way. It was a little weird.

 
We go (mostly) chronologically through the six films discussing each in turn. If you want to follow along at home here’s a list of the movies we talk about in this episode:

1. THE 1000 EYES OF DR. MABUSE (1960)
2. THE RETURN OF DR. MABUSE (1961) 
3. THE INVISIBLE DR. MABUSE (1962) 
4. THE TESTEMENT OF DR. MABUSE (1962)
5. DR. MABUSE VS SCOTLAND YARD (1963)
6. THE DEATH RAY OF DR. MABUSE (1964)

We touch on the cast members with extra attention to the ones that show up in multiple films even when their character’s names mysteriously change. Scriptwriter Ladislas Fodor’s impressive career is discussed as well as directors Fritz Lang and Harald Reinl who brought their many talents to the series. This series of films seems to have been forgotten over the past couple of decades, overshadowed by the original Lang films from 1922 and 1933. We hope to spur some interest in cinema fans curious to discover the hidden joys of these clever crime movies. They really are addictive!

 
If you have thoughts on the Mabuse films or the krimi cycle that they parallel [email protected] is where you can send them. We’ll be happy to hear from you. Thanks for listening. 

Troy and I return to the Universal Horrors of the 1940’s to check out the fifth and last of the Invisible Man series. THE INVISIBLE MAN’S REVENGE (1944) is sometimes seen as a strong final entry but both of us find far too many loose ends and discordant elements to fully enjoy the film. I must caution you that we spoil this one completely early on and I find myself cursing more than normal as we discuss the questions the movie throws in our faces. Sorry about that.

 
This is an interesting film but mostly for the wrong reasons. We try to pinpoint all the spots where the original, nastier version of this story peeks through the softened final product. The amazing Gale Sondergaard is a victim of the alterations to the story and disappears after only two scenes – we were displeased by this! The timeline of the Robert Griffin character is confusing and neither of us can work out how he carried around a piece of paper with his name on it for five years but didn’t know his own identity. I spend time marveling at how unlikable Griffin is throughout the story. Jon Hall does a great job in the role but he is playing a man with no redeeming qualities and a hair-trigger propensity for violence. This is our hero? Following on from the previous sequels we get the series’ now standard irritating ‘humor’ culminating in a dart competition that goes on forever. Both of us found this to be the weakest of the Universal Invisible Man cycle and would be curious to find fans of the film to defend it.

 
If you do want to stick up for THE INVISIBLE MAN’S REVENGE drop us a note at [email protected] – we really are interested in hearing a defense of this one. 

2024 begins with a 1970’s European horror gem! Bob Sargent joins Troy and I to discuss THE DEVIL’S WEDDING NIGHT (1973). It’s a fun gothic story with Mark Damon and Rosalba Neri (still using the Sara Bay stage name) about vampires, the ring of the Nibelungen and nudity. Lots of nudity! Warning – we completely spoil this one. Sorry but we had to dissect the final scene with its multiple endings. 

As usual with this trio we let Bob pick the film and this time he hit a home run. It turned out to be a first viewing for Troy and it was fascinating to have his fresh take on this old favorite. We talk about the film’s genesis with star/producer Damon shopping the script around for a long while before getting it financed. The film is very much an R rated version of the Roger Corman Poe films done with a little less style and a lot less clothing. We pick at the story as we go along but each of us enjoyed the twin roles from the lead and sly, sexy performance from Neri. She is a sight to behold with her electric screen charisma registering here in gigawatts. Her abilities are impressive when just the slightest shift in the tilt of her head can communicate paragraphs of information.  We talk a bit about some of the anachronistic elements in the film and puzzle for a long time over where those satanic henchmen spend their time between virgin sacrifices. And we end up lamenting that this sleazy classic spawned no sequel! How did that happen?

 
If you have any comments on the film [email protected] is the place to send them. Thank you for listening and we’ll be back soon. 

December brings our annual Holiday Horror episode! John Hudson and Troy Guinn join me to discuss the anthology film A CHRISTMAS HORROR STORY (2015) – we like it.

We keep the conversation almost completely spoiler free with only a few third act details being alluded to as we go along. We talk about the possibility that Shatner might have ad-libbed some of his dialog as DJ Dangerous Dan and marvel at his ability to bend a syllable. Each of us picks our favorite of the stories presented and Troy points to some paths he thought the narrative might take that were skipped past. The darkly humorous nature of elements of the film are discussed with attention to how the laughs add to the entertainment level. We also bring up a couple of other recently seen Christmas horror movies as examples of our annual desire to see more of this subgenre. Toshi the cat visits us to rub up against the microphone and disrupt our trains of thought, such as they are. And the show ends with a brief tale about Mr. Hudson having been recognized as a recently published Cinema Sewer interviewer. Cool stuff!

We hope everyone has a Happy Holiday season and if you have any comments about the show [email protected] is the place to send them. Stay safe and hug your loved ones. Thank you for listening.

Author Troy Howarth returns to the show to talk about the second feature film of Agatha Christie’s TEN LITTLE INDIANS (1965). We compare it to the superior 1945 version and a couple of later attempts to bring this sturdy tale to the big screen. Both of us try to not spoil the story for those who have yet to experience the fun, but a few of the surprises do slip into the conversation. 

We discuss the novel and its original title as well as the changes Christie made to her bestselling story when she adapted it for the stage. This beautifully photographed black and white movie is a stylish and well-cast progenitor of the slasher horror genre in which the mysterious killer murders his victims in darkly humorous ways, whittling the cast down for our entertainment. The cast is fascinating and we dig into the careers of several of them touching on their high and low points. Troy’s appreciation of Dennis Price surfaces with me teasing him about a possible future writing project. Fingers crossed! I point to a couple of small things that stand out as ill-fitting or overlong but we both think highly of this strong revisioning of this always intriguing tale. I’m just not sure I’m ready for the Frank Stallone version.

 
If you have a favorite screen adaptation of this story let us know at [email protected] – we’ll be glad to hear from you. Thank you for listening and we’ll be back soon. 

Author Randy Fox returns to the show so that we can continue our series on 1970’s Science Fiction films! This time we look at the fascinating directorial debut of graphic designer Saul Bass, PHASE IV (1974). The film was a financial failure at the time of release but its status as a cult film has grown slowly over the decades. 

We look at the many cinematic influences the film’s story draws from including THE NAKED JUNGLE (1954), THE ANROMEDA STRAIN (1971) and 2001: A SPACE ODESSEY (1968). We marvel over the ant photography that allows the film to so clearly show us the world of these newly altered insects traveling into their hives and, at times, seemingly into their minds. We discuss the small cast even as I question why they bothered to give the characters proper names at all. Given Saul Bass’ background as a visual artist it is no surprise that the film produces a dozen or more unforgettable images and we try to point out as many of them as possible. The choice to use a voiceover is put to the test with Randy’s dreaded ‘professor with a pointer’ serving as our classic example of going too far! We dig into the ways the human living spaces are presented in comparison to those of the ants and how a break in that alignment shows a specific communication change in the story. Of course, we occasionally veer off topic as things point us toward other subjects but I’m happy to say we always find our way back to the film under the magnifying glass. 

Do you have thoughts about PHASE IV or other films that stuck with you even though you weren’t sure if you liked them? If so, [email protected] is the address to send those comments. Thank you for listening!