CURSE OF THE UNDEAD (1959). Director: Edward Dein.
In the old west the Sheriff (Edward Binns of
Without Warning!), Dr. Carter (John Hoyt), and Preacher Dan (Eric Fleming) are appalled at the deaths of several young girls whose bodies are drained of blood. When Dr. Carter dies the same way, his son, Timmy (Jimmy Murphy of
Wall of Noise), and daughter, Delores (Kathleen Crowley), are convinced that the perpetrator is Buffer (Bruce Gordon of
The Scarface Mob), a neighbor who coveted Carter's land. Delores hires a gunslinger named Drake Robey (Michael Pate of
Thunder on the Hill) to take care of Buffer, but she is unaware that it is
Robey who is one of the Living Dead. Now the vampire and the preacher are in combat for the lady's immortal soul.
 |
| Michael Pate carries Kathleen Crowley |
Curse of the Undead is, I believe, the first of the horror-westerns. (
Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter and
Billy the Kid Versus Dracula came out years later.) The picture has a good story -- although on occasion the script is confusing and inconsistent -- that needs a much stronger directorial hand, but the acting from every single player can not be faulted and is what makes the picture work. Michael Pate may not have possessed Tyrone Power-type looks, but he was still attractive and certainly charismatic in his way, and he gives a very good lead performance in this. He is matched by Kathleen Crowley, whose talent was greater than her TV-B movie origins. Jimmy Murphy also scores as Timmy, and has a particularly good scene when he challenges Buffer to a duel in the local saloon. As for Bruce Gordon, Elliott Ness' nemesis in so many episodes of
The Untouchables, he also exhibits his customary charisma while also displaying a more vulnerable side to his character. Eric Fleming makes the most of his role as the preacher. Edward Dein also directed
The Leech Woman.
Verdict: It isn't always easy to be convincing in stories of this type, but all of the actors pull it off. **3/4.
2 comments:
I didn't see this until my wife mentioned it was one of her childhood favorites. So we found it online and watched it and our reactions were oddly opposite. I thought it was pretty impressive for such a low budget movie and even historically significant, being the first Gothic horror/western. She hadn't seen it since she was a kid and was disappointed. It didn't hold up for her and Michael Pate was much less charismatic than she remembered. I could totally relate, but actually thought he was pretty good. I've always liked him when I recognized him--I'd noticed him particularly in THE MAZE, which I've always enjoyed because it's so weirdly atmospheric--even if it's so brightly overlit (I think to allow for 3D). In that, he was required to be older, so they simply put flour in his hair (I read that in an interview with him--I wish I could remember where). He was a really interesting guy and led an incredibly full life. He came off as extremely intelligent--very articulate.
--Mark
Pate was p0robably interviewed in Fangoria or one of those books of interviews put out by McFarland. I always thought he was a good actor. (I've got to revisit "The Maze" one of these days.)
Yes, two people can watch the same movie and have completely different reactions, but that makes for some fun and lively debates!
It's funny but when Pate first appears in the film and in his early scenes I think I would have agreed with your wife that he wasn't all that great, but I think his performance improved very much as the movie proceeded. While it probably wasn't filmed in sequence, it seemed that he just needed to "get into" the role.
Post a Comment