Watch The Undead For Free

To me, this movie is perfection.

The Worst Film Ever

hyped garbage

Don't Believe the Hype

The story is silly. We must all agree to that. But the acting, cinematography, music, editing are all professional. This makes this movie very watchable. Some decent effects. The dialogue along with the story is silly.This is a 1957 B/W production. When viewed in light of the period made, the low budget, high professional production, and silly story, it makes for a fun movie. No gore to be seen. But some decent twists. Helens choice at the end was commendable. And Quintes getting stuck in the past is also a good twist, he can't get back to the present because the live link of Helens death.Rating is a C, or 5 stars. Roger Corman does it again.

I saw The Undead many years ago and sad to say before writing this review I got to see it again as part of Mystery Science Theater. No doubt Roger Corman did a whole lot of Thanksgiving specials especially in his early career. But I always rather liked this paradoxical film about hypnotism and travel. And of course a scientist's curiosity which backfires on him in a most peculiar way.Pamela Duncan is the subject of hypnosis therapy by doctors Maurice Manson and Val Dufour. She's a hooker, but when we first meet her she's under and regresses back to a life in the first millenia AD where she's been condemned to be a witch and scheduled to die. Her mind goes back to that past and she escapes the headman's ax. Which creates a paradox because if her past life doesn't die it puts her future lives in jeopardy. Knight Richard Garland who's earnest, but a little thick loves the past Duncan and wants to do the knight errant thing and save her. Real witch Allison Hayes has a thing for Garland and doesn't stand a chance while she lives.Fascinated by the paradox and the drama Dufour regresses himself through hypnosis to see how it all unfolds and meets none other than a medieval Satan himself played by Richard Devon. He also is watching the drama unfold in fact he recognizes Dufour for who he is and states plainly that he is the critic and let the play continue.No doubt Roger Corman was influenced by all the publicity of the Bridey Murphy controversy and the book and film that was made about it. Of course this is shot on a dental floss budget and it shows in spots, but only rarely.I waited for years to see this again and review it and despite the MST snide comments during the film I still enjoyed it though Citizen Kane it ain't.

"The Undead" has all the trademarks of a Corman film. It's got "sensational" themes, cheap sets, highly stylized and overripe Elizabethan dialog, a plot with severe Attention Deficit Disorder, and "B" to "Z" level actors trying hard to maintain their dignity in a thankless situation. If you were to tune into this by accident 30 minutes in, without a glance at a program guide or knowing anything about the plot or the actors, you'd be able to say "Corman" within 30 seconds. Speaking of the actors, the performances here are what the movie seems to call for. The major exception is the weird angry burst of energy from the time traveler near the end of the movie when he tells the heroine to "STAY!!!!!". It's like watching an outbreak of dramatic Tourette's syndrome.I don't have a problem with complicated plots and esoteric concepts like time travel, past life regression, romantic triangles and witchcraft. But Corman can't even come close to pulling this ambitious story off in a setting of a kingdom with maybe 12 people in it and a scope of action smaller than most British bedroom farces. Especially when the plot substitutes sheer movement and scenery change for intrigue and story arc, which makes the movie an exercise in padding. Once the hero (Sir Gullible) found his wronged romantic love for the first time, all he had to do was to put her on his horse with him and ride out of the 10-acre kingdom for 24 hours...and the middle 2/3rds of the movie would have been completely unnecessary. I'm pretty sure that Corman and the screenwriter were hoping the viewer didn't think of that. Of course, then the movie would have been 30 minutes long and had a simple happy ending. This kind of plotting is emblematic of the reason that Corman would never be more than a "Z" level director - good basic plot ideas, but no commitment to getting the details right or making them urgent and convincing. The movie also apparently thinks we are all morons. The big dramatic choice at the climax is obvious once it is stated - and it's a nice, chewy one where the heroine has to choose between living out her life and having her future selves never come into being, or else meeting her destined fate of an early death and sending her "soul" onto to its future incarnations. The implications of her dilemma and her eventual decision should have been in the actress' eyes and bearing. (Meryl Streep could have pulled it off, no problem); and this actress does seem to have a few chops herself (for a Corman cast member). BUT instead the screenplay bludgeons us over the head with the dilemma for at least five minutes with all the cast members telling her what she should do. And then the time traveler bursts in with his weird and inappropriate "STAY!!!!!" comment and completely distracts the viewer from the drama of the choice that the heroine must make. In the movie's defense, the "twist" at the end is a bit eerie and unsettling, and the "Devil's" final words to the time traveler have a nice Faustian/Marlowe ring to them. That adds at least one star to the rating.Also in its favor, the two "babes" do look smashing in their costumes, even if most of the men look completely ridiculous and uncomfortable in their leotards and armor and whatnot.Billy Barty is in this. He plays an "imp". Barty gives the most generic "imp" performance I've ever seen in my life. It's as if he was reading from the Big Golden Book of Acting under the chapter titled "Smirking,Gesturing And Being Short: Your Best Tools for Impdom." MSTs coverage of this was some of their best work, but a viewer can find plenty to poke fun at in this movie without their help, if that's what suits them. Ambitous enough, but definitely one of Corman's lesser efforts.

For sheer entertainment value, it's hard to beat this little 1957 B movie from cult director Roger Corman and screen writer Charles Griffith. The complicated storyline is taken from the then current fad of belief in previous lives revealed under hypnosis. An obnoxious scientist enlists the reluctant aid of a former professor to send a prostitute named Diana Love back in time.SPOILERS AHEAD: The unexpected result is that she actually goes back physically, as well as mentally, to the middle ages. The arrogant scientist then follows her, to take part in the strange and unpredictable results of his experiment.There are many clever ideas and colorful performances crammed into a movie that runs barely over an hour. A few marvelous bits include Bruno VeSota as the innkeeper Scroop ,bragging to the sexy witch Livia ( Allison Hayes) that he can keep any witches from his door by the use of garlic. The sultry sorceress pretends to be impressed and proceeds to eat the clove of garlic, as her imp, ( Billy Barty) snickers under the table. Richard Devon is clearly having a great time playing a sneering, egotistical Satan laughing at the foolishness of mortals. Dorothy Neumann as the good witch Meg Maud is the ultimate cackling old hag, with a kind heart and a sardonic sense of humor. One marvelous bit has her laughing at her rival Livia, trapped in mouse form beneath a drinking vessel, " Ah Livia, I see thou art in thy cups! " The other great character is the rhyming grave digger Smolkin, played by Mel Welles as a muttering commentator on the strange events, making up morbid limericks as he works. This film will never be mistaken for great cinematic art, but it is an outrageously entertaining movie that should be seen by all Roger Corman cultists and lovers of Fifties horror movies. Not to be missed!