directed by steve beck
dark castle entertainment/village roadshow pictures/npv entertainment
“An ocean liner – where did THAT come from?” Oh, where indeed, Ghost Ship, where indeed. For honest and for true, this horror actioner seemingly was inspired by the deathless Death Ship. Preposterous though that sounds, look at the poster – I know an hommage when I see one, man. And it opens very similarly, with a lavish party on a cruise ship featuring the staff mingling with their guests, and it’s extremely familiar when they first encounter the mysterious vessel that gives the film its imaginative name. Let the record reflect that the ship itself is not a ghost. At least, I don’t think so. It is, however, inhabited by ghosts. Well, at least three ghosts, anyway. The intrepid crew of the salvage tug Alaskan Princess – wait, sorry, “Arctic Warrior” – is unbowed, however, especially after they find the crates of gold. But would you believe things don’t go smoothly, may not be quite what they seem, etc.? You’ll see the SHOCKING ending coming far ahead of its arrival onscreen. You’ll also have predicted other “twists” along the way. The thing is, you’ve seen movies.
why did i watch this movie?
Sincerely, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Could it really be, I wondered breathlessly.
should you watch this movie?
To repurpose a great Lester Bangs quip, if you’ve got any sense of humor or no standards at all, you’ll love it.
highlight and low point
It can be instructive to look at both the precedents and descendants of a piece of art so as to properly gauge its lineage. Therefore, it is with great delight, nay, the utmost glee, that I now relate to you that a scene in this motion picture was unmistakably replicated in 2010’s cinematic classic Piranha 3D.






So many titles and so many threatening adverts for such a tepid plod whose only semblance of tension arises from the wait for occasional actress and future lad-mag model Andrea Allan to disrobe. Who’s the killer, you might wonder for an idle minute, correctly identifying the obvious attempts at misdirection, and also realizing that you don’t much care so long as you’re assured the picture will be ending. When it does reach that ending, full dark night abruptly shifts to very bright daytime. Clearly, the filmmakers wanted to get it over with, too. Perhaps this is why they don’t bother tying up any loose ends … such as letting us in on why our heroine got
involved
The second murder scene is pretty intense, I suppose, but by that point it isn’t even interesting enough to sustain one’s attention. Some of the leftover mod touches of a foundering Swinging London are amusing. A tangential subplot involving pigeons goes absolutely nowhere. Yes, pigeons.


Not only is this movie not frightening in the least, this reviewer has no idea how or why it has been lauded through the decades as even a competent endeavor, much less an estimable one. Did I say “not frightening”? It’s completely ridiculous, helped in no way by the laughable attempt at dramatics presented by Lon Chaney, Jr. Let me emphasize the generational suffix; this is not the lauded “Man of a Thousand Faces,” it’s his son, who benefits from this picture’s dime-store makeup disguising his general inability to act naturally. Also not helping: the entire film is very obviously shot on the studio lot. Additionally, it’s dismaying to be treated to no shots of Larry Talbot’s transformations. (Those scenes take place in the various sequels.) A “B” picture through and through, presented such that even the underlying existential crisis isn’t at all provocative.










Disjointed as hell due to excessive editing undertaken in a doomed effort to make a disturbing revenge picture even somewhat palatable to a viewing public it never found, this disastrous flop remains one of Hollywood’s most ill-advised creations – for any number of reasons, not limited to how it may make its audience feel. One can only imagine how appalling the excised material must have been, and marvel as to the effect it could have added to a production that remains troubling after nearly a century. The decision to cast real circus sideshow performers was perhaps an inevitability, but the majority of them aren’t film actors and can’t much pretend to be. Saddest, though, is probably the loss of the chance to really experience the capacity for a full range of emotional responses from these morbidly maligned people, as only glimpses remain. As it is, 60-odd minutes doesn’t give anything of real resonance a real chance to coalesce, and what we’re left with often plays like a soap opera interspersed with sitcom skits. How this one ever got the green light remains a question to ponder.


I was more or less suffering my way through this at times excruciatingly hackneyed low-budget independent feature originally titled “Eat Your Heart Out” when an unexpected thing occurred – one of the funniest scenes I’ve enjoyed in a movie in quite a long time. This got me thinking about a number of concepts. One was why I stuck with this video production despite its obviously amateurish sheen, when with many others I never bothered to outlast the opening moments; another was why I wasn’t interested in panning the outcome. The simplest and most honest answer is to admit I’m not sure, but maybe it comes down to the fact that though this film is often hampered by scenes and dialogue that seem to be included mainly because such scenes and dialogue are what you get in a “movie” – often the case with this sort of picture – it isn’t held back by attempts at lowbrow appeal. Neither is it too self-conscious of being a friends-and-family kind of affair. Plus, the storyline is fairly creative. I was surprised, however, to find that the director has helmed a long list of projects.