Soitenly
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Spooks! (1953)  (Read 2329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams

  • Global Moderator
  • Egghead
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,000
  • Gender: Male
  • Sugar Daddy in waiting
    • View Profile
Spooks! (1953)
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:27:53 PM »
  • Publish
  • http://www.threestooges.net/filmography/episode/147
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046354/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YktiljLuI3U

    Watch SPOOKS! in the link above



          SPOOKS! is one of the two 3-D shorts that were made.  I guess 3-D was a new fad at the time.  As an old horror film fan, I do know the Vincent Price film HOUSE OF WAX, also released in 1953, was in 3-D.  No doubt, Columbia was trying to cash in on a fad for this week and next week's short.  If you bought this short on DVD outside of the box set, it comes with a pair of 3-D glasses and a 3-D version.  As a technological idiot, I do this and get no real effect with the glasses and 3-D print.  It may be my TV.  Has anybody here seen this short or next week's short in 3-D and gotten something satisfying out of it?  I'd love to know.  Some of these eyepokes, water sprays, knives, and hypodermics were obviously made with 3-D effects in mind.

          As for the film itself, it's a standard haunted house film.  Nothing terrible, but nothing great.  Let's be honest, we're at short number 147.  At this point, the classic sequences or plot ideas, while not 100% gone, are few and far between.  The boys are really settled into a groove at this point, having the eye poke and name calling thing down, but very little in stuff we haven't seen before.  A few good one liners, my favorite is Shemp looking at the girl's pic, bust obviously being the focus, and commenting on what a beautiful pair of eyes she has.  The rest of this is pleasant, but seems stock.  Mad scientists, gorillas, pies, it's all been done before.  Back to the pies, in classic shorts, the pies were a comical contrast to a high society setting and fit the plot nicely.  Here?  An unbelievable way to thwart off bad guys, a lame excuse for a 3-D effect.  The only other highlight I can think of is there is a scene where Larry bosses Shemp around, really the first time Larry slaps around a third Stooge I can think of since MEN IN BLACK.

          There will be much worse to come, and really, this isn't bad, just not great.  Perfectly acceptable fare for Stooge fans on a Saturday morning.

    7/10



    Offline Shemp_Diesel

    • Bunionhead
    • ******
    • Posts: 2,229
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #1 on: February 26, 2016, 03:21:01 PM »
  • Publish
  • I've always liked this one--as I've said in the past, generally guys in ape costumes usually do nothing for me, but I'll make an exception in this case & the short Crime on Their Hands.

    I believe the 3-D gimmick & the hokeyness--is that a word--of it, in some ways adds to the laughs. Especially when you can clearly see the strings attached to the objects that go flying through the air.  :)

    Norma Randall is very easy on the eyes, and the stooges--as well as the 2 villains involved--all play their parts well. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the greatness that is the "Shemp-head bat" that makes an appearance in the short--"What a hideous, monstrous face, oh."  :D

    8 out of 10....
    Now you ask me if I believe a man can become a wolf. Well, if you mean can he take on the physical characteristics of an animal, no, it's fantastic. However, I do believe that most anything can happen to a man in his own mind.

    Offline Paul Pain

    • Moronika's resident meteorologist
    • Moderator
    • Knothead
    • ******
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Gender: Male
    • The heartthrob of millions!
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #2 on: February 27, 2016, 06:46:25 AM »
  • Publish
  • I thoroughly certain parts of this short.  The biggest highlights: Larry slapping Shemp, Larry with the cigarettes, Tom Kennedy, Phil van Zandt, the gorilla, Norma Randall, Moe and the sickle, Shemp and the "Beeeeeeee Bopper!"

    The lowlights: the 3-D shots that just waste time when viewed in 2-D, the stupidity of the pie routine

    Yes, I liked the gorilla!  Paul Pain liked a gorilla!  Of course I liked Phil van Zandt who, like Kenneth MacDonald and Vernon Dent, always gives an A+ performance even in a sucky or mid-tier short.  And what man wouldn't want "Divorce Evidence Manufactured to Your Order," back in the days where such things were needed.

    One gets a fuller Stooge experience if he watches Larry's faces while Moe pummels Shemp instead of just watching Moe pummel Shemp.

    The short is lacking in many areas, particularly depth and unique gags, but this is because of the focus on the 3-D.  We'll get a much better treat in next week's short.

    As for this week, I'd like to, for once, actually have something that generates debate rather than what we've had for the last 6 months: people state their opinions Friday-Sunday and the site goes dead afterward.

    8/10 [poke] [poke] [poke] [poke] [poke] [poke] [poke] [poke]
    #1 fire kibitzer

    Offline Lefty

    • Birdbrain
    • ****
    • Posts: 692
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #3 on: February 27, 2016, 10:57:58 AM »
  • Publish
  • "Doctor Jekyll?  We must hide [Hyde}!"  That is the best quote of this short.  Actually, 3-D notwithstanding, it's a decent episode.  And like the vast majority, I enjoyed Larry bossing Shemp around, and Norma Randall was "loooooooooooooking goooooooooooooood!"

    Watching it in 3-D does make everything look like it's coming out of the TV set and close to the viewer.  The 3-D spectacles are not easy to coordinate with regular glasses, so that makes the view not exactly perfect.  And this short, with the scary scenes (according to my wife), do not exactly go well on a Sunday night, my normal Stooges watching time.

    Offline Seamus

    • Chucklehead
    • ***
    • Posts: 211
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #4 on: February 27, 2016, 12:26:03 PM »
  • Publish
  • As a technological idiot, I do this and get no real effect with the glasses and 3-D print.  It may be my TV.  Has anybody here seen this short or next week's short in 3-D and gotten something satisfying out of it?  I'd love to know.  Some of these eyepokes, water sprays, knives, and hypodermics were obviously made with 3-D effects in mind.

    Haven't watched this since I picked up the individual volume set this was released on a few years ago, but the 3-D effect was pretty vivid for me.  Even during the scenes when they weren't trying for a gimmicky stunt designed to take advantage of the "coming right at you" effect, the Stooges looked like flat, living cardboard cutouts with a lot of distance between them and the background, like I'd opened up a Three Stooges pop-up book and the cutouts were alive.  It's fun having a couple shorts like this in their canon.

    Offline Dr. Hugo Gansamacher

    • Birdbrain
    • ****
    • Posts: 525
    • Gender: Male
    • "Pleese! You zit!"
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #5 on: February 27, 2016, 05:50:58 PM »
  • Publish
  • When the Stooges' customer identifies himself as "Charles [Correction: George] B. Bopper," Shemp suddenly launches a riff of beatnik slang on the theme of "that crazy bee-bopper name." Moe, ready as always to stamp out any display of solo comedy by the Third Stooge, answers Shemp's demand that the others "give [him] some skin" by launching a dipping pen at him and spearing his nose. Shemp, of course, howls in pain as only he can do. (I don't know about you all, but I am laughing at the mere recall of this moment as I write this.) Shemp's "bee-bopper" riff and Moe's tyrannical termination of it make up one of my favorite Shemp–Moe bits, and certainly my favorite bit in this short.

    Offline Tony Bensley

    • Chucklehead
    • ***
    • Posts: 189
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #6 on: February 27, 2016, 11:08:29 PM »
  • Publish
  • "Doctor Jekyll?  We must hide [Hyde}!"  That is the best quote of this short.  Actually, 3-D notwithstanding, it's a decent episode.  And like the vast majority, I enjoyed Larry bossing Shemp around, and Norma Randall was "loooooooooooooking goooooooooooooood!"

    Watching it in 3-D does make everything look like it's coming out of the TV set and close to the viewer.  The 3-D spectacles are not easy to coordinate with regular glasses, so that makes the view not exactly perfect.  And this short, with the scary scenes (according to my wife), do not exactly go well on a Sunday night, my normal Stooges watching time.
    I have the same issue with combining my glasses with the 3D specs (Inside or outside?), and thus, never expect perfection.  Based on what I've read in other forums, the 3D that was used on the individual Sony DVD Volume 7 release (And the initial 2012 THE THREE STOOGES ULTIMATE COLLECTION pressings) wasn't optimal, and for this particular short, should have had sepia tinting, as it apparently did in its original release.

    That said, I basically agree with your assessment of this short, which I give 7/10.

    CHEERS!  [3stooges]

    Offline Paul Pain

    • Moronika's resident meteorologist
    • Moderator
    • Knothead
    • ******
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Gender: Male
    • The heartthrob of millions!
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #7 on: February 28, 2016, 04:46:23 AM »
  • Publish
  • When the Stooges' customer identifies himself as "Charles B. Bopper," Shemp suddenly launches a riff of beatnik slang on the theme of "that crazy bee-bopper name."

    Hate to burst your bubble, but his name is "George B. Bopper."

    This is the last time we see Tom Kennedy until the Stooge solo shorts.
    #1 fire kibitzer

    Offline Dr. Hugo Gansamacher

    • Birdbrain
    • ****
    • Posts: 525
    • Gender: Male
    • "Pleese! You zit!"
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #8 on: February 28, 2016, 05:42:53 AM »
  • Publish
  • Hate to burst your bubble, but his name is "George B. Bopper."

    It's not "bursting a bubble"; it's just a correction of a minor detail. I've incorporated the correction into my post.

    Offline Paul Pain

    • Moronika's resident meteorologist
    • Moderator
    • Knothead
    • ******
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Gender: Male
    • The heartthrob of millions!
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #9 on: March 02, 2016, 04:08:59 AM »
  • Publish
  • Amazing how many Stoogephiles here are four-eyes!

    We must all have the same obstetrician.
    #1 fire kibitzer

    Offline Kopfy2013

    • Puddinhead
    • ***
    • Posts: 307
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #10 on: March 16, 2016, 09:08:46 PM »
  • Publish
  • I agree with most posters - this is a half-decent short.

    Beautiful set of eyes ...

    Larry doing some bopping of his own.

    Give me some skin ...

    As for 3-D - I see the effect.  Not great but there is some depth.  I am glad they did it.

    I give this a 7,
    Niagara Falls

    Offline stoogerascalfan62

    • Bonehead
    • **
    • Posts: 134
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #11 on: October 24, 2016, 01:47:36 PM »
  • Publish
  • When I first saw this short in the early '70s before I became a Stooges fan and saw the name "Tom Kennedy" I thought that was the TK of game show fame.

    Offline Tony Bensley

    • Chucklehead
    • ***
    • Posts: 189
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #12 on: October 24, 2016, 02:55:44 PM »
  • Publish
  • When I first saw this short in the early '70s before I became a Stooges fan and saw the name "Tom Kennedy" I thought that was the TK of game show fame.
    Had I seen it in those days, I likely would have thought the same thing, and that's the name of that tune!  ;D

    Come to think of it, when I did see that name much later, the other Tom Kennedy did spring to mind.  However, as I believe it was in a photo caption, there was no mistaking one for the other, since there's no resemblance!

    CHEERS!  [3stooges]

    Offline metaldams

    • Global Moderator
    • Egghead
    • ******
    • Posts: 6,000
    • Gender: Male
    • Sugar Daddy in waiting
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #13 on: October 24, 2016, 06:30:40 PM »
  • Publish




  • Tom Kennedy = Pat Buchanan

    Offline Paul Pain

    • Moronika's resident meteorologist
    • Moderator
    • Knothead
    • ******
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Gender: Male
    • The heartthrob of millions!
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #14 on: October 25, 2016, 12:18:04 PM »
  • Publish




  • Tom Kennedy = Pat Buchanan

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL
    #1 fire kibitzer

    Offline metaldams

    • Global Moderator
    • Egghead
    • ******
    • Posts: 6,000
    • Gender: Male
    • Sugar Daddy in waiting
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #15 on: October 25, 2016, 05:52:32 PM »
  • Publish
  • LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    Exactly, and not even just looks, they even sound alike.

    Offline Paul Pain

    • Moronika's resident meteorologist
    • Moderator
    • Knothead
    • ******
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Gender: Male
    • The heartthrob of millions!
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #16 on: October 25, 2016, 06:20:43 PM »
  • Publish
  • Maybe Monday we could have a special revival of SPOOKS and SPOOK LOUDER :)
    #1 fire kibitzer

    Offline QuinceHead

    • Chucklehead
    • ***
    • Posts: 173
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #17 on: October 25, 2016, 06:42:12 PM »
  • Publish
  • Maybe Monday we could have a special revival of SPOOKS and SPOOK LOUDER :)

    You think the current crop of Joe shorts isn't scary enough...?  :laugh:

    For duty and humanity,
    JohnH aka QuinceHead

    Offline Curly Van Dyke

    • Grapehead
    • *
    • Posts: 40
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #18 on: November 18, 2016, 01:56:03 PM »
  • Publish
  • This is a Fun Short. The 3-D effects are pretty lame,but Shemp has two standout moments:
    The Be-Bopper Routine (as a Musician,this never fails to crack me up) and
    The Bat with Shemp's Face-HILARIOUS!!!!!
    Also like Moe's Blown line-Nothing to be Scared-----Of and Larry's Lame Voice Over-Careful of the Pie Boxes,Fellas.

    Offline stoogerascalfan62

    • Bonehead
    • **
    • Posts: 134
      • View Profile
    Re: Spooks! (1953)
    « Reply #19 on: March 20, 2017, 01:44:52 PM »
  • Publish
  • Had I seen it in those days, I likely would have thought the same thing, and that's the name of that tune!  ;D

    Come to think of it, when I did see that name much later, the other Tom Kennedy did spring to mind.  However, as I believe it was in a photo caption, there was no mistaking one for the other, since there's no resemblance!

    CHEERS!  [3stooges]
    You Don't Say!