Moronika

Film & Shorts Discussions => The Three Stooges - Shemp Years => Topic started by: metaldams on February 26, 2016, 02:27:53 PM

Title: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: metaldams on February 26, 2016, 02:27:53 PM
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

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/Stooge_spooks53.jpg/220px-Stooge_spooks53.jpg)

      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


Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Shemp_Diesel on February 26, 2016, 03:21:01 PM
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....
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Paul Pain on February 27, 2016, 06:46:25 AM
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]
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Lefty on February 27, 2016, 10:57:58 AM
"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.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Seamus on February 27, 2016, 12:26:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Dr. Hugo Gansamacher on February 27, 2016, 05:50:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Tony Bensley on February 27, 2016, 11:08:29 PM
"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]
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Paul Pain on February 28, 2016, 04:46:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Dr. Hugo Gansamacher on February 28, 2016, 05:42:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Paul Pain on March 02, 2016, 04:08:59 AM
Amazing how many Stoogephiles here are four-eyes!

We must all have the same obstetrician.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Kopfy2013 on March 16, 2016, 09:08:46 PM
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,
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: stoogerascalfan62 on October 24, 2016, 01:47:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Tony Bensley on October 24, 2016, 02:55:44 PM
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]
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: metaldams on October 24, 2016, 06:30:40 PM
(https://threestooges.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nndb.com%2Fpeople%2F077%2F000130684%2Ftom-kennedy-1-sized.jpg&hash=70a19e1a02c0e74ba14d2bb35abda655a74ec591)

(https://threestooges.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commdiginews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2Fbuchanan-meet-the-press.jpg&hash=12fae48538bfc04e6821d9a20c1fd9ac2632ca86)

Tom Kennedy = Pat Buchanan
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Paul Pain on October 25, 2016, 12:18:04 PM
(https://threestooges.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nndb.com%2Fpeople%2F077%2F000130684%2Ftom-kennedy-1-sized.jpg&hash=70a19e1a02c0e74ba14d2bb35abda655a74ec591)

(https://threestooges.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commdiginews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2Fbuchanan-meet-the-press.jpg&hash=12fae48538bfc04e6821d9a20c1fd9ac2632ca86)

Tom Kennedy = Pat Buchanan

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: metaldams on October 25, 2016, 05:52:32 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Exactly, and not even just looks, they even sound alike.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Paul Pain on October 25, 2016, 06:20:43 PM
Maybe Monday we could have a special revival of SPOOKS and SPOOK LOUDER :)
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: QuinceHead on October 25, 2016, 06:42:12 PM
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
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Curly Van Dyke on November 18, 2016, 01:56:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: stoogerascalfan62 on March 20, 2017, 01:44:52 PM
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!
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Woe-ee-Woe-Woe80 on December 06, 2017, 11:22:55 AM
I've thought "Spooks" was a good but not great short, it was nice seeing the boys do something new with 3D during a time when the quality and budgets of the shorts were starting to decline although the next short "Pardon My Backfire" was a far superior short of the two, I wish Tom Kennedy had gotten to appear in more Stooge shorts with the boys and would've made a great stooge foil.

Overall I give this short a 7/10
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Fire_Gridley on July 04, 2019, 06:52:00 AM
Was this the last original short with Shemp?
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: metaldams on July 04, 2019, 08:26:34 AM
Was this the last original short with Shemp?

Blunder Boys (1955) would be the last original, no stock footage in that one.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Paul Pain on October 12, 2021, 07:53:41 AM
So many years later, and I come here to say that I watch this short nearly every year around Halloween... and my opinion of it never changes because there's nothing new to observe.
Title: Re: Spooks! (1953)
Post by: Daddy Dewdrop on October 23, 2023, 10:53:39 AM
Can't believe that more haven't pointed out the "Shemp bat."  Probably my favorite little moment in all of Stoogedom!  Other than that, just a solid short overall.  Ranks at #14 (Shemp) and at #62 overall.