It is really irritating when the credits give the name of someone who is never named in the movie. We are told in the credits that Lloyd Corrigan plays "Martin" -- but Martin is never named in the film! We see the character, but no one ever addresses him by name. Since the name is actually in the film credits, we have to call him "Martin" -- but someone who didn't know what Lloyd Corrigan looked like would never be able to pick out "Martin" without that knowledge. Regarding the other plot points, I think that some of the plotting is sloppy and probably there are some deliberate red herrings. For example, the creepy character outside the hotel room challenged by Geoff -- that is a red herring, purely to fool the viewer. "Martin" himself may be a red herring; we don't know for *sure* that he is part of Geoff's gang. For one thing, if he is, why doesn't Geoff bring him out to the island to help (since Geoff obviously knows Hope and others are going there? And why isn't the creepy character outside the hotel room brought out to the island to stand guard as well, if he's part of Geoff's gang?
At one point Geoff gets a phone call; presumably that is Parada, telling him that Hope is planning to go out to the island early. (Parada is the only person Hope has told.) So at that point in the plot, Parada is still working with Geoff. What turns him against Geoff? I'm guessing it is Mary. Parada is willing to try to scare off Mary, and to offer her money (on his and Geoff's behalf) for the castle; but he doesn't want to see the girl murdered. That's why he betrays Geoff in the end. But even there some things aren't clear. He hasn't yet betrayed Geoff when he (Parada) is killed; so who killed him? Geoff, or Anthony Quinn's character, who is also skulking around the castle? At what point does Geoff decide that Parada is working against him? None of this is clear; nor is it clear what the two Quinn brothers were up to. Geoff's words at the end could mean that the first Quinn was originally on his side, and then betrayed him; but they might not; the betrayal may be only Parada's; Quinn may have been just an obstacle, perhaps an agent for the Cuban government or the like.
The relationship between the voodoo woman and the bad guys is not clear. Is she watching the castle for the bad guys? Or for the return of the true heir? If the latter, when she sends in the zombie to grab the girl, is that to protect the girl from the bad guys, because she looks so much like her ancestor, rather than to harm her? Maybe; we will never know. Certainly the zombie seems to defer to Mary when she looks like her ancestor; this suggests that the zombie and woman's allegiance is to the heirs of the house, not the crooks. Finally, why does the voodoo mother scream when she does? There's nothing scary about Hope in the scene. Is it because she can't find her zombie son, and assumed he has come to harm? A scream seems a melodramatic reaction when all she wants to know is where her son is; and she doesn't seem like the type of woman to scream. We don't know; but Hope seems to assume she's worried about her zombie boy, as he gives her directions to the son.
It's also never resolved whether the Cuban consul in New York is in on the gang; it looks as if (though his arm is concealed by furniture) he tugs on the pant leg of Parada to tell him to shut up about who is offering the money; that suggests he is in on it. But that may be another deliberate misdirection, totally unmotivated by the plot or character.
I don't like it when mystery stories deliberately mislead the viewer. Ambiguous looks and unexplained exits are fair game, but not deliberate misleading.
Hold That Ghost has similar plot flaws -- but in that case the special features on the DVD tell us that some explanatory scenes were filmed, then cut. Was that the case in this film as well? That would explain much. But why, when one would need only 5 or 10 minutes more at most to clear up loose ends, would the filmmakers be so stingy? Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is better than either of these, because the plot entirely coheres. Still, Ghost Breakers has many enjoyable moments. The quick ending is weak, with a sort of comic deus ex machina, but the castle is well-done for spookiness, and the plot twist that lands Hope in the mess in the first place (running from the gangsters) is clever.
reply
share