Trog

The good: There is precious little but the ultra professionalism of Joan Crawford even in dreck like this is impressive indeed. She was aware what she was involved in and while many actors would have just phoned in a blank wall of a performance Miss Crawford would never allow herself to lower her standards to that level. At least by providing her own wardrobe, a budget necessity, she at least guaranteed that although matronly she was at least stylishly dressed amongst the mess that was surrounding her. A pity that this was her cinematic swan song after such a fabled career. She was offered a few more parts, albeit supporting roles in both Airport '75 and Airport '77 which are hardly masterpieces but at least more distinguished than this, but had lost her confidence and totally withdrawn from public view.

Beside Joan keeping a stiff upper lip while encircled by junk there are some pretty views of an English village and the surrounding countryside and some very buff actors in the first sequence who strip down to their undies and take a dip to go exploring a cave. Those are the sum total of worthwhile elements in this clunker.

The bad:everything else in this terrible movie. Only for completist fans of Joan or extremely bad movies.

and then shoot me with it...this is an absolute howler!! See Joan face down the troglodyte with her "hypo-gun"!!! See Joan's wardrobe of pink, white and tan lab coats!! See Joan bully the troglodyte into submission!......The sad end to a glorious career for sure,but let there be no doubt, it's still the one and only Joan.....kicking troglodyte ass no less. Heck, if I had a murderous troglodyte on the loose, I'd call Joan.............Crawford is quite game with her role as the scientist(?) and maintains a straight face throughout....no matter if she is tossing rubber lizards to the troglodyte or crawling around in the dark calling out to the TROG! This is a gloriously bad movie. MOMMIE DEAREST was no crueler than this.

Joan Crawford's infamously bad swan song, the story of an anthropologist (Crawford) who makes a study of a missing link, whom she dubs "Trog" (short for "troglodyte"). The film is extremely cheap and cheesy. Hey, I like extremely cheap and cheesy. If it were only that, I probably would love the movie. But what makes the movie bad is its slow pace. People talk interminably about stupid things, and the boredom sets in and never leaves. The scenes where Trog and Crawford play ball are the very definition of camp, and I would have much preferred Trog's final rampage to last 80% of the film's run. So, due to boredom, this truly is a terrible movie. It may be bad, but I still liked it more than Love Story, which was released the same year.

People sure do make a big deal out of Joan Crawford being drunk, especially in dreck like this. I guess it would be surprising to learn that she was completely smashed during the filming of "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane," but let's forget that. It was a decent movie. My point here is that most of these reviews slam the star for being tipsy. If you were making "Trog" you'd want to be as incoherent as possible! Second, Joan doesn't mangle her lines. They come out oddly, but they aren't mangled. It wasn't like Joan Crawford to mess up, at least not in public. The main problem with the lines is their utter idiocy.

My first big problem with the movie wasn't the horrible sets. It wasn't even Trog, who couldn't even get makeup from the waist down. Brockton Research Centre is run by Dr. Brockton, who just happens to be Joan Crawford. Here's my big problem. Of all the actresses (drunken or not) in all the world, why in the heck would someone pick Joan Crawford to play an anthropologist? Does she even know what one is? Hearing her discuss Neanderthals makes me shudder. I don't know anything about Neanderthals, and I don't think Joan can teach me a darn thing about them either. "Conceivably, Trog was frozen solid" etc. etc. etc. What?!? I simply cannot believe Joan would waste her breath talking about cavemen. It's wrong. Even more incredible, she has earned a research center with her name all over it! What did she do to get that? Paint the sign herself? I'm slamming Joan myself now, but still. This is weird casting.

As for the acting in the movie (this is a movie, not a film), Joan did better than the movie deserved. That was something she had a gift for. Giving more than she got. She didn't get anything with this one, but she still gave it her all. That causes people to snicker and laugh, saying "Joan must be stupid to think this movie merits all this." No, the movie doesn't, but Joan's mind needed the knowledge that she always did (and looked her best). We may laugh when she gets overly attached to what looks like a wrestler being attacked by a monkey, but we should give her some credit for trying. That's why I think that one moment at the end of the film is quite good. She refuses a newsman's microphone, and you can almost forget how awful this movie is when you see the weariness on her face.

This 1970 British flick mingles elements of "Planet of the Apes," "Frankenstein" and various Sasquatch tales. The scenes where Joan studies Trog are like an inversion of the scenes in "Planet of the Apes" where the female doctor chimp (Zira) analyzes Charlton Heston. "Frankenstein" comes to mind because of the fairly sympathetic portrayal of the half-man/half-ape and his gentle treatment of a little girl. Being a low-budget English film directed by Freddie Francis it has a decidedly Hammer-esque look and vibe.

Some have mocked the film as "campy" but this simply isn't true; the story is played completely straight. Nothing about it is consciously artificial, exaggerated or self-parodying, like, say, Alan Rickman's performance in 1991's "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." THAT's campy.

The ape make-up is similar to that of "Planet of the Apes," albeit with a more protruding maw. In fact, it looks like someone dug the ape mask out of the trash from the set of 1968's "2001: A Space Odyssey" (which they probably did!)

This was Joan Crawford's final film and has been heavily panned. I don't understand this because it's not really THAT bad. As a matter of fact, the material is taken serious by all involved as the story tackles the question: What would it be like if the so-called missing link was actually discovered ALIVE? Of course, you have to take into account that the perspective of the movie is 1969, when it was shot. Given the period and the low budget, the movie has its limitations, which can be witnessed in two glaring ways:

(1) The overlong dinosaur sequence of stock stop-motion footage that I assume are images from Trog's memory; and (2) the appearance of Trog himself. In regards to the latter, the head and facial features of the ape-man look quite good for 1969, it's the rest that leaves much to be desired. Basically, Trog is just a small-ish white dude walking around in a loin cloth and fur "tennis shoes" with what looks like a short fur cape. This is the extent of the Trog costume and it looks lame, which is probably why people mock the film -- the "monster" is more laughable than fearsome.

Upon reflection, though, since Trog is half-human and therefore mostly hairless, it makes sense that he would obtain furs to make rudimentary clothing for warmth warm. This assumes, of course, that he'd have to occasionally leave the caverns to kill animals for furs; and likely food as well (after all, what would he eat in the darkness of the caves?). Since he's half-human he would have the intelligence to do this.

What makes "Trog" an essential purchase, besides being Crawford's last film, is the stunning Kim Braden, who plays Joan's daughter/assistant, Anne. Kim is fully clothed at all times, usually wearing cute short-skirt/dress outfits, proving that attractiveness is more than a matter of showing skin. What a cutie! Interestingly, Kim went on to play Captain Picard's wife in the Nexus in the outstanding 1994 film "Star Trek: Generations."

The film runs 93 minutes and was shot in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, England.

GRADE: C+