3/10
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Voodoo Island (1957)
Where's the voodoo?, 4 February 2005
There is a reason for the 4.2 IMDb rating. This film isn't very good. The cast is fine. Boris Karloff stars along with a decent supporting cast including Elisha Cook Jr. (Wilmer from The Maltese Falcon). The story concerns a group of people that go to investigate the strange happenings on an island in the Pacific. Other than a few man-eating plants (that could have easily been avoided) nothing much happens. There is very little voodoo to speak of. And when the group meets the voodoo chief on this PACIFIC island, he's a white guy. But my main problem with the film is the script. The actors are given some of the stupidest things to say I've ever heard. Any given character is likely to say or do anything at any given moment regardless of the situation. I would only recommend this to a Karloff completist.
3/10
3/10
Daughters of Satan (1972)
What's with the music?, 4 February 2005
Daughters of Satan (1972) stars Tom Selleck before he was a star. The basic story: Selleck buys a painting depicting the burning of three witches. One of the witches bears a striking resemblance to his wife. Soon, she and two other women begin behaving in a very strange fashion. Selleck is sure that his wife and the other women are the spirits of the witches from the painting reincarnated. He must find a way to save not only his wife, but himself as well.
While most of the movie isn't very good, some scenes work. There are even a few creepy moments. My personal favorite is when Selleck's wife is awoken in bed by a voice whispering her name. Another good scene is when the wife as a witch is stripped and whipped. Very well done. But, there are moments in the movie where nothing happens. It's almost as if the writers had no idea of what to do next, so we get to see exciting scenes like the wife staring at a window for 30 or so seconds.
Most of the acting is forgettable. Selleck is okay, just a little green around the edges. Most of the rest of the cast is really bad. The housekeeper is especially bad. Most of her delivery is just so unnatural.
The most annoying thing about the movie is the soundtrack. It has some of the most inappropriate music you'll likely encounter. The music never seems to fit the action happening on the screen.
3/10
While most of the movie isn't very good, some scenes work. There are even a few creepy moments. My personal favorite is when Selleck's wife is awoken in bed by a voice whispering her name. Another good scene is when the wife as a witch is stripped and whipped. Very well done. But, there are moments in the movie where nothing happens. It's almost as if the writers had no idea of what to do next, so we get to see exciting scenes like the wife staring at a window for 30 or so seconds.
Most of the acting is forgettable. Selleck is okay, just a little green around the edges. Most of the rest of the cast is really bad. The housekeeper is especially bad. Most of her delivery is just so unnatural.
The most annoying thing about the movie is the soundtrack. It has some of the most inappropriate music you'll likely encounter. The music never seems to fit the action happening on the screen.
3/10
Frankenstein (1984) (TV)
Warner makes a good monster, 4 February 2005
Frankenstein (1984) is yet another of the seemingly endless versions of the Frankenstein story. This one was apparently made for British television. The director, James Ormerod, has put together a nice little movie given the obvious limitations to his budget.
I won't go into the basic story as most already know it by heart.
The cast is good. The movie stars Carrie Fisher, Robert Powell, and David Warner. Although listed as the 'star', Fisher's role of Elizabeth has little screen time. She is, however, good when on screen. As for Powell, other than looking like a 1970s porn star, his portrayal of Dr. Victor Frankenstein is also good. But, the real star is David Warner as the monster. His portrayal of the monster is one of the better I've seen. In a very believable performance, Warner plays the monster as a very sympathetic creature. For example, I really felt the monster's pain when his only friend is killed. I would easily rate it as on of the top three performances of Frankenstein's monster I've seen. Of note in the supporting cast is John Gielgud as the blind hermit.
The make-up is also good given the budget. Instead of the scars and neck bolts we're all familiar with, this creature looks more like a burn victim. It's understandable given the high temperatures generated from the electricity that brought the monster to life.
While not the best Frankenstein I've ever seen, the movie held my attention throughout. At the start of the movie, I was ready to hate it, but ended up having a great time watching the story unfold. Warner's monster was a treat.
6/10
I won't go into the basic story as most already know it by heart.
The cast is good. The movie stars Carrie Fisher, Robert Powell, and David Warner. Although listed as the 'star', Fisher's role of Elizabeth has little screen time. She is, however, good when on screen. As for Powell, other than looking like a 1970s porn star, his portrayal of Dr. Victor Frankenstein is also good. But, the real star is David Warner as the monster. His portrayal of the monster is one of the better I've seen. In a very believable performance, Warner plays the monster as a very sympathetic creature. For example, I really felt the monster's pain when his only friend is killed. I would easily rate it as on of the top three performances of Frankenstein's monster I've seen. Of note in the supporting cast is John Gielgud as the blind hermit.
The make-up is also good given the budget. Instead of the scars and neck bolts we're all familiar with, this creature looks more like a burn victim. It's understandable given the high temperatures generated from the electricity that brought the monster to life.
While not the best Frankenstein I've ever seen, the movie held my attention throughout. At the start of the movie, I was ready to hate it, but ended up having a great time watching the story unfold. Warner's monster was a treat.
6/10
The Oblong Box (1969)
With Lee and Price, it could have been better, 4 February 2005
The Oblong Box is an average horror film - not great, but certainly not the worst. The story is fairly interesting and the cast (while not necessarily the acting) is top notch. Horror icons Vincent Price and Christopher Lee star.
The story involves a man who is kept locked in his room. He has been horribly disfigured during an African voodoo ceremony and, as a result, has gone completely mad. After faking his death, he seeks revenge on those he feels are responsible for his condition.
For the most part, the story kept me interested. There are enough twists and turns that keep it from becoming overly slow or boring. The main weakness with the story is that it is unnecessarily complicated. A more straight forward approach may have been more effective.
The period costumes and sets are good. There is more blood than in the normal Vincent Price / AIP movie (even though it is what I refer to as the bright red "Hammer blood"). The supporting cast is quite good. I especially enjoyed watching the young Hilary Dwyer as Price's wife. As I said earlier, Price and Lee star. Neither is, however, particularly good in this movie. In fact, I think anyone could have played the role Lee plays. It's not a particularly difficult or meaty role. Both appear to be going through the motions. The real star is Alister Williamson, playing Price's disfigured brother. Not only does he have the most screen time, he is more effective in his role than either Lee or Price.
6/10
The story involves a man who is kept locked in his room. He has been horribly disfigured during an African voodoo ceremony and, as a result, has gone completely mad. After faking his death, he seeks revenge on those he feels are responsible for his condition.
For the most part, the story kept me interested. There are enough twists and turns that keep it from becoming overly slow or boring. The main weakness with the story is that it is unnecessarily complicated. A more straight forward approach may have been more effective.
The period costumes and sets are good. There is more blood than in the normal Vincent Price / AIP movie (even though it is what I refer to as the bright red "Hammer blood"). The supporting cast is quite good. I especially enjoyed watching the young Hilary Dwyer as Price's wife. As I said earlier, Price and Lee star. Neither is, however, particularly good in this movie. In fact, I think anyone could have played the role Lee plays. It's not a particularly difficult or meaty role. Both appear to be going through the motions. The real star is Alister Williamson, playing Price's disfigured brother. Not only does he have the most screen time, he is more effective in his role than either Lee or Price.
6/10
Strangler of the Swamp (1946)
A nice little poverty row thriller, 4 February 2005
Strangler of the Swamp is a surprisingly nice little poverty row thriller from PRC. While many of today's horror fans would find little to frighten, it's a wonderful example of creating atmosphere on a VERY limited budget.
The movie concerns the ghost of a ferryman, seeking revenge for being unjustly hanged. He's out to get those who 'done him wrong'. My biggest problem with the story is that it gets away from the spooky swamp too often in favor of a love story. Had the movie concentrated more on the Strangler and the creepy swamp and less on the love story, Strangler of the Swamp would have been much better. The direction of Frank Wisbar is tight and he gets the most out of the limited funding he was given. One final note, the movie stars Blake Edwards (of Pink Panther fame) in an early role.
Not the best, but better than many of the films PRC was cranking out in the 40s.
6/10
The movie concerns the ghost of a ferryman, seeking revenge for being unjustly hanged. He's out to get those who 'done him wrong'. My biggest problem with the story is that it gets away from the spooky swamp too often in favor of a love story. Had the movie concentrated more on the Strangler and the creepy swamp and less on the love story, Strangler of the Swamp would have been much better. The direction of Frank Wisbar is tight and he gets the most out of the limited funding he was given. One final note, the movie stars Blake Edwards (of Pink Panther fame) in an early role.
Not the best, but better than many of the films PRC was cranking out in the 40s.
6/10
Humanoids from the Deep (1996) (TV)
See the Original, 4 February 2005
Humanoids from the Deep (1996) is a remake of a 1980 film of the same name. The original was not the greatest, but the remake is horrible. The basic story: Through some crazy experimentation, death-row inmates have been mutated into killer (for lack of a better word) fishmen. They kidnap women with whom they mate. The father and boyfriend of one of the victims must save her before it's too late.
The movie stars Robert Carradine and Emma Samms. For the most part, both act as if they would rather be anywhere than making this movie. Carradine actually sounds as if he's reading many of his lines. His lines are delivered with no emotion whatsoever. And what lines they are. Some of the silliest dialogue imaginable.
The people populating this movie are especially dumb. Once it's established that fishmen are killing and abducting the citizens, do you think the townspeople cancel their water festival? No! They go right ahead. They seem genuinely surprised when the festival is invaded by the fishmen. What dolts! The special effects are also weak. The fishmen are never seen in any one shot for very long. This is probably because their plastic heads are more unrealistic than the cheesiest of the 50s monster films. The birth sequence is a direct rip-off of Alien, but nowhere near as effective.
If you really want to see a monster film, find another. This one is terrible.
2/10
The movie stars Robert Carradine and Emma Samms. For the most part, both act as if they would rather be anywhere than making this movie. Carradine actually sounds as if he's reading many of his lines. His lines are delivered with no emotion whatsoever. And what lines they are. Some of the silliest dialogue imaginable.
The people populating this movie are especially dumb. Once it's established that fishmen are killing and abducting the citizens, do you think the townspeople cancel their water festival? No! They go right ahead. They seem genuinely surprised when the festival is invaded by the fishmen. What dolts! The special effects are also weak. The fishmen are never seen in any one shot for very long. This is probably because their plastic heads are more unrealistic than the cheesiest of the 50s monster films. The birth sequence is a direct rip-off of Alien, but nowhere near as effective.
If you really want to see a monster film, find another. This one is terrible.
2/10
Kill, Baby . . . Kill! (1966)
- Operazione paura
One of Bava's Best, 4 February 2005
This is a true Gothic masterpiece from the Italian genius, Mario Bava. Kill, Baby... Kill! is downright creepy, with loads of atmosphere. Some of the visuals in the film are amazing - the repeating room, the spiral staircase, the scene shot from the swing, etc. Most of the scenes are done in a wash of colored light that only adds to the mood. The little girl freaked me out the first time I saw the movie. I know that some have complained that the little girl really does nothing, but to me, that only adds to her creepiness as in the scene where she watches through the window as the innkeeper's daughter kills herself or when she appears in the locked cabinet in the burgomeister's house.
They definitely don't make films like this today, but oh how I wish someone would or could. A definite must see for fans of dark, Gothic type horror films.
9/10
One of Bava's Best, 4 February 2005
This is a true Gothic masterpiece from the Italian genius, Mario Bava. Kill, Baby... Kill! is downright creepy, with loads of atmosphere. Some of the visuals in the film are amazing - the repeating room, the spiral staircase, the scene shot from the swing, etc. Most of the scenes are done in a wash of colored light that only adds to the mood. The little girl freaked me out the first time I saw the movie. I know that some have complained that the little girl really does nothing, but to me, that only adds to her creepiness as in the scene where she watches through the window as the innkeeper's daughter kills herself or when she appears in the locked cabinet in the burgomeister's house.They definitely don't make films like this today, but oh how I wish someone would or could. A definite must see for fans of dark, Gothic type horror films.
9/10
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
I'll take the Daughter over the Daddy, 4 February 2005
To be honest, I've never been the biggest fan of the original Dracula. To me, Dracula never held the excitement of some of the other Universal classics. It always seemed too "stagey" for my liking.
That's not the case with Dracula's Daughter. Gloria Holden is mesmerizing as Dracula's daughter, Countess Marya Zaleska. Her attitude, look, and performance are what one would expect from a vampire. She plays a vampire in a similar manner to the way Lon Chaney, Jr. played a wolf man - as a tormented soul, longing to be free from a curse. You can almost hear Larry Talbot asking to be released from his nightmare.
The rest of the cast is also quite good. Edward Van Sloan is back as Von Helsing. Irving Pichel is especially creepy as the Countess' henchman Sandor. Marguerite Churchill is a real cutey playing the female in trouble. The weakest cast member is the hero played by Otto Kruger. His character is too unsympathetic to be effective.
The atmosphere is just right. From the fog shrouded London streets to the castle in Transylvania, the perfect horror atmosphere is achieved. The story is simple and straight forward. I would, perhaps, have preferred a few more twists along the way.
I'll take Dracula's offspring (either son or daughter) any day to the original.
7/10
That's not the case with Dracula's Daughter. Gloria Holden is mesmerizing as Dracula's daughter, Countess Marya Zaleska. Her attitude, look, and performance are what one would expect from a vampire. She plays a vampire in a similar manner to the way Lon Chaney, Jr. played a wolf man - as a tormented soul, longing to be free from a curse. You can almost hear Larry Talbot asking to be released from his nightmare.
The rest of the cast is also quite good. Edward Van Sloan is back as Von Helsing. Irving Pichel is especially creepy as the Countess' henchman Sandor. Marguerite Churchill is a real cutey playing the female in trouble. The weakest cast member is the hero played by Otto Kruger. His character is too unsympathetic to be effective.
The atmosphere is just right. From the fog shrouded London streets to the castle in Transylvania, the perfect horror atmosphere is achieved. The story is simple and straight forward. I would, perhaps, have preferred a few more twists along the way.
I'll take Dracula's offspring (either son or daughter) any day to the original.
7/10
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Circus of Horrors (1960)
"Quick, get her to a doctor. And send the clowns in.", 4 February 2005
A plastic surgeon (Dr. Rossiter), who has just butchered the face of a patient, is on the run. After having an accident and requiring plastic surgery himself, he and his assistants travel to France so the doctor may start anew with a new face and name. After a fatal accident to the owner of a circus, Dr. Rossiter takes over. He soon discovers that he can continue his plastic surgery experiments by operating on murderers, thieves, and prostitutes who all just happen to have some sort of facial deformity or scar. The patients, also with new identities, go to work for the doctor in his circus. The doctor keeps them in line and working through blackmail. As he knows their true identities, they are reluctant to leave. Soon, however, some of the patients become restless and try to 'escape' the doctor. Dr. Rossiter, through a series of 'accidents', makes sure they don't, thereby keeping his secret. Any more of the story would be too much.
Circus of Horrors is a very visually pleasing film. The film's makers appear to have been heavily influenced by the Hammer movies being produced at the time. The lavish colors, costumes, and sets are very Hammer-like. And, like many of the Hammer movies, this one must have been quite shocking for its time. As an example, a knife throwing scene turns particularly nasty.
The movie also features some wonderful acting. Anton Diffring is especially sinister as the mad doctor. Donald Pleasence, in a small role, highlights an above average supporting cast.
The only problem I have with the movie is its tendency to lose focus. Too often, circus scenes seem to go on a little too long and drag the movie down to a snail's pace.
7/10
Circus of Horrors is a very visually pleasing film. The film's makers appear to have been heavily influenced by the Hammer movies being produced at the time. The lavish colors, costumes, and sets are very Hammer-like. And, like many of the Hammer movies, this one must have been quite shocking for its time. As an example, a knife throwing scene turns particularly nasty.
The movie also features some wonderful acting. Anton Diffring is especially sinister as the mad doctor. Donald Pleasence, in a small role, highlights an above average supporting cast.
The only problem I have with the movie is its tendency to lose focus. Too often, circus scenes seem to go on a little too long and drag the movie down to a snail's pace.
7/10
Cry of the Banshee (1970)
"Winter's coming in and the wolves coming with it.", 4 February 2005
By no stretch of the imagination is this even close to Price's best film. In most of his films, Price can play the most evil, vile, hideous person alive, yet you can still find qualities to like because of his charismatic, sympathetic nature. This is not the case in Cry of the Banshee. Price's Lord Edward Whitman is a character without any likable qualities.
I don't think the story (very similar to The Conqueror Worm) was very original for its time. There are far better "burn the witch" movies that preceded Cry of the Banshee. Price again plays a witch finder. But, he messes with the wrong witch and she places a curse on his family. One by one, family members die at the hands of the witch's Banshee.
Two things I liked were the ending and the Banshee make-up. The end of the film had some mild surprises that I enjoyed. And the Banshee makeup was good, IMO, because it wasn't over-done. The minimalistic approach to the make-up worked for me.
5/10
I don't think the story (very similar to The Conqueror Worm) was very original for its time. There are far better "burn the witch" movies that preceded Cry of the Banshee. Price again plays a witch finder. But, he messes with the wrong witch and she places a curse on his family. One by one, family members die at the hands of the witch's Banshee.
Two things I liked were the ending and the Banshee make-up. The end of the film had some mild surprises that I enjoyed. And the Banshee makeup was good, IMO, because it wasn't over-done. The minimalistic approach to the make-up worked for me.
5/10
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Frogs (1972)
Frogs, Turtles, and Lizards - Oh my!, 4 February 2005
Frogs should be classified in that 'large' horror subgenre known as Environmentalist, Anti-Pollution Horror. It's the story of nature getting back at us humans for the pollution we've dumped. The story is set on an island owned by a very wealthy, poison-spraying anti-environmentalist, Jason Crockett (Ray Milland). His family has gathered for the traditional 4th of July celebration and birthday party. But, unbeknownst to the family, the animals are planning their revenge. The swamp creatures (apparently on orders from the frogs) take turns killing the family one at a time.
My first reaction: I found it to be a fun, entertaining movie if you DO NOT take it seriously. I usually hate the word 'cheesy' when used to describe a movie, but it's the best word I can think of to describe Frogs. Milland is great as the grumpy old rich man. He dominates every scene he's in. Sam Elliot and Joan Van Ark are the other two stars/heroes most would recognize. And they do their best to make believable the unbelievable horror facing them.
One of the fun parts of the movie is trying to guess which creature will get the next turn at a human victim. And, how they will actually be able to carry out the killings. Will it be the snakes, the spiders, the lizards, the alligators, or the turtles? Yes, even the turtles get a turn in one of the most contrived death scenes ever filmed. Of course, the creatures are helped by the members of the family who seem intent on going one at a time into the woods. Their impending deaths are telegraphed from a mile away.
I can't in all honesty and in good conscious give this one a very high rating. I'll say a 6/10 for that funky, cheese filled 70s feel that Frogs has.
6/10
My first reaction: I found it to be a fun, entertaining movie if you DO NOT take it seriously. I usually hate the word 'cheesy' when used to describe a movie, but it's the best word I can think of to describe Frogs. Milland is great as the grumpy old rich man. He dominates every scene he's in. Sam Elliot and Joan Van Ark are the other two stars/heroes most would recognize. And they do their best to make believable the unbelievable horror facing them.
One of the fun parts of the movie is trying to guess which creature will get the next turn at a human victim. And, how they will actually be able to carry out the killings. Will it be the snakes, the spiders, the lizards, the alligators, or the turtles? Yes, even the turtles get a turn in one of the most contrived death scenes ever filmed. Of course, the creatures are helped by the members of the family who seem intent on going one at a time into the woods. Their impending deaths are telegraphed from a mile away.
I can't in all honesty and in good conscious give this one a very high rating. I'll say a 6/10 for that funky, cheese filled 70s feel that Frogs has.
6/10
Revolt of the Zombies (1936)
Painfully BAD, 4 February 2005
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.
The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.
For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.
I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)
2/10
The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.
For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.
I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)
2/10
The Plague of the Zombies (1966)
Hammer should have made more zombie films, 4 February 2005
The basic story: Sir James Forbes (André Morell} and his daughter Sylvia (Diane Clare} visit a doctor friend and his wife to help with some strange goings-on in town. Sir James soon suspects supernatural forces are at work. After the doctor's wife dies of a strange illness, Sir James and the doctor spend the night in the cemetery to see what will happen. Sure enough, she rises from the grave. When Sylvia begins showing similar symptoms to that of the doctor's wife, Sir James knows he must find who or what is behind the dead coming back to life. Anymore of the story would be too much.
The acting in The Plague of the Zombies is excellent. Andre Morell (who also played Watson in Hammer's excellent version of The Hound of the Baskervilles) is very believable and effective as Sir James. And, Diane Clare is perfect in the role of the fragile Sylvia. This is Hammer, so Michael Ripper is here doing his usual steady work as the local police sergeant. The rest of the cast is more than adequate.
Most every Hammer film I've seen is a treat for the eye, but this is one of the more visually pleasing Hammer films I've ever seen. The sets, the Cornish village, the vivid colors (example: the deep, rich red Hammer blood), and the costumes are dead on.
But what makes this film so impressive is the intelligent script written by Peter Bryan. Bryan has crafted a script with characters that act and speak appropriately. For example, instead of just accepting the fact that the dead are coming back to life, Sir James (as a scientist) must have proof. The steps he takes to find out what's going on are believable and realistic. Too many horror films have supposed scientists jumping to the wildest of conclusions without a shred of proof. Today's script writers could learn a thing or two from this movie.
A word of warning to fans of more modern zombie films - these are not the zombies of Fulci or Romero. The zombies in this movie more closely resemble those in White Zombie or, one of my favorites, King of the Zombies. Instead of being mindless flesh-eaters, these zombies appear to have some reasoning ability and serve a master as a slave. The make-up is not as gruesome as modern zombies, but given Hammer's usual limited budgets, it's quite good.
9/10
The acting in The Plague of the Zombies is excellent. Andre Morell (who also played Watson in Hammer's excellent version of The Hound of the Baskervilles) is very believable and effective as Sir James. And, Diane Clare is perfect in the role of the fragile Sylvia. This is Hammer, so Michael Ripper is here doing his usual steady work as the local police sergeant. The rest of the cast is more than adequate.
Most every Hammer film I've seen is a treat for the eye, but this is one of the more visually pleasing Hammer films I've ever seen. The sets, the Cornish village, the vivid colors (example: the deep, rich red Hammer blood), and the costumes are dead on.
But what makes this film so impressive is the intelligent script written by Peter Bryan. Bryan has crafted a script with characters that act and speak appropriately. For example, instead of just accepting the fact that the dead are coming back to life, Sir James (as a scientist) must have proof. The steps he takes to find out what's going on are believable and realistic. Too many horror films have supposed scientists jumping to the wildest of conclusions without a shred of proof. Today's script writers could learn a thing or two from this movie.
A word of warning to fans of more modern zombie films - these are not the zombies of Fulci or Romero. The zombies in this movie more closely resemble those in White Zombie or, one of my favorites, King of the Zombies. Instead of being mindless flesh-eaters, these zombies appear to have some reasoning ability and serve a master as a slave. The make-up is not as gruesome as modern zombies, but given Hammer's usual limited budgets, it's quite good.
9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)