7/10
Showing posts with label Hammer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hammer. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
The Pirates of Blood River (1962)
Pirates without a ship?, 13 September 2009
Pirates of Blood River has to be the only pirate movie I can remember watching that takes place entirely on land. Okay, there is a shot of a random ship at sea, but that's it – no raising the sails, no skull and cross bones atop a mast, no walking the plank, no cannons firing at the King's galley, no shark infested waters, etc. I suppose you could argue that some of the action does take place in a river, but to my way of thinking, a four foot deep spit of water that the cast spends less than five minutes in hardly qualifies. This being Hammer, it's a pretty safe bet that a full-fledged pirate ship would have cost more coin than the studio was willing to put up. However, even if these aren't your traditional pirates, that doesn't mean the movie isn't enjoyable, because I had quite a good time with it. Screenwriters John Hunter and John Gilling have thrown just about everything you can think of into the movie. The plot is all over the place and never gets old or tiring. The story involves a band of pirates that attack a Puritan-like village in search of gold. In addition to this rather simple outline, the movie includes a hard labor penal colony complete with emaciated old guys with sledge hammers and wagon loads of rock, a river full of piranha, a father who finds his son guilty of adultery and all but condemns him to death, two pirates fighting with swords while blindfolded, and a series of booby traps the villagers spring on the pirates. Gilling, who is also the director, keeps things moving at a nice pace. It's a lot of fun from start to finish. The cast is first rate – in fact, it's one of the best casts Hammer ever assembled, especially given the film's modest budget. Christopher Lee is as menacing as ever in the role of pirate chief LaRoche. I really got a kick out of his French accent. Kerwin Matthews is the male lead on the good guys side. He's more than capable in the role. Badass Oliver Reed is also on hand, though his role is limited. Also in the cast are Hammer regulars Andrew Keir and Michael Ripper, James Bond regular Desmond Llewelyn, Glen Corbett (easily the weakest link in the cast), Peter Arne, Marla Landi and other recognizable faces. Overall, Pirates of Blood River is miles from Hammer's normal output, but in this case, that's not such a bad thing. I'll give it a 7/10.
7/10
7/10
She (1965)
She Who Bored Me, 7 September 2009
She is set in Palestine circa 1918. British archaeologist Holly (Peter Cushing) and his two buddies are given a map to the lost city of Kuma. After a long and arduous journey, they discover Kuma and meet a mysterious, beautiful woman known only as She Who Must Be Obeyed. She has been alive for 2,000 years, waiting for the return of her true love. She believes that Holly's pal, Leo, is her long lost love. Her plan is to have Leo jump through the flame of eternal life so that the two can be together forever.
I really thought I was going to like this one, but it's just too blankety-blank-blank dull for my liking. The movie has it's moments, but overall it's about as exciting as watching grass grow or paint dry or any other old cliché you can think of to describe something this wretchedly uninteresting. I suppose that the last act is reasonably entertaining, but the rest is a chore to sit through. Take that "exciting" trek across the desert for example. Wow – there are more thrills in watching snails race. Top-billed Ursula Andress may have been a beautiful woman, but she exhibits no screen presence and even less acting ability. I was much more impressed with the servant girl Ustane played by Rosenda Monteros. That's who Leo should have jumped through the fire with. Cushing is Cushing – always the professional and always watchable. I'll also admit that I did get a few chuckles out of the very British and very proper valet Job (Bernard Cribbins). Speaking of chuckles, what was up with Christopher Lee and his increasingly ludicrous head-wear? By the end of the film, how could you not laugh at the pineapple looking headpiece he was wearing? The film's score didn't help matters much at all. Its monotony only serves to add a sense of lethargy to She – something the movie really doesn't need. Finally, I know Hammer often did wonders with small budgets and I'm usually willing to overlook some of these budget related weaknesses, but She has some terribly atrocious looking matte paintings. My son could have done better with a box of 64 Crayolas. Overall, I much prefer the 1935 version of She with Randolph Scott. It's not perfect, but it's not as dull as this one. A 4/10 from me.
4/10
I really thought I was going to like this one, but it's just too blankety-blank-blank dull for my liking. The movie has it's moments, but overall it's about as exciting as watching grass grow or paint dry or any other old cliché you can think of to describe something this wretchedly uninteresting. I suppose that the last act is reasonably entertaining, but the rest is a chore to sit through. Take that "exciting" trek across the desert for example. Wow – there are more thrills in watching snails race. Top-billed Ursula Andress may have been a beautiful woman, but she exhibits no screen presence and even less acting ability. I was much more impressed with the servant girl Ustane played by Rosenda Monteros. That's who Leo should have jumped through the fire with. Cushing is Cushing – always the professional and always watchable. I'll also admit that I did get a few chuckles out of the very British and very proper valet Job (Bernard Cribbins). Speaking of chuckles, what was up with Christopher Lee and his increasingly ludicrous head-wear? By the end of the film, how could you not laugh at the pineapple looking headpiece he was wearing? The film's score didn't help matters much at all. Its monotony only serves to add a sense of lethargy to She – something the movie really doesn't need. Finally, I know Hammer often did wonders with small budgets and I'm usually willing to overlook some of these budget related weaknesses, but She has some terribly atrocious looking matte paintings. My son could have done better with a box of 64 Crayolas. Overall, I much prefer the 1935 version of She with Randolph Scott. It's not perfect, but it's not as dull as this one. A 4/10 from me.
4/10
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The Reptile (1966)
A real gem in Hammer's catalog, 11 August 2009
A young couple, Harry and Valerie Spalding, inherit and move into a small cottage previously owned by the husband's now deceased brother, Charles. Charles' death is something of a mystery, but none of the locals in the small Cornish village want to discuss it or any of the other deaths they've seen. Harry has seen some strange things in his time and believes that these deaths are similar to the cobra bite victims he saw in India. But a cobra in Cornwall – it's not possible. The couple meets their standoffish and odd neighbor, Dr. Franklyn, and his charming, but strange daughter, Anna. The Franklyn's are hiding a secret, but is it a secret capable of killing Charles and others in the community? Is there a giant, snake-like creature hiding in the Franklyn's house?
Of all the wonderful movies that Hammer made, I'm of the opinion that The Reptile is one of the most often overlooked gems in the catalog. It's a really nice movie that doesn't seem to get near the attention I feel it deserves. Good acting from a rather small cast (with a big, meaty role for Hammer regular Michael Ripper), nice pacing, solid direction, and that Hammer "look" (for lack of a better word) that I always enjoy. But what really sets The Reptile apart is the atmosphere. There's a real sense of fear and mystery about the whole movie. It's as creepy and suspense filled as anything Hammer ever made. And I just love the whole notion of a snake-cult putting a curse on Franklyn and his daughter. It's a unique, original idea for a movie. Sure, there have been other snake-to-man movies, but none that I've seen are as well done as this one. Finally, I've read complaints about the make-up effects. Personally, I think they're fine given the relative modest budget Hammer put-up for the movie. The snake appliances may not look as real as one might have hoped for, but at least they're not some weightless CGI nonsense. Just go with it and have fun.
8/10
Of all the wonderful movies that Hammer made, I'm of the opinion that The Reptile is one of the most often overlooked gems in the catalog. It's a really nice movie that doesn't seem to get near the attention I feel it deserves. Good acting from a rather small cast (with a big, meaty role for Hammer regular Michael Ripper), nice pacing, solid direction, and that Hammer "look" (for lack of a better word) that I always enjoy. But what really sets The Reptile apart is the atmosphere. There's a real sense of fear and mystery about the whole movie. It's as creepy and suspense filled as anything Hammer ever made. And I just love the whole notion of a snake-cult putting a curse on Franklyn and his daughter. It's a unique, original idea for a movie. Sure, there have been other snake-to-man movies, but none that I've seen are as well done as this one. Finally, I've read complaints about the make-up effects. Personally, I think they're fine given the relative modest budget Hammer put-up for the movie. The snake appliances may not look as real as one might have hoped for, but at least they're not some weightless CGI nonsense. Just go with it and have fun.
8/10
Vampire Circus (1972)
A wonderful departure from the usual Hammer vampire film, 4 August 2009
The 1970s are almost universally regarded as the weakest period in Hammer Films' history. Yet as I sit and think about Hammer's output in their last few years, I'm amazed at how many of the movies I genuinely enjoy. Twins of Evil, Blood from the Mummy's Tomb, Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde, Dracula A.D 1972 (I know I may be alone in rating this one as highly as I do), Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell – all made in the 70s and all solidly entertaining films. Add to that list Vampire Circus. In fact, it might be the best of the bunch.
In a small 19th century Serbian village, Stetl, the locals finally find the courage and band together to put an end to the blood thirsty rule of Count Mitterhaus (Robert Tayman). Count Mitterhaus, you see, was a vampire (But in a Hammer film, isn't every Count a vampire?). As the stake is driven through the heart and the light is fading, he puts a curse on the village and vows to return and seek his revenge. Fifteen years later, with Stetl beset by a plague so bad that other nearby villages have set-up armed roadblocks to keep the people in, it seems that the Count's curse has come to pass. Just when things look their bleakest, the Circus of Nights comes to town. Looking for a relief from their despair, the townspeople are delighted to have this diversion in their midst and welcome the newcomers. Clowns, dancers, animals, and a strongman - the circus is a success. But when some of the town's locals, including the children, turn up with dead, the circus performers are immediately blamed. Are these innocent circus folk or are they something more sinister with another purpose altogether – like resurrecting the body of Count Mitterhaus?
From the very opening scene where the little girl is led in what seems to be the most innocent manner into a nearby castle only to meet her fate at the hands of the blood-thirsty Count, Vampire Circus gets off to a great start and never really lets up. That opening scene sets the tone of much of what's to come. Honestly, I just loved it. While it starts out innocently enough, it features a rather startling and unexpected conclusion. Robery Tayman's Count Mitterhaus may just be the most fiendish, savage vampire to appear in a Hammer film - and that includes the work of Christopher Lee. Not even the children are safe in Vampire Circus. For example, even though we don't see it, it's implied that a whole school of children are ripped to shreds by Emil's (Anthony Higgins) black panther persona. There's probably as much claret spilled, necks ripped open, and limbs taken off in Vampire Circus as any Hammer film I can think of. But it's not all graphic violence. There's some real atmosphere at work here as well. The whole movie has a creepy sort of vibe to it that really works. The circus is just odd enough to be eerie without going overboard. And I love the liberties Hammer took in Vampire Circus with the traditional vampire lore. Circus performers turning form animal into vampire, humans and vampires living (and loving) together, etc. make Vampire Circus a unique experience. The acting is, for the most part, as good as you'll find in any Hammer film. Even though you won't find any of the big name Hammer stars, Tayman, Higgins, Adrienne Corri, and several others give outstanding performances. Finally, though I've seen some reviewers dismiss the "amateurish" special effects, they really worked quite well for me. Emil's transformation to panther or the twins flying transformations into bats are amazingly well done.
I realize it's not all perfect (I didn't care for Thorley Walters' performance, John Moulder-Brown seemed way too young, and too many scenes were too obviously filmed in a studio), but this is one of my Hammer favorites. Vampire Circus is a real treat.
8/10
In a small 19th century Serbian village, Stetl, the locals finally find the courage and band together to put an end to the blood thirsty rule of Count Mitterhaus (Robert Tayman). Count Mitterhaus, you see, was a vampire (But in a Hammer film, isn't every Count a vampire?). As the stake is driven through the heart and the light is fading, he puts a curse on the village and vows to return and seek his revenge. Fifteen years later, with Stetl beset by a plague so bad that other nearby villages have set-up armed roadblocks to keep the people in, it seems that the Count's curse has come to pass. Just when things look their bleakest, the Circus of Nights comes to town. Looking for a relief from their despair, the townspeople are delighted to have this diversion in their midst and welcome the newcomers. Clowns, dancers, animals, and a strongman - the circus is a success. But when some of the town's locals, including the children, turn up with dead, the circus performers are immediately blamed. Are these innocent circus folk or are they something more sinister with another purpose altogether – like resurrecting the body of Count Mitterhaus?
From the very opening scene where the little girl is led in what seems to be the most innocent manner into a nearby castle only to meet her fate at the hands of the blood-thirsty Count, Vampire Circus gets off to a great start and never really lets up. That opening scene sets the tone of much of what's to come. Honestly, I just loved it. While it starts out innocently enough, it features a rather startling and unexpected conclusion. Robery Tayman's Count Mitterhaus may just be the most fiendish, savage vampire to appear in a Hammer film - and that includes the work of Christopher Lee. Not even the children are safe in Vampire Circus. For example, even though we don't see it, it's implied that a whole school of children are ripped to shreds by Emil's (Anthony Higgins) black panther persona. There's probably as much claret spilled, necks ripped open, and limbs taken off in Vampire Circus as any Hammer film I can think of. But it's not all graphic violence. There's some real atmosphere at work here as well. The whole movie has a creepy sort of vibe to it that really works. The circus is just odd enough to be eerie without going overboard. And I love the liberties Hammer took in Vampire Circus with the traditional vampire lore. Circus performers turning form animal into vampire, humans and vampires living (and loving) together, etc. make Vampire Circus a unique experience. The acting is, for the most part, as good as you'll find in any Hammer film. Even though you won't find any of the big name Hammer stars, Tayman, Higgins, Adrienne Corri, and several others give outstanding performances. Finally, though I've seen some reviewers dismiss the "amateurish" special effects, they really worked quite well for me. Emil's transformation to panther or the twins flying transformations into bats are amazingly well done.
I realize it's not all perfect (I didn't care for Thorley Walters' performance, John Moulder-Brown seemed way too young, and too many scenes were too obviously filmed in a studio), but this is one of my Hammer favorites. Vampire Circus is a real treat.
8/10
Twins of Evil (1971)
A nice ending to Hammer's Karnstein trilogy, 28 July 2009
Can someone please explain to me why Hammer's Twins of Evil isn't available in Region 1 on DVD? What a joke! Twins of Evil is as good and entertaining as many of the better known Hammer offerings that you can find in the $5 bin at Wal Mart. And it's not like Twins of Evil doesn't have a "name" star. Peter Cushing is about as big a "name" as you'll find in the Hammer catalogue.
In Twins of Evil, Peter Cushing plays Gustav, the leader of a group of Puritan style religious fanatics who have no qualms in burning alive any attractive woman they encounter. However, fearing the wrath of the King, Gustav and his merry band of witchfinders conveniently ignore the fact that Count Karnstein is a vampire. Things are going good for Gustav – burning witches and all – until his twin nieces, Frieda and Maria, turn up at his doorstep looking for a place to live. Frieda's got a wild side and is soon drawn to the Count. In no time at all, Frieda joins the Count in his bloodsucking ways. Now what's Gustav to do? Kill his own kin?
I just love these Hammer period pieces. I know that by 1971 this kind of horror was horribly outdated, but today I look at it and joy in its relative quaintness. The period costumes (excluding some worn by Playboy twins Madeleine and Mary Collinson), the big old castle on the top of the hill, the fog shrouded woods, and the antiquated notion of burning witches are things that make Twins of Evil so much fun. Speaking of the Collinson twins, I don't think it was their abilities as thespians that landed them their roles. They may be eye-candy, but that's about it. Cushing gives his usual outstanding performance. Plenty of good atmosphere and snappy direction are other highlights of the film. Finally, even though I saw it coming from a mile away, I loved the little twist at the end. Overall, an enjoyable film and a nice ending to Hammer's Karnstein trilogy (and real step-up from the preceding entry, Lust for a Vampire). I'll give it an 8/10. Here's to hoping for that R1 release!
8/10
In Twins of Evil, Peter Cushing plays Gustav, the leader of a group of Puritan style religious fanatics who have no qualms in burning alive any attractive woman they encounter. However, fearing the wrath of the King, Gustav and his merry band of witchfinders conveniently ignore the fact that Count Karnstein is a vampire. Things are going good for Gustav – burning witches and all – until his twin nieces, Frieda and Maria, turn up at his doorstep looking for a place to live. Frieda's got a wild side and is soon drawn to the Count. In no time at all, Frieda joins the Count in his bloodsucking ways. Now what's Gustav to do? Kill his own kin?
I just love these Hammer period pieces. I know that by 1971 this kind of horror was horribly outdated, but today I look at it and joy in its relative quaintness. The period costumes (excluding some worn by Playboy twins Madeleine and Mary Collinson), the big old castle on the top of the hill, the fog shrouded woods, and the antiquated notion of burning witches are things that make Twins of Evil so much fun. Speaking of the Collinson twins, I don't think it was their abilities as thespians that landed them their roles. They may be eye-candy, but that's about it. Cushing gives his usual outstanding performance. Plenty of good atmosphere and snappy direction are other highlights of the film. Finally, even though I saw it coming from a mile away, I loved the little twist at the end. Overall, an enjoyable film and a nice ending to Hammer's Karnstein trilogy (and real step-up from the preceding entry, Lust for a Vampire). I'll give it an 8/10. Here's to hoping for that R1 release!
8/10
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Gorgon (1964)
A wonderfully unique Hammer offering, 7 March 2008
I simply do not understand why The Gorgon (like a lot of the other lesser known Hammer movies) isn't available on a legitimate Region 1 DVD. It's ridiculous. Admittedly, The Gorgon is an unusual horror movie. The story of a mythical creature able to turn men to stone with just her gaze is not your normal horror fare. And the movie isn't full of marketable blood and jump scares. Instead, The Gorgon is a slow paced, atmospheric chiller that I find terribly entertaining and one of the more unique movies Hammer ever made.
The Gorgon has so much going for it that I can't imagine it not being a favorite of any Hammer fan. To begin with, there's always something special about watching Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing working together. Even though their shared screen-time is limited, it's still a treat. The rest of the acting is quite good, especially the conflicted and beautiful Carla played by Barbara Shelley. Shelley really doesn't get near enough credit for her performance in this movie. Beyond the acting, The Gorgon is a movie filled with terrific atmosphere thanks to John Gilling's screenplay and Terence Fisher's direction. There's a real sense of unease running through the movie. The music further adds to the atmosphere. Megara's eerie but beautiful call is memorable long after the movie is over. There's just something mesmerizing about it. The lighting, sets, and cinematography are all some of the best you'll find in a Hammer production. The movie looks far better than you would expect. Finally, even though the special effects seem to always be a focal point of criticism, I quite enjoy the Gorgon's look. What some call cheap and tacky looking, I call fun. It's always a blast for me when Megara makes her entrance. In fact, I've got more of a problem with Christopher Lee's sad looking make-up than I do with the Gorgon's appearance.
8/10
The Gorgon has so much going for it that I can't imagine it not being a favorite of any Hammer fan. To begin with, there's always something special about watching Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing working together. Even though their shared screen-time is limited, it's still a treat. The rest of the acting is quite good, especially the conflicted and beautiful Carla played by Barbara Shelley. Shelley really doesn't get near enough credit for her performance in this movie. Beyond the acting, The Gorgon is a movie filled with terrific atmosphere thanks to John Gilling's screenplay and Terence Fisher's direction. There's a real sense of unease running through the movie. The music further adds to the atmosphere. Megara's eerie but beautiful call is memorable long after the movie is over. There's just something mesmerizing about it. The lighting, sets, and cinematography are all some of the best you'll find in a Hammer production. The movie looks far better than you would expect. Finally, even though the special effects seem to always be a focal point of criticism, I quite enjoy the Gorgon's look. What some call cheap and tacky looking, I call fun. It's always a blast for me when Megara makes her entrance. In fact, I've got more of a problem with Christopher Lee's sad looking make-up than I do with the Gorgon's appearance.
8/10
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
X: The Unknown (1956)
"How do you kill mud?", 19 October 2007
While doing exercises on the using a Geiger counter and locating radiation, a group of British soldiers runs across "something" that leaves two of their members severely burned as if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation. In no time at all, citizens nearby begin suffering the same fate. What's behind these "attacks"? Based on the available evidence, Dr. Adam Royston (Dean Jagger) puts forth a theory that some kind of energy based creature from the depths of the earth has come to the surface in search of radiation that it uses as food. But how is he gong to stop something that seems so unstoppable?
Compared with some of the more cheesy sci-fi movies of the 50s or some of the big budget modern sci-fi spectacles, X: The Unknown seems like a very quaint little movie. It may not be quite as fun or exciting as those other movies, but it is an enjoyable, low-key experience. In the lead role, Dean Jagger gives what I would describe as a solid, but understated performance (much like the rest of the movie). I appreciate that for a change he plays a scientist who admits he doesn't have all the answers. My biggest problem with Jagger (and it really has nothing to do with him) is that I've seen White Christmas so many times that he will forever be General Waverly in my mind. I joked with a friend that throughout X: The Unknown, I kept waiting for Rosemary Clooney to come out and sing "Sisters". The rest of the cast gives similarly strong but mostly unmemorable performances. This being Hammer, Michael Ripper is quite naturally on board. There's something very comfortable about seeing Ripper in a movie. It's like knowing that for an hour and a half, you're in good hands.
Technically, the movie is very strong. The direction is what I would call very deliberate – nothing flashy, just telling a story. The cinematography is quite nice. Unlike some of Hammer's more famous films, X: The Unknown was filmed in beautiful black and white. And the B&W images look good to my untrained eye. James Bernard, who would go on to compose some wonderful scores for Hammer, created a very fitting musical track for the movie. Finally, the special effects are a real highlight for me. Sure, you could probably do more with CGI, but as I've said any number of times, there's something about the miniatures and other process shots like those in X: The Unknown that shows a real craftsmanship missing from today's movies.
6/10
Compared with some of the more cheesy sci-fi movies of the 50s or some of the big budget modern sci-fi spectacles, X: The Unknown seems like a very quaint little movie. It may not be quite as fun or exciting as those other movies, but it is an enjoyable, low-key experience. In the lead role, Dean Jagger gives what I would describe as a solid, but understated performance (much like the rest of the movie). I appreciate that for a change he plays a scientist who admits he doesn't have all the answers. My biggest problem with Jagger (and it really has nothing to do with him) is that I've seen White Christmas so many times that he will forever be General Waverly in my mind. I joked with a friend that throughout X: The Unknown, I kept waiting for Rosemary Clooney to come out and sing "Sisters". The rest of the cast gives similarly strong but mostly unmemorable performances. This being Hammer, Michael Ripper is quite naturally on board. There's something very comfortable about seeing Ripper in a movie. It's like knowing that for an hour and a half, you're in good hands.
Technically, the movie is very strong. The direction is what I would call very deliberate – nothing flashy, just telling a story. The cinematography is quite nice. Unlike some of Hammer's more famous films, X: The Unknown was filmed in beautiful black and white. And the B&W images look good to my untrained eye. James Bernard, who would go on to compose some wonderful scores for Hammer, created a very fitting musical track for the movie. Finally, the special effects are a real highlight for me. Sure, you could probably do more with CGI, but as I've said any number of times, there's something about the miniatures and other process shots like those in X: The Unknown that shows a real craftsmanship missing from today's movies.
6/10
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Moon Zero Two (1969)
It's got style to burn!, 25 August 2007
Moon Zero Two features two seemingly unrelated plot threads with Capt. William H. Kemp (James Olson) as their only connection. In the first, a distraught woman is looking for her brother, a miner on the far side of the moon. She enlists Capt. Kemp to help her by taking her to the brother's claim site. In the second, a very wealthy individual hires Capt. Kemp to help him catch an asteroid and bring it crashing to the moon's surface. The asteroid is actually a giant sapphire. It's near the end of the movie before Capt. Kemp is able to put the two pieces of the plot together, discover the brother's fate, and make a decision on helping with the sapphire plan.
What Works:
- Acting: Overall, the acting in Moon Zero Two is a step above what I expected. But then again most Hammer films, regardless of any other shortcomings, generally featured above average acting. I was especially impressed by Catherine Schell and Warren Mitchell.
- Style: A lot of people knock it, but Moon Zero Two has more style going for it than a runway in Paris. If you liked the retro look of something like Austin Powers, you'll see the real thing in this movie. From the go-go dancers and their mod outfits to the far-out bar furnishing, the movie's got style to burn. I suppose the best example is the outfit worn by Catherine Schell when she makes her first screen appearance. Words cannot do it justice – suffice it to say that it is the epitome of 60s style.
- The narrative: As I've already indicated, Moon Zero Two features two seemingly unrelated plot threads that are brought together only near the film's end. While I watched the movie, I realized the plot would come together, but I never once guessed correctly how this was going to be pulled off. It's a clever bit of screen writing.
What Didn't Work:
- James Olson: It's not that Olson is particularly bad in Moon Zero Two, but he lacks the qualities normally associated with the lead in a movie. He's just not a very interesting actor (a nice way to say "He's boring"). Someone with a little more pizazz would have been preferable.
- Pacing: The biggest single problem I had with Moon Zero Two is the movie's tendency to bog down and go nowhere for extended periods of time. There are great stretches of the film where nothing interesting at all is going on. A little tighter editing might have been a judicious choice.
- Music: I don't remember the last time I found a film score as annoying as the one in Moon Zero Two. I suppose it could be called freestyle jazz or something like that, but to me, it was just plain headache inducing. And it all seemed so inappropriate given the action on screen. For example, the two main characters might be riding across the moon's surface when out of nowhere the audience is treated to a random trumpet blast. Annoying!
Overall, while there's much I did enjoy about Moon Zero Two, there's an equal amount that bothered me. But in this case, the "fun" factor wins out and I'll give it a 6/10.
The copy of Moon Zero Two I have was aired as part of Mystery Science Theater 3000. This was a first season episode and it suffers like a lot of the early episodes from inconsistent riffing from the guys at MST3K. Some of the jokes are funny, but there's either not enough of them or they miss their mark. Either way, I found myself wanting to turn down the comedy track to pay attention to the movie. I'll rate Episode #111 a 2/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
6/10
What Works:
- Acting: Overall, the acting in Moon Zero Two is a step above what I expected. But then again most Hammer films, regardless of any other shortcomings, generally featured above average acting. I was especially impressed by Catherine Schell and Warren Mitchell.
- Style: A lot of people knock it, but Moon Zero Two has more style going for it than a runway in Paris. If you liked the retro look of something like Austin Powers, you'll see the real thing in this movie. From the go-go dancers and their mod outfits to the far-out bar furnishing, the movie's got style to burn. I suppose the best example is the outfit worn by Catherine Schell when she makes her first screen appearance. Words cannot do it justice – suffice it to say that it is the epitome of 60s style.
- The narrative: As I've already indicated, Moon Zero Two features two seemingly unrelated plot threads that are brought together only near the film's end. While I watched the movie, I realized the plot would come together, but I never once guessed correctly how this was going to be pulled off. It's a clever bit of screen writing.
What Didn't Work:
- James Olson: It's not that Olson is particularly bad in Moon Zero Two, but he lacks the qualities normally associated with the lead in a movie. He's just not a very interesting actor (a nice way to say "He's boring"). Someone with a little more pizazz would have been preferable.
- Pacing: The biggest single problem I had with Moon Zero Two is the movie's tendency to bog down and go nowhere for extended periods of time. There are great stretches of the film where nothing interesting at all is going on. A little tighter editing might have been a judicious choice.
- Music: I don't remember the last time I found a film score as annoying as the one in Moon Zero Two. I suppose it could be called freestyle jazz or something like that, but to me, it was just plain headache inducing. And it all seemed so inappropriate given the action on screen. For example, the two main characters might be riding across the moon's surface when out of nowhere the audience is treated to a random trumpet blast. Annoying!
Overall, while there's much I did enjoy about Moon Zero Two, there's an equal amount that bothered me. But in this case, the "fun" factor wins out and I'll give it a 6/10.
The copy of Moon Zero Two I have was aired as part of Mystery Science Theater 3000. This was a first season episode and it suffers like a lot of the early episodes from inconsistent riffing from the guys at MST3K. Some of the jokes are funny, but there's either not enough of them or they miss their mark. Either way, I found myself wanting to turn down the comedy track to pay attention to the movie. I'll rate Episode #111 a 2/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
6/10
Saturday, August 14, 2010
The Phantom of the Opera (1962)
"And when you sing, Christine, you will be singing only... for me.", 1 April 2007
Almost every movie fan knows the story – an opera house is beset with problems as a new production is set to open. At first it's strange, annoying occurrences like missing music or damaged instruments. But it goes beyond mere annoyance when a stagehand is murdered. What evil force is behind this series of events?
As a fan of Hammer, there's a lot here to enjoy. The first thing I always notice, and it's hard not to, is the film's "look". Hammer made some wonderful looking movies and The Phantom of the Opera just might be at the top of that list. Beautiful is the way I would describe it. The colors, the sets, and the costumes are so incredibly pleasing to the eye. Everything from the rich burgundy curtains on the opera stage to the simple, but effective mask worn by the Phantom are perfect. You could spend three times the budget of The Phantom of the Opera and not come up with something that looks this good.
Terence Fisher directed some of Hammer's best films. And his work on The Phantom of the Opera is among his best. I've read complaints that Fisher lacked imagination and was, at best, a workmanlike director who was lucky to be "in the right place at the right time". With The Phantom of the Opera, Fisher shows more artistic touches and allows the camera to be more fluid than at any time I can remember. Fisher was aided by an impressive cast. Other than Heather Sears in the female lead, the acting is solid. Edward de Souza, Thorley Walters, and Herbert Lom are all great in their respective roles. But, as usual and as expected, Michael Gough as Lord Ambrose d"Arcy steals every scene in which he appears. He's just so deliciously evil and over-the-top.
There are several little moments in The Phantom of the Opera that make it special. Scenes like those involving the rat catcher or the opera house cleaning women might seem like throwaway moments, but they help add life and interest to the film. Or the dinner scene when Sears character turns down d'Arcy's advances. The look of contempt on Gough's face as he stalks out of the restaurant is priceless. Very well done!
In the end, while there have been any number of versions of The Phantom of the Opera made over the years, Hammer's version is my favorite. It's definitely a movie that any Hammer fan or anyone interested in learning about Hammer should see.
7/10
As a fan of Hammer, there's a lot here to enjoy. The first thing I always notice, and it's hard not to, is the film's "look". Hammer made some wonderful looking movies and The Phantom of the Opera just might be at the top of that list. Beautiful is the way I would describe it. The colors, the sets, and the costumes are so incredibly pleasing to the eye. Everything from the rich burgundy curtains on the opera stage to the simple, but effective mask worn by the Phantom are perfect. You could spend three times the budget of The Phantom of the Opera and not come up with something that looks this good.
Terence Fisher directed some of Hammer's best films. And his work on The Phantom of the Opera is among his best. I've read complaints that Fisher lacked imagination and was, at best, a workmanlike director who was lucky to be "in the right place at the right time". With The Phantom of the Opera, Fisher shows more artistic touches and allows the camera to be more fluid than at any time I can remember. Fisher was aided by an impressive cast. Other than Heather Sears in the female lead, the acting is solid. Edward de Souza, Thorley Walters, and Herbert Lom are all great in their respective roles. But, as usual and as expected, Michael Gough as Lord Ambrose d"Arcy steals every scene in which he appears. He's just so deliciously evil and over-the-top.
There are several little moments in The Phantom of the Opera that make it special. Scenes like those involving the rat catcher or the opera house cleaning women might seem like throwaway moments, but they help add life and interest to the film. Or the dinner scene when Sears character turns down d'Arcy's advances. The look of contempt on Gough's face as he stalks out of the restaurant is priceless. Very well done!
In the end, while there have been any number of versions of The Phantom of the Opera made over the years, Hammer's version is my favorite. It's definitely a movie that any Hammer fan or anyone interested in learning about Hammer should see.
7/10
Friday, August 13, 2010
Man Bait (1952)
The ineffective George Brent, 4 September 2006
A respectable book shop manager, named John Harman (George Brent), gets mixed up in blackmail and murder when he crosses paths with Ruby Bruce (Diana Dors). It's either pay up or she'll go to the police with a made-up story of Mr. Harman attacking her. He agrees to hand over the money and thinks he's put the whole matter behind him. But things only get worse for Mr. Harman when Ruby's dead body is found in his house.
Horror icon Terence Fisher directed this sordid tale for Hammer. He does a good job of wringing tension out of what is essentially a weak script. There are certainly moments to enjoy, but overall, Man Bait is to uneven to consider it anything other than average at best. For example, the acting of the principles is terrible. Dors is terribly miscast and doesn't come across as the temptress she playing. Even worse is Brent. What a mamby-pamby man! The whole notion of this milk-toast being on the run from the police is hysterical. A complete change in casting would have gone a long way in making Man Bait a much better film.
5/10
A respectable book shop manager, named John Harman (George Brent), gets mixed up in blackmail and murder when he crosses paths with Ruby Bruce (Diana Dors). It's either pay up or she'll go to the police with a made-up story of Mr. Harman attacking her. He agrees to hand over the money and thinks he's put the whole matter behind him. But things only get worse for Mr. Harman when Ruby's dead body is found in his house.Horror icon Terence Fisher directed this sordid tale for Hammer. He does a good job of wringing tension out of what is essentially a weak script. There are certainly moments to enjoy, but overall, Man Bait is to uneven to consider it anything other than average at best. For example, the acting of the principles is terrible. Dors is terribly miscast and doesn't come across as the temptress she playing. Even worse is Brent. What a mamby-pamby man! The whole notion of this milk-toast being on the run from the police is hysterical. A complete change in casting would have gone a long way in making Man Bait a much better film.
5/10
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Stolen Face (1952)
Are there really fans of Lizabeth Scott out there?, 4 September 2006
I've now watched three of the Hammer noirs that were recently released on DVD and while each is okay, there's nothing very memorable about any of them. That's precisely how I feel about Stolen Face – it's a decent watch, but it's nothing I would go out of my way to see again. While Paul Henreid gives a nice performance and Terence Fisher's direction is solid, the screenplay really lets them down. There just aren't any surprises. It's all nicely done, but I've seen it before. And if you haven't seen it, you can probably predict the film's outcome with a great deal of success. It's about as subtle as a hammer (pun intended) to the head. My enjoyment of the film isn't helped any by the presence of Lizabeth Scott. I've only seen her in two movies that I can name off the top of my head (this one and The Strange Love of Martha Ivers) and that's two too many. I can't stand the woman!
One interesting aspect of Stolen Face is the interjection of little elements horror/sci-fi. After all, this is Hammer and this is Terence Fisher. It somehow seems appropriate.
6/10
One interesting aspect of Stolen Face is the interjection of little elements horror/sci-fi. After all, this is Hammer and this is Terence Fisher. It somehow seems appropriate.
6/10
Bad Blonde (1953)
Payton's personal life may be sad, but that doesn't make her an actor., 30 August 2006
Bad Blonde is a great title for a very average movie. It's also the first of the Hammer noirs made in the 1950s I've had a chance to watch. I've always been a fan of Hammer's horror output, so it's a treat to get the opportunity to see what the studio was doing pre-1957. The movie tells the (somewhat unoriginal) story of young up-and-coming boxer who gets mixed up with his promoter's steamy, blonde wife. She bends him to her will and uses him to get what she wants – even if that means committing murder. In a broad, general sense, Bad Blonde kept me entertained throughout. Director Reginald Le Borg keeps things moving at a good pace. The film looks good and the country estate set is a standout. And the movie features a wonderful performance from Sid James. The man carries much of the film on his own. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about some of the rest of the acting. The problems I have with Bad Blonde that make it just barely above average relate almost completely to the two leads. Tony Wright and Barbara Payton, are terribly unconvincing. For Wright, this was his first film, so I can forgive some of his stiffness. But for Payton, Bad Blonde was supposed to something of a return to glory. After only four years of making films, she was already washed-up by 1953. Her story may be a sad one filed with every possible form of self-destruction imaginable, but it doesn't change my opinion of her acting. With the exception of a few memorable moments, she doesn't come across as the smoldering sexpot she's supposed to be. To the contrary, I actually found her quite unappealing.
Even though Bad Blonde didn't knock my socks off, I'm looking forward to giving the other five films in the new Hammer Film Noir Collector's Set a chance. At a minimum, and if for no other reason, it's interesting to see how the American B-noirs were translated to Great Britain.
6/10
Bad Blonde is a great title for a very average movie. It's also the first of the Hammer noirs made in the 1950s I've had a chance to watch. I've always been a fan of Hammer's horror output, so it's a treat to get the opportunity to see what the studio was doing pre-1957. The movie tells the (somewhat unoriginal) story of young up-and-coming boxer who gets mixed up with his promoter's steamy, blonde wife. She bends him to her will and uses him to get what she wants – even if that means committing murder. In a broad, general sense, Bad Blonde kept me entertained throughout. Director Reginald Le Borg keeps things moving at a good pace. The film looks good and the country estate set is a standout. And the movie features a wonderful performance from Sid James. The man carries much of the film on his own. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about some of the rest of the acting. The problems I have with Bad Blonde that make it just barely above average relate almost completely to the two leads. Tony Wright and Barbara Payton, are terribly unconvincing. For Wright, this was his first film, so I can forgive some of his stiffness. But for Payton, Bad Blonde was supposed to something of a return to glory. After only four years of making films, she was already washed-up by 1953. Her story may be a sad one filed with every possible form of self-destruction imaginable, but it doesn't change my opinion of her acting. With the exception of a few memorable moments, she doesn't come across as the smoldering sexpot she's supposed to be. To the contrary, I actually found her quite unappealing.Even though Bad Blonde didn't knock my socks off, I'm looking forward to giving the other five films in the new Hammer Film Noir Collector's Set a chance. At a minimum, and if for no other reason, it's interesting to see how the American B-noirs were translated to Great Britain.
6/10
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Horror of Dracula (1958)
"I am Dracula and I welcome you to my house.", 19 July 2006
When Hammer began their horror cycle in the 50s, they were smart to begin with what are essentially remakes of two of Universal's most well known and successful films – Frankenstein and Dracula. Hammer may have started the ball rolling with The Curse of Frankenstein, but to me, Hammer's second, The Horror of Dracula, is the best movie Hammer made and a vast improvement over Universal's iconic Dracula.
Why do I call The Horror of Dracula Hammer's best and an improvement Universal's film? Three things immediately come to mind – Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and the screenplay and direction. While Bela Lugosi may be a more familiar face to the average movie fan, I've always felt that Lee took what Lugosi did and improved on it. The image of Lee with his bloodshot eyes and bared, bloody fangs is a more frightening visage to me than Lugosi's stare. Lee brought athleticism and vitality to the role. He made Dracula a real physical threat. In short, he made Dracula threatening.
As with Lee vs. Lugosi, Peter Cushing is an improvement over Edward Van Sloan in the role of Van Helsing. The difference is that here the improvement is more apparent and undeniable. Face it, Sloan was a stiff. As interesting as some of his characters ideas may have been, I could never picture the man doing any real battle with a vampire. Cushing, on the other hand, is a whirlwind of activity. He has the same interesting ideas about vampire folklore, but with a physical presence that can actually stand-up to Dracula. In short, Cushing simply is Van Helsing.
Finally, I enjoy the screenplay and direction of The Horror of Dracula more than that of Dracula. Why? Too much of Dracula seems stage-bound. Everything and everyone seems confined to whatever set they happen to be on. It also doesn't help that much of the direction in Dracula is of the "plant and shoot" variety. I realize that this was the case with many early films, but that doesn't mean I like it. In The Horror of Dracula, characters don't feel as confined. Terence Fisher gives the actors the freedom to move. You get the impression that the characters come and go at will. It may be an unfair comparison for movies made some 27 years apart, but this has always been one of my biggest complaints with Dracula. (For the record, I don't have this problem with most of Universal's other classic films like Frankenstein or The Invisible Man, to give just two examples.)
Hammer made many horror films over the years that I consider to be among my favorites. But none equal The Horror of Dracula. I realize that all I've done here is compare two different versions of the same story, but the comparisons are the best way I can think of to express what I like about Hammer's film. In this day and age of bad horror remakes, it's a little odd to me that my favorite Hammer film is a remake.
9/10
Why do I call The Horror of Dracula Hammer's best and an improvement Universal's film? Three things immediately come to mind – Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and the screenplay and direction. While Bela Lugosi may be a more familiar face to the average movie fan, I've always felt that Lee took what Lugosi did and improved on it. The image of Lee with his bloodshot eyes and bared, bloody fangs is a more frightening visage to me than Lugosi's stare. Lee brought athleticism and vitality to the role. He made Dracula a real physical threat. In short, he made Dracula threatening.
As with Lee vs. Lugosi, Peter Cushing is an improvement over Edward Van Sloan in the role of Van Helsing. The difference is that here the improvement is more apparent and undeniable. Face it, Sloan was a stiff. As interesting as some of his characters ideas may have been, I could never picture the man doing any real battle with a vampire. Cushing, on the other hand, is a whirlwind of activity. He has the same interesting ideas about vampire folklore, but with a physical presence that can actually stand-up to Dracula. In short, Cushing simply is Van Helsing.
Finally, I enjoy the screenplay and direction of The Horror of Dracula more than that of Dracula. Why? Too much of Dracula seems stage-bound. Everything and everyone seems confined to whatever set they happen to be on. It also doesn't help that much of the direction in Dracula is of the "plant and shoot" variety. I realize that this was the case with many early films, but that doesn't mean I like it. In The Horror of Dracula, characters don't feel as confined. Terence Fisher gives the actors the freedom to move. You get the impression that the characters come and go at will. It may be an unfair comparison for movies made some 27 years apart, but this has always been one of my biggest complaints with Dracula. (For the record, I don't have this problem with most of Universal's other classic films like Frankenstein or The Invisible Man, to give just two examples.)
Hammer made many horror films over the years that I consider to be among my favorites. But none equal The Horror of Dracula. I realize that all I've done here is compare two different versions of the same story, but the comparisons are the best way I can think of to express what I like about Hammer's film. In this day and age of bad horror remakes, it's a little odd to me that my favorite Hammer film is a remake.
9/10
Monday, August 9, 2010
Scars of Dracula (1970)
"He is evil. He is the embodiment of all that is evil. He is the very Devil himself.", 7 July 2006
When Paul Carlson (Christopher Matthews) goes missing, his brother Simon (Dennis Waterman) and friend Sarah Framsen (Jenny Hanley) trace his footsteps to try to find him. Their journey leads them to a small village full of inhospitable locals who will only tell the pair that Paul was last seen heading toward a nearby castle. Simon and Sarah set off for the castle unaware of the danger that awaits them. This is no ordinary castle. It's the home of Dracula. Simon and Sarah find themselves in a fight for their lives against the King of the Vampires.
Of Hammer's long list of Dracula films, Scars of Dracula is about average. It's nowhere near as good as Horror of Dracula, but it's a long way from being as bad as The Satanic Rites of Dracula. It's impossible to begin discussing any of Hammer's Dracula films without first mentioning Christopher Lee. In Scars of Dracula, Lee plays a more sadistic and evil version of the Count. In addition to the normal blood-sucking, this Dracula is not above the routine tortures of beating his servant with a whip, hanging a body from a wall, or sending his legions of bats to all but wipe out a town. It's these scenes that really make the film standout. But as much as I enjoyed the character of Dracula, as blasphemous as this will sound, it's one of Lee's weaker performances. Maybe I was reading something into his performance that wasn't there, but he came across as incredibly uninterested (which in reality he was). There's none of the menace in the eyes that I associate with Lee's Dracula. It's acting by-the-numbers as far as I could tell. It's unfortunately because Lee was always so good in the role.
Other highlights for me include Jenny Hanley as Sarah and the wall climbing scene. Hanley seemed like such a natural as the innocent, fragile Sarah. And she has some of the most expressive eyes I've noticed in a Hammer heroine. It's too bad she didn't make more films for Hammer. As for the wall climbing scenes, I believe it's the only one of its kind in any of the Hammer Dracula films. I realize that it's all done with camera tricks, but seeing Lee's Dracula climbing the side of the castle was a real treat.
Unfortunately, I found just as many negatives as I did positives in Scars of Dracula. First, the screenplay has a number of holes in it. All of the characters make it incredibly convenient for Dracula. Not once is Dracula forced to leave his castle to find a victim – they all conveniently come to him. And just how did Sarah get to the castle so fast? The same journey that took Simon and a local priest almost an entire day is covered by the distraught Sarah in a matter of what seems to be a couple of hours. Next, Simon and Paul felt too modern given the time period in which the film is set. Their mannerisms, speech, and look simply scream 1970. Finally, in the beginning of the film, Dracula is resurrected by a rubber bat drooling blood over his remains. If it's that easy for Dracula to come back to life, why didn't he use this method more often? Why go through all the hassle of a séance as in Dracula A.D. 1972 or the elaborate ceremony in Taste the Blood of Dracula? I seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.
6/10
Of Hammer's long list of Dracula films, Scars of Dracula is about average. It's nowhere near as good as Horror of Dracula, but it's a long way from being as bad as The Satanic Rites of Dracula. It's impossible to begin discussing any of Hammer's Dracula films without first mentioning Christopher Lee. In Scars of Dracula, Lee plays a more sadistic and evil version of the Count. In addition to the normal blood-sucking, this Dracula is not above the routine tortures of beating his servant with a whip, hanging a body from a wall, or sending his legions of bats to all but wipe out a town. It's these scenes that really make the film standout. But as much as I enjoyed the character of Dracula, as blasphemous as this will sound, it's one of Lee's weaker performances. Maybe I was reading something into his performance that wasn't there, but he came across as incredibly uninterested (which in reality he was). There's none of the menace in the eyes that I associate with Lee's Dracula. It's acting by-the-numbers as far as I could tell. It's unfortunately because Lee was always so good in the role.
Other highlights for me include Jenny Hanley as Sarah and the wall climbing scene. Hanley seemed like such a natural as the innocent, fragile Sarah. And she has some of the most expressive eyes I've noticed in a Hammer heroine. It's too bad she didn't make more films for Hammer. As for the wall climbing scenes, I believe it's the only one of its kind in any of the Hammer Dracula films. I realize that it's all done with camera tricks, but seeing Lee's Dracula climbing the side of the castle was a real treat.
Unfortunately, I found just as many negatives as I did positives in Scars of Dracula. First, the screenplay has a number of holes in it. All of the characters make it incredibly convenient for Dracula. Not once is Dracula forced to leave his castle to find a victim – they all conveniently come to him. And just how did Sarah get to the castle so fast? The same journey that took Simon and a local priest almost an entire day is covered by the distraught Sarah in a matter of what seems to be a couple of hours. Next, Simon and Paul felt too modern given the time period in which the film is set. Their mannerisms, speech, and look simply scream 1970. Finally, in the beginning of the film, Dracula is resurrected by a rubber bat drooling blood over his remains. If it's that easy for Dracula to come back to life, why didn't he use this method more often? Why go through all the hassle of a séance as in Dracula A.D. 1972 or the elaborate ceremony in Taste the Blood of Dracula? I seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.
6/10
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)
The Bride of Hammer's Frankenstein, 19 May 2006
This entry in Hammer's Frankenstein series finds Baron Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) continuing his experiments with the help of Dr. Hertz and his servant, Hans. The Baron is working on capturing a soul and placing it in another body. When Hans is accused of killing his girlfriend's father and put to death, the Baron has the chance to put part of his theories to the test by capturing Hans' soul. As chance would have it, Hans' girlfriend, Christina, commits suicide providing Baron Frankenstein a body for Hans' soul. While it seems the Baron has finally succeeded, his new creation, a combination of the wrongly accused Hans and grief-stricken Christina, is actually plotting and carrying out a series of revenge killings against those responsible for her father's death.
The differences between Frankenstein Created Woman and the other entries in the series should be quite obvious to anyone familiar with Hammer. The most obvious is the Baron's creation. Unlike the other films where Baron Frankenstein succeeds in creating a monster, here he has created a being capable of moving undetected throughout society. She's a beautiful woman adept at using her charms to help her ensnare her would be victims. She's bright, cunning, and deadly. It's quite the lethal combination.
Peter Cushing was never better. Cushing is such a pleasure to watch in most anything he did. He's a whirlwind of energy and never dull. In Frankenstein Created Woman, he's given more of an opportunity to show the human side of the Baron. He's allowed to actually be funny and show a sympathetic nature toward his creation. Yet he's completely focused and believable in the pursuit of his goals. Some of my favorite moments in the film involve the Baron's quips directed toward the rather addle minded Dr. Hertz. Thorley Walters couldn't be better as Dr. Hertz. He makes a perfect target for Frankenstein's barbs. The pair are a lot of fun to watch. Susan Denberg is more than adequate as the Baron's creation. It's a shame that she appears to have "burned out" so early in her career. She may not have been the greatest actress of all time, but I would have enjoyed the opportunity to see her in other films.
7/10
The differences between Frankenstein Created Woman and the other entries in the series should be quite obvious to anyone familiar with Hammer. The most obvious is the Baron's creation. Unlike the other films where Baron Frankenstein succeeds in creating a monster, here he has created a being capable of moving undetected throughout society. She's a beautiful woman adept at using her charms to help her ensnare her would be victims. She's bright, cunning, and deadly. It's quite the lethal combination.
Peter Cushing was never better. Cushing is such a pleasure to watch in most anything he did. He's a whirlwind of energy and never dull. In Frankenstein Created Woman, he's given more of an opportunity to show the human side of the Baron. He's allowed to actually be funny and show a sympathetic nature toward his creation. Yet he's completely focused and believable in the pursuit of his goals. Some of my favorite moments in the film involve the Baron's quips directed toward the rather addle minded Dr. Hertz. Thorley Walters couldn't be better as Dr. Hertz. He makes a perfect target for Frankenstein's barbs. The pair are a lot of fun to watch. Susan Denberg is more than adequate as the Baron's creation. It's a shame that she appears to have "burned out" so early in her career. She may not have been the greatest actress of all time, but I would have enjoyed the opportunity to see her in other films.
7/10
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Die! Die! My Darling! (1965)
"Go and remove that FILTH at once!", 10 April 2006
The story: A young woman named Pat Carroll (Stefanie Powers) pays a courtesy call on Mrs. Trefoile (Tallulah Bankhead), the mother of Pat's dead fiancé. Pat plans to stay one night and be on her way. But Mrs. Trefoile has other ideas. She sees it as her mission to "cleanse" Pat and keep her pure for the day Pat will join her son in the afterlife. To accomplish her mission, Mrs. Trefoile locks Pat in an upper room of her crumbling mansion and preaches to her with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.
Tallulah! That's all you really need to know about Die! Die! My Darling! Tallulah Bankhead's performance is so over-the-top, so wonderfully demented, so full of campy entertainment that she dominates every aspect of this movie. Stefanie Powers is good, but she and the rest of the cast are completely overshadowed by Tallulah. I just can't imagine anyone else (and that includes the likes of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford who were also part of the aging actress playing a crazed nut in a horror movie) in the role of Mrs. Trefoile – she's that good. I'll go so far as to say that Tallulah's performance in Die! Die! My Darling! is one of my two or three favorite pieces of acting from any horror movie I've seen. Amazing!
7/10
Tallulah! That's all you really need to know about Die! Die! My Darling! Tallulah Bankhead's performance is so over-the-top, so wonderfully demented, so full of campy entertainment that she dominates every aspect of this movie. Stefanie Powers is good, but she and the rest of the cast are completely overshadowed by Tallulah. I just can't imagine anyone else (and that includes the likes of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford who were also part of the aging actress playing a crazed nut in a horror movie) in the role of Mrs. Trefoile – she's that good. I'll go so far as to say that Tallulah's performance in Die! Die! My Darling! is one of my two or three favorite pieces of acting from any horror movie I've seen. Amazing!
7/10
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Abominable Snowman (1957)
"They are in danger, all of them, from their own actions.", 5 March 2006
The Abominable Snowman treats its subject matter with the kind of respect usually reserved for something far more serious than a low-budget film about the mythical Yeti. It would have been easy to allow the whole production to sink to the level of exploitation, but it never does. The horror is subdued and really only surfaces in the final act. The movie is not without its creepy moments as the men fear for their lives in an alien landscape of ice and mountains. The remainder of the intelligent script focuses on the relationship between the scientist and the showman and asks the question "Who is the real monster?"
The Abominable Snowman is an unusually subdued movie from The Studio that Dripped Blood. Released the same year as The Curse of Frankenstein and a year before Horror of Dracula, The Abominable Snowman lacks the garish colors and the bright red blood that helped to make Hammer so famous. It may lack what I call the Hammer Color, but it's one of the best looking Hammer films I've seen. It was filmed in beautiful black and white and the cinematography is stunning. The stage-bound sets are some of the best I've seen. When combined, these elements create the perfect, frigid look and setting for The Abominable Snowman.
Director Val Guest made the wise decision to keep the Yeti off-screen as much as possible with only a glimpse or two in the shadows. It would have been difficult, given the budgetary constraints, to create realistic looking Yeti that could have withstood too much on-screen scrutiny. Anymore screen-time and the Yeti would have probably come off as cheesy as the title character in Hammer's The Gorgon.
And I can't say enough about the acting. Everyone involved is excellent. You can always count on Peter Cushing to deliver the goods and he's at the top of his game in this film. It's a shame that his genius isn't more well known outside of horror circles. Forrest Tucker makes a great foil for Cushing. The two men make the perfect "Odd Couple". The rest of the cast is equally believable and more than up to the challenge.
8/10
The Abominable Snowman is an unusually subdued movie from The Studio that Dripped Blood. Released the same year as The Curse of Frankenstein and a year before Horror of Dracula, The Abominable Snowman lacks the garish colors and the bright red blood that helped to make Hammer so famous. It may lack what I call the Hammer Color, but it's one of the best looking Hammer films I've seen. It was filmed in beautiful black and white and the cinematography is stunning. The stage-bound sets are some of the best I've seen. When combined, these elements create the perfect, frigid look and setting for The Abominable Snowman.
Director Val Guest made the wise decision to keep the Yeti off-screen as much as possible with only a glimpse or two in the shadows. It would have been difficult, given the budgetary constraints, to create realistic looking Yeti that could have withstood too much on-screen scrutiny. Anymore screen-time and the Yeti would have probably come off as cheesy as the title character in Hammer's The Gorgon.
And I can't say enough about the acting. Everyone involved is excellent. You can always count on Peter Cushing to deliver the goods and he's at the top of his game in this film. It's a shame that his genius isn't more well known outside of horror circles. Forrest Tucker makes a great foil for Cushing. The two men make the perfect "Odd Couple". The rest of the cast is equally believable and more than up to the challenge.
8/10
Monday, July 26, 2010
Demons of the Mind (1972)
The Worst of Hammer, 4 December 2005
I've always enjoyed a good Hammer movie. I couldn't begin to list the number I've seen, but I could very easily put together a top 35 – 40 Hammer movie list. Demons of the Mind would not appear anywhere on that list. It is without a doubt the worst Hammer film I've ever seen. The problem is not with the acting, directing, cinematography, or score, because technically it's a well made film. Instead, much of my problem rests with the plot. It plods along at a snail's pace introducing people and ideas that go nowhere. And when something does happen, like the attack scenes in the forest, I couldn't have cared less about what was going on – I didn't know anything about the people involved.
I've also got to give Demons of the Mind a thumbs-down when it comes to casting decisions. At the time this movie was made, Hammer was trying to build Shane Briant into the next big Hammer star. But he has a very unlikable on-screen persona. He's the kind of person that I can't wait to see die in one of these movies. I've never understood how anyone at Hammer thought this androgynous looking foppish boy was gong to replace the likes of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.
To sum it up, if your idea of a good movie is a plot that goes nowhere and characters you either don't know or don't want to know, Demons of the Mind may be the movie you're looking for.
3/10
I've also got to give Demons of the Mind a thumbs-down when it comes to casting decisions. At the time this movie was made, Hammer was trying to build Shane Briant into the next big Hammer star. But he has a very unlikable on-screen persona. He's the kind of person that I can't wait to see die in one of these movies. I've never understood how anyone at Hammer thought this androgynous looking foppish boy was gong to replace the likes of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.
To sum it up, if your idea of a good movie is a plot that goes nowhere and characters you either don't know or don't want to know, Demons of the Mind may be the movie you're looking for.
3/10
Lust for a Vampire (1971)
I wish Hammer had made more films with Yutte!, 23 November 2005
Lust for a Vampire is the second of Hammer's Karnstein films. While the first, The Vampire Lovers, was far from being great, it is a much better movie than this, the first sequel. The acting is weak, the male lead is very unsympathetic, Mike Raven comes across as a Christopher Lee wannabe, the sets are "too clean", and the plot is incredibly predictable. In all honesty, I've probably rated Lust for a Vampire too high. Other than a few good set pieces and Yutte Stensgaard, it's really doesn't have much going for it.
Set Pieces – The scene of Carmilla's resurrection may be one of my favorites from any Hammer movie. It's a wonderful mix of blood, nudity, and some Satanic mumbo-jumbo. The sight of the half-naked Carmilla literally covered in blood is not one that is easily forgotten.
Yutte Stensgaard – The best word I can think of to describe Stensgaard is "stunning". If she's in a scene, I defy anyone (at least any male) to not focus on her. She may not have been much of an actress, but as far as eye-candy goes, she's hard to beat.
5/10
Lust for a Vampire is the second of Hammer's Karnstein films. While the first, The Vampire Lovers, was far from being great, it is a much better movie than this, the first sequel. The acting is weak, the male lead is very unsympathetic, Mike Raven comes across as a Christopher Lee wannabe, the sets are "too clean", and the plot is incredibly predictable. In all honesty, I've probably rated Lust for a Vampire too high. Other than a few good set pieces and Yutte Stensgaard, it's really doesn't have much going for it.Set Pieces – The scene of Carmilla's resurrection may be one of my favorites from any Hammer movie. It's a wonderful mix of blood, nudity, and some Satanic mumbo-jumbo. The sight of the half-naked Carmilla literally covered in blood is not one that is easily forgotten.
Yutte Stensgaard – The best word I can think of to describe Stensgaard is "stunning". If she's in a scene, I defy anyone (at least any male) to not focus on her. She may not have been much of an actress, but as far as eye-candy goes, she's hard to beat.
5/10
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Evil of Frankenstein (1964)
The changes to the storyline really bother me, 29 October 2005
Baron Frankenstein is up to his old tricks. He is still in the business of buying corpses to do his research. But without the means to afford a proper laboratory, Frankenstein has set up shop in a cabin. When the locals learn of experiments, Frankenstein is forced to flee. Accompanied by his assistant, Frankenstein heads back to his abandoned home to collect some valuables to sell to raise the money he needs to continue his work. Shortly after arriving, he discovers that his first creation is still alive. With a little work, Frankenstein is sure he can correct his previous mistakes. Can he evade the locals and be successful this time?
The Evil of Frankenstein is easily my least favorite of Hammer's series (granted, I haven't seen The Horror of Frankenstein). While there are moments and various set-pieces that I enjoy and Cushing is as good as ever, overall it's just not that good. Why all the changes? The events in The Evil of Frankenstein rewrite the entire history of the series. Everything that Hammer had done previously in its Frankenstein series is wiped away with one flashback sequence. And why change the Baron Frankenstein character? In the previous movies, Frankenstein was an evil genius, but he was always in control. His violent and vocal outburst in the café scene is totally out of character. Also, he is no longer as cold and heartless as in the earlier movies. Instead, he comes across as sympathetic towards those around him and actually seems appalled to learn his creature has harmed his enemies.
I've read comparisons between the monster makeup in The Evil of Frankenstein and Universal's classic monster. While there are similarities, comparing the two is tantamount to blasphemy. The monster in The Evil of Frankenstein is poor stepchild to the monster played by Karloff. It looks cheap. There are certain camera angles where the monster's head looks like a piñata ready to spill its candy.
As for what worked for me, there are a couple of moments worth mentioning. The opening scenes of the body snatcher skulking through the twisted forest are especially creepy. It's a very effective opening. Another very enjoyable, but all too brief, scene occurs when Frankenstein raises the table holding his monster. The camera is attached to and moves with the table. It's one of the very few moments in the movie where Director Freddie Francis can be praised for being creative.
4/10
The Evil of Frankenstein is easily my least favorite of Hammer's series (granted, I haven't seen The Horror of Frankenstein). While there are moments and various set-pieces that I enjoy and Cushing is as good as ever, overall it's just not that good. Why all the changes? The events in The Evil of Frankenstein rewrite the entire history of the series. Everything that Hammer had done previously in its Frankenstein series is wiped away with one flashback sequence. And why change the Baron Frankenstein character? In the previous movies, Frankenstein was an evil genius, but he was always in control. His violent and vocal outburst in the café scene is totally out of character. Also, he is no longer as cold and heartless as in the earlier movies. Instead, he comes across as sympathetic towards those around him and actually seems appalled to learn his creature has harmed his enemies.
I've read comparisons between the monster makeup in The Evil of Frankenstein and Universal's classic monster. While there are similarities, comparing the two is tantamount to blasphemy. The monster in The Evil of Frankenstein is poor stepchild to the monster played by Karloff. It looks cheap. There are certain camera angles where the monster's head looks like a piñata ready to spill its candy.
As for what worked for me, there are a couple of moments worth mentioning. The opening scenes of the body snatcher skulking through the twisted forest are especially creepy. It's a very effective opening. Another very enjoyable, but all too brief, scene occurs when Frankenstein raises the table holding his monster. The camera is attached to and moves with the table. It's one of the very few moments in the movie where Director Freddie Francis can be praised for being creative.
4/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)