- 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
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
"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
"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
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
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
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
