After reading this it may sound as if I didn't like The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb. While not the best mummy movie or the best Hammer film, it's still fun - especially the final third of the movie.
6/10
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964)
Creepy Mummy Make-Up, 4 February 2005
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) is Hammer's second venture into the world of ancient Egypt. Without giving too much away, the story is similar to all mummy films - an ancient tomb is opened and those who opened it must pay. To many, the film may seem slow to start, but once the mummy is released, things pick up. Terence Morgan, Ronald Howard, and Jeanne Roland are all adequate, but somewhat uninspired. Fred Clark is the brightest spot in the movie as the wealthy Alexander King. Clark's character, obviously inspired by PT Barnum, is a breath of fresh air to this otherwise predictable mummy story. He is looking to cash in on the mummy by presenting it as some sort of sideshow spectacle. The mummy make-up is good - the most obvious comparison would be to that of Kharis in the Universal mummy sequels. Also, like Kharis and unlike Christopher Lee in Hammer's first mummy film, this mummy walks and moves in a more "normal" pace. He is not the athletic mummy played by Lee.
After reading this it may sound as if I didn't like The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb. While not the best mummy movie or the best Hammer film, it's still fun - especially the final third of the movie.
6/10
After reading this it may sound as if I didn't like The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb. While not the best mummy movie or the best Hammer film, it's still fun - especially the final third of the movie.
6/10
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)