Torture Garden.

Review #2597: Torture Garden.

Cast:

Framework story: Burgess Meredith (Dr. Diabolo), Michael Ripper (Gordon Roberts), and Timothy Bateson (Fairground Barker), and Clytie Jessop (Atropos - Goddess of Destiny)

"Enoch": Michael Bryant (Colin Williams), Catherine Finn (Nurse Parker), Maurice Denham (Uncle Roger), Niall MacGinnis (Dr. Silversmith), Roy Stevens (Constable), Norman Claridge (Police Sergeant), Barry Low (Tramp) 

"Terror Over Hollywood": Beverly Adams (Carla Hayes), Robert Hutton (Bruce Benton), John Phillips (Eddie Storm), Bernard Kay (Dr. Heim), David Bauer (Mike Charles), Nicole Shelby (Millie), James Copeland (Fred)

"Mr. Steinway": John Standing (Leo Winston), Ursula Howells (Miss Maxine Chambers), and Barbara Ewing (Dorothy Endicott)

"The Man Who Collected Poe": Jack Palance (Ronald Wyatt), Peter Cushing (Lancelot Canning), Hedger Wallace (Edgar Allan Poe), Roy Godfrey (Collector)

Directed by Freddie Francis (#854 - They Came from Beyond Space, #856 - The Evil of Frankenstein, #860 - Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, #1145 - Tales from the Crypt, #1419 - Dr. Terror's House of Horrors, #2143 - Trog, #2429 - Mumsy, Nanny, Sonny and Girly)

Review: 

Well, if you're going to do an anthology movie, you might as well go with one filled with certain types of "imagination". With Amicus Production and producer Milton Subotsky's favoring of doing anthology movies (after the success of 1965's Dr. Terror's House of Horrors, which had Francis as director) and funding from Columbia Pictures, how could you go wrong? This was the sixth movie written by Robert Bloch and it was the second of three films where Freddie Francis directed his script (the others were The Psychopath [1966] and The Deadly Bees [1967]). Apparently, there were ideas to have Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee be the main stars, but Columbia wanted some American presences, so you get Jack Palance and Burgess Meredith while Cushing gets a bit role for the fourth story. Apparently, when Francis later worked with Martin Scorsese as a cinematographer, Scorsese told Francis how much he liked the movie and even tried to get him involved in doing a film about Edgar Allan Poe, which did not come to pass. Amicus returned to the well of anthologies with The House That Dripped Blood (released in 1971 that happened to be co-written by Bloch) while Francis worked with Amicus again with Tales from the Crypt (1972).

You get four stories of people (in what Amicus liked calling a "portmanteau" rather than anthology because, well, um, why not?) looking at threads of what may come to pass after spending a dozen minutes (of a 100-minute movie, and that doesn't include the "resolution") with Meredith and his totally not more than a carnie act with a "goddess of destiny" standing still while people's "future" is told. What you get here is two unwieldy stories and two that almost seem ready to have fun in the macabre for a very subdued affair unless you just roll with evil cats, pianos, Hollywood caricatures and other things that go eyeroll in the night. Meredith and his huckster act is probably the highlight of the movie, honestly. The first story (lasting roughly 25 minutes, the longest of the bunch) involves a steadily revealed secret upon a family visit with the greedy Bryant. No, not that secret, a real one: a cat. It has the least glaring annoyances that happens to also involve an evil, hungry cat (aren't they all?), which, well, at least is presented halfway seriously. The second segment (23 minutes) involves a woman trying to get ahead in the world of showbiz that finds the real secret behind actors never going down-oh forget trying to hide the secret, it's because the actors are robots. It's bad enough to be wrapped in a middling story with a barely-there Adams, it's quite another to just fling out a twist that a third-grader might come up with for why they are so hyper today. By this point the idea of having characters encounter ironic or cutting fates is basically nonexistent, as if these people can't even exist beyond the names given to them.  The third segment is probably the shortest (14 minutes) for a good reason: a woman living in the piano-sized shadow of someone who can't quite just live his life without the dead daring to speak their mind. Yes, it involves a moving piano and it probably is the most interesting tale of the bunch because it at least provides a few interesting shots for when it gets to the inevitable showdown of just who deserves to be around for love. The last segment (lasting 17 minutes) involves who else but Edgar Allen Poe, as there are secrets that lie beneath collectibles with devilish influences, a lack of subtlety from Palance and an all too briefly charming Cushing and other things that come with wannabe spooky storytelling. Aside from a few highlight moments from Meredith in setting some curious with the conman act of fates and darkness, Torture Garden is just too inconsistent to really call a winner, representing that making one anthology movie is hard enough, making one that doesn't feel like a re-hash of the aforementioned Dr. Terror is another. If you like digging around for anthologies, it might be worth a look down, down, down the line, but, well, you never know.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Hint: make sure to add the year to googling this movie, as "Torture Garden" apparently also leads to a search for a fetish event.

Lust for a Vampire.

Review #2596: Lust for a Vampire.

Cast: 

Michael Johnson (Richard LeStrange), Yutte Stensgaard (Mircalla Herritzen/Carmilla Karnstein), Ralph Bates (Giles Barton), Barbara Jefford (Countess Herritzen), Suzanna Leigh (Janet Playfair), Helen Christie (Miss Simpson), Mike Raven (Count Karnstein; dubbed by Valentine Dyall), Harvey Hall (Inspector Heinrich), Michael Brennan (landlord), Pippa Steel (Susan Pelley), Judy Matheson (Amanda), David Healy (Raymond Pelley), Jonathan Cecil (Biggs), and Erik Chitty (Professor Herz) Directed by Jimmy Sangster (#2107 - The Horror of Frankenstein)

Review: 

You might remember The Vampire Lovers (1970) from Hammer that had the loosest of inspirations from 1872 novella Carmilla from Sheridan Le Fanu that dealt with Austrian castles, affection and obsession by a female vampire. Screenwriter Tudor Gates had co-adapted the film for Roy Ward Baker that had Ingrid Pitt, George Cole, Kate O'Mara and Pete Cushing that actually was a co-production with American International. The following year, in a co-production with EMI Films came this film, which had, well, um, at least Pippa Steel appeared in both movies? Apparently, Gates had written a script for Mario Bava that was about a girls school with a serial killer and he based it for what eventually was cobbled into this movie, which went from having ideas of Terence Fisher to direct (felled by injuries in a car accident) to Jimmy Sangster, complete with having to use a pop song. With a display of more sex and violence than, say, a film from the previous decade, how could one go wrong? Well, Sangster did not have fond memories of the film (in fairness, he wasn't big on his third and final film as a director with Fear in the Night [1972]) and one of the stars in Bates apparently later called it "one of the worst films ever made". Others have argued that the film belongs in the category of "camp". Released in January 1971, the final film of the "trilogy" in Twins of Evil was released nine months later.

Well, "lesbian" vampire is a bit of a stretch, mainly because of the sequence involving our two leads (as played with a damn song over it), but I suppose trying to lure people in with a bisexual vampire would possibly be more fit for the seedy underpages,* Set roughly four decades after the events of the last film in the 1830s, the vampires here are a bit more curious, what with their ability to walk in the daylight and being impervious to, say, fire. This all puddles in comparison to the sleaze factor (namely in a bit of nudity, not in serial lovemaking) that...can only go so far in holding up a pretty measly effort. That's not to say there isn't some fun in its 91-minute runtime, because there are ideas of a premise worth watching, it just so happens to be in a movie that doesn't have lead performances with anything particularly compelling to show. Bates playing the hooligan version of the creep at the fair isn't even worth more than one sentence. You've got a novelist trying to do research on vampires with "in-depth" studying and a boarding school student who totally isn't torn in their feasting life. To say nothing of burning castles, dopey school fears, and throwing people down the well. Johnson was mostly involved in TV roles with the occasional supporting role, and I can't really say that there is anything here beyond the bare minimum of British drywall target for romance. This was the penultimate performance for Stensgaard (who soon moved to the States that saw her work in a radio station, among other things), who has the unfortunate task of trying to be a conflicted vampire (sexual or otherwise) when there is just nothing for here to really grab onto. This isn't just saying "poor man's Ingrid Pitt", this is just a case of a movie that loiters around showing a bit of nudity and violence but has no enthusiasm to it (basically the equivalent of a joyless grab of the crotch) that basically springs down to the leads for little drama to say anything about for the inevitable conclusion. Raven (actually named Churton Fairman) was actually a British radio disc jockey before he actually wanted to try his hand at appearing in movies, with this being the first of four appearances (the others were I, Monster [1971], Crucible of Terror [1971], Disciple of Death [1972]). Naturally, he gets dubbed by regular TV/radio presence in Valentine Dyall, who provides a worthwhile hash voice that also seems amusing to also pair with a momentary shot of, well, Christopher Lee's eyes from one of the Dracula movies. In general, the movie plods along with goofy execution, a middling pace and in general just seems too tired to actually get it up in terms of excitement to make it worth anything other than for the curiosity of, well, being another Hammer movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I can see it now: "the Bisexual Vampire Hotline: are you ready to be sucked off or are you a sucker?"

Final Destination 3.

Review #2595: Final Destination 3.

Cast: 

Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Wendy Christensen), Ryan Merriman (Kevin Fischer), Kris Lemche (Ian McKinley), Alexz Johnson (Erin Ulmer), Sam Easton (Frankie Cheeks), Jesse Moss (Jason Wise), Gina Holden (Carrie Dreyer), Texas Battle (Lewis Romero), Chelan Simmons (Ashley Freund), Crystal Lowe (Ashlyn Halperin), with Amanda Crew (Julie Christensen), and Tony Todd (voice of the Devil / subway train conductor) Directed by James Wong (#1749 - Final Destination)

Review: 

"I'm hoping they flip out. I hope they dig in and have a lot of fun. My fantasy is that when they go on a roller coaster, they stop for a moment and think about this film. Then they go, "Alright. I'm cool." And then they get on. I just want them to remember the movie when they go to the amusement park."

I suppose you could say this is where my expectations for the Final Destination franchise are firmly established in the position of "not hoping for really much of anything" department. As much as one really tries to avoid the judgement of "don't trash a movie for not doing the premise you wanted in your head", I really maintain that Final Destination probably could've really served with going with a nutjob for a lead that simply believes too much in the power of "saving people with visions*" (of course that makes for one idea, not a franchise, but horror franchises once came out of "what if a leprechaun killed people?"). The second movie almost had an idea with a survivor who'd rather be in the loony bin. Instead, here's a bunch of movies that go along the same path of one guy (or girl) trying to convince people to be careful of their lives because of how death is a force that just doesn't like being cheated. Or something, because even if you go through the climax with your head still on straight, you might just get cooked by a twist ending. Glen Morgan and James Wong, who had done rewrites to the original draft by Jeffrey Reddick (you might remember that he later regretted not having a physical antagonist for the franchise) for what became the first film back in 2000, returned to write the third film together, which they envisioned as a standalone movie that didn't need to deal with "returning" characters. Wong (fresh off the interesting reception of The One [2001]) served as director, his third as a director (he subsequently directed one more movie with Dragonball Evolution in 2009). It ended up being the biggest hit of the series at the time, with a follow-up obviously being wanted by New Line Cinema, which came with David R. Ellis directing The Final Destination in 2009.

Well, it's the same mediocre movie three times in a row, but at least this one sounds like it wants to have a bit more time chuckling at the absurdity of trying to help people out who really think you sound like a nut in saying "hey remember that thing we survived a few months ago, yeah, well, now you're targeted for death". At least there's an attempt to draw at something really frightening for having no real control...in a roller-coaster. In fairness, I've been at an amusement park exactly once in the past five years, and the one ride that spooked me the most was one where you slowly but surely swing and hang upside down for a moment in time. So yes, you get the buildup to the eventual disaster on the roller-coaster (as portrayed through a vision just like the plane crash from the first one and the car accident in the second one) before getting to the nitty gritty of how you can make 93 minutes seem pretty routine. Sure, Winstead leads the way with a bit of worried charm in trying to make sense of the frenzy that comes in random deaths such as tanning booths* that happen to look like the photos taken of people before they *didn't* stay on the doomed roller-coaster ride. At least her path starts with the road of grief (namely because this is one where they actually lost someone dear to them) before getting tangled in the mumbo-jumbo, complete with brushing off the initial "hey, maybe Death is doing something" spiel, which gave me a chuckle, as if the series yearned to be self-aware in the only one of the first five movies without the physical presence of Tony Todd (who this time is utilized for voices connected to impending disaster). The only other interesting idea is a grief-stricken character (evolving from goth boyfriend with lame quips, go figure) that actually has a bit of umbrage with our leads because hey, what's life for if the person you love couldn't hack their way out of Death getting back at them with a nailgun? The second one established "new life" being a loophole and "no you can't kill yourself, it's not your turn", for a second I thought we would see attempted murder to try and close the loop. The gore is about on par with the others in heightened absurdity (death by burns, heads going splat and other various ways to go). I suppose the ending wanted to top the other two in further mayhem with its conceit about "is it really over?", but it basically went in one ear and out the other as the final gasp of desperation to a checked-out viewer who has lowered the bar and gotten the bare minimum. For a series filled with missteps, you know what you're getting with the third movie, warts and all.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*No really, think about it. Imagine if you got lucky one time in being the big hero and saving people's lives, I think there's two ways that could really go for horror: you either go mad with basically thinking you cheated God and therefore feel that these people owe you...or maybe you decide that you did cheat Death and therefore feel bound to finish the job (and you can even put up the Rube Goldberg bullshit as "accidents" so nobody knows). 

*Why the fuck would you need to be tanner anyway? Is the sun really not enough for you? The reasoning probably makes about as much sense as willingly drinking hard liquor.

The Man Who Could Cheat Death.

Review #2594: The Man Who Could Cheat Death.

Cast: 

Anton Diffring (Dr Georges Bonnet), Hazel Court (Janine Dubois), Christopher Lee (Dr Pierre Gerrard), Arnold Marlé (Professor Ludwig Weiss), Delphi Lawrence (Margo Phillipe), and Francis de Wolff (Inspector LeGris)

Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula [1958], #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles [1959], #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula, #2096 - The Mummy [1959], #2263 - Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, #2307 - The Curse of the Werewolf, #2430 - The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll)

Review: 

Ah sure, let's tab another Terence Fisher horror movie down the list, even if not every Hammer movie ends up going the way anyone expects. The film is based on the 1939 play The Man in Half Moon Street by Barré Lyndon, which had been previously adapted into a film in America under that title (with Nils Asther as the star); it probably isn't too absurd to make a case of slight parallels between this and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray within the chained restraint of the real person living so long to do so many things. At any rate, Jimmy Sangster was tasked to write the screenplay. Apparently, Peter Cushing was envisioned for the lead role, but he bowed out due to claiming to being exhausted from the filmmaking of The Hound of the Baskervilles (they had a verbal agreement but not a written contract with him). It did not please Paramount Pictures, who served as a partial financier and distributor. Cuts were made to the film involving some nudity and a bit more of a violent ending that only barely has been found and restored to release on home media, although the runtime is roughly the same at 83 minutes. This was part of one hell of a stretch for Fisher between The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958), The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958), The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), this film, and, well, The Mummy (1959).

It sounds like it has an interesting start: you get to see a bit of the "refined gentleman does his spiel before slinking away to reveal the real guy" thing, complete with a reveal of him...turning a bit green if he doesn't get his elixir juice in his body. It's a stagy movie with a few interesting lighting choices (as done by Jack Asher, who did a handful of early Hammer movies), suffice to say. You might be wondering what hocus-pocus-magic thing they've made up for the film title to make sense: Two men found a way to possibly mess with the aging process: parathyroid gland transplants every ten years (the real glands deal with maintaining calcium and phosphate levels through producing/secreting a hormone and I'm sure there are further things to say about it). Of course, it's hard to rely on one guy to get these glands transported when your co-creator decided aging was a fine thing to do and thus is pretty old (and pretty late) to the latest transplant day (the elixir is merely a temporary solution). Part of the problem the movie has in not really going as far as it could with its premise is the bare body count because of all the melodrama that has to come with a doctor who happens to double as a sculptor that is more interested in, say, women rather than snatching glands. It's the kind of casual British sci-fi horror hocus pocus that probably goes well with, say, something from the 1930s than at the close of the 1950s, but I suppose it makes a suitable pairing with Fisher's subsequent The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960). Court makes for a fairly lively presence to attract curiosity in sensual charm. Diffring often attracted adversarial roles (as one does for a German-born actor, and it probably helped that he starred in the failed Hammer pilot Tales of Frankenstein in 1958 when it comes to seeing him here trying to hold his own against Lee and Court. This is somewhat successful in basically inviting you in to see just how much of a bastard one can be to basically believe that it is wise to try and conquer death as if it was a woman (notice with the latter he makes sure to get a good sculpture of their breasts). This is one of those movies that probably would benefit from seeing a remake mainly to see how one would handle the idea of trying to stall death while also getting into plenty of seduction and murder at the same time, honestly. In general, it's a quality Hammer movie that had room for improvement, but even an average Terence Fisher movie from them is still better than no movie at all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Curse of the Undead.

Review #2593: Curse of the Undead.

Cast: 

Eric Fleming (Preacher Dan), Michael Pate (Drake Robey), Kathleen Crowley (Dolores Carter), John Hoyt (Dr Carter), Bruce Gordon (Buffer), Edward Binns (Sheriff), Jimmy Murphy (Tim Carter), Helen Kleeb (Dora), and Jay Adler (Bartender) Directed by Edward Dein.

Review: 

Now you might wonder: a vampire Western? Well, if you could combine cowboys with big monsters for The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956), why not go with something that apparently started out as a gag idea thought up by the Deins? Edward Dein had written a handful of screenplays since the 1940s, which ranged from Baby Face Morgan (1942) to co-writing My Gal Loves Music (1944). There were six scripts that he wrote and directed that were done in collaboration with his wife Mildred, with this being the last of the bunch. Dein directed one more film by himself with The Leech Woman (1960) before mostly doing numerous episodes for television, most notably with Hawaiian Eye (there is a credit listed to him as co-director of "Una vergine per un bastardo"). Released by Universal-International (apparently often on a double-bill with The Mummy [1959]), I can't really find that much info about the movie being a hit or flop, but it was a low budget B-movie, so who knows? 

I suppose when compared to stuff like Billy the Kid versus Dracula or Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter, this might seem like a curious gimmick to actually check out, since who wouldn't want a little bit of variety in their Western? Honestly though, even with a runtime of just 79 minutes, it does begin to wear a bit thin before it actually circles to the inevitable gunfight climax. It probably would make a curious double-header with, say, The Vampire (1957) with how it handles the vampire with its own attempt at a distinct killer not beholden to the usual expectations of seeing said creature on screen (which, well, means no death by sunlight or having problems with garlic but still having trouble with crosses). It deals with a vampire established as one of the former people who lived on the land that apparently killed themselves after killing his brother that apparently led to him becoming cursed (Drago Robles going into Drake Robey, get it?). The vampire here dresses in black and only is noted for the fact that he seems to be impervious to bullets (well, except one) and just sleeps during the day. The same year that Fleming appeared in this film saw him star in the show that defined him with Rawhide (famously being one of the co-stars with Clint Eastwood for the first seven seasons), and it feels like there is meant to be something really compelling about a preacher who turns to a gun. But he mainly comes of as just terse and not particularly exciting in the actual scope of things. It almost livens things to see Pate try to play a vampire gunfighter that basically is cursed to feed in perpetuity (as one does when not really controlling many people). All of that description and all of that blarney I said probably goes further than the actual movie, since it barely shows any type of vampire action in the first place, as if it was "obligation" that made it a western-horror rather than a real mix of the two. It isn't even worth mentioning Crowley or the under-utilized Gordon (who disappears for a time because heaven forbid). You'll never believe it: a guy has his bullet include a crucifix/thorn carving in order to take down the vampire. In general, the movie is curious even in its unwieldy experiment of finding horrors within gunfighters of the Old West. Whether you find it to be a gimmick or something different for the season of dirt and blood, it's relatively easy to find, which I suppose is a lasting victory for something that really did just start out as an oddball premise.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Scream 2.

Review #2592: Scream 2.

Cast: 

Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott), Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers), David Arquette (Dewey Riley), Sarah Michelle Gellar (Cici Cooper), Jamie Kennedy (Randy Meeks), Laurie Metcalf (Debbie Salt), Elise Neal (Hallie McDaniel), Jerry O'Connell (Derek Feldman), Timothy Olyphant (Mickey Altieri), Liev Schreiber (Cotton Weary), Lewis Arquette (Louis Hartley), Philip Pavel (Officer Andrews), Christopher Doyle (Officer Richards), Duane Martin (Joel), Rebecca Gayheart (Lois), Portia de Rossi (Murphy), with Roger L. Jackson (voice of Ghostface), David Warner (Gus Gold), Omar Epps (Phil Stevens), and Jada Pinkett (Maureen Evans)

Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left, #2306 - The Hills Have Eyes, #2455 - Vampire in Brooklyn)

Review: 

To be perfectly honest, I never really got into Scream the way I expected to. Sure, I liked the first film (as released in December 1996) just fine, but I honestly forgot that I saw it way back in 2014 and honestly forgot that, yeah, there were pretty clever moments to serve as the attraction for folks that maybe squirm a bit when confronted with horror stuff in a horror movie*. Sure, it was the brainchild of Kevin Williamson being inspired by both his experiences watching horror films like Halloween (1978) and also the idea that maybe movies just make psychos more creative than actually create them. The opening sequence, well, that's the showstopper, and that's the one that got Miramax to buy into it and eventually corral Wes Craven into doing it. You basically got a who-dun-it with enough pieces for folks to enjoy putting together before the inevitable TV-to-the-head. It took a few weeks, but it became a hit that led to clamors for a sequel. Naturally, Williamson actually had a few ideas in mind for potential sequels pretty early (why entice buyers with one movie when you can sell the potential for a franchise?) and production for a second movie was greenlit three months after its release. After a brief fling with having Robert Rodriguez direct, Craven elected to return instead for a film that started filming in the summer for a winter release. By this point in time, Williamson attracted enough attention to become involved in TV with his development of Dawson's Creek, which meant that he shuttled between sets that saw most of the script pages for Scream 2 written when on set. A leak of a script (with one ending stated by Williamson as a "dummy draft" meant to keep details under wraps) on the Internet did not help matters, but the film was released on time to, well, enough success to inspire further sequels, with Scream 3 (which did not have Williamson back) coming out three years later in 2000.

I don't know, man. I did like this movie just fine, mainly when it actually does engage with the actual premise of gore and also with some of its ideas of just who would go around wearing a Ghostface mask after all that happened the first time around, but it really is a case where it almost outsmarts itself with actually getting to the point by the time its two-hour trek is over. The new characters prove to be more of a cipher than really developed, which is a curious move in what is meant to be a "guess who?" movie, and in general it just feels like a movie that needed more time in the oven. The opening sequence (involving a busy movie theater with death in the seats) probably sets too high of an expectation/delight from what actually happens afterwards, and that is saying something for something that pales a bit from what one saw in to open the first film. Campbell does carry the movie pretty well in the vulnerability of someone who I suppose would do better than most in living the hell of life after seeing people you know be murdered get turned into both a book and a film (or worse yet, get played by Tori Spelling) and then see it happen all over again (minus one quibble*). It goes a bit better when seeing the interactions between Cox and Arquette, who probably share the best scenes, mainly in seeing that tension slowly melt away for fondness that is a bit fun to see (it does get a bit distracting hearing that Broken Arrow cue again and again though) in the show of just how much fun-loving bravery can be enough in one guy when pooled against opportunism (or in a different scene with Cox, getting slapped for their trouble). It lifts the film plenty when compared to the new blood with O'Connell-Olyphant-Gellar-Neal, who, well, are just not the kind of folks to really roll with besides a mild flick of my eyes, particularly when I was more interested in the wormy nature of Schreiber (given a bit more to do from the last film, if you recall). 

You might remember Kennedy's character as the one who explained the rules of surviving a horror film in the previous movie, but I'll be honest with you: I don't care (geek or no geek, I think I'll take the bus). If you're going to dispatch anyone who happened to be around from a previous horror movie, if you're going to do kill someone off to raise the stakes, if you're going to do so in broad daylight, he fits the bill, so it is quite a way to go out. It probably isn't too much of a spoiler to say that one of the new blood ends up being a killer, and I have to say that the motive is actually pretty interesting, as if someone wanted to crib lovingly from Natural Born Killers (1994), but then it gets a bit too cute with its other dangling twist, because heaven forbid one killer isn't enough, no, it runs off the oldest tricks of the book in the guise of "cleverness", as if hanging around so long in plain sight (oh hi familiar face from TV) along with, well I'm sure you can get the rest. In general, there are a few fun moments in actual mayhem (and that one fateful moment of triumph) to make for a fairly decent sequel that gives you a few scares within its scrapes of gore and playful attempts at digging into familiar slasher territory that works more often than not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Tiniest sidenote: When doing these cast listings, sometimes I have to adjust them because for whatever reason, billing is sometimes done *alphabetically* (as noted on the poster and on Wikipedia), which is the stupidest way to do credits. You know and I know who is the star, so why bother?

*You ever hear people whine about horror movies being too gruesome or possibly being a bad influence on the youth? I laugh too.

*The only quibble I have with Sidney comes in the sequence when she gets into a car-wreck. So she escapes a wrecked car, goes a couple of feet and decides, no, I need to go back to try and unmask Ghostface just because. Nay, I won't go to see if that cop on the hood has a gun so I can straight up shoot him, I'm just going to get close and- oh golly gee, the girl I'm with is dead! On an unrelated note, I do wonder if Sidney ever considers getting a gun in the sequels because, screw it, what could go wrong?

Resident Evil (2026).

Review #2591: Resident Evil (2026).

Cast: 

Austin Abrams (Bryan), Zach Cherry (Carl), Kali Reis (Maxine), Paul Walter Hauser (Paul), Will Merrick (Dave), Andrea Miltnerová (a pedestrian), Karel Dobrý (a farmer), Zoé Bellas (Birdie), Chris Lew Kum Hoi (Stanley), Griffin Newman (Wade), and Jo Martin (Andrea Vasquez) Directed by Zach Cregger (#1894 - Barbarian, #2412 - Weapons)

Review: 

“This movie follows a person from point A to point B. It’s like a real time journey, where you just go deeper and deeper into the depths of Hell. And it’s really a love letter to the games. Because I love those games. This is a story that I would’ve wanted to write whether I got the IP or not. I just happen to be able to have these Resident Evil people be down. So I get to play in that sandbox. I’m doing it because I think this movie is going to be fucking awesome.”

To be honest, I really never considered what mattered most in a video game movie. Of course, when I saw the first bunch of movies based on the Resident Evil games (as developed and published by Capcom in 1996 through the brainchild of Tokyo Fujiwara and direction by Shinji Mikami), the only thoughts I had were "is that all that can be done with the name? this?". The close of the original film series with The Final Chapter in 2016 didn't lead to a quick death in filmmaking, because Welcome to Raccoon City (as directed by Johannes Roberts) came out in 2021 with the intent on being a reboot with its own select references and story and an unrelated TV show came out on Netflix in 2022. Neither were particularly great successes, but Constantin Film and Sony went with, well, an enticing choice with Zach Cregger right as Weapons (2025) was coming around. Cregger co-wrote the script with Shay Hatten. Honestly, I forgot that Cregger openly stated that he wanted to make a "story that could take place in the Resident Evil world, but wasn't telling a story that the games had already told", and honestly, it just seemed apt to wait a few weeks just to keep my curiosity on a medium level (a fairly well-regarded movie on release*? Well, there's always the one outlier...*), because if I'm going to laugh with a movie, a half-empty one on a late night might as well be the way to go.

Sometimes I wonder if I really do need to actually play one of the games. You'd think I would I would be a big fan of horror games, but it honestly isn't too big on my radar besides The House of the Dead (Overkill is the one that comes to mind for fun*). Maybe I would enjoy the ride better to understand the quibbles with what's there in one's inventory and the journey of things getting worse and worse the longer one walks forward on the road to hell. And yet, somehow in its 94-minute runtime, I just wish I enjoyed the movie better. In the road of trying to balance levity with the horrors of seeing grotesque globs and a world that seemingly is going further into hell, I eventually had the sinking feeling that the movie I really wanted to see...was the one that surely would be happening *after* that last shot. It's funny, the old movies tried to do an ensemble (when not focused on Alice doing random stuff like telekinesis or fighting dogs, I suppose) and didn't exactly succeed while this film basically is a one-man show that happens to encounter people that seemingly serve to just increase the body-count. Abrams does make a compelling enough presence to serve as our rational irrational guy to try and make sense out of having to make snap decisions (maybe it's a silly quibble, but if you're tasked with a delivery and you hit some random passerby only to see footsteps, wouldn't it just be easier to simply keep driving and roll the dice?*) that is mostly fun. The roller-coaster ride of blood and guts is mostly held firm in the first half with his levity, honestly. I just quibble at the things that come and go (Reis and Hauser get used to do one bit of exposition and then...that's about it, bye!), where the high points (the rooftop scene would be one) ride out the inevitable climax that is stuck in the space of where I've moved on past the point of caring what happens to the lead because, well, damn it, a face-off of goofy scientists and panic-stricken dudes can only go so far before I throw up my hands. I struggle with assessing the film because of my initial curiosities. Cregger and company succeeded in making a movie of real-time action/horror that is mostly effective with its beats and yet I felt like I wanted more from it that isn't merely a case of "it's not long enough". At any rate, you'll get some entertainment from it regardless of if you seek some action with your horror or some chuckles within gooey spectacle, so I suppose it all works out for this particular time and perhaps beyond. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Hereditary comes to mind. Not-quite spoiler alert: Resident Evil (2026) isn't the best video game movie, mainly because I had more fun with, say, the Sonic the Hedgehog movies, and those don't exactly go for straight adaptations either. Incidentally, with its impending release in the month, I do wonder when I'll make time for Street Fighter (2026).

*Unrelated: how the fuck was there not a sequel to Overkill? Such a neat time. 

*He never does seem to dwell on being a direct cause of a cop's life to die because of that decision, does he? Incidentally, I tried to hold back in rolling my eyes at the scene where he dwelled about wondering if he really did want to be a father. At least it's a moment where he isn't going "fuck" or "shit" like he seems to do about once every five minutes.

*This is one of those times where I'd rather regret being too harsh on a movie than give it a half-hearted 8/10.

Tales of Terror.

Review #2590: Tales of Terror.

Cast: 

"Morella" 

Vincent Price (Locke), Maggie Pierce (Lenora Locke), Leona Gage (Morella Locke), and Ed Cobb (Coach Driver)

"The Black Cat"

Vincent Price (Fortunato Luchresi), Peter Lorre (Montresor Herringbone), Joyce Jameson (Annabel Herringbone), Lennie Weinrib (Policeman), Wally Campo (Barman Wilkins), John Hackett (Policeman), and Alan DeWitt (Wine Society Chairman)

"The Case of M. Valdemar"

Vincent Price (Ernest Valdemar), Basil Rathbone (Mr. Carmichael), Debra Paget (Helene Valdemar), David Frankham (Dr. Elliot James), and Scott Brown (Servant)

Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip, #2113 - The Undead, #2211 - The Intruder, #2275 - The Wasp Woman, #2295 - The Pit and the Pendulum, #2434 - The Premature Burial, #2534 - Frankenstein Unbound)

Review: 

Welcome to Trove Tuesday, the first of four featuring anthology movies for the horror season.

For the fourth film in Roger Corman's Poe cycle by American International Pictures, what better way to mess with expectations by making an anthology movie? (sure, purists would probably say the way to really mess with people would be to make "more faithful" adaptations, but, well, apples to oranges). You get three stories loosely adapted that all happen to have Vincent Price play a part in each of them (complete with a voiceover prior to the start of each segment) with varying levels of entertainment for the price of one. Production quickly commenced in November of 1961 before release the following year that actually did re-use footage and setting from House of Usher. Richard Matheson wrote the screenplay and apparently stated his favorite of the three was the last one due to it being played "pretty straight". While the movie had a few mixed responses (Cormanmania isn't for everyone, what else is there to say?), it was enough of a hit to continue the loose filming of Poe tales with Price and Lorre in The Raven (1963); incidentally, Price and Lorre would work together with Rathbone that same year with Jacques Tourneur's The Comedy of Terrors (which happened to be written by, well, Matheson).

I do enjoy the curiosity with looking at the varying quality of anthology movies, particularly ones where one segment seems to have been given the most attention or just to see what you can do with a particular presence in a particular amount of time. It goes like this: either you roll with the cliches present in stuff like this or you roll your eyes and wonder where the time has gone. Maybe I'm just a sucker for AIP stuff with their casual nature to filmmaking and maneuvering the action depending on what genre or fad they really want to draw on. This works in the favor of a movie that is fairly average in execution but at least has the power of Price to lead the way in three distinct doomed types: one warped in delusion, one warped with some light fun, and one basically stationary until needed. The first story is "Morella" (which lasts roughly 22 minutes) that at least has the benefit of not being full-length. It has the cliches present from other AIP movies (decaying houses, loony Price, a totally big twist) while Pierce basically just yields the floor in presence to Price, who makes things casual when a lesser actor would've made one consider getting the remote (or, if one likes watching online, the mouse*). Things happen, you maybe remark, "eh", you await the next one. The second story in "The Black Cat" is the longest of the bunch, lasting roughly 38 minutes, and it actually combines elements of "The Cask of Amontillado" (oh hey, a Poe story I actually did have to read in high school). I think you can see why this one was given the most attention and care, who could resist the charms of seeing Price and Lorre paired up? The scenario is delightful, as they first meet due to a boast after stumbling onto a wine tasting event. The sequence of the two tasting wine (one by the usual sensations in testing and the other in simply drinking the damn thing) is likely the highlight of the film to listen to, honestly. Naturally the partnership cannot last for long, since, well, Lorre is the adversary of the tale with conviction in his coarse nature in reaction to revelations (or imagining things such as a moment where his head is being played around with) and also, well, one little black cat*. By the time he has finished burying people (done in the same way you might be in dealing with cleaning out the sink), it all sounds like it's going to go one way, and it surely does, but the fun is seeing Lorre squirm like an old pro. The final story with "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdmar", lasting roughly 25 minutes, is more of a brief showcase of Rathbone in conman elegance. Nearing his seventies by this point, he just carries the arrogance of hypnosis and would-be plans to take one man's house and maybe eventually figure out what really lies beneath life and death. The only other noted thing in the story is the mud pack to show the decomposition that apparently used a mixture of stuff like glue and makeup paint that was heated and poured for very brief usage due to the heat that probably wasn't a fun thing for Price to go through but it at least looks like it was worth to see on film. As a whole, the movie is filled with one B+/A- (generousness is where your milage is at the time) story and two other stories of that range from either B- to C+ for a pretty decent time depending on your levels of curiosity for what Corman and company sought to do in macabre fun.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day! 

*Sometimes I have no choice but watch a movie on my laptop/desktop while simultaneously doing some writing. 

*You gotta love the Wikipedia page for the film, which includes an image of cats in "audition" for the film. No, really.

Previous Corman-Poe movies, for those who like easy links to click:

House of Usher - Vincent Price & Mark Damon in a desolate mansion, a family curse and plenty to burn

The Pit and the Pendulum - Price and company in a desolate castle with madness and a cool torture device

The Premature Burial - Ray Milland leads the way in a man gripped by the fear of maybe being buried alive!

Saw V.

Review #2589: Saw V.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw / John Kramer), Costas Mandylor (Mark Hoffman), Scott Patterson (Agent Strahm), Betsy Russell (Jill), Julie Benz (Brit), Meagan Good (Luba), Mark Rolston (Dan Erickson), Carlo Rota (Charles), Greg Bryk (Mallick), and Laura Gordon (Ashley) Directed by David Hackl.

Review: 

"I wanted to make sure it was a good solid story. I didn't want this to feel like all the flashy parts were there from a regular Saw movie, but rather to have everything tied together nicely in the story. I wanted that to be the underlying tone. In order for someone to be frightened by those traps there has to be some emotional investment in the characters, and without that emotional investment the traps are just like any gory horror film. I really wanted to make sure that that didn't happen. I wanted you to know who the people are in the traps, why they're in the traps. I wanted you to feel something for the people in the traps."

Sure, every year required a Saw movie, so why should it be any different the longer that John Kramer is dead? (outlines were being prepped the month that IV came out to theaters). Making his feature film debut was David Hack; the Toronto native actually was a second unit director/production designer on the previous three films. Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the co-writers of Saw IV (2007) are here for the rest of the original run of these films, which you may remember was the one that took place basically in parallel with the third film (i.e. the one that foolishly decided to kill Amanda off). If you go by what Hackl said at the time of IV's release, there was a whole week to writing an outline, a script by the end of a month before having their little adjustments and things changed right as filming is to end (of course they had full storyboards on set, so I guess they had this stuff ready). Made on a budget of over $10 million, well, you know the movie was a big hit with October audiences.

I just look back at the first two movies and sigh at the following follow-ups that came in the wake of believing that Kramer was a vigilante (yeah, I totally never killed anyone guys, I just merely put them in traps that require somebody to cut people internally or cut themselves to get free) and also had plenty of flashbacks to tell certain people about that makes him still important to look on. At least this time around, they try to give some sort of motive and time to Hoffman (while in turn diminishing Amanda, since only one dead person can stick around in flashbacks) going around as the guy with his own game looming over his head. It just so happens to come around in a movie that has a litany of folks being wrapped up in a game that are given the bare minimum to really do (while killing off the possible most interesting person early) before setting up the inevitable sixth movie with the twist that is at least not nearly as much of a cheat this time around. I should note that having Bell around in "flashback mania" isn't exactly a criticism, since he is his usual convincing self that really does go around with the belief that his crusade is a meaningful one with unnerving conviction. Sure, it might have been more fun when it felt like a path of "hey man, I'm doing this because you don't like life" rather than "so in my flashback of how I became Jigsaw, the vigilante who totally never killed people in a long-winded plan that brings multiple accomplices in the fold...", but at least he isn't phoning it in. 

Mandylor just feels like a cipher with the bare minimum that basically handcuffs him to not being nearly as compelling of a threat as you would hope; you'd think a cop that goes around making their own Jigsaw-type devices (i.e. the one in the intro, which begs the question where he got the voice from, as it is revealed to have been done when Kramer was alive but, well, not doing stuff like that) would be more unnerving, but, well, maybe VI will actually let him breathe. It comes and goes with Patterson in the lone wolf type that makes me miss the days of Danny Glover in the first film. Of the group of new folks in the game that takes up what you might call the B-part of the film (or whatever you call this 92-minute movie), it only sounded interesting that a reporter (Rota) was among the mix of the usual people with "well, I did this one thing that led to a few people's lives being ruined" qualities. Naturally, this can't do, because he goes down the tubes quickly for the would-be final folks with Benz and Byrk and the supposed lesson learned from playing the game (I suppose it's meant to be funny that a series of tests meant to have people work together ended up going in a way where a survivor ends up murdering people anyway). The gore is on the usual level of "oh that does look painful", even if it still has the quirks of editing/color that make you occasionally roll your eyes. As a whole, Saw V doesn't elevate the series, but being a mediocre sequel is better than being an insulting one, so I suppose there are worse things in life than continuing further with whatever happens next.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Since I'm too lazy, here's a link to each of the films reviewed in the series

Saw - the one where Cary Elwes and Danny Glover are in it for a bit before the killer arises from the ground

Saw II - the one with Donnie Wahlberg, more of Tobin Bell and that particular twist for the end

Saw III - the test of Amanda and other things

Saw IV - the mystery of the final game of the killer, at least in theory

Saw X - the one set between 1 and 2 with Jigsaw and Amanda

The Legacy (1978).

Review #2588: The Legacy.

Cast: 

Katharine Ross (Maggie Walsh), Sam Elliott (Pete Danner), Roger Daltrey (Clive Jackson), John Standing (Jason Mountolive), Ian Hogg (Harry), Margaret Tyzack (Nurse Adams), Charles Gray (Karl Liebnecht), Lee Montague (Jacques Grandier), Hildegard Neil (Barbara Kirstenburg), and Marianne Broome (Maria Gabrieli) Directed by Richard Marquand (#115 - Return of the Jedi)

Review: 

Sure, why not a co-production between the States and the United Kingdom for an original (i.e. one that actually isn't based on a book) horror movie? Apparently, Hammer mainstay Jimmy Sangster wrote the original script before further work was done by Patrick Tilley and Paul Wheeler. At the helm to direct for the first time was Richard Marquand. Born in Wales as the son of a politician, he started out as a TV/documentary director in the early 1960s. Marquand ultimately directed a total of seven films (most notably Return of the Jedi*) before his sudden death at the age of 49 in 1987. For whatever reason, the movie was released first in the UK in September 1978 and then an American release...in September 1979 (got to love a poster that actually advertises the "best-selling" book of the movie right then and there). With a budget of over $2.5 million, the movie did make some money with audiences, even if cast members weren't too fond of it; Anne Coates later stated that despite being convinced to do the film by Marquand, she felt he "clearly didn't know what he was doing at all", while Sam Elliott once called the film "fifteen years behind its time". Regardless of all the quibbles, it found a steady life on TV and home video.

With a plot that might as well have been cribbed from Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Omen (1976) and any movie involving old dark houses (with a bit of Ten Little Indians present just for the hell of it), you may get at least some entertainment from just ridiculously it all comes together in such an ersatz experience. You might be wondering, what could possibly be the "legacy" in the plot? Well, it involves six people all being invited to a rambling country estate in where else but jolly old England where odd butlers and spooky cats lurk within a few casual revelations involving, well, birthright and the craft. Somehow, within the powers of "witchcraft", escape or getting a ring off one's finger is basically impossible and somehow, a whole bunch of people start dying because, yes, six living heirs actually translates to "the Devil does in fact have takesies-backsies". It falls to Ross to try and sell the shock of not only being stuck in a strange new place (what, it's the English*) and I wish I could say she sells it, but no, it just feels like she is more on a bland trip of "oh I guess I'm going a bit nutty, that'll flush out", but I guess you could say the chemistry between her and Elliott* is curious. It just feels like a series of mild inconveniences, and sometimes I wish it was more about Elliott and his wiseass attitude towards the ridiculousness of this whole thing (imagine being told that your woman looks like someone in a painting while people are randomly dying and *then* you get stuck in a warp where you can't drive away). You wish there was more from Daltrey (as best known from his work with the Who*) or with Gray before they inevitably kick the bucket, which probably sticks out more; one dies through choking on a chicken bone and the other catches fire in a manner that makes sure the house is left totally unscathed. There just isn't a big enough ham or real villainous threat (Standing is barely present in a bed) to actually generate anything besides chuckles with seeing unsavory people getting offed. There are some pretty shots and fine gore, but it really does feel like a movie warped out of time without the energy to match. Even the ending feels too casual to actually work - imagine seeing what you've seen, climax and all and it just ends on more ring-giving. As a whole, it's a goofy little movie that doesn't exactly conjure up anything besides a few gore scenes and some offbeat conclusions to jump through by the time it concludes its tale of death and despair. It's the kind of movie you stumble onto and wonder, where the hell did the time go in all of the chuckles for such a mediocre time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*A damn good movie, as I'm always prone to reminding people.

*Look man, willingly getting on a plane doesn't sound like my cup of-oh hell, throw the tea out.

*Incidentally, Elliott and Ross eventually married each other, so at least someone got a happy ending.

*The Who are neat, that's the note.

The Ghost Ship.

Review #2587: The Ghost Ship.

Cast: 

Richard Dix (Captain Will Stone), Russell Wade (Third Officer Tom Merriam), Edith Barrett (Ellen Roberts), Ben Bard (First Officer Bounds), Skelton Knaggs (Finn, the mute / The Narrator), Edmund Glover (Jacob "Sparks" Winslow), Lawrence Tierney (Louie Parker), Paul Marion (Pete a.k.a. "the Greek"), and Sir Lancelot (Billy Radd) Directed by Mark Robson (#1797 - Home of the Brave, #1931 - Valley of the Dolls, #2431 - The Seventh Victim)

Review:  

Now you might be saying, what, a ship-bound movie to look on for horror? Well, this is another one of Val Lewton's productions for RKO and it often is lumped in with his previous stuff such as Cat People (to the point where it was released alongside the others for the "Val Lewton Horror Collection" set in 2005), so why not? RKO wanted a use from the ship set they still had from Pacific Liner [1939], so obviously giving Lewton a task to make a ship-bound movie with a "Ghost" in the title sounded up his alley. It may interest you to know that for many years, this film was not available to actually see. Sure, the screenplay was credited to Donald Henderson Clarke and the story was credited to Leo Mittler, but Lewton had his key influence in shaping the film (so, uncredited work) ...and then the aftermath of the release of the film saw a lawsuit filed by Samuel R. Golding and Norbert Faulkner. Go figure, RKO somehow lost a suit for plagiarism (specifically citing the 1942 play "A Man and His Shadow") that saw the film taken out from circulation (not to be mean to Golding or Faulkner*, but nobody speaks for them and the alleged "plagiarism" case, so either the viewer is the true winner or Lewton that got the last laugh in the long run). Robson wound up directing three more movies for Lewton with Youth Runs Wild (1944), Isle of the Dead (1944), and Bedlam (1946). At any rate, since the movie fell into the public domain, it is now readily available to view anywhere you want on the Internet.

Sure, it's hard to try and go into the movie without some sort of expectation or guess when it comes to "Ghost Ship", but you really will have quite the time just going into it cold, with its 69-minute runtime not being a deterrent to how fascinating it ends up being. The horrors of being gripped at the helm of authority and wavering in actually recognizing the difference between power and authority is one thing, try being part of a ship filled with deterrence to what "seems best with the man in charge". There could be storms on the horizon, there could be danger from an unknown enemy, but damn the torpedoes, one rolls with the captain when they have made their final decision...or so one may believe. We all know at least one situation where people would probably go down with the ship (in a figurative sense) rather than ask any questions about just who is really trying to guide past the storm. We all know that one person who micromanages things with perhaps a bit too much enthusiasm, as if everything has to be drawn up and down just because they can. You can in fact be petty when it comes to holding the crew to a "standard" and you can in fact try to bury things if it comes to a head. The responsibility of holding the command and all the responsibilities and calamities that come in both body and mind goes to Dix (in one of his last roles prior to dying in 1949), who makes for a compelling presence specifically because of his seasoned nature. It may not be a big A-movie, but his imbalanced feel for the crew and what his role is in the grand scheme of his position is compelling without striking as too cartoonish, especially when shown in the non-sea trappings with Barrett in one instance. Wade had done several years of playing an extra before getting an RKO contract to be a featured guy for stuff such as this, although he would stop acting after 1948. He makes for a suitable lead to jump in to said quibbles with solid likable qualities to sell the perspective of a newcomer into a bubbling boil. The racket with Knaggs, who has a few monologues as basically a "Greek chorus" that only works best in the last sequence, honestly, and the crew (which includes a young Tierney and calypso singer Sir Lancelot) only get to show flashes of individuality (as if they've just become cogs to change in and out). By the time of its climax, as held in murky lighting to heighten the tension, all the stops have been put out in pulpy and lean enjoyment that makes it a solid Lewton (and company) accomplishment.  Melodrama, suspense thriller, horror, hey, it all can be relative in what you can infer from your own perspectives, at least when you consider the dangers that come from what is seen and unseen in the careful lighting (hooks, fights, lockless doors, what have you). In that sense, it makes for a pretty good recommendation for any type of month or occasion.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Oh who am I kidding, those jerks did lose in the court of "time". Really, plagiarism?

The Invisible Ray.

Review #2586: The Invisible Ray.

Cast: 

Boris Karloff (Dr. Janos Rukh), Béla Lugosi (Dr. Felix Benet), Frances Drake (Diana Rukh), Frank Lawton (Ronald Drake), Violet Kemble Cooper (Mother Rukh), Walter Kingsford (Sir Francis Stevens), Beulah Bondi (Lady Arabella Stevens), Frank Reicher (Professor Meiklejohn), Paul Weigel (Monsieur Noyer), and Georges Renavent (Chief of the Sûreté) Directed by Lambert Hillyer (#297 - Dracula's Daughter)

Review: 

Now you might say, hey, this is one of those multi-genre movies, is it really that important to feature it for the sake of horror? With all of the "thrillers" that basically double as horror, I find nothing wrong with giving a bit of credit to one that dabbles in science fiction and horror, and, well, why not enjoy another team-up of Karloff and Lugosi? There were six team-up movies of importance between the two (okay actually it was eight, but who cares about a cameo in Gift of Gab [1934] or a comedy with You'll Find Out [1940]?), and here we are watching the one that came out after The Black Cat [1934] and The Raven [1935] (after plans to make something called "Bluebeard" stalled). Stuart Walker was the original intended director but had quibbles with the script that saw him drop out for Lambert Hillyer. Hillyer was a considerable veteran director who did westerns, crime movies and, most notably, the 1943 Batman serial (the very first time the character was on screen), going all the way to the advent of television before he died in 1969 at the age of 75. He made this movie for over $200,000 that apparently went over-schedule and budget. Universal paired Lugosi and Karloff twice more with Son of Frankenstein [1939] and Black Friday [1940]. John Colton is credited with the screenplay with Howard Higgin and Douglas Hodges was credited with the story. Stock footage from Frankenstein [1931] (specifically electrical machinery) apparently was utilized here to go along with select sets from the Flash Gordon serial that was filming at the same time (in turn, footage was later utilized in the 1939 Universal serial The Phantom Creeps). There were apparent plans to make another venture with the two with similar beats that apparently was abandoned for a few years before being re-purposed for what became Man-Made Monster [1941]. The movie starts with a foreword about scientific fact and how stuff of the current day once "burned as a fantastic fire in the mind of someone called mad" and how stuff presented here is basically a "theory whispered in the cloisters of science" that maybe someday could startle as a fact. Or something.

Okay, so there's a few scientists who hear about a meteor crash in Africa with a big mass (as told to us by exposition involving a telescope and looking back at a galaxy and such) that is in fact a real thing to go on expedition for (Karloff and five others, because obviously two wives had to come). Obviously, it means plenty of time spent in Africa (don't ask about the dated aspects when it comes to seeing the natives) before you get the realization of just how "Radium X" really is beyond, well, making stuff glow, and it is Karloff who gets to play the over-the-top adversary rather than Lugosi, go figure. The 79-minute adventure even has some time spent looking at a planetarium that actually is pretty neat to look at, possibly even more so than the actual effect (as coordinated by John P. Fulton) of making a luminous man (as done by just adding a glow). As a movie, it is pretty average, mainly because it can only go so far in actually showing mayhem involving glowing men and revenge (as represented by statues because god help us in showing more than one death by glowing - but did I forget to mention the exploding boulder?). But it's pretty neat to enjoy the company of Karloff anyway, particularly with the momentary time spent with his on-screen mother because, sure, why not? Karloff holds it together in the doomed story of a man who really can't get out of his own way with his neuroses and habits for the usual dignified type of performance. Lugosi basically had two types of performances: doctor or hammy villain, but at least here he makes for a capable man of reason who only wants to see science furthered (well, I mean besides curing blindness, which both characters do at one point) rather than quibble about paranoia. The rest of the people are fairly forgettable (who among us cares about a love story or people that either serve as side characters/dead meat?), suffice to say, with the newspaper exposition moments (who says people didn't get spoon-fed info even in the old days?) probably being the most interesting thing about them. That, or the death scene at the end where one dies before they even hit the ground (after being told off, naturally). So, you get a few neat moments of glow and paranoia to make up for a pretty standard affair, but since I enjoy the company of Karloff and Lugosi lurking around the corners of what folks loosely called horror, this is fine by me. If you liked the previous pairings of the two or just like to see either one with a fairly decent role to chew on, you'll be fine here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!