Daughter of Dr. Jekyll.

Review #2602: Daughter of Dr. Jekyll.

Cast:

Gloria Talbott (Janet Smith), John Agar (George Hastings), Arthur Shields (Dr. Lomas), John Dierkes (Jacob), Molly McCard (Maggie), Martha Wentworth (Mrs. Merchant), Marjorie Stapp (Woman Getting Dressed), Rita Green (Lucy), and Marel Page (Young Man in Woods)

Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer (#797 - People on Sunday, #803 - Detour, #943 - The Man from Planet X, #1364 - Bluebeard, #2058 - Strange Illusion, #2111 - The Black Cat)

Review: 

Oh, you're going to love their type of twist on the spawn of Dr. Jekyll, just sit tight. The 1950s was an odd time for Edgar G. Ulmer in the road to trying to stick around in making cheapie movies with plenty of variety that ranged from The Man from Planet X (1951). comedies such as St. Benny the Dip (1951) to Italian productions such as Hannibal (1959), with Ulmer's 1960s output seeing a double-header filmed in Dallas with The Amazing Transparent Man and Beyond the Time Barrier (1960). You might remember that Jack Pollexfen, who had worked with Ulmer with the aforementioned Planet X, previously worked with Mortimer Braus on cobbling up a story idea for what eventually became The Son of Dr. Jekyll (1951). So obviously a few years later he decided to make another loose "continuation" from Robert Louis Stevenson's original novella. Pollexfen both wrote and produced this film (as one does). The movie was shot in an old mansion in Los Angeles; true to cheapie form, an establishing shot of the house and car coming up was done in miniature (as for the girl-monster scene, it apparently was shot in some burned over woods with ultraviolet film). It was released by Allied Artists in 1957 as part of a double-bill with The Cyclops. For Talbott's part, she apparently was quoted as being "amazingly surprised" by the final result, while Agar stated his role was strictly for the money that he just didn't believe it.

For whatever reason, the movie's prologue and epilogue basically go the same way, where it tells us about the death of Dr. Henry Jekyll and then asking, "Are you sure?" It's pretty corny, sure, but there are for more odd forces at foot. There are attempts at atmosphere with a bit of fog and a bit of attempted trickery within its 71-minute runtime about what lies beneath basement of lab stuff...and, well, a werewolf. Yes, really. In the same year where you could see hypnosis connected to someone possibly turning into a werewolf with I Was a Teenage Werewolf, you could try a different type of hokum here, complete with having to see if our hero will meet the same fate for werewolves (one where father Jekyll drank a potion to be who he was) in...getting staked through the chest. It basically is a goof-fest that you maybe check out when you have absolutely nothing better to do that may provide a few chuckles in its execution within such a limited space of time and money for a director that probably deserved better. Talbott is tasked with such a strange role of tension for who she is meant to be as a twentysomething that barely has their own name and a dubious sense of agency (trying to marry that cardboard cutout is one thing, being wrapped in fears about nightmares is another). Shields plays the cloying authority figure to basically the bare minimum for when the movie does its little twist that wouldn't do anybody that many favors when having to be depicted as a goofy wolf in yet another Pollexfen production with an evil guardian wanting to get the estate (for which it barely looks like it would be much to inherit at all). Hell, if you go by what the twist says, who's to say that Dr. Jekyll was even a nut at all, since I don't seem to remember "Mr. Hyde" being mentioned once. As a whole, it's a cheap curiosity that is basically held by Ulmer and company for the bare minimum of horror entertainment with the odds and ends of trying to be creative in such a limited format. It's a middle of the road movie that is marginally more interesting as a "continuation" movie than The Son of Dr. Jekyll but not nearly as worthwhile beyond calling it mediocre and moving on to the next oldie to wonder about.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

The Son of Dr. Jekyll.

Review #2601: The Son of Dr. Jekyll.

Cast: 

Louis Hayward (Edward Jekyll / Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Edward Hyde), Jody Lawrance (Lynn Utterson), Alexander Knox (Dr. Curtis Lanyon), Lester Matthews (Sir John Utterson), Gavin Muir (Richard Daniels), Paul Cavanagh (Inspector Stoddard), and Rhys Williams (Michaels) Directed by Seymour Friedman.

Review:  

I suppose it makes sense to have at least one movie start off as an outlandish joke. Jack Pollexfen and Mortimer Braus came up with the idea initially when talking about outlandish film titles that had them wondering if they could knock out a quick story involving, well, the son of Jekyll. They got Columbia Pictures to buy into it, although they would not be involved with the production. You might recognize Pollexfen for his work on such films as The Man from Planet X, which he co-wrote and co-produced; he had decided to become a writer in the 1940s after initially working as a reporter that eventually saw him transition to low-budget filmmaking. The third writer involved with the film was Edward Huebsch, who ended up at the tail end of his writing career because of his ties to the League of American Writers that had him included on the Hollywood blacklist (he attempted a comeback with co-writing the adaptation of Twilight's Last Gleaming in 1977). Incidentally, Pollexfen ended up doing a few other "continuation" scripts, as he also did Return to Treasure Island (1954) to go along with writing and producing Daughter of Dr. Jekyll [1957]. He continued to do films such as Indestructible Man [1956] until his last production in 1964. For a cheapie production, Columbia got Seymour Friedman, a journeyman director who made a handful of movies in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Well, when you make a movie that takes place in the "aftermath" of a story, you might as well go all-in in the absurdity: a title card talks about the "climax [of] his brutality" in Mr. Hyde killing his wife and running down the street from a mob only to be trapped up top in the mansion that sees him fall to his death. Of course, there is a poor new orphan in 1860 that needs to be kept secret in his origins with regards to a trusteeship until it comes to a pass in 1890 with a man who wants to set the record straight on his father and oh damn it, this is just cribbing a bit from Son of Frankenstein from ol' 1939, isn't it? A good chunk of it is Hayward trying to navigate the game of public perception of being the son of someone associated as a monster. The bounds of prejudice (which range from a rat reporter trying to grab a story or kids throwing rocks) naturally covers a select group of ground before the mystery eventually unravels that basically loops the story back to where we started in a town ready to get the torches ready back in the old mansion. All of this comes for a movie where you can only drag out a mystery for so long (78 minutes) before you go, "well, there's only so many people worth checking...", and it all builds up to a very mediocre movie. Hayward had a steady enough career (thrillers, adventures, dramas) to where I'm sure calling him a discount Basil Rathbone would not be the worst thing in the world for a movie that he just never lifts up beyond wannabee redemption stuff that goes in one ear and out the other; it isn't even worth seeing him paired with Lawrance as the would-be married couple, and to say nothing of Knox and whatever you call his "motivations". In a different movie, perhaps in a different time, it could've been one of those experiments worth trying out to see how horrific the world can be when wrapped up in prejudice and people willing to profit off of it...but it all feels flat, as if nobody could be bothered to make a compelling toady to want to them humbled or added to the body count. Bland jerks just aren't enough to deliver any kind of atmosphere for a movie, pure and simple. As a whole, this readily available movie isn't exactly on the high-end of the totem pole of Jekyll & Hyde movies, but its curious little moments ensure that things could always be better and most surely could be worse too.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Mr. Sardonicus.

Review #2600: Mr. Sardonicus.

Cast: 

Oskar Homolka (Krull), Ronald Lewis (Sir Robert Cargrave), Audrey Dalton (Maude Sardonicus), Guy Rolfe (Baron Sardonicus / Marek Toleslawski), Vladimir Sokoloff (Henryk Toleslawski), Erika Peters (Elenka), and Lorna Hanson (Anna)

Produced and Directed by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, #1418 - The Night Walker, #1703 - Undertow, #2261 - Macabre, #2300 - Homicidal, #2301 - Strait-Jacket. #2436 - The Tingler)

Review: 

The Castle-mania of gimmicks and loose ideas of what to do in horror had to go with a "punishment poll" to really drive up some curiosity, really. William Castle bought the rights to the short story "Sardonicus" by Ray Russell and got him to write the screenplay (as for the title of the story/film, it refers to Risus sardonicus or rictus grin that involves a spasm of the facial muscles that looks like a grin, with a good chunk of observations believing it as a sign of tetanus). The gimmick this time revolved around a "punishment poll" involving glow-in-the-dark cards that you could either hold up or down to try and determine a possible ending, with Castle "hosting" as if he is seeing the poll taking place himself. Released by Columbia Pictures in October 1961 that soon saw it paired in a double feature with Valley of the Dragons, Castle followed a different path for his next film with Zotz! (1962), a fantasy comedy (the gimmick for that movie? a plastic replica of an amulet that had a hole for a key chain) before getting back to horror with a remake of The Old Dark House (1963).

Okay, there wasn't actually two endings to choose from, although for many years it was believed to be the case, with Castle even claiming as such in his autobiography. But it does make for a delightful note to get started in talking about an average but delightful time spent in the attempts at imagination with Castle and company. It dwells heavily on dialogue and its one estate set while having its one trump card being the occasional effects shot of the title character; with five separate facial appliance fittings, Rolfe couldn't wear that thing for very long and thus is shown mostly with a mask over his face. Homolka got top billing as the one-eyed leering butler, for whatever reason, although he was talented enough at one point in time (as you could say for an Academy Award-nominated actor) to make it worthwhile, which is done here with a bit of unsettling curiosity. There isn't much for Rolfe to really chew on beyond cheap villainy, but he does make a go at it with a type of relish that at least makes the setup for the climax seem plausible enough to invest time with. Lewis and Dalton would make a curious part of a triangle with Rolfe in a duel for attention, but it doesn't really go too far; at least Lewis has some charm to keep the ship afloat in likability. The mask is actually a bit creepy at times, which might make up for the fact that he basically is the ridiculous type of evil in "for...reasons" type, which involves ordering leeches on someone's face or wanting to pick out a woman from a lineup to do...things in the chambers (the townspeople sure treat his name like he was a vampire) or the eventual pressing of our hero to get to work. So, there's the backstory with the man and the grin. Apparently, it all stems from trying to rob the grave of his father to obtain...a lottery ticket, because his wife sure would think of it as a way to prove his love (as if being married wasn't enough). By the time it lumbers to the conclusion, it has made for an adequate film that used its trappings (soundstages doubling for 19th century Europe) and some showmanship to at least make a watchable experience. It's not exactly as rambunctious as The Tingler or even House on Haunted Hill, but it will work just fine for those who love Castle's little tricks and energy in the horror sense.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*The review at the time for The New York Times said that Castle was "not Edgar Allan Poe" with its execution, as if that somehow was an own.

Tourist Trap.

Review #2599: Tourist Trap.

Cast: 

Chuck Connors (Mr. Slausen), Shailar Coby (Davey Slausen), Jocelyn Jones (Molly), Jon Van Ness (Jerry), Robin Sherwood (Eileen), Tanya Roberts (Becky), Dawn Jeffory-Nelson (Tina), Keith McDermott (Woody), and Linnea Quigley (a Mannequin) Directed by David Schmoeller.

Review: 

Because many horror films tend to be low budget, this is one genre where many first time directors can get a start. And unfortunately, many horror films are pretty shlocky. So the general impression is that horror films are mostly shlocky. But there is a real stigma about the horror film, you're right. I suppose because of the violence and the lawlessness of it. It tends to scare, even bother people. And you're absolutely right, as a result much good work in the horror genre is overlooked or dismissed...by film critics in particular and the audience in general. Their loss, huh?

I guess there really are more horror movies involving old film/TV stars getting to play it up for everyone. Louisville native David Schmoeller studied at the Universidad De Las Americas in Mexico City (for undergraduate work) and at the University of Texas at Austin. Apparently, he encountered film directors Luis Buñuel and Alejandro Jodorowsky when he was 20 years old and this influenced him to go to film school. It was during his time in Austin where he made his thesis film with "The Spider Will Kill You", which had taken inspiration from his observations of mannequins he saw at J.C. Penney's (namely the smoothed-over features by the time one saw adult mannequins) for what was apparently a short involving a blind man and a mannequin. He enlisted J. Larry Carroll, who he knew from his time at UT and wanted to use The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as their model (it should be noted that Carroll was the co-editor of Massacre) in making a feature film of it. They pitched it around to people such as Samuel Z. Arkoff, Bruce Cohn Curtis, and Charles Band, with the latter going along with it (incidentally, it was Band who proposed the telekinesis). Distribution ended up being done by Irwin Yablans and Compass International Pictures. Incidentally, despite being filmed just before Halloween [1978], Tourist Trap wasn't released until the spring of 197 (apparently, Yablans told Schmoeller of his belief that Tourist Trap was going to be a big hit, although Pino Donaggio's music score somehow soured that belief). David Ayres did the masks while a majority of the effects were done by Robert A. Burns (also someone who worked on Texas Chainsaw Massacre), specifically the mannequins and the manipulations that occur with the use of say, rotating the set (for the opening), wires, or in one instance, taping a block of wood behind someone's hair and attaching a knife with a wire to hurl at said block. Shot over 24 days, the PG-rated film (yes, really) ended up being a modest success. 

Schmoeller ended up directing a handful of films over the next few years from The Seduction (1982) to the direct-to-video Puppet Master (1989); for many years, he was a film professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, while Carroll ended up being a regular writer on TV. Tourist Trap has plenty of familiar aspects to it (as a loving cribbing from Massacre or, well, House of Was [1953] and Psycho [1960]), but there's enough of a strange atmosphere involving a fully game Connors and a film that doesn't really aim explanation and select moments within the figures for creepy chuckles. Connors (the athlete-turned star of The Rifleman) was not the first choice for the main role, but Jack Palance and Gig Young saying no opened the door for him; he apparently wanted to try and get roles like this to be a horror veteran on the level of, say, Vincent Price. Sure, it didn't exactly work that way for him in the remainder of his career, but he proved fairly effective with what is needed here in that distinct sense of curiosity for what lurks around for an odd old soul that perhaps likes his figures a bit too much. It slashes away with laughs at the growing terror, you might say. The rest of the folks are basically wrapped up in standard stuff of being trapped in a place for a bit too long with one inevitable final girl. Nobody sticks out besides what goes with the body count (and the terror shown in dealing with encountering how the proverbial sausage is made with plaster) without going into full skin-stuff; Jones is an adequate presence to slowly go further in the unraveling of more than just tourist spots and fun. The sequence near the end with the revelation that someone being less of what they thought they were is actually neatly unsettling (it's more interesting to see it than to spoil it). As a whole, this is a movie built on familiar horrific aspects that goes the way it goes for enjoyment in the eyes and ears of the beholder, which in this case is a spooky enough film worth checking out once.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Coincidentally, this was the first movie among the handful to be shown on the July 2018 Marathon of The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs. As started at 10:58, he calls it a severely underrated movie - The Last Drive-In With Joe Bob Briggs - Tourist Trap Intro

Hellbound: Hellraiser II.

Review #2598: Hellbound: Hellraiser II.

Cast: 

Clare Higgins (Julia Cotton; Deborah Joel as Skinless Julia), Ashley Laurence (Kirsty Cotton), Kenneth Cranham (Dr Philip Channard), Imogen Boorman (Tiffany), Sean Chapman (Frank Cotton), William Hope (Dr Kyle MacRae), Doug Bradley (Pinhead / Captain Elliot Spencer), Barbie Wilde (Female Cenobite), Simon Bamford (Butterball), Nicholas Vince (Chatterer; Kevin Cole as Chatterer's human form), Oliver Smith (Mr Browning / Skinless Frank), and Angus McInnes (Detective Ronson) Directed by Tony Randel.

Review: 

You might remember that Hellraiser quickly had ideas of becoming a franchise, complete with retaining most of the crew and cast from the 1987 film for its sequel. Barker could not direct/write due to having prior commitments that would see him tabbed to serve as executive producer. For the task of the screenplay, he tabbed his old friend Peter Atkins, who had worked with Barker and Bradley as co-creators of the avant-garde troupe The Dog Company. The two worked on an outline together that was guided by ideas Barker had in mind of where to explore further in the Hellraiser universe, specifically with the history of the Cenobites. From that outline, Atkins got started on a first draft screenplay that later saw notes and further tabbing when Tony Randel was brought on to direct. The director chosen by Barker and company was a familiar choice for him, as Randel had been tabbed by New World Pictures to oversee the latter stages of the first film and had hit it off with Barker. This was the directorial debut for Randel, who had started out in the New World mailroom before rising up to special effects and also work on stuff such as Def-Con 4 and the American rendition of The Return of Godzilla (1984). Randel mostly edits and directs on a small-scale basis, with this being his most noted film. There were a few snags that had to be overcome prior to filming, namely having no Andrew Robinson and an ending that had to be changed due to the non-commitment laid out by Higgins, and the film had to go through edits to avoid an X rating, but the movie was a hit enough to lead a drive for another movie. Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth came out in 1992. with Atkins and Randel co-writing the story (Atkins also wrote for the fourth film) while Anthony Hickox directed. Barker wasn't involved with the film until post-production (incidentally, Randel apparently was felt to be too bleak in his vision by producers to direct) while Bradley reprised his role and Laurence made a cameo. Incidentally, the video game Clive Barker's Hellraiser: Revival (released just this month) took inspiration from the first two Hellraiser films in their atmosphere.

Sure, let's throw out the entire book for puzzle-solving, skinless mayhem, and M. C. Esher wannabee imagery. It isn't a great movie by any means, and it does have a test of coherency when it eventually fiddles onto the conclusion, but it makes for an adequate sequel to something that I saw once and thought was a "horror film of the senses"*. It's entirely possible to understand someone's revulsion to people being torn apart in an effects sequence, even if, well, it's an effects sequence (more people have revulsion to, say, animals being CG'd to death*). For me, I roll with it, and you basically have to go with that in mind here because it is a 99-minute mishmash that amps the gore within the mazes and basically throwing out any story idea they can, which starts at the looney bin (at least A Nightmare on Elm Street only got there in three tries*) and sticks around a bloody mattress and more people who stumble onto puzzles before somehow getting down to looking inward with the Cenobites.  Barker apparently envisioned Higgins and here character being the main character to keep coming back for the franchise (yes, even more than Bradley's character), but she did not see it that way and thus went down the road seen for the climax. Higgins is a bit more confined in what she gets to really do because, well, it isn't a case of someone from before being roped into murder, now she's the one doing the roping, which is more interesting to see in the pairing with Cranham and his carefully composed nature of basically being a nerd about wanting to play God. Laurence keeps the ball rolling in relative charm for us to root for in seeing her live a further nightmare. Bradley and the others can only have so much to actually do, and the resolution to that just makes me shake my head. At least it sequel-baits itself something maybe worth looking into. As a whole, the labyrinth of hit-and-miss ideas within desires and the bounds of Hell (as seen with a diamond-shaped entity) proves for an okay experience for those who like what they want to see and hear from something that doesn't reach the heights of the original but at least gives them something worth their curiosity. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day (belated)

*Atkins also wrote for Wishmaster (1997). Next year? Also, here's a link to an interview that he did for those who dig three-hour interviews, I suppose - https://michaelcavacini.com/2022/07/19/interview-peter-atkins-discusses-clive-barker-hellraiser-nightbreed-wishmaster-more/ - or maybe go with the documentary Leviathan: The Story of Hellraiser and Hellbound: Hellraiser II. 

*Looking back on that Hellraiser review (and doing a bit of retroactive editing for phrasing and splitting a paragraph), 2020 Movie Night was a weird weird time.

*Current days, anyway, since most normal productions don't go around doing things to animals that you wouldn't do to people.

*What happened to the boyfriend from the first film anyway? Was he turned off by that beast thing he saw at the end when they tried to burn the box? 

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!