The Amityville Horror (1979).

Review #2608: The Amityville Horror (1979).

Cast: 

James Brolin (George Lutz), Margot Kidder (Kathleen 'Kathy' Lutz), Rod Steiger (Father Francis 'Frank' Delaney), Don Stroud (Father Bolen), Murray Hamilton (Father Ryan), John Larch (Father Nuncio), Natasha Ryan (Amy Lutz), K. C. Martel (Greg Lutz), Meeno Peluce (Matt Lutz), Michael Sacks (Jeff), Helen Shaver (Carolyn), Amy Wright (Jackie), Val Avery (Sergeant Gionfriddo), Elsa Raven (Mrs. Townsend), and Irene Dailey (Aunt Helena) Directed by Stuart Rosenberg.

Review: 

In 1974, there was a terrible murder in a house on 112 Ocean Avenue in a neighborhood in Amityville on the shoes of Long Island, New York. The man killed six family members and ultimately was convicted to life in prison, where he resided until the day he died. One year after the murders in the house, the Lutz family moved into the house with their children and dog. 28 days later, they fled the house, claiming that strange things of the paranormal spooked them enough to leave and never return. The Lutzes were introduced soon after to a man named Jay Anson, who they decided to send many hours of recollections of what they apparently saw and heard on tape, for which Anson wrote a book published in 1977. Samuel Z. Arkoff of American International Pictures fame quickly bought the rights to the book from Anson, who actually wrote a teleplay for what was originally envisioned for a TV film before Sandor Stern was hired to write the eventual screenplay. For probably obvious reasons, the authorities did not allow the filmmakers to film at the actual Amityville residence, so they settled with a place in Toms River, New Jersey for location shooting. Perhaps lost in the shuffle is director Stuart Rosenberg, who had done a string of "okay" to middling movies since Cool Hand Luke (1967). Both Brolin and Kidder were asked by the studio to do promotions for the movie that basically had them see the actual house and talk about the claims made by the Lutz family, for which they later doubted the actual claims. The movie was a considerable hit with audiences, and there has been a few people who have noted their appreciation of the movie, most notably with Stephen King, who eventually saw the film as an "enduring classic of its kind" that argued for it serving as a parable for financial anxieties. Anson died the year after the film was released. Two months after the release of the film, the attorney of the murderer claimed that he and Lutz made up the tales of the house being haunted over a series of drinks. Various people went on to look at the house, most notably with Ed and Lorraine Warren (a pair of so-called "demonologists"*) while Mr. Lutz registered the phrase of the book as a trademark and later stated that the film producers embellished events in the movie. Both the actual house and the Toms River house have seen renovations (with the former having its address changed) and the people of Amityville would rather see people shut up about the house. Unlike other franchises that came around because people wanted to make some sequels, Amityville took the cake for shamelessness. Dino De Laurentiis oversaw Amityville II: The Possession [1982] (for which the Lutzes sued to have no affiliation) while the road to the gutter went to 3-D the following year that was the last theatrical release until the 2005 remake. Amidst all of the subsequent indie and direct-to-video slop* (of which there are dozens, with the most recent being "Christmas Vacation" in 2022), discussions for a re-imagining have occurred for years.

With all of that in mind, it gives me no pleasure to say that I loathed this utterly mediocre movie. It actually almost makes me irritated to see anyone try to hold it up as anything other than a mealy-mouthed, shambling, fraud of a film. Far from being one of the "scariest films ever", it will only inspire the viewer to bash their skull in the company of their own house because heaven forbid having to watch one more minute of a movie with no actual scares in it. Ahhhhh, the house we paid money for is turning into a money pit! Ahhhh, I'm having totally-real nightmares about a murder I never saw! Ahhhh, my phone keeps giving me static when the dopey priest is calling! Ahhhh, there's no real ending! I hope you get my perspective, because I'll be damned if I could understand Stephen King's perspective* or any perspective that doesn't call it a turgid, uninspired mess of fiction (besides, when having a fear of money troubles, my thoughts go to "get the calculator", not "how can I make this into a horror story?"). At least when The Blair Witch Project (1999) tried to play their horrors off with the mythology of being based in some sort of reality, there was the idea of an actual threat amidst all of the madness. Here, all the movie has is a few spooky images and the occasional Lalo Schifrin musical beat to carry a movie that is too irritating to take as either a joke or based in reality. Apparently, Brolin was approached about doing the movie, so he read the book with some pants over the door and somehow, when he was reading a "scary part" of the book, the pants fell off the floor that spooked him enough to laugh and also decide, yes, he had to do this film, one where he plays it with growing agitation and the appearance of a shaggy bum. He can only go so far in trying to lift this movie up with any semblance of terror and vulnerability as a patriarch that can only keep chopping wood. Kidder and Steiger basically took the film on for the same reason of wanting to accept any job offered (the latter in particular had been recovering from open-heart surgery). I think you can see the level of "commitment" on display from each person, with one basically giggling through the crap with Kidder (I sure wish I could laugh at this movie without checking how long it is to end the 118-minute runtime is) and the other trying their damndest to chew the entire screen with Steiger that actually borders on embarrassing after, what, the stigmata starts to show? It doesn't even matter if the movie had any sort of made-up explanation of why the house is what it is, what could possibly hold up such vaunted spooky things such as black ooze, exploding doors, malevolent sash windows, disappearing cash, and babysitters getting locked in closets while an imaginary being later revealed to be a pig is in the area. I could go on and on, but I think the best way to assess a horror movie is this: did I enjoy what I was watching? No, not really. Would I recommend it even with the acknowledgement that there have been just as many flawed movies involving spooky houses or the semblance of tension even with a lack of monster/explanation? No, because it personally annoyed me and didn't even have a payoff. Would I like to see just how the two subsequent "sequels" and remake turned things into an even bigger joke? Well, never say never. I think you get my point: The Amityville Horror is a dull, shambling mess that is mostly fit for those who know the fine line between doggerel and, well, dogshit.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day - a special one on the day of the World Series of Milwaukee Brewers and the Tampa Bay Rays: a song from Milwaukee's own Steve Miller - go Brewers!

*There is probably some perspective that offers a good reason to check out direct-to-video stuff or "on-demand" stuff. For me, it just sounds like the biggest waste of time imaginable - I'm here for stuff that made a theater, what's the point?

*Yes, yes, The Conjuring became a franchise with the loosest characterizations of the Warrens. It should be noted that aside from being frauds that have no credibility in any shape or form (I do not engage with "ghost hunters", I would rather see them get a real job), Ed was accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old. Lorraine personally wrote into the contract of the film series that her and Ed would not be portrayed as "engaging in crimes, including sex with minors, child pornography, prostitution or sexual assault. Neither the husband nor wife could be depicted as participating in an extramarital sexual relationship". At least the Warrens are both dead now.

*What, was King still snorting cocaine when coming up with that perspective? 

Doctor X.

Review #2607: Doctor X.

Cast: 

Lionel Atwill (Dr. Jerry Xavier), Fay Wray (Joanne Xavier), Lee Tracy (Lee Taylor), Preston Foster (Dr. Wells), John Wray (Dr. Haines), Harry Beresford (Dr. Duke), Arthur Edmund Carewe (Dr. Rowitz), Leila Bennett (Mamie), Robert Warwick (Police Commissioner Stevens), George Rosener (Otto), and Willard Robertson (Detective O'Halloran) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca, #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #505 - The Adventures of Robin Hood, #529 - Mildred Pierce, #719 - Mystery of the Wax Museum, #1370 - Life with Father, #2267 - The Walking Dead)

Review: 

Oh sure, let's pick another mad scientist movie from the old old days. At least this one came before the advent of the Production Code, which means you can get a movie with themes that involves murder and cannibalism (okay you won't see people eat others straight up, but, well, beggars can't be choosers), complete with the early two-color Technicolor process (for over 40 years, only the black-and-white version was thought to exist).. The film is based on the 1931 play of the same name by Howard W. Cornstock and Allen C. Miller, for which Robert Tasker and Earl Baldwin served as the credited writers on the film (incidentally, there was an actual killer with one nickname being the "Moon Maniac" that had killed and apparently eaten several people prior to being apprehended in 1934 and executed). A mild success with audiences, Curtiz wound up directing Mystery of the Wax Museum the following year in that soon-to-be obsolete Technicolor process, complete with Atwill and Wray as the leads and a few returning crew members (such as cameraman Ray Rennahan and designer Anton Grot). 1939 saw The Return of Doctor X from Warner Bros. that isn't exactly a sequel given its completely different cast (complete with Humphrey Bogart as the re-named title character). Night Monster (1942), released by Universal featured Atwill in a similar scientist role.

You might wonder what's the setup for something that only goes 76 minutes. Well, it involves an investigator sticking his nose all over figuring out who the creepy man is going around killing people on a full moon that leads to suspicion around a medical academy and the oddballs that are around it (an amputee that studied cannibalism, a pervert voyeur, a paralytic, and a guy studying the effects of the moon). Trying to measure who did it by electrical systems getting the heart rate up before a re-enactment doesn't work the first time but trying it the second time with the people handcuffed to the seats leads to the real creep. This barely mentions the outright annoyance that comes with the bumbling reporter played by Tracy that just has to pervade the movie, complete with time spent in a spooky house (skeletons!) before you get what you really want to know: what lies beneath "synthetic flesh" and the makeup of a nutty scientist? Wray probably comes out the best in spry charm (one has to when playing against a goof before having to be the one rescued at the end), although Atwill certainly made enough of an impression (not quite at full ham, but jolly would be the best way to describe it) that he would get tabbed to do a number of mysteries/horror dramas for the next decade. It all really goes on how much exposition you are willing to go with for this movie, which seems to dawdle on getting to the point of its mumbo-jumbo science when all you need to know is that a guy is going around with hands to spare eating people and will gradually reveal themselves anyway regardless of any "traps". The effect for the actual monster does look pretty good in a disturbing type of clay-man that goes hand in hand with the old comic book type of color present for the film that does give the film a look worthy enough to keep invested. As a whole, Doctor X is a mixed bag: it bumbles and stumbles around the most interesting part of what you might expect from a mystery horror with a fluky setup that happens to also look pretty fascinating with a useful enough edge when actually dealing with the murky world of men and flesh that may make it a worthwhile time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day! 

The Funhouse.

Review #2606: The Funhouse.

Cast: 

Elizabeth Berridge (Amy Harper), Cooper Huckabee (Buzz), Largo Woodruff (Liz Duncan), Miles Chapin (Richie), Kevin Conway (Freak Show Barker / Strip Show Barker / Conrad Straker, The Funhouse Barker), Wayne Doba (Gunther Twibunt, The Monster), Sylvia Miles (Madame Zena), William Finley (Marco The Magnificent), Shawn Carson (Joey Harper), Rebuka Hoye (Strip Show Dancer), Jack McDermott (Mr. Paul Harper), and Jeanne Austin (Mrs. Ellen Harper) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, #2134 - Lifeforce, #2281 - Eaten Alive)

Review:

It has been a while since Tobe Hooper had made a movie for theaters, if you remember. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) was followed up by Eaten Alive (1976). Then there was the miniseries adaptation of Salem's Lot that came out on CBS in 1979 (of course, internationally there was an alternate, much shorter cut). At any rate, Larry Block had a script about a carnival and teenagers, and Hooper was surely interested in doing something that would remind him of one of his favorite movies with Nightmare Alley (1947), so it was basically a match made in heaven. Independently financed and shot in Miami (the setting was Iowa, but who is noticing), the film was subsequently acquired by Universal Studios for distribution. that saw a select group of rides and attractions from a defunct carnival while the oddball animals and actual carnies came from, well, travelling carnivals. Rick Baker was responsible for the effects of the monster that basically looks like an albino, complete with a mime playing the character. It was a mild success with audiences, and Hooper was soon approached by producer Steven Spielberg to direct Poltergeist (1982), which was an even bigger hit*. As noted by Hooper in a making-of video in later years, he was quite proud of the final result with The Funhouse (if you've read Quentin Tarantino's Cinema Speculation, he also comes to that conclusion)*.

I suppose there is something unnerving that can come from the carnival or stock show. Sure, I wouldn't be the first to say it, mainly because I generally didn't have that many spooky moments looking at the rides or people operating it. At any rate. I can say that this was a pretty fun movie anyway because of the style and tension that is played here for a slowly-developed slasher (when the body count is over three, yea, that sounds about right). For about half of the 96-minute runtime, one is focused on the atmosphere that slowly envelops our main group of four (with one stowaway) before the mayhem starts, but I can see where the likability of the film hinges a bit on how much you can take from such rascal behavior (with exactly one person playing a teen that actually was in their teens with Berridge); this is the type of movie that freely cribs from both Psycho [1960] and Halloween [1978] in its intro scene for the sake of doing so (Hooper was quoted as saying it was there to let people know quickly they were watching a "genre picture" and make the film "a little safe"). But the real showstopper is the "funhouse" itself with how intimidating it all ends up feeling with its wide spaces and traps that doesn't have to border completely on reality because of the delight in playing in illusions (complete with some stellar timing with a crane). Berridge has plenty to try and carry with such an ordinary role that goes through basically a different world with the carnies as opposed to the tense "real world" with her parents (with a brother that thinks shower terrorizing is funny) and a would-be lover and his dumbass friends* (to say nothing of the goofy youth that basically is in the movie to suggest some sort of lesson of being a sneaky dweeb, at least I suppose so when all he does is just get caught and released). I'd say she does about as well as possible with vulnerability as the old-masked killer, wearing a Frankenstein mask, gives way to the dysfunctional horror of man and his deformed would-be "man" of the present.  Additionally, as basically the ringleader of the rascals, Chapin makes for a worthy enough person to get snatched by the claws of "easiest mark to get killed in a slasher", while Conway and his numerous roles of the seedy barkers does end up being compelling to roll things along in gawking at animals, women, whatever seems nasty enough for a movie like this to show. It stalks terror in being stuck in a place rather than, say, excess amount of gore. Average or not, it is a pretty entertaining movie to actually experience in the sights and sounds of slowly being enclosed in a space one shouldn't step in and being left at the hands of one's own ingenuity and in some ways, luck to maybe leave with some of their mental state or body intact. In that sense, Hooper made a delightfully nasty little movie worth a look into.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Totally no controversies at all about it, no invented stories about it or people still perpetuating stupid conspiracies cough cough Joseph Khan is a hack, cough cough.

*Oddly enough, Hooper liked the subsequent Dean Koontz novelization of the movie that was quite substantial in its plot.

*When I used to have consistent friends and went to the stockshow one time, I can say we never thought about messing with the workers or trying to snatch the funds, so there's that.  

The House That Dripped Blood.

Review #2605: The House That Dripped Blood.

Cast:

Framework story: John Bennett (Detective Inspector Holloway), John Bryans (A.J. Stoker), and John Malcolm (Sergeant Martin)

"Method For Murder": Denholm Elliott (Charles Hillyer), Joanna Dunham (Alice Hillyer), Tom Adams (Richard/Dominic), and Robert Lang (Dr. Andrews)

"Waxworks": Peter Cushing (Philip Grayson), Joss Ackland (Neville Rogers), and Wolfe Morris (Waxworks Proprietor)

"Sweets to the Sweet": Christopher Lee (John Reid), Nyree Dawn Porter (Ann Norton), Chloe Franks (Jane Reid), Hugh Manning (Mark), and Carleton Hobbs (Dr. Bailey)

"The Cloak": Jon Pertwee (Paul Henderson), Ingrid Pitt (Carla Lynde), Geoffrey Bayldon (Theo von Hartmann), Jonathan Lynn (Mr. Petrich)

Directed by Peter Duffell.

Review: 

Sure, let's march into the 1970s for Amicus to make their mark with anthology films. Apparently, it was reported that the movie was to have Freddie Francis to direct but it fell through due to prior commitments, which led to Peter Duffell. This was actually the feature film debut for Peter Duffell, who had gotten his start in 1961 with a number of shorts and episodes in television. He wound up spending most of his time in television (having rejected doing more films for Amicus due to not wanting to be typecast) but directed a few more times with England Made Me (1973), Inside Out (1975), and King of the Wind (1989). He wanted to go with "Death and the Maiden" as a title instead of, well, "The House That Dripped Blood" but ended up with the one insisted by producers because, duh (sure, there isn't actually blood in the movie, but, well...). Pertwee claimed in his memoir that the film was initially to be filmed as a comedy-horror piece but that the producer saw some of the rushes and insisted on the film being shot as is for horror. The movie was written by Robert Bloch, as adapted from his four short stories, although Russ Jones apparently delivered uncredited work on "Waxworks". Bloch wrote one more movie for Amicus with Asylum (1972).

It's an average anthology movie where you really only get some enjoyment out of certain stories because damn it, they really can only go so far with the pacing and violence, can they? Anyway, what's the framework of this 102-minute movie you say, well, here it goes: An old country house was rented out by an actor that happens to have mysteriously disappeared and a man from Scotland Yard comes to investigate only to be told about the history of the house (complete with the estate agent popping in for the latter setup) and the tenants that lived in the house beforehand (you might be wondering, why wouldn't the inspector just insist on getting the story of the guy who was missing *before* everyone else, well, who knows). The first story (lasting roughly 23 minutes) involves a hack writer (as played pretty well by Elliott) and his wife moving into the house that finds growing fear over trying to write a new novel about a crazed killer. The twist is the goofiest thing imaginable, but the monster is kind of interesting. The second story is basically the shortest at almost 20 minutes and probably disappoints me the most because it has Cushing and little else to show for with a story that involves a man that encounters a wax museum with a sculpture that happens to look like someone he formerly loved and the frenzied reactions that come with the two other people that also happen to be curious about the sculpture. A lonely Cushing is one thing to maybe drive something spooky, but it leads to nothing because, really, we are talking about a wax sculpture.

The third story, perhaps not surprisingly, is the longest at 24 minutes that has Lee play an oddball dad that kept his daughter away from school, socializing, or even dolls which naturally changes when a new tutor comes into the picture and a tantalizing secret is revealed. It's probably the only segment that would've made an interesting film in its own right, with an eerie Franks and a suitably composed Lee selling the payoff (which is necessary for a movie that shows a burning of a figure rather than, say, a body). The final story (roughly 20 minutes) is the one to wait for with some chuckles. Pertwee (in the middle between filming seasons of Doctor Who)* plays a stuffy star of horror movies (which, well, is basically him doing a riff on Christopher Lee, complete with saying that his favorite type of Dracula was Bela Lugosi at one point) that encounters an antique shop with "real" authenticity to it. Sure, the idea of a cloak being associated with maybe becoming a vampire is a bit corny, but I did like what I saw from Pertwee's hammy nature. All of this helps because the framework is pretty lame with the payoff from Bryans and his character that actually talks to the audience at the end about the house reflecting the personality of the person who lives in it (after getting the fate of the inspector encountering a vampire because....yeah). As a whole, it's a decent movie with some highlights that might make for a useful watch for those who love to see a few short stories try to get their due.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Yes, that's the Third Doctor. Did you know he did a novelty song? I Am The Doctor (Jon Pertwee)

The Slumber Party Massacre.

Review #2604: The Slumber Party Massacre.

Cast: 

Michelle Michaels (Trish Devereaux), Robin Stille (Valerie Bates), Michael Villella (Russ Thorn), Debra Deliso (Kim Clarke), Andree Honore (Jackie Cassidy), Gina Mari (Diane), Jennifer Meyers (Courtney Bates), Joseph Alan Johnson (Neil), David Millbern (Jeff), Jim Boyce (John Raden Minor), Pamela Roylance (Coach Rachel Jana), and Brinke Stevens (Linda Dawn Grant) Directed by Amy Jones.

Review: 

"I think it's a funny little film, although it is violent and the premise is sort of offensive. If somebody came up to me and said, 'You're a monster for making that picture,' I'm not sure what I'd say."

Sure, let's go with a slasher movie directed and written by women. Well, for the most part. The original screenplay was written by author and activist Rita Mae Brown, who envisioned a parody of the slasher genre. Instead, it got turned into a straight slasher...for the most part. Enter Amy Holden Jones. She had won first place at a student festival for the AFI with a short she directed in 1975 that had Martin Scorsese as one of the judges. One year later, when trying to make a living without many funds, she found a way to reach Scorsese and asked for advice, which saw her subsequently called to serve as an assistant on Taxi Driver. Scorsese later felt that the best person to get in contact with for what she wanted was Roger Corman, who had her serve as an editor on films such as Hollywood Boulevard [1976]. Aspiring to direct, she had come across the discarded script (labeled "Don't Open the Door") and heeded the advice of Corman of "you've got to direct in order to direct." She rounded up people from UCLA and equipment to shoot a few scenes (showing off some action and dialogue) over a weekend (complete with editing on a moviola) that made for a seven-minute reel to show off to Corman at New World Pictures. Impressed at the reel and its cost of $1,000, he soon asked how much she could do the rest for it, and while she wasn't exactly keen on doing that particular picture, she replied with $250,000 (it ended up being done for a bit less) and got a chance to go with the movie to fulfill her wish of being a director (the other choice was reportedly being an editor for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, a decision she never regretted), albeit with some re-writes to "emphasize the comic elements" that was shot in 20 days, which resulted in a moderate success with audiences. Jones subsequently directed three further films (with one more for Corman in Love Letters [1983]) while becoming noted for her screenplays for films such as Mystic Pizza [1988] and Indecent Proposal [1993]. A sequel was released in 1987 that had Corman serve as a co-producer along with director/writer Deborah Brock (incidentally, Sorority House Massacre [1986] was directed by Carol Frank, a personal assistant to Jones on Slumber Party).

It's the kind of movie that just dabbles in showing some pretty women, a lack of motive for its driller killer (aside from an escape that unlike Halloween [1978] is one where we don't see) and a few chuckles alongside the usual slasher fare that runs at a comfortable 76 minutes. The murders happen because a bunch of people all happen to congregate in one neighborhood (complete with dudes that change into pajamas or, heavens to betsy, the pizza man). What's not to like? It manages to have a few charming characters that happen to be having a party when mayhem ensues, complete with a synthy soundtrack (apparently done on a Casio). Apparently, the killer was originally dispatched in the living room without the bit involving the drill. Honestly, I did get the biggest chuckle for payoff in seeing a fight result in...a drill bit cut to pieces. Could it have been better as a straight spoof? Maybe, maybe not (I do wonder if the original script was a "get it? get these slasher tropes?"). It's the kind of movie where a person decides to go for the pizza box right by the recently dead pizza guy. For some, the movie was probably their only prominent role in a movie (for Stille, it was her debut). It's not exactly a showcase of great acting, but I suppose acting natural for a chunk of time within ordinary conversations is better than nothing. Stille and Meyers make a suitable sibling duo to eventually stumble onto things besides girl-talk, while Villella does make for a creepy enough killer to sneak through for terror (the gore is selectively shown within drills). You get a bunch of gags within the blood that for me manages to make it as a "guilty pleasure" slasher movie that I can't help but like. It plays fast and loose with the surroundings of house-bound terror with likable enough people and worthwhile execution that makes it a suitable recommendation for slasher enthusiasts. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Somehow stumbled onto an apparent scare-checking site, wonder if it's interesting - The Slumber Party Massacre (1982) — 25 Jump Scares | Scarechive

*Stille tragically killed herself in 1996 at the age of 34.

Terror Train.

Review #2603: Terror Train.

Cast: 

Ben Johnson (Carne), Jamie Lee Curtis (Alana Maxwell), Hart Bochner (Doc), Sandee Currie (Mitchy), Timothy Webber (Mo), Derek MacKinnon (Kenny Hampson), Anthony Sherwood (Jackson), Joy Boushel (Pet), Vanity (Merry), Greg Swanson (Class President), Howard Busgang (Ed), and David Copperfield (The Magician) Directed by Roger Spottiswoode (#171 - Tomorrow Never Dies, #191 - The 6th Day, #1205 - Air America, #2532 - Shoot to Kill)

Review: 

"In this sense, I was probably not the ideal person to make Terror Train, because I’m not a great believer in overt violence onscreen. To be honest, I don’t see a lot of horror films. I hadn’t before Terror Train, and I haven’t since. It was rather a coincidence that I made one of the more violent pictures, Straw Dogs, which was considered incredibly violent at the time. Although it doesn’t look so now.

I had lots of arguments with Sam about onscreen violence with which I did not personally agree very much. I think you can make a film exciting without being graphic. I feel rather strongly and extensively about this…that onscreen violence is not a particularly good thing. You can create an exciting film without doing that. It wasn’t political. It was just in my nature to do it that way."

Sure, everyone wanted to grab the coattails of movies such as Halloween (1978), so why not go with actually having Jamie Lee Curtis as one of the key leads? Daniel Grodnik (previous executive producer of such films as Starhops [1978]) had the initial idea of the film because, well, why not try Halloween but on a train? It eventually grabbed the attention of Sandy Howard and led to a road of making a film to take advantage of the tax shelter in where else but Canada (it was Howard who apparently wanted a magician in the film because, well, he liked magic tricks). The script was written by musician-turned-writer Thomas Y. Drake, who mostly wrote for television with the exception of this film and the long-delayed The Keeper (released in 1985). The director chosen was a first timer with Roger Spottiswoode, who had previously served as an editor on a couple of movies (Straw Dogs [1971], Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid [1973], The Gambler [1974], Hard Times [1975]). Apparently, Howard and his production company had a vague knowing of him as a writer because Spottiswoode had sent a script to them (you might remember that he yearned to direct after getting his start in editing and had written an early draft of 48 Hrs. [1982]). He initially rejected it but was approached about doing it again two months later and basically was cajoled into doing it (Howard aimed to have him direct and edit, for which Spottiswoode soon hired his own editor). In a year that brought out slashers such as Friday the 13th and Prom Night, Terror Train found distribution with 20th Century Fox that saw them apparently spend over $5 million in marketing that ended up not fulfilling their high expectations despite being a light hit. For his part, Spottiswoode enjoyed his experiences making the film, even if he felt that he wasn't the ideal director to make a slasher film with, say, plenty of excess gore. Grodnik hammered away as a producer (while once dabbling as the CEO of National Lampoon magazine) while doing some work as a professor. 

The opening scene gives you a setup of what totally won't be referred to later: a group of folks at a fraternity do a mean prank on a pledge that sees him find a corpse in a bed and three years later you see those folks go on a train on the eve of a new year. I suppose there's something about the chunk of horror movies that exist with one or all of the following in young girls, blood, and knives that I suppose gets a bad rap because heaven forbid a slasher movie have some mayhem. I give some leeway when it comes to characters obviously meant to die because, well, you can't have all the likable smart people stay above the gutter. The movie doesn't have great big kills, and it might've fallen under the radar due to its title (what else would you call it, "Murders on a Train"?), but there's enough entertainment value within the trappings (97 minutes) set out in train-based terror and pacing that actually makes it a pretty neat gem.  The filming (done in roughly 25 days) was done on an actual steam locomotive and passenger cars, as leased from Vermont, with modifications made to allow for equipment along with, well, ways to help light it for John Alcott, who had the whole train re-wired that were housed in a Montreal warehouse (the location is where they got MacKinnon, who was a cross-dressing performer). It might sound repetitive to see Curtis engage in another final-girl mishmash, but she's likable enough in the lingering guilt of being with these kooks in a closed space (such as a delightfully smarmy Bochner) to make it worth being around her and the eventual showdown. Apparently, Johnson went up to Spottiswoode on the first days of shooting and told him to look for any dialogue that sounded excessive from his part to delete (citing his time working with John Ford). He provides stately enough presence in his succinct timing (whether spent with the crew or the moments spent around the folks when people start to go missing). It's funny to think, oh well the Copperfield* sequence is there to just pad the movie with barely anything to do with the film, but I actually do like what we see here, mainly because the magic act does have some charm to its execution and how it looks, as opposed to just thinking it is a goofy camera trick done to escape being thought of as a low-rent Murder on the Orient Express. I especially like the final showdown sequence that decides to ensure no follow-ups by making sure to beat the killer with a shovel for them to fall down the train right as it is moving over a river (complete with them going splat on the ice). As a whole, it is a neat ride that wanted to get on a trend in slashing folks for money that plays patiently with its body-count for little blood but plenty of charm and curiosity within its trappings for what I would argue is a fair gem to discover.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

Song of the day!

*Copperfield has been accused of sexual misconduct for several years, ranging from a 2007 federal investigation, accusations in 2018, and documents that labeled him as an associate of a certain Mr. Epstein.

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?"