Incubus.

Review #862: Incubus.

Cast:
William Shatner (Marc), Allyson Ames (Kia), Eloise Hardt (Amael), Robert Fortier (Olin), Ann Atmar (Arndis), and Milos Milos (Incubus) Directed by Leslie Stevens.

Review: 
Before the review, I will provide a bit of background to this movie in the following paragraph. If you'd want, move on to the next paragraph, which contains the review. 

Incubus (Inkubo) was released 50 years ago on October 26, 1966 at the San Francisco Film Festival, with a bunch of enthusiasts of the Esperanto language there. This was directed by Leslie Stevens, creator of the original "The Outer Limits", which had been cancelled prior to this film, with Dominic Frontiere (composer of the first season of the show) contributing the music for this film. Conrad Hall (winner of three Oscars) did the cinematography, in his first credited contribution. This is the second film released in the language (the first being Angoroj in 1964), which had been created in 1887 by L. L. Zamenhof. The language is popular among parts around the world, but apparently not enough in a concentrated area. As for the pronunciation of the language in the film, supposedly the Esperanto enthusiasts were laughing at the way the actors (who rehearsed for less than two weeks in phonetic training of their lines) spoke the lines. The film, while not popular in the United States, was somewhat popular in France.  The film was thought to be lost for 30 years due to a fire. However, one copy was found in France (with subtitles on the bottom), and the film was restored and is now available after all these years. It should be noted that one of the actors (Milos) killed himself before the film's release, Stevens' company went bankrupt not long after, Hardt's daughter was kidnapped and killed two years later, and Atmar died the same month of this film's release. By the time of its release, Shatner had already started his run on Star Trek. On this Halloween, it only seems fitting to review this movie, with the legacy that it has.

Now then, with all that history, how is the movie? I can't really judge their pronunciations of Esperanto (I had never even heard the language spoken prior to this film), so the best way to judge the acting is to see how they interact with the movie around them. I should note that Shatner doesn't show up until around 15 minutes in, with the film focusing on the succubi and darkness around a village. The scene where Ames kills one of these travelers in the water is pretty interesting, in part due to the camera work. When it comes to uniqueness, this one may take the cake, with one scene showing a priest sucking an egg while carrying a frog (knock yourself out trying to interpret that). This is the kind of movie that one might show to some friends late at night, or at an art house to try and figure it out. The music by Dominic Frontiere is also quite interesting, adding to the film's mystique. It isn't really a boring movie, just one with some sort of controlled vision that tries to stand out in being something eerie and different without being too pretentious. The film lasts just under 80 minutes, which is somewhat a positive in that it can't really droll too long. The camera shots range from closeups to superimposing shots, all of which are interesting in their own right. This is the kind of movie that could almost be enacted on the stage, for better or worse. Shatner is fairly engaging (as one would expect), with enough interesting moments of him speaking dialogue as interesting as it gets. He certainly has some chemistry with Ames. She is pretty interesting to watch as well. Hardt is also adequate, with a better presence than Milos does. The climax is one to behold, as Ames faces off against the Incubus...who has turned into a goat. It's so strange seeing this fight as it cuts between a real goat and a goat head pushing against her a few times, with one shot of the goat licking itself. It's not a great seminal work, but it is a film with a certain kind of vision that works in the ways that it wants. There is a certain intriguing nature to this movie that not a lot of films can bring within its eeriness. This is the kind of film that you should at least check out for curiosity's sake, or for Shatner, at least. Happy Halloween.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Golem: How He Came into the World.

Review #861: The Golem: How He Came into the World.

Cast:
Albert Steinrück (Rabbi Loew), Paul Wegener (The Golem), Lyda Salmonova (Miriam), Ernst Deutsch (Loew's assistant), Lothar Müthel (Knight Florian), and Otto Gebühr (Emperor) Directed by Paul Wegener and Carl Boese.

Review:
It has been a while since the last time I reviewed a world cinema film, and it only made sense to a famous one from Germany, which was where the last world cinema film was from (#797 - People on Sunday). The Golem: How He Came into the World (known as Der Golem, wie er in die Welt kam in Germany) was released on October 29, 1920, and it was the third Golem film made by Paul Wegener, with the other two being The Golem (1915) and The Golem and the Dancing Girl (1917). However, this is the only one that is not lost, and it happens to be a prequel to the previous two films as it shows how the golem (a mythical being created by inanimate matter by magic) is created. The film has been called an influence on the 1931 version of Frankenstein (#072), and I can see that in some parts, such as with the Golem himself, who lumbers around in a menacing matter one that somewhat resembles Karloff's movements 11 years later. In any case, Wegener (who also co-directed the film) does an excellent job, making the Golem a truly interesting monster with a fair amount of facial expression to him as well. It's also been used as an example of German Expressionism, with sylish angles and color tints that correspond excellently with the cinematography by Karl Freund and Guido Seeber. Steinruck does a favorable job, having the right sense of gravitas without becoming cartoonish in his movements. Salmonova is fair, though she isn't given much to do aside from the climax. It is interesting that the Golem isn't stopped by another monster or anything particularly brute in force, but by a child of all things. For anyone looking for a great piece of cinema from yesteryear (96 years) or some fine horror that works at its own pace, I would suggest this film as one you should check out. Happy Halloween.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave.

Review #860: Dracula Has Risen from the Grave.

Cast:
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Rupert Davies (Monsignor Ernest Muller), Veronica Carlson (Maria Muller), Barry Andrews (Paul), Ewan Hooper (Priest), Barbara Ewing (Zena), and Marion Mathie (Anna Muller) Directed by Freddie Francis (#856 - The Evil of Frankenstein)

Review:
For Halloween Eve (as I would call it), here's one more Hammer film. With a title like that, what can you expect? This was third Dracula film with Christopher Lee in the title role, and he actually does speak this time. It starts out with a girl found in a bell tower, an apparent victim of Dracula (who is she? Who knows?), which is somewhat amusing. Dracula (still frozen in ice) is brought back in a particularly amusing scene, as a priest falls on a rock, and the blood from his head reaches a crack in the ice and bleeds onto Dracula's mouth, with Dracula arising not long after, with reddish eyes to boot. Andrews is interesting, and he has some decent enough scenes with Carlson (another person familiar with Hammer films). Davies is pretty good as well. I liked the previous film a bit more than this in terms of the characters, but it works just enough on its own merits. There certainly is a good deal of style with the camera shots (especially when Dracula is around), and the effects are fine as usual. This time around, Dracula can only be killed with a stake if you have faith, which either is a bit clever or just a way to make the film last a bit longer. I guess it's better than being killed by water. At 92 minutes, this is a decent enough film that has enough flair and Hammer cliches to work.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dracula: Prince of Darkness.

Review #859: Dracula: Prince of Darkness.

Cast:
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Barbara Shelley (Helen Kent), Andrew Keir (Father Sandor), Francis Matthews (Charles Kent), Suzan Farmer (Diana Kent), Charles Tingwell (Alan Kent), Thorley Walters (Ludwig), Philip Latham (Klove), Walter Brown (Brother Mark), and Jack Lambert (Brother Peter) 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, and #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed)

Review:
This was the second of the Dracula Hammer films to feature Christopher Lee (eight years after his last appearance), though this time Peter Cushing (as Van Helsing) does not return. In fact, Cushing wouldn't feature with Lee in a Dracula film again until Dracula A.D. 1972 (I should note that Cushing starred in The Brides of Dracula, whereas Lee did not), though he is shown in the prologue, taken right from Dracula (#258) and its climax. This time around, the Kent family are the ones who encounter Dracula, revived due to mixing blood of one of the Kents with his ashes. The scenery is brilliant as usual. Dracula appears halfway through the movie, and the effects used to show his revival (along with his awakening from the place he was buried) is quite excellent. It should be noted that Lee doesn't speak all throughout the movie, with it either being due to Lee not wanting to speak the lines written for him (as said by Lee) or that there were no lines written for him (as said by the writer). In any case, his performance relies on his facial expressions, his hissing, and his imposing features, which he does quite well. Shelley is somewhat annoying (yes, she is the one who warns them to leave), but she is interesting after she becomes one of the undead. Keir is good at giving some sort of exposition about Dracula but also being quite entertaining. Matthews and Farmer are fine, having the sort of chemistry together one would expect in a horror film like this, which isn't overbearing nor too radically different. The scene where Lee and Farmer are alone together is also quite eerie and creepy, in part due to the music by James Bernard. It's interesting to see Walters (who you'd recognize from Frankenstein Created Women) as a sort of Renfield type of character, and he has a certain strangeness about him that works. You don't have to see the first one in order to get a grip on this film, which is nice. This time around, Dracula succumbs not due to the sun or a stake, but...(are you ready for this): running water. There is something amusing about that, in part because of Lee flailing around in the ice, but the movie doesn't really lose too much steam, in part because it ends not long after. On the whole, it's obviously not as good as the first film, but it is enjoyable in its own right, even after over 50 years.

Side note: If one is checking the Labels section and wondering why (British born) Jack Lambert is listed with a (B) next to his label, it is to differentiate him from the American actor of the same name.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.

Review #858: Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.

Cast:
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein), Veronica Carlson (Anna Spengler), Freddie Jones (Professor Richter), Simon Ward (Dr. Karl Holst), Thorley Walters (Inspector Frisch), George Pravda (Dr. Frederick Brandt), Windsor Davies (Police Sergeant), Allan Surtees (Police Sergeant), and Maxine Audley (Ella Brandt) 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, and #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman)

Review:

With a title like that, what can you expect? Frankenstein certainly is a bit more evil in this one, though at least this time he does create a monster, and they even fight in the climax. At least this time around there's some blood (especially in the beginning) and some violence to appease someone. This was the fifth in the Hammer line of Frankenstein films (after The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958), The Evil of Frankenstein (1964), and Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)), and one would guess that if you're already this far into the franchise, anything can happen and it wouldn't be surprising...which proves to be the case here. This time, Frankenstein wants someone's knowledge, because I suppose the scientist that transferred someone's soul into a body can't find the secret to preserving a brain in suspended animation. Cushing is certainly more villainous this time around, which certainly makes things a bit different this time around. I should note that there is a rape scene in the film, which Cushing, Carlson and Fisher all objected to. It's a disturbing scene that was added in by a producer of the movie. Carlson and Ward provide fairly compelling counterparts to Frankenstein, somewhat easy to root for. Jones is a decent enough Creature, particularly in the climax. The final 20 (or so) minutes are when the movie gets interesting, with a fight between the characters, accompanied with fire that seems reminiscent of the Universal Frankenstein films, but it does its own spin on that. I'd say this is better than the previous Frankenstein film, in part because of the entertainment value. The effects for the Creature (with stitches and a bald head to boot) is pretty excellent, with spurts of blood made at the end of the decade.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein Created Woman.

Review #857: Frankenstein Created Woman.

Cast:
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein), Susan Denberg (Christina), Thorley Walters (Doctor Hertz), Robert Morris (Hans), Peter Blythe (Anton), Derek Fowlds (Johann), Duncan Lamont (The Prisoner - Hans's Father), Barry Warren (Karl), Alan MacNaughtan (Kleve), and Peter Madden (Chief of Police) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, and #833 - Spaceways)

Review:
With this installment in the Hammer Frankenstein films, I suppose having a monster being created by Frankenstein was getting a bit tired, which explains the change for this film...involving the soul. Honestly the movie's enjoyment might rely on whether you can really buy into the whole "putting people's soul into dead bodies" premise as something to enjoy. I guess it's admirable that they went with something newish, but it still manages to be confusing later on. It is an okay movie, with some fun provided by Cushing, always reliable in making a movie that isn't really that exciting somewhat energetic. Denberg is decent as the "Woman" in the title, having a fair amount of presence. Walters is decent in a bumbling role, different from the usual crop of assistants in these films, though he'd probably be best suited for being a Mall Santa. What I find strange is some of the plot structure, particularly the set up for what turns out to be the Woman "created" by Frankenstein (to be clear, he transfers Hans' soul into his deal girlfriend's body)...Why would Hans not just say where he was on the night of a murder? Is it that embarrassing to say that he was with her? Also, it seems that the soul of Hans "talks" to Christina (via his head, of course)...which we get to hear, so he's basically talking to himself, considering his soul is in her...or maybe it's some sort of split thing, not conveyed very well. There isn't a ton of blood, but there is a decent amount of violent action, though one has to get through the soul aspects first. It's a serviceable movie, at least.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Evil of Frankenstein.

Review #856: The Evil of Frankenstein.

Cast:
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein), Peter Woodthorpe (Zoltan), Duncan Lamont (Chief of Police), Sandor Elès (Hans), Katy Wild (Rena the Begger Girl), David Hutcheson (Burgomaster of Karlstaad), James Maxwell (Priest), Howard Goorney (Drunk), Anthony Blackshaw (Policeman), David Conville (Policeman), Caron Gardner (Burgomaster's Wife), and Kiwi Kingston (the Creature) Directed by Freddie Francis.

Review:
This was the third Frankenstein film released by Hammer, released six years after The Revenge of Frankenstein (#469) and the first in the series not directed by Terence Fisher, but it is also the first film in the series where the Monster resembles the classic Universal look, due to a deal between the two. The monster here resembles the classic look somewhat, but it honestly isn't very terrifying, resembling papier-mâché more than anything. If you're going to emulate the classic look, you invite the criticism when comparing the looks. The sets do look pretty good, with the same kind of neat scenery one would expect. The continuity of the first two films seems to be thrown out the window, which is disappointing, though the biggest problem is that Frankenstein seems to be less evil than he usually is (apart from the opening scene), seeming to emulate the Universal films a bit (obviously). It's funny that the least villainous incarnation of Frankenstein is in the movie called "Evil of Frankenstein", with a hypnotist being the true villain. Woodthorpe is only as threatening as one would be of a hypnotist, so take that for what it is Elès and Wild are moderately enjoyable as well. There is some decent horror (and some interesting effects for ice), at least. It isn't boring, but it certainly isn't as good as the other two films, falling around the same quality as one would see in the Universal Frankenstein films, which is only as good as you make it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wolf Blood.

Review #855: Wolf Blood.

Cast:
George Chesebro (Dick Bannister), Marguerite Clayton (Miss Edith Ford), Ray Hanford (Dr. Eugene Horton), Roy Watson (Jules Deveroux), Milburn Morante (Jacques Lebeq), Frank Clark (Old Pop Hadley), and Jack Cosgrave (Edith's uncle and manager) Directed by George Chesebro and Bruce Mitchell.

Review:
Wolf Blood (also known as Wolfblood: A Tale of the Forest) is the earliest known surviving werewolf film in existence, as The Werewolf (released in 1913) is now lost to history. This was made by an independent company named Ryan Brothers Productions. The werewolf in this film is not one that comes from a werewolf bite, but a transfusion of wolf blood into an injured person, hence the title. Halfway through the movie (which is only 67 minutes) is when the transfusion happens, though he doesn't actually turn into a wolf, as it is all in his head. There is some fairly decent location work, with the wilderness and all. The movie is more about the love triangle romance between Chesebro-Clayton-Hanford (yes, a love triangle...which is quite strange), which is somewhat entertaining, but nothing special. There is some decent music and color tinting, at least. The plot isn't really that much about the wolf, but it is serviceable for the drama genre of the silent era. There really isn't too much werewolf action (aside from a dream part with wolves), so in that sense the movie is disappointing if one is looking for horror. I suppose one could look at the film from a psychological standpoint (though the twist at the end isn't really that surprising), or study the dynamic of how one falls in love with someone really quickly despite being engaged (par for the course, I guess). From a historical aspect, there is some importance to the movie, but it isn't a seminal piece of film to write home about. It's an okay silent drama (if you haven't seen a dozen of them already and don't have high expectations), but it's not much of a horror film to pick out of the numerous ones with wolves.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

They Came from Beyond Space.

Review #854: They Came from Beyond Space.

Cast:
Robert Hutton (Dr. Curtis Temple), Jennifer Jayne (Lee Mason), Zia Mohyeddin (Farge), Bernard Kay (Richard Arden), Michael Gough (Master of the Moon), Geoffrey Wallace (Alan Mullane), Maurice Good (Agent Stillwell), Luanshya Greer (Female Gas Station Attendant), John Harvey (Bill Trethowan), and Diana King (Mrs. Trethowan) Directed by Freddie Francis.

Review:
It figures I had to pick some low budget sci-fi flick for today, especially one made from sets from another Amicus Productions film, Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D (#472), while being based on a novel named "The Gods Hate Kansas"...while utilizing a title as cliche as one would expect. It is evident early on the lack of charisma this movie has, with everything being conveyed in a very dull manner with its ridiculous aspects seeming to be cobbled from better projects. If you like seeing random sets and random splotches of plot (like a metal plated scientist being protected from some sort of attack), this is the movie for you, with all the stops of lunacy one would expect from a low budget, low rate film. This is the kind of movie where you fight to stay attention and watch it, in part because you want to make sure you're still conscious. The cast doesn't really have any seeming life to them, with Hutton being as standard as it gets, and there is no real charisma between any of these actors. One highlight (or whatever word you would use) is one of the characters melting down their silver trophies in order to make a "helmet" to protect himself from the intruders...and it looks about as you'd expect. Naturally, the climax is a cluster of stuff thrown on the wall, with Michael Gough appearing as the Master of the Moon, where it is revealed that they did their intrusion in order to get workers to get them home to die. Yes, I'm serious. At the end (to spoil it for you), the two groups agree to have a partnership together, because I guess enslaving humans as workers to build a ship can be swept under the rug because they learned they could just have asked. The best thing about the movie? It lasts only 85 minutes. If you know me and this show well, I do have a spot for low budget flicks, provided that the movie actually looks like it's trying to be good, but this is not the right example of a good low budget film, nor a competent one.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Fiend Without a Face.

Review #853: Fiend Without a Face.

Cast:
Marshall Thompson (Major Jeff Cummings), Kynaston Reeves (Professor R. E. Walgate), Michael Balfour (Sergeant Kasper), Kim Parker (Barbara Griselle), Terry Kilburn (Captain Al Chester), Gil Winfield (Captain Warren, M.D.), Shane Cordell (Nurse), and Stanley Maxted (Colonel G. Butler) Directed by Arthur Crabtree.

Review:
This was an independent movie made in England (though set in Canada) based upon the short story "The Thought Monster" by Amelia Reynolds Long, about an invisible life form that feeds upon atomic power...and brains. As hokey as this could have been, there is a sort of enjoyment in watching stop motion effects being utilized with this invisible "fiend", and a plot that moves fairly quick...which does indeed have monsters carried by thoughts. There is something interesting about this invisible monster and that strange sound it makes when moving around and stalking these people, which is slightly amusing but also clever. Thompson isn't too bad of a lead, being as fine as the movie allows him to be. The rest of the cast is alright, though the real fun is the climax, where they battle the monsters. The last 15 minutes is when the movie gets really interesting, in part because of the fact that the monsters become visible...as brains with spinal cords. The movie never comes off as too serious or ridiculous, falling around the middle with enough sense to let itself be and show some wonder and delightful horror, especially when one of the monsters gets hit with a hammer. There's just something weird and wild about this climax that just makes for so much fun, much like good b-movies do. The liquid effects are also pretty clever, in a movie that manages to be nifty and workable in being a serviceable atomic flick workable for anyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Terror (1963).

Review #852: The Terror.

Cast: 

Boris Karloff (Baron von Leppe/Eric), Jack Nicholson (Andre Duvalier), Dick Miller (Stefan), Sandra Knight (Helene/Ilsa), Dorothy Neumann (Katrina the Witch), and Jonathan Haze (Gustaf) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors and #684 - It Conquered the World)

Review: 

It figures that I get to a Roger Corman movie for this month, and it just so happens to have Jack Nicholson in one of his earliest roles, alongside Boris Karloff. The idea for the movie came not because of a really great idea for a movie, but because Corman wanted to take advantage of sets left over from another production of his, The Raven. In fact, Karloff's scenes were done in three days, and he later described Corman as having "the sketchiest outline of a story.", which is amusing. One thing I can say is that there are some good looking sets, and some moderately entertaining effects. The movie is a bit of a mess, suffice to say, but what do you expect? In addition to Corman, there were four other people who directed parts of the movie (Francis Ford Coppola, Monte Hellman, Jack Hill, and Jack Nicholson), with an 81 minute run time as well. The movie runs at such a strange jumbled pace, with a small cast making up the characters and plot twists being revealed here and there, which one should remember was written for the price of $1,600. You might as well make a flow chart for the movie, or set up a bingo card of things that happen (witch being struck by lightning got me bingo)...and what is The Terror anyway? (the answer to this is placed under your floorboard). I especially love the climax where Karloff and Knight "fight" each other right before a flood happens. Karloff does what he does best in a role as strange as it would be for anyone not named Boris Karloff, and he has quite the screen presence. Nicholson can't really give his character much charisma, but he tries his best to make for an adequate performance. Honestly this isn't a terrible movie, just a strangely cobbled one that could be entertaining to watch late at night before going to bed, which is easy considering this is in the public domain. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Monuments Men.

Review #851: The Monuments Men.

Cast:
George Clooney (Lt. Frank Stokes), Matt Damon (Lt. James Granger), Bill Murray (Sgt. Richard Campbell), John Goodman (Sgt. Walter Garfield), Jean Dujardin (2nd Lt. Jean-Claude Clermont), Bob Balaban (Pvt. Preston Savitz), Hugh Bonneville (2nd Lt. Donald Jeffries), Cate Blanchett (Claire Simone), Serge Hazanavicius (René Armand), Sam Hazeldine (Colonel Langton), and Dimitri Leonidas (Pvt. Sam Epstein) Directed by George Clooney.

Review:
Don't worry, the next review will be something in horror. This one just happened to come up.
It's clear that Clooney (who also wrote and produced the movie along with Grant Heslov) wanted to make a good movie about a real life event (while based on the book "The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History" by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter), with a fairly established cast and a fair budget of $70 million. The end result however comes off as just an average kind of production that really seems lacking in its own kind of personality. The light-hearted barbs throughout the movie are good, but there really isn't much to these characters that you wouldn't see in any other corny kind of work. It's not so much that these characters are uninteresting, it's that the actors (such as Murray) can only stretch it as far as the script wants them to go (with the set up for these characters also being a problem). Clooney is vaguely there as a main character, with only the end scene being noteworthy, in showing some sort of emotion. Damon is only interesting when paired with Blanchett, but it doesn't go anywhere unexpected. Murray and Balaban are fine, but I still wish there was something to the background of even just one of these characters. Even taking into account some of the historical quibbles, it's not really anything that entirely special. The movie is just a bit under two hours, but it feels so long to the point where I was wondering when it actually will get to to some sort of action. It's not that the movie would've been better with more war action, it's that the movie takes its time to actually get to searching for the art. While I admit that I didn't hate the experience of watching it, I kept feeling that reading a book or documentary based on the real life Monuments Men would've been a bit more substantial. The movie does have wonderful scenery, but it is wasted in a movie that really seems to go nowhere other than just through some vague sort of motions. If you're looking for a movie to watch late at night to sleep on or watching it for an Art class (like I did), I suppose it could work on some level for you, but you might be better off researching the subject matter instead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923).

Review #850: The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Cast
Lon Chaney (Quasimodo), Patsy Ruth Miller (Esmeralda), Norman Kerry (Phoebus de Chateaupers), Kate Lester (Madame de Gondelaurier), Winifred Bryson (Fleur de Lys), Nigel De Brulier (Don Claudio), Brandon Hurst (Jehan), Ernest Torrence (Clopin), and Tully Marshall (King Louis XI) Directed by Wallace Worsley.

Review
While this does not necessarily fall into the horror genre (being more of a romance/drama), it is often considered the first film in the "Universal Monsters" series, with a few of the films from that line already reviewed on this show (such as The Phantom of the Opera (#774), the Dracula films, the Frankenstein films, The Invisible Man (#069), The Old Dark House (#465), Murders in the Rue Morgue (#531), The Mummy (#632)...), adapted from the 1831 novel of the same name by Victor Hugo, with certain liberties taken. I figured it was time to get to this film, which I had considered doing for quite some time, though I always seemed to push it back for other movies, until now. It is clear to see why Chaney was often called "The Man of a Thousand Faces", as he is spectacularly unrecognizable as the Hunchback, with the makeup being exquisitely grotesque, looking great for the time and even now. Miller and Kerry do fine in their romance scenes, having some sort of chemistry amidst the ultimate heartbreak. Hurst plays a decent villain, but the real star of the show is the grand scale of everything. There is a good deal of depth in the sets and costumes that create such a magnificent and true atmosphere, with different color hues in certain scenes that really stick out nicely. There isn't too much use of inter-titles, but the film manages to convey itself neatly without dialogue, like most great silent films do. The version I watched includes music compiled by Donald Hunsberger (with adaption and conduction by Robert Israel and his orchestra), which accompanies the movie excellently in capturing the movie's scale. The length of the movie depends on what copy you are seeing, ranging from 95 minutes to over two hours, with the version I watched being nearly around 110 minutes, and it paces itself well. Clearly I recommend this movie, and you can find it almost anywhere in part due to it being in the public domain.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

House of Dracula.

Review #849: House of Dracula.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Lawrence "Larry" Talbot/The Wolf Man), John Carradine (Count Dracula / Baron Latos), Martha O'Driscoll (Milizia Morelle), Lionel Atwill (Police Inspector Holtz), Onslow Stevens (Dr. Franz Edelmann), Jane Adams (Nina), Ludwig Stössel (Ziegfried), Glenn Strange (The Frankenstein Monster), and Skelton Knaggs (Steinmuhl) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein and #847 - House of Frankenstein)

Review
This was the last of the monster mashup movies by Universal in a dramatic light, released a year after House of Frankenstein (#847). By this point, it seems they were running out of gas, with this film lasting only 67 minutes, which is the same length of The Ghost of Frankenstein (#845). I guess that is the case when you release four of these in three years (1942-1945). At least this time around Dracula is given something to do...in that he wants to be cured of being a vampire (sort of). This time, the theory about the Wolf Man is due to some form of "pressure around the brain", whatever that means. At any rate, continuity is thrown out the window and promptly steamrolled into the ground once again, which never ceases to amaze me. Once again, Dracula does not fight any of the monsters, though someone else does get turned into a vampire this time around. Footage is recycled (for some scenes with The Monster, including the climax from The Ghost of Frankenstein), which is disappointing but not exactly surprising considering the low budget and the time this was made. The movie isn't a clunker, but it really shows the decline of these monsters and it doesn't stick out in any real successful way. Chaney is fine as ever, though you could watch him in any other film with the Wolf Man, though at least he gets some closure to his arc. Carradine is given a bit more to do, but it doesn't really translate to anything too memorable. This was one of Lionel Atwill's final roles before dying four months later. Stevens gets to be interesting when he turns into a vampire over halfway through the film, because for one thing he doesn't just mosey on about like Carradine, with this vampire getting to do the crazy eyes and also attack someone, too, though that may be the highlight sadly. O'Driscoll and Adams are fine, but they can't help a movie undedicated to being anything other than a standardized experience. Instead of getting angry over it being what it is, I can only come up with an exasperated sigh. There isn't much mash to this "monster mash", and really there isn't much of anything to this, but I guess this could work as a way to kill an hour...or not. Honestly, stick to any other Universal horror film of the era previously reviewed here, or write your own Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolf Man story.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Return of Dracula.

Review #848: The Return of Dracula.

Cast
Francis Lederer (Count Dracula / Bellac Gordal), Norma Eberhardt (Rachel Mayberry), Ray Stricklyn (Tim Hansen), John Wengraf (John Merriman), Virginia Vincent (Jennie Blake), Gage Clarke (Reverend Doctor Whitfield), Jimmy Baird (Mickey Mayberry), Greta Granstedt (Cora Mayberry), and Enid Yousen (Frieda) Directed by Paul Landres.

Review
Four years to the day since I reviewed Dracula (1958, #258), I decided it was time to review the other Dracula film released that same year, with this one produced by Gramercy Pictures (no relation to the current studio of that name) and released by United Artists. This was released in April of 1958, a month before the Hammer production of Dracula was released in America. The plot structure has some resemblance to Shadow of a Doubt, though I didn't think I'd see Dracula roaming the streets of a small town in California (one of my favorite lines is the mother suggesting her daughter to cut class in order to escort "Cousin Bellac" around town). While the movie is low budget, there is at least some fairly good camerawork and camera shots on Dracula are satisfying to look at. To be honest, I didn't really have kind of expectation for this film before seeing it. I hadn't heard of Francis Lederer, and I wondered how he would try to provide his own spin on the role. After all, the Dracula character is such an interesting one to see people try and carry their own flair, with the Lugosi and Lee ones being the most notable. Lederer does fine in the role, making a serviceable effort. He isn't inherently memorable, but he is at least better than a stage version of Dracula, one might say. It should be noted that he would play the role once more in an episode (named "The Devil Is Not Mocked") of Night Gallery (created by Rod Serling) thirteen years later. One thing I really didn't expect was that apparently Dracula can transform people he attacks into dogs (I guess it's better than just having them being zombie like). Then again I guess the mythos of Dracula always seems to have strange things included, so take it for what it is. The climax is fairly decent, with a surprise shot of color that certainly sticks out in a nice way, with a fairly decent way to have Dracula killed. It isn't anything monumental, but it is at least a serviceable horror film. It's not better than the Hammer Dracula film, but it is at least something one should at least consider watching around Halloween time, even if just for a look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

House of Frankenstein.

Review #847: House of Frankenstein.

Cast
Boris Karloff (Dr. Gustav Niemann), Lon Chaney Jr. (Lawrence "Larry" Talbot/The Wolf Man), John Carradine (Count Dracula), J. Carrol Naish (Daniel), Elena Verdugo (Ilonka), Anne Gwynne (Rita Hussman), Peter Coe (Karl Hussman), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Arnz), George Zucco (Bruno Lampini), Sig Ruman (Bürgermeister Hussman), William Edmunds (Fejos), Charles F. Miller (Tobermann), Philip Van Zandt (Müller), Julius Tannen (Hertz), Hans Herbert (Meier), and Glenn Strange (The Monster) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein)

Review
Released one year after Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein not only brings in Dracula and a hunchback to the monster mix, but it also has Boris Karloff, now starring in a main role who gets more time on screen than the monster he had originally played less than a decade before. This time around, Glenn Strange (the fourth actor to play him) plays the Monster for a very brief amount of time, which I guess makes sense considering how much we've seen of the character in the past few films, only being in the climax. Karloff and Naish do go well together, having some fine banter along with seeming right for the roles. Chaney is good as ever, just like the effects. If you're looking for a Dracula meet up with Frankenstein's monster, you will be sorely dissappointed, as Dracula is killed off less than an hour into the film. It is funny that he was brought back to life only because Karloff's character removed the stake from his heart. Carradine is fairly decent, but he doesn't really seem to evoke any creepy charisma that Lugosi had in the role. Verdugo is not as interesting to watch, although her calling Naish's character "mean and ugly" (the whole exchange is pretty strange itself) is somewhat enjoyable cheesy. The characters aren't really anything too special, but it is fun at least to see the ways that everything tries to be set in place, even if it comes off as cheesy, though that can work for most. At least it isn't the Wolf Man fighting Frankenstein's monster again, though there really isn't a full on monster mash. At 71 minutes, it works okay enough to pass for at least somebody. I find it to not be as good as the previous film, but it is marginally entertaining.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Review #846: Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man), Ilona Massey (Baroness Elsa Frankenstein), Patric Knowles (Dr. Frank Mannering), Lionel Atwill (Mayor), Béla Lugosi (Frankenstein's Monster), Maria Ouspenskaya (Maleva), and Dennis Hoey (Inspector Owen) Directed by Roy William Neill.

Review
This was the first in the Universal franchise to utilize two monsters for a crossover film, although one could see this as a sequel to The Wolf Man (#260). Chaney is excellent once again as the Wolf Man, expressing the tragic nature of this character with ease, along with wonderful effects and transformation once again. Lugosi's performance is well known for having been butchered by the studio, to the point where you do not get to hear him speak, not get much context into his walking nature. It's not a movie where the monsters just fight each other (that happens briefly near the end), but it is a fairly engaging yarn to watch. The music number (yes, you read that) is somewhat amusing, in that you wouldn't really expect it to actually occur. Massey does a fine job as well. Knowles is okay, but nothing too special. Atwill returns once again, getting to play a mayor, which is a bit amusing in that this time he doesn't end up dying. The continuity is a bit strange (the Monster is found in ice. What exact time period is this set in? And why does the Wolf Man need to die like this instead of just getting shot by silver and buried deeper?), but there is at least a plausible set up to most of the events of the film. The climax is satisfying in that we get to see these two monsters meet and fight (briefly), which seals the fun aspect of a concept that could have been played out terribly but thankfully isn't.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Ghost of Frankenstein.

Review #845: The Ghost of Frankenstein.

Cast
Lon Chaney Jr. (The Monster), Cedric Hardwicke (Dr. Ludwig Frankenstein/Henry Frankenstein), Ralph Bellamy (Erik Ernst), Lionel Atwill (Dr. Theodore Bohmer), Béla Lugosi (Ygor), Evelyn Ankers (Elsa Frankenstein), Janet Ann Gallow (Cloestine Hussman), Barton Yarborough (Dr. Kettering), Doris Lloyd (Martha), and Leyland Hodgson (Chief Constable) Directed by Erle C. Kenton.

Review

The original three films (#072 - Frankenstein, #394 - Bride of Frankenstein, #844 - Son of Frankenstein) are all entertaining, with Boris Karloff making for a superb monster. This is the first film without Karloff playing the role, with Chaney (who we saw in #260 - The Wolf Man) now taking the role. His performance in this one isn't as interesting, mainly because he never speaks, mainly just lumbering around, more than he did in the last one. The monster this time is wearing a suit (unlike that fur coat from the last one...don't ask how he's back to the suit), and it's a shame that there isn't much to him, save from lifting a girl to try and get a ball midway through the movie. At least Lugosi returns once again, though it isn't as memorably creepy this time. The lines at the end where he talks about living forever are pretty chilling, though. It really a movie only interesting at the end, when the Monster gets some sort of brain surgery. It is a quick movie at 67 minutes, but there really aren't too many great moments to it. I do find it funny that there is another Frankenstein around to operate on the monster (and that the ghost looks like him, too), but also funny that when he looks at the original Frankenstein's notes that it shows clips from the first film. Hardwicke does okay, but he isn't as fun as the other two Frankensteins. The effects are adequate, but it is clear to note this was the first Frankenstein movie made as a "b-picture", with lower budgets and reuse of actors. It's not a bad flick by at means, but it really doesn't seem to do anything new, which is probably why the next film would be a crossover between a familiar monster...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Son of Frankenstein.

Review #844: Son of Frankenstein.

Cast
Basil Rathbone (Baron Wolf von Frankenstein), Boris Karloff (The Monster), Bela Lugosi (Ygor), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Krogh), Josephine Hutchinson (Elsa von Frankenstein), Donnie Dunagan (Peter von Frankenstein), Emma Dunn (Amelia), Edgar Norton (Thomas Benson), and Perry Ivins (Fritz) Directed by Rowland V. Lee.

Review
After three years (or around 1214 days), I finally got around to seeing the third Frankenstein movie released by Universal. The previous one (#394 - Bride of Frankenstein) was an excellent follow up to the first film, with an excellent climax to boot, though the monster movie craze for Universal had declined by 1936. On August 5, 1938, the Regina-Wilshire Theatre showcased a double feature of Dracula and Frankenstein (with some also reporting that Son of Kong was also shown), which was a success. The successes from other theaters inspired Universal to rush this movie into production by late 1938, though without Colin Clive (who had died in 1937) and James Whale, with the focus now on the son of Dr. Frankenstein. I do wonder about how long this is set after though, since Atwill's character relates about having his arm ripped out of him when he was a young boy, or where Lugosi's Ygor was during any of those events since he didn't seem to be there before...but the movie is entertaining enough even with some quirks like that. Rathbone is excellent as ever, clearly getting into this role with enough believably. Karloff (in the last time playing the Monster for Universal) is fine, even if this time he doesn't have much to say, save for occasional growls. It is strange to see him in a fur vest, too. Lugosi is excellent as Ygor, having a haunting creepiness about him (particularly when revealing his neck wound from being hanged) that works in the movie's advantage. The effects and camera shots are also pretty wonderful to look at as well. On the whole, it's not as good as the other two films, but it is a serviceable monster movie that works well enough at 99 minutes.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Last Man on Earth (1964).

Review #843: The Last Man on Earth.

Cast
Vincent Price (Dr. Robert Morgan), Franca Bettoia (Ruth Collins), Emma Danieli (Virginia Morgan), Giacomo Rossi-Stuart (Ben Cortman), Umberto Raho (Dr. Mercer), and Christi Courtland (Kathy Morgan) Directed by Ubaldo Ragona and Sidney Salkow.

Review

Based off the novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson (which inspired George Romero to make Night of the Living Dead), this was an Italian production that was released by American International Pictures, who have been covered before (#592 - Dementia 13, #654 - The Screaming Skull, #656 - Invasion of the Saucer Men, #792 - Black Sabbath) on this show. Price does a fairly decent job, but I find him to be more fun in other movies when he is playing something with a bit more edge to it, as strange as it seems. Bettoia is only in the last half of the movie, but she is moderately enjoyable. The movie does at least have some sort of downbeat mood that is fairly consistent, with some fine scenes of showing the main character in his desperation. The vampires aren't really anything too scary, but they do provide an adequate enemy for Price. The flashback scenes are okay, helping to make Price a bit more developed. It sometimes seems a bit hokey, but it is at least entertaining enough in serving its purpose. The climax has some decent enough tragedy, at least. At 86 minutes, it is a movie that doesn't really go too long, and if you're looking for a Vincent Price horror film this may work for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.