The Vampire Lovers.

Review #2284: The Vampire Lovers.

Cast: 

Ingrid Pitt (Marcilla/Carmilla/Mircalla Karnstein), Pippa Steel (Laura Spielsdorf), Madeline Smith (Emma Morton), Peter Cushing (General Spielsdorf), George Cole (Roger Morton), Dawn Addams (the Countess), Kate O'Mara (Mademoiselle Perrodot), Douglas Wilmer (Baron Joachim von Hartog), Jon Finch (Carl Ebhardt), Ferdy Mayne (The Doctor), Kirsten Lindholm (the First Vampire), and John Forbes-Robertson (the Man in Black) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires. #2106 - Scars of Dracula, #2120 - The Vault of Horror)

Review: 

Well, it was the dawn of the 1970s and therefore the dawn of trying to do something a bit different with vampire movies...The Vampire Lovers was the first of what is considered a "Karnstein Trilogy". All three films were produced by Hammer to go along with having a screenplay by Tudor Gates. Each had a different company responsible for getting it shown in the States, with this one being a co-production between Hammer and American International Pictures. The film uses the Gothic novella Carmilla (as serialized by Sheridan Le Fanu from 1871 to 1872; he died the following year), which involved a woman being prey to a female vampire that is later revealed be a Countess Karnstein. Harry Fine and Michael Style produced the film together and wrote the adaptation with Gates. Baker was once again directing a film (already noted for A Night to Remember (1958) and TV work) with Hammer after having done work for them with Quatermass and the Pit (1967), The Anniversary (1968), and Moon Zero Two (1969) It was the only one of the films to have AIP involved. The next two films of the trilogy were each released in 1971 with Lust for a Vampire (as directed by Jimmy Sangster with Yutte Stensgaard and Mike Raven as the new Karnsteins) and Twins of Evil (as directed by John Hough with Damien Thomas and Katya Wyeth as Karnsteins alongside the Collinson sisters)

Admittedly, one does get what they were looking for in leering power with as many bosoms as there are vampires. You have to love a movie that gives a warning on the poster that it is "Not for the mentally immature". It probably isn't as vaunted in devastating power of lurid sex and violence as one might wonder about, but it is a neat gem worth giving some interest for its craftsmanship in the long run. You get your melodrama that will build the inevitable in hunting and tombs and all that stuff that matters, albeit in a split format that gets you a head-chopping early before getting into the cyclical nature of a woman falling into the habit of being friendly with a young lady (first with Steel and then with Smith). Pitt went on to do other vampire-related films such as Countess Dracula (1971) to go along with dabbling in writing (such as Bedside Companion for Vampire Lovers). She had a clear view of how it felt to do films like these that works out here for alluring charm, one who plays it all much like a cat playing with the things around them (so not exactly in a carnal way). Smith probably plays it a bit too much like a deer in the headlights in innocence, but it does lend itself to some amusing moments when she and Pitt engage in play. You don't get as much of Cushing as you might wonder about, but I suppose not every vampire film with him needs to be him giving you exposition, though funny still to see him paired with Wilmer (who like Cushing played Sherlock Holmes), which works out fine. It's strange that there even is a "man in black" watching the proceedings at all to go along with nightmares of cats (vampires, cats, black-and-white, get it?). The vampire death gives you something different: stake to the chest and a head-chopping, although it probably is most striking to see a painting turn decrepit for that last shot. In general, it delivers allure in the gradual display of lurid entertainment you would expect in terms of appealing women and the patience to make the display of deja vu lady vampirism work out without seeming tired or out of its element. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

El Cid.

Review #1408: El Cid.

Cast: 
Charlton Heston (Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, El Cid), Sophia Loren (Doña Ximena), Herbert Lom (Ben Yusuf), Raf Vallone (García Ordóñez), Geneviève Page (Doña Urraca), John Fraser (Alfonso VI, King of Castile), Douglas Wilmer (Al-Mu'tamin, Emir of Zaragoza), Frank Thring (Al-Kadir, Emir of Valencia), Michael Hordern (Don Diego), Andrew Cruickshank (Count Gormaz), Gary Raymond (Prince Sancho), Ralph Truman (King Ferdinand), and Massimo Serato (Fañez) Directed by Anthony Mann (#947 - He Walked by Night)

Review: 
"I'm not a genius, I'm a worker."

Epic films, when in the right hands, can prove to be entertaining spectacles that make one interested in the subject matter or in its setting. Anthony Mann served to be a good choice to make an epic film, despite having most of his work being film noirs and westerns. Mann found his first calling with the theatre as an actor and eventually as director. After some work in the Theatre Guild and the WPA Federal Theatre Project, he was hired by David O. Selznick to scout talent and serve as casting and screen test director, doing so for films like Gone with the Wind (1939). After a few years of assistant directing, he made his debut as main director in Dr. Broadway (1942). He directed B-movies (mostly noirs and dramas) for numerous studios such as Paramount Pictures, RKO, and Eagle-Lion in his early years, with highlights being T-Men (1947), Raw Deal (1948) and un-credited work on He Walked by Night (1948). He soon added Westerns to his foray with Winchester '73 (1950), which would be the first of his with James Stewart. This was the fourth-to-last film (along with his last major success) of a career that spanned over thirty films in 26 years before suffering a heart attack at the age of 60. This film was produced by Samuel Bronston, who was behind a few historical epics such as John Paul Jones (1959), King of Kings (1961), 55 Days at Peking (1963, also starring Heston) and The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964, also directed by Mann and starring Loren).

It should figure that theatre-turned film star Heston would star in an epic like this, since a selection of his memorable films over a career that spanned six decades and dozens of movies were from epics like The Ten Commandments (1956), The Big Country (1958), and Ben-Hur (1959). Accompanying him is international star Loren, who came from poverty as a child to beauty pageant participant and eventual actress who became the first thespian to win an Academy Award for a non-English language performance with Two Women (1960). When the film isn't spending time on its sets or setting up its battles with bombastic nature, Heston and Loren are present to make a fair couple of passion to look upon a film that spans years and sometimes seems to feel like it too. This is a loose depiction of El Cid, the celebrated national hero of Spain that lived in the eleventh century, which has proven a source for numerous works such as the epic poem El Cantar de Mio Cid, and noted historian Ramón Menéndez Pidal was a consultant on the film. There is plenty of time to spend in three hours with something that wants to depict honor and legend that makes for a diverting time that keeps its conflicts in check without too much confusion or becoming a shell of itself and seeming outdated. It won't win all the credit for complete accuracy to history (such as the actual fate of El Cid), but the legend still presents itself with enough power from this film to inspire further interest regardless. Heston and Loren did not get along too well in making the film, but they still manage to come off together decently, perhaps in part because of that tension that carries over to a good chunk of its first half, and it eventually ekes its way out of seeming wooden on both sides, with Heston being a towering presence and Loren being a timeless figure of devotedness. The rest of the actors fall in line just as well, but the true highlight is undoubtedly the battle sequences. Any time that one gets to see a tremendous execution of horses and knights is a good one to have, with the jousting sequence being a fun one to view especially. The strangest thing is not the fact that Heston was unimpressed by the film (with some of that reason being Mann's insistence on shooting the battles himself), it was the fact that he felt that director best suited for the film was William Wyler, while conversely feeling that Mann would have been the better choice for Ben-Hur (1959). Regardless of that fact, one cannot deny that this is a fair epic to stand for its era, mixing spectacle and romance with a capable director and stars to make it a useful experience to view once as a showing of a tale worth looking into further.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Octopussy.

Review #360: Octopussy.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Maud Adams (Octopussy), Louis Jourdan (Kamal Khan), Steven Berkoff (General Orlov), Kabir Bedi (Gobinda), Kristina Wayborn (Magda), Vijay Amritraj (Vijay), David Meyer (Mischka), Anthony Meyer (Grischka), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Robert Brown (M), Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), Douglas Wilmer (Jim Fanning), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, #296 - A View to a Kill, #358 - For Your Eyes Only)

Review
This was the 13th James Bond film, and Roger Moore's 6th overall. This is the last review of Roger Moore as James Bond, and his era (of 12 years) had its good films (The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only), its strangeness (Live and Let Die, Moonraker, A View to a Kill), and... well...(The Man with the Golden Gun)...yeah. But is this any good? Well...Let's get to the point. Moore does a fine job as usual, nothing really to pick at for acting per say. Maud Adams is our lady in the Bond franchise...again. She was in TMWTGG, a secondary leading lady, now she is the main lead. And she is okay, not really a great leading lady, but take her acting for what it's worth. Jourdan plays our...villain. He's kinda forgettable and his henchmen is sadly forgettable. The only memorable guy with a weapon is...the guy with a saw yo-yo. Seriously. Llewelyn gets a slightly bigger role and he is enjoyable, like usual. Robert Brown as the new M is alright, not as well as Bernard Lee, but still alright. He would be M for the next three films. The rest of the cast (Keen, Gotell, and Maxwell) do good as always. Of course the film seems like a good film, and it does have its moments, but it all bogs down due to a flaw: the plot. Maybe it's just me, but I really wonder what the plot was about exactly, something about smuggling, or about...Bond briefly as a clown? Yeah, it's a bit weird. Is it odd? Yes. Does it have moments of watchability? Sure. Is it that bad? Not really. It is alright, but take it for what's it worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.