Showing posts with label Francis de Wolff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francis de Wolff. Show all posts

October 3, 2025

The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll.

Review #2430: The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll.

Cast: 
Paul Massie (Dr. Henry Jekyll/Mr. Edward Hyde), Dawn Addams (Kitty Jekyll), Christopher Lee (Paul Allen), David Kossoff (Dr. Littauer), Francis de Wolff (Inspector), Norma Marla (Maria), Magda Miller (Sphinx Girl), Oliver Reed (nightclub bouncer), and William Kendall (clubman)


Review: 
I guess Terence Fisher really was the everyman for anything related to horror or mystery. From Frankenstein to Dracula to mummies to werewolves to black magic to Sherlock Holmes to, well, I guess it makes sense to say Hammer went with Fisher for their attempt at Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde......okay actually it was their second attempt. For whatever reason, in 1959, Hammer did a comic adaptation of the book and called it The Ugly Duckling with Bernard Breeslaw playing the key Jekyll (tough luck clouded the movie anyway, it apparently is not available on home video and may very well be lost). Now, here we are with a serious attempt at it for 1960. It had been a while since there was a serious attempt at it anyway, as the previous decade had a litany of variations on the story (whether it be a Son in 1951, a comedy parody in 1953, a Daughter in 1957, or, well, comedy stuff: previously, I watched two adaptations of the material with 1920 and 1931). The movie was written by Wolf Mankowitz (a writer of novels and films probably best known for A Kid for Two Farhings [1953]), and the distribution was two-fold: Columbia Pictures released it in the United Kingdom while American International Pictures distributed it in the States in 1961 as "House of Fright" that cut out eight minutes (which defeats the whole damn point of watching a horror movie, particularly one that runs at only 88 minutes for the modern age anyway); neither release was particularly successful (also good god that US title is horrible), but well, people kept making Hyde films: Hammer themselves did a variation with Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde in 1971 while the current rendition of Hammer distributed Doctor Jekyll in 2023. And, well, Christopher Lee ended up playing a rendition of the Jekyll tale with I, Monster (1971) a few years later.

It didn't get much interest six decades ago, but it would fit pretty well for those who are willing to watch a lurid slow-burn. Sure, it isn't much of an adaptation of the material (hell, most of them aren't going to use the framing device of the novella that one doesn't know if Jekyll is actually Hyde for a time), most notably that Jekyll is depicted with a beard while Hyde is the "handsome" one with no beard (I guess the hair just retracts like clicking a pen over and over). So you get a movie that plays the Victorian times against each other to justify someone deciding to explore just what the "id" and the man is. Sure, he may not go around getting into fights, but Hyde sets up a person to get killed by a snake and basically leads to the death of two women (one by lovely fall and the other by straight up murder) while Jekyll just ages. It may interest you to know that Massie was more of a teacher than an actor. The Canadian (from St. Catharines, Ontario) acted in the late 1950s but changed his attention to being a theater professor for the University of South Florida that dealt with productions for over two decades. His performance here might be a bit too artificial to really accomplish the mental duel of someone who really should've not tried to touch matters of the soul, but he does at least maneuver some entertainment in making the differences between Hyde and Jekyll clear (Hyde isn't exactly unstoppable, for one). Fundamentally though, Lee does shine well in a role that he apparently thought was one of his favorites. Playing a cad that requires him to just be suave without needing to lurch in makeup does sound entertaining, and he does make an interesting partner to Addams in dastardly things (gasp: an affair). You get the spiel of authority stuff from Kossoff and de Wolff while Marla slithers through a bit of material standardly enough. In general, the movie having little gruesome content likely didn't give it many favors, but there are those who might find an interesting movie to be had here, one that has plenty of color and artificial nature to maybe get over the finish line for casual interest. I think it is fine enough to serve well for a Hammer marathon, so inquire for yourself.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

June 12, 2017

Ivanhoe (1952).


Review #946: Ivanhoe.

Cast:
Robert Taylor (Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe), Elizabeth Taylor (Rebecca), Joan Fontaine (Rowena), George Sanders (Sir Brian De Bois-Guilbert), Emlyn Williams (Wamba), Robert Douglas (Sir Hugh De Bracy), Finlay Currie (Sir Cedric of Ivanhoe), Felix Aylmer (Isaac of York), Francis de Wolff (Front De Boeuf), Norman Wooland (King Richard), and Basil Sydney (Waldemar Fitzurse) Directed by Richard Thorpe (#327 - Jailhouse Rock)

Review:
Based off the historical novel of the same name by Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe manages to shine as a fine piece of entertainment, filled with Technicolor spectacle and costumes to go with it. I can't say it's as good as The Adventures of Robin Hood (#505), for example, but it is at least a pretty interesting piece of work. Robert Taylor is a capable lead, managing to give off a commanding presence pretty quickly. An interesting fact is that Taylor, along with Thorpe and producer Pandro S. Berman, would later make two more films together in the next few years (Knights of the Round Table and The Adventures of Quentin Durward), forming an unofficial trilogy. Elizabeth Taylor does a fine job in this sweet but also capable character. Fontaine doesn't have as much to do, but she gives off a competent feel. The three form an interesting love triangle that does prove somewhat compelling, alongside the main plot, anyway. Sanders is the main adversary, and he does an alright job in making him somewhat three dimensional, particularly around the end of the film. The Norman-Saxon plot is decent, though nothing too special. Miklós Rózsa does a fine job with the music score, being quite heroic and quite fitting for the movie. The jousting sequence is well executed, and the battles are also pretty well done in capturing excitement and pacing.  Within its 106 minute run-time is a movie that balances a fine line between action and structure that does not drag itself too often, and while it may succeed more in the former than the latter, it definitely is worth consideration, with its spirit of thrills outweighing the risks.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

October 27, 2012

Movie Night: The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)


Review #272: The Hound of the Baskervilles.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Sherlock Holmes), André Morell (John Watson), Christopher Lee (Henry Baskerville), Marla Landi (Cecile Stapleton), Ewen Solon (Stapleton), Francis de Wolff (Richard Mortimer), Miles Malleson (Frankland), John Le Mesurier (Barrymore), and David Oxley (Hugo Baskerville), Directed by Terrance Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein and #258 - Dracula.)

Review
Once again I'm reviewing a Hammer film with who else but with Cushing, Lee, and Fisher all involved. And it is grand in its approach and it is also a lot of fun. This is adapted from the 1902 novel by Arthur Conan Doyle of the same name (Strangely enough, I've read the book. Me reading a book and then the film based upon that? Impossible!), and it has been adaped into film and television over 20 times since the first in 1914. Anyway, the acting is good here, with Cushing and Morell doing a really good job conveying the two they are meant to portraying, Holmes and Watson. Lee does a fine job here (He's moved from being Dracula to the Creature to a character who speaks a good deal of dialogue.) It does change from the novel (such as having a sacrifice, a tarantula and a mine shaft involved along with giving a certain thing a mask instead of phosphorus paint.) But I won't be angry for that. Why? Because the film still keeps to its roots of just being a detective mystery that is still a lot of fun, deviations and all.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.