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.

Scars of Dracula.

Review #2106: Scars of Dracula.

Cast: 

Dennis Waterman (Simon Carlson), Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Jenny Hanley (Sarah Framsen), Christopher Matthews (Paul Carlson), Patrick Troughton (Klove), Anouska Hempel (Tania), Michael Ripper (Landlord), and Michael Gwynn (The Priest) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires)

Review: 

The Hammer rendition of Dracula had a strange experiment of sorts in 1970. Consider the fact that it saw two films released involving Christopher Lee in the title role: Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while this film was released in November, complete with being released on the same day as The Horror of Frankenstein (1970). The film starts with, well, a sort-of resurrection sequence for Dracula, which involves a bat (on a string) throwing up blood onto him while he is around in a stone chamber totally closed off to all except, well, bats. The attempt by the villagers to strike upon the castle and take down Dracula only results in a burnt castle and the death of several people by vampire bats when the villagers arrive back to the churches to their loved ones. It takes about a third of the film (one that lasts 95 minutes) before one gets to hear Lee speak, which works out perhaps a bit better this time around when it comes to plot construction, or at least the idea of it. Lee was quite busy in the role of Dracula that year, since he also starred in Count Dracula (1970), the Jesus Franco production that somehow wasn't any better than the Hammer Dracula films, and Baker was busy with vampire films too with the release of The Vampire Lovers (1970). The script was written by Anthony Hinds, who actually was the son of William Hinds, the founder of Hammer Film Productions (it was Anthony who had suggested Hammer go after the screen rights to The Quartermass Experiment from the BBC). He had written for the previous four Dracula films (The Brides of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave and Taste, respectively)

The series was already quite over-the-top if you think about it, considering that one of them saw the vampire get taken down by running water (or having three films in a row where the lead male presence besides Lee plays a character named Paul), so the idea of him going around using a knife on someone and then sucking their blood is about on point. The film does dwell a bit on the gore when it comes to the opening (vampire bat ravaging, anyone?), which probably is there to make up for a story that is paler than the previous renditions. It is evident where Hammer would get the idea to try and revitalize the series with "A.D. 1972", that is for sure, and it starts with thinking to do anything other than try another weak lead to counter the title character. Lee had grown tired of the role even before the release of his final film as Dracula (he often stated that the scripts seemed as if Dracula was added in later), but at least one can detect where he tried his best to capture what he felt was defined by Bram Stoker in the original novel when it comes to (in his words) "aloof majesty, ferocity of dignity, and of somber mystery". In short, there are no bad performances when it comes to Lee as Dracula. The bar for the films with him may have had their highs and lows, but at least Lee looks the part. Waterman was apparently more known for tough-guy roles, which probably explains why the role doesn't really have any bite present when it comes to playing off the mysteries of what one has seen before from folks encountering a spooky place where the villagers play pretend. The only notable supporting member might be Troughton, if only because, well, a sniveling helper to Dracula played by someone familiar to viewers of a certain British TV show is worth a chuckle. The climax is more amusing in the execution rather than as a way to end things on a useful note, since it sees Dracula grab a metal beam that had been thrust on him only to see the beam get struck by lightning that results in him being on fire to writhe around before falling out of the castle. As a whole, it definitely isn't one of the better efforts by Hammer, seemingly satisfying just the bare minimum for what you would hope to have from them that makes for a mediocre time. 

Now, as for the Frankenstein film that came with it...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy (1959).

Review #2096: The Mummy (1959).

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (John Banning), Christopher Lee (Kharis / The Mummy), Yvonne Furneaux (Isobel Banning / Princess Ananka), Eddie Byrne (Inspector Mulrooney), Felix Aylmer (Stephen Banning), Raymond Huntley (Joseph Whemple), George Pastell (Mehemet Bey), Michael Ripper (Poacher), George Woodbridge (P. C. Blake), and Harold Goodwin (Pat) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, and #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula)

Review: 

"I have always strenuously tried to avoid being blatant in my pictures. Instead, whenever possible, I have used the camera to show things - especially nasty things - happening by implication."

If you recall, Hammer was on a roll with horror films fit for the international tastes. The successes of The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) proved that Terence Fisher was the right and reliable pick for Hammer's big venture in horror, and his subsequent direction of Dracula (1958) started yet another franchise for Hammer. Who better to do a film involving another monster with familiar cast and crew involved? While the film one might think of it as a remake of The Mummy since it has the same time, it actually seems more in line with the three sequels since the last name of Banning and the name of Kharis came from those, while The Mummy's Ghost also involved a swamp for its climax (at any rate, instead of tana leaves, one sees a Scroll of Life). In general, Universal (releaser of those classic horror films) distributed the film under the "International" label for, well, international releases. The film was written by Jimmy Sangster, who had written several scripts for previous Hammer films. Evidently, the writer of the 1932 adaptation in Nina Wilcox Putnam thought it was "disgusting" and was displeased that it was done without her knowledge or consent (ironic, since the resulting film is considerably superior to the older film in most respects). Three further films were done by Hammer with mummies with The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964), The Mummy's Shroud (1967), and Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971); of these, only Pastell returned to appear in any of the films from the original cast, and he only appeared in Tomb; perhaps not surprisingly, none of the films were as successful as the original.

It probably would surprise nobody that the film was a reliable success with how efficient it is with being a viscerally gripping feature that exceeds the original Mummy films with plenty to spare. It is a vibrant feature beyond just being in color, to put it mildly. It is familiar routine (lost loves and impending doom) but it is entertaining routine that does not waver from its goals with distracting relief or imbalances. One would like to not play favorites with film-watching when it comes to acting, but I always find myself smiling at the prospect of seeing Christopher Lee in a lead role, even if it involves him under plenty of makeup, which is exquisite. With a role that invites only dialogue for the flashback sequence (for obvious reasons), he makes for a quality threat that has a looming wandering quality of tragedy that makes a distinct monster than if one simply had a stuntman do it all because of the eyes that come out to play; incidentally, he suffered a handful of injuries on the film, such as separating his shoulder for a break-in sequence. This also applies to Cushing, who has the great dignity required to make his leading qualities all the more enterprising for someone to follow along, because heaven knows there is no man that can deliver exposition like he can. Furneaux is the lookalike that is really more of an alluring presence in the latter part of the film, which goes about as well as you would think in passive energy. The supporting cast is fine, although it is mostly headlined by Pastell and his fervent energy. There are a handful of scenes one could highlight, such as the first sight of the mummy rising, or perhaps the story of how the mummy came to be (exposition is great when delivered by Cushing and Lee being present), but the sequence where Cushing essentially taunts Pastell with regard to his beliefs just to stoke the flame a bit probably should be mentioned. At any rate, it is a gripping feature made in the perfect time for Hammer to stoke the flames of spooking its audience in consistent entertaining fashion with a game cast and director to accomplish everything required to make one of the most interesting films involving mummies of its time. For the Hammer fan at heart, this is one of the more entertaining efforts by the company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: AIP double feature.

X the Unknown.

Review #837: X the Unknown.

Cast
Dean Jagger (Dr. Adam Royston), Leo McKern (Mac McGill), Edward Chapman (John Elliott), William Lucas (Peter Elliott), Peter Hammond (Lieutenant Bannerman), Anthony Newley (Lance Corporal "Spider" Webb), Ian MacNaughton (Haggis), Michael Ripper (Sergeant Harry Grimsdyke), Michael Brooke (Willie Harding), Frazer Hines (Ian Osborne), Norman Macowan (Old Tom), and John Harvey (Major Cartwright) Directed by Leslie Norman.

Review
This was a Hammer production that was distributed by Warner Brothers set in Scotland (filmed in England) released nearly 60 years ago in 1956, written by the same person behind The Curse of Frankenstein, Dracula (1958), The Revenge of Frankenstein, and The Pirates of Blood River (#593). It's evident that there was effort to make a competent science fiction flick, with a well rounded cast and some fine thrills presented about something lurking in a crack shaped like a Y. By the time the movie's half over, a theory (pretty much confirmed later on) on what the creature may be is presented that is competently delivered, for a sci-fi plot anyway. Radioactive muddy ooze is par for the course for the time period, though there isn't a sense of light-hearted tone to it nor the acting, which works well for its time. Jagger does a good job as a scientist, feeling believable enough. McKern and Chapman are also okay. The rest of the cast is serviceable enough for the plot, with no random side characters involved. The effects are pretty decent as well (what with it essentially being giant mud), and the stuff in the pit are also pretty well done. The ending is a bit weird, ending with some sort of ambiguity. On the whole, X the Unknown manages to flow well enough at 81 minutes that keeps itself in focus with a strange but useful premise. There are endless amount of science fiction films (British or not), but this might be right enough for someone looking for something decent of the genre.

On a unrelated note, my heart goes out those affected by the recent events in Italy, Turkey and Myanmar. I wish them the best of luck in recovering from these tragedies. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Pirates of Blood River.

Review #593: The Pirates of Blood River.

Cast
Kerwin Mathews (Jonathon Standing), Glenn Corbett (Henry), Christopher Lee (Captain LaRoche), Peter Arne (Hench), Marla Landi (Bess Standing), Desmond Llewelyn (Tom Blackthorne), Oliver Reed (Brocaire), Andrew Keir (Jason Standing), and Michael Ripper (Mack) Directed by John Gilling.

Review
Christopher Lee (a regular occurring actor on this show) as the villain in a Hammer pirate movie? What could go wrong? As it turns out, a few things. The biggest problem is that the film is so dull. It feels so standard, like it's fulfilling a checklist of stuff without much excitement to it. The movie has one sword fight, and it's at the end of the movie, but by the time you get to the end you'll either be asleep or won't care. The actors are just okay, it's a shame that Lee is wasted in this movie, stuck in a ridiculous haircut that makes him look like Moe from the Three Stooges and an eye patch from your local dollar store. The pirates are the most interesting characters as our main character is just boring, and so is the rest of the non pirate cast. The action is sparse, but there sure is a good deal of dialogue. They do have a sword fight between two pirates...blindfolded, which sounds fun for about 2 minutes. This is just a mediocre/boring film that is just a disappointment. Stick to better pirate movies. Countdown to 600: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.