Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell.

Review #2263: Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell.

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein / Dr. Carl Victor), Shane Briant (Dr. Simon Helder), Madeline Smith (Sarah "Angel" Klauss), David Prowse (the Creature / Herr Schneider), John Stratton (Asylum Director Adolf Klauss), Michael Ward (Transvest), Elsie Wagstaff (Wild one), Norman Mitchell (Police Sergeant), Clifford Mollison (Judge), Patrick Troughton (bodysnatcher), Philip Voss (Ernst), Christopher Cunningham (Hans), and Charles Lloyd-Pack (Professor Durendel) 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, #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula, #2096 - The Mummy [1959])

Review: 

Admittedly, the Frankenstein series operated by Hammer needed a rest. This was the seventh and final feature of a saga that had started nearly two decades prior with The Curse of Frankenstein (1957). Cushing, if one remembers correctly, had appeared in all but The Horror of Frankenstein (1970), which was the ill-fated attempt to start anew with a different Frankenstein that no one cared about. This was the 50th feature film directed by Terence Fisher. He was a craftsman at getting movies done, doing a variety of features one could put for a double feature (crime or otherwise), such as his first effort for Hammer with The Last Page (1952). When Curse rocked the horror world, Fisher was there to direct the 1958 follow-up with Revenge along with adaptations of other books and horror creatures. He returned to the series with Frankenstein Created Woman (1967) and Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969), with the latter being his last film for five years because of a few accidents he had to heal from. He turned 70 prior to the release of the film (which actually was shot in 1972 but delayed), whereupon he retired until his death in 1980. Fisher may not be the seminal name for British horror directors, but he was prolific and efficient enough to endure with a hodgepodge of features that still get airplay every so often in October. The film was written by Anthony Hinds, one of his last features for Hammer; the company was liquidated in 1979, having closed itself out with films such as Captain Kronos – Vampire Hunter (1974), To the Devil a Daughter (1976), and The Lady Vanishes (1979).

I wish I could love the movie, but it sure is bound to its asylum setting and its idea of makeup to its own detriment that is only a notch above The Evil of Frankenstein. Sure, you can say that the film was the last gasp for those who wanted to see something different beyond the creature features, but really it just is a case where some decent movies are just mediocre regardless of the times. It came out in the same year as the other swansong for Hammer involving Cushing with The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974), and it is pretty easy to see that at least one series got to end with some sort of dignity. Apparently, Cushing did his own wig for the film. It does not fit him well in any sense, but one does not get the sense that he has lost any step from the stuff of old when it comes to dogged pursuit of creation. He has essentially become a prisoner of his own ambition, one who can manipulate certain people when he feels like it but is still doing the same song-and-dance of trying to play God that has only seen death (that and damaged hands). Briant obviously is meant to be taken as part of the "new blood" of taking interest in the human body, but he doesn't really have that much to do beyond the general "assistant" role that had been in some of the other previous films. He and Smith are going through familiar motions when it comes to hands and work (take a guess what happens with a mute). And then one gets to the monster and wonders what the hell happened. Simply put, it will remind one of a very, very, very moldy piece of meat, probably because someone had to have been hungry when the designer was told to go for "subhuman". I suppose it is a compliment that every one of these films decided to be imaginative in designing a monster without just re-hashing the old one. Of course, the plight of the monster in its ugly form of beast and man is interesting enough to make the general drama at least on the level for 99 minutes. It may be a cheap movie, but it doesn't creak and groan at itself. I wish the ending was a bit more interesting, since the asylum-bound setting means the fate of the monster isn't too hard to see coming despite the dark amusement that comes from Cushing slowly but surely getting parts to fall into his lap. The direct ending really is a capstone to the series though, going not this time with the possible perishing of Frankenstein but instead with a moment of him looking at what he saw and re-starting the donation process. In general, the movie is bleak but committed in the traditional Hammer sense that can be applauded 50 years later rather than just labeling it as a headstone of Hammer. Cushing and Fisher were a worthwhile pair for such a variety of features together, and this one was an ideal one for them to go out on.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: doubleheaders, derangement, and death all the way around for the days ahead

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 Omen (1976).

Review #1452: The Omen.

Cast: 
Gregory Peck (Robert Thorn), Lee Remick (Katherine Thorn), David Warner (Keith Jennings), Billie Whitelaw (Mrs. Willa Baylock), Harvey Spencer Stephens (Damien Thorn), Patrick Troughton (Father Brennan), Martin Benson (Father Spiletto), Leo McKern (Carl Bugenhagen), Robert Rietti (Monk), John Stride (The Psychiatrist), and Anthony Nicholls (Dr. Fred Becker) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, and #734 - Lethal Weapon 4)

Review: 
"With The Omen, I really felt I wasn't in control. It was panic...It was constantly on my head. I was scared, and I didn't want to disappoint Alan Ladd, who had trusted me."

When you think of good horror films, what comes to your mind first? Maybe it involves something involving the possible Antichrist, or some straight-laced acting, or maybe something with occasional gore that will sneak up on you with creeping terror without being too wretchedly scary. It should only figure that its director would receive a breakthrough with making it in Richard Donner (his next feature in Superman. He had an initial interest in acting, doing a few Off-Broadway productions and bit parts before being encouraged by Martin Ritt to try his hand at directing. In the 1960s, he would cultivate a modest career of directing television with shows such as The Rifleman (1962, seven episodes), Mr. Novak (1963-64, also seven), and The Twilight Zone (1963-64, six episodes). He made his feature debut with X-15 (1961) and followed it with a few other films in Salt and Pepper (1968) and Twinky (1969). There were quite a few actors who rejected starring as the lead for this film, ranging from Charlton Heston to Dick Van Dyke (no, not joking), and William Holden (who would star in the sequel four years later), although Warner Brothers initially considered doing this film with Oliver Reed in mind before 20th Century Fox later developed interest after Donner had seen the script and convinced Fox head Alan Ladd Jr to look over the script and take it on (albeit with reduction of elements that was felt to be too obvious, like cloven hoofs). David Seltzer was behind the screenplay, which took a year to write after inspiration came to producer Harvey Bernhard from his friend Bob Munger. Donner described in an interview how he approached Peck to do the film in treating it as a "mystery suspense thriller" rather than straight horror, which convinced Peck to sign on.

The best thing that can be said about the film is that it does manage to build a sense of foreboding to make a useful experience with consistent acting, top-rate music from Jerry Goldsmith and worthwhile moments of horror terror that make a decent if not exceptional horror film for its time. I suppose it really depends on how much one knows about its threat of evil (or at least the possibility of it, since this is a child we are talking about) when it comes to stoking true tension without waiting for the inevitable. I do wonder how this might compare to Rosemary's Baby (1968), which dealt with the possibility of a newborn being the spawn of a jackal to be used by cultists (or at least that's what I read from browsing). The film builds itself on carrying itself calmly to where you will presumably will let your guard down when something scary could befall someone in connecting the dots to the idea that yes indeed there is something wrong with this dark-haired little gremlin child, as if one might actually believe that we are going to be faked out at the last minute. It just depends on what seems the most interesting in whether the parts with the family seem more involving than the hunt for clues for evil, where one can either spend time with Peck and Remick, or see Peck and Warner. Peck is interesting, in the sense that he is taking things with a good grain of salt that doesn't crush the film's credibility nor make things a bore. Remick does fine, albeit with slightly less to do when comparing the first and second halves (though the zoo sequence is pretty amusing). Whitelaw makes a fair adversarial presence to nurture Stephens (who when prompted to go at Donner during the auditions like the others apparently screamed and clawed at him) to the other side without too much silliness. Warner follows along with quiet foreboding. Really though the most interesting small presence is Troughton (best known for his television work in programs such as Doctor Who), who is quite interesting in generating furor in small doses (before having to run away from foreboding weather, of course). This is a film caught between two worlds: On the one hand, it is a dignified kind of film that has plenty of production value to elevate what could've been very hokey in schlockier hands. On the other hand, it is the kind of film that runs for 111 minutes with a concept of horror rather than a true finish, where it only just works as a thriller if you aren't already incredibly familiar with what it is trying to sell you about a main threat of a five year old who could be the Antichrist (insert jokes about him coming to power in politics here). The ending is downbeat enough to make the idea potentially spring further into something more concrete (for which two sequels and an apparent line-by-line remake followed), and on the whole this makes for satisfactory entertainment worth a curious look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Jason and the Argonauts (1963).

Review #111: Jason and the Argonauts.

Cast
Todd Armstrong (Jason), Nancy Kovack (Medea), Gary Raymond (Acastus), Laurence Naismith (Argos), Niall MacGinnis (Zeus), Michael Gwynn (Hermes), Douglas Wilmer (Pelias), Jack Gwillim (King Aeetes), Honor Blackman (Hera), John Cairney (Hylas), and Patrick Troughton (Phineas). Directed by Don Chaffey with stop motion by Ray Harryhausen.

Review
This is a classic, pure and simple to the point. The film has star power, effects, story, and just plain usefulness. The acting is allright, with a decent story, considering the fact the mythology is slightly changed from the myth and all (Because none of them is expected to be perfect) But I think the most breakout thing is Ray Harryhausen's special effects, especially the skeletons. It is truly beautiful looking, still looking real compared to today's, but then again it's not exactly a fair comparison. But either way, it helps the film in little ways, not too much, making this film a must see.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.