Madhouse (1974)

Review #2305: Madhouse.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Paul Toombes), Peter Cushing (Herbert Flay), Adrienne Corri (Faye Carstairs Flay), Robert Quarry (Oliver Quayle), Natasha Pyne (Julia Wilson), Michael Parkinson (T.V. Interviewer), Linda Hayden (Elizabeth Peters), Barry Dennen (Gerry Blount), Ellis Dale (Alfred Peters), Catherine Willmer (Louise Peters), and John Garrie (Inspector Harper) Directed by Jim Clark.

Review: 

As it turned out, this was the final film that Vincent Price appeared in for the illustrious (interpret the word all you want) American International Pictures. He had appeared in over a dozen of their film productions since House of Usher (1960). Price (then by his sixties) wasn't exactly left without work of course; he just merely didn't do as many films as he did with his regular appearances on television in the remainder of his career. This was a co-production between AIP and Amicus Productions (as founded by Max Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky). The movie is loosely based on the novel Devilday by Angus Hall; development had started in 1970 when AIP purchased the novel rights. Robert Fuest (the guy behind those Dr. Phibes films that had Price) was at one point tapped to direct but nothing came of it. Jim Clark was recruited to direct, having previously done The Christmas Tree (1966), Every Home Should Have One (1970), and Rentadick [1972]). Greg Morrison's script was apparently bad enough that Price wanted re-writes, which led to Ken Levison doing revisions while they were shooting the film (Robert Quarry supposedly did re-writes for a chunk of dialogue as well). Referring to the finished film as "stillborn" (one that had re-edits imposed by Subotsky, who was disliked by Price just as much as he disliked Arkoff). Clark never directed a feature again, although his contributions to films such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) ended up being his legacy to go along with editing, which included the Academy Award-winning work in Marathon Man (1976) and The Killing Fields (1984); Clark died at the age of 84 in 2016.

You'd think there would be something a bit more there with a film mentioning "special participation" by recently departed actors (Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff had worked with Price on some of those AIP films, and it was Samuel Z. Arkoff who insisted the clips be included in the film by any means necessary). It is a fairly decent movie that just happens to pale in comparison to the real pinnacle of Price and his theatricality in Theatre of Blood (1973). You will find a few interesting things here involving carefully-constructed horror that is at least semi-amusing. Cushing and Price had appeared in two earlier films but hadn't shared any scenes together prior to this film (with Scream and Scream Again and the Phibes sequel); they starred in one more film with House of the Long Shadows [1983]. They have some fun together, most notably with the climax that tries to make sense of the actual killer (the idea of a would-be actor being the age of Cushing, then in his sixties, is probably a bit too out there, but the forgiving type won't be too hard on it). Price might not have been big on AIP (he was quoted by Clark as referring to Arkoff and company as a word that rhymes with "mocksucker"), but he still gives it his best try anyway. You get a bit of fake "backstage filmmaking" action to go with a middling procedural (which reminds me a bit of Strait-Jacket) that has him stumble onto being interviewed by an actual interviewer in Parkinson for a chuckle. Corri is at least semi-effective in weird eerie timing that I appreciate, which is more than one can say for some of the supporting people that basically aren't given much to do anyway (Quarry included). The movie is incredibly predictable (just who could it be when you think of name actors?) but is bolstered by at least having a useful "Dr. Death" getup and some amusing moments to perhaps be enough for 91 minutes of an evening. Mild farewells for films that remind one of the old films are better than no farewells at all. People who like Price films might not have a great one on their hands here, but it at least is something that can be watched without having too many moments of embarrassment to see play out.

Overall, I give 7 out of 10 stars.

For Halloween: The Week After VI: one year later for a Wes Craven film, The Hills Have Eyes.

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.

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

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.

The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.

Review #1742: The Legend of 7 Golden Vampires. 

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (Professor Van Helsing), David Chiang (Hsi Ching/Hsi Tien-en), Julie Ege (Vanessa Buren), Robin Stewart (Leyland Van Helsing), John Forbes-Robertson (Count Dracula; dubbing by David de Keyser), Robert Hanna (British Consul), Shih Szu (Mai Kwei), Chan Shen (Kah the High Priest/Count Dracula's host), Lau Kar-wing (Hsi Kwei), Huang Pei-Chih (Hsi Po-Kwei), and Wang Chiang (Hsi San) Directed by Roy Ward Baker and Chang Cheh.

Review: 

This might read like a tombstone for Hammer Film Productions, but this is probably the most fitting film to etch a mark of the end of the road, because by the time of the 1970s, the company became a victim of their own success. As one might have noticed, the quality of the movies dipped a bit in the era, but the key statement that can be stated about their time is that they were at their best when they could entertain their audiences without having to tread all the familiar grounds of repetition. Oh sure, they had been a company since 1934, but it was only in the mid 1950s that they truly became a name of curiosity in horror with their color filmmaking and content, which involved using characters such as Count Dracula, Frankenstein, and various others, with The Quatermass Xperiment (1955) being the first key step. Of course, putting in more and more gore/violence/sexual content can only go so far, particularly when American markets started to see restrictions become more loose by the time of the 1960s. The attempts at refining the familiar with the times resulted in a variety of films in varying quality, but the studio would go into liquidation by the end of the 1970s (sure, the name is still around...); I'm sure you are aware then of how the Dracula series would go into self-parody with the films done in that era. Hell, in 1970, they released two Dracula films with Taste the Blood of Dracula and Scars of Dracula (the latter essentially serving as a revitalization of the series). Two years later, they thought they could set a Dracula film in the current day (while revising the timeline yet again in a series where continuity is glops of putty) with Dracula A.D. 1972, which resulted in more chuckles. No points for guessing where The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) went with "Dracula wants to destroy humanity with a plague". But hey, Hammer tried one more time, and they sure did go out with a film worthy of batting an eye. At the helm was a co-production involving Hammer and Shaw Brothers Studio (who until their reorganization in 2011 was one of the biggest studios in Hong Kong). Don Houghton (writer of the last two Dracula films) served as the screenwriter along with producing the film with Vee King Shaw, since his father-in-law had connections to the Shaws. Of course, familiar readers (or viewers of dreck) will recognize that the Shaws would continue to dabble with collaborating abroad that resulted in films like Meteor (1979). So yes, at least the folks at Hammer and Shaw did not bring complete rookies for the task of a British-Hong Kong production, since one would hope for no rubes at command. Baker had experience with the Hammer folks, having directed five features for them previously, with one of them being Scars of Dracula (1970) (another vampire movie he did was The Vampire Lovers, released the same year as the first of what was called "The Karnstein Trilogy"). He had a forty year career of directing films in numerous genres, with the most famous being A Night to Remember (1958). Of course, the Shaws were not quite happy with Baker, so they brought in a new director to help with the action. Perhaps it made sense that Baker would be joined by Chang Cheh in direction (albeit un-credited on screen); while this may not be the best introduction to him, he was described in his time as "The Godfather of Hong Kong Cinema", inspiring future directors like John Woo and Quentin Tarantino with films such as One-Armed Swordsman (1967), the first hit of a handful in a prolific career of wuxia movies. The two studios collaborated on one other film together in Hong Kong: Shatter (1975), which also starred Cushing.

When it came time for an American release, it was called "The 7 Brothers Meet Dracula" and featured looped dialogue (cutting whole scenes out and moving the prologue around) and scenes that changed an 85 minute movie into a 79 minute one (of course, I am watching the non-edited movie) - thankfully one can watch the version as intended. At any rate, this is the ninth and final film from Hammer in their Dracula series, and it is one of only two to not feature Christopher Lee (the other was The Brides of Dracula (1960), which had Cushing for the second of five appearances as Van Helsing). After a series of scripts that had seen him go from being guilt-tripped into doing movies because of the threat of folks losing their jobs to seeing the series go into self-parody with confusion, it is fitting that Lee did get to see the end of the series with a script that has even less for the character to do than usual. No, really: he shows up for less than five minutes in the whole movie, and the man playing Dracula is even dubbed (remember, in this film he assumes the form of a desperate priest who has seven "golden" vampires at his side after escaping Transylvania, which was like prison because...?). If you are wondering just what is different about "Golden vampires", well, they wear silly masks while tying women to platforms to drain blood into a pot as they galivant with swords and medallions (also, the battle is actually against six vampires, since one is killed in a dialogue-less scene right near the beginning). So what is the result of an international hodgepodge of The Magnificent Seven with kung fu and vampires? Well, it makes for a very curious failure, but a failure is still a failure, no matter how much kung fu, vampires, violence, and an assortment of flesh there is. Cushing at least gives it the old college try with dignity in the face of narrative gobbledygook, and at least it can be said that he does what is needed in usual decency (granted, not enough to save the movie, but still). Stewart does not fare as well, mostly seeming bored out of element, whether when trying to flail in romance or flail as the non-kung fu presence in the film (well, Ege is there too, but she just has to play to the glamour part in these films). Chiang does fine with the kung fu elements for a film that really tries to coast on folks going from place to place to fight, which means he makes a casual follow without much support (the siblings are there just to attack folks). Dracula is really not much of a focus here when there's the trouble of an obvious dub, and while Keyser is a fair voice, the makeup put on Forbes-Robertson in those brief moments is hysterical, and the fact that the last fight in the movie between the lead and the adversary ends in less than two minutes makes this laughably insulting. Honestly, the fights and the gore probably are the only things worth getting into, since the pace of the film plods along with no real amount of stakes to go around; the vampires don't pose much of a threat beyond chuckles, and the main folks seem better suited for a real kung fu movie than this. As a whole, folks who want to see where the seams finally ripped off for Hammer or folks who dig camp are the ones who will care enough to possibly seek it out, and I guess that is better than nothing. For horror, it isn't a true winner, but it could win out for the schlock at heart.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Prom Night (1980)

Dr. Phibes Rises Again.

Review #1741: Dr. Phibes Rises Again.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Dr. Anton Phibes), Robert Quarry (Darius Biederbeck), Valli Kemp (Vulnavia), Peter Jeffrey (Inspecter Trout), Fiona Lewis (Diana Trowbridge), Hugh Griffith (Harry Ambrose), Peter Cushing (Captain), Beryl Reid (Miss Ambrose), Terry-Thomas (Lombardo), John Cater (Superintendent Waverley), and Gerald Sim (Hackett) Directed by Robert Fuest.

Review: 

Admittedly, watching Vincent Price in an American International Pictures production is like catnip to some folks. It sure is hard to resist seeing him in a worthy production, which if one remembers went pretty well with The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971). The success of that film generated a hasty demand for a sequel, which would have Price return alongside supporting characters Jeffrey and Cater. The film was written by Robert Blees and Robert Fuest, with the latter also serving as director; the script however required a mediator in producer Louis M. Heyward, since the writers did not see eye-to-eye (as one might see from writers to directors). If you remember, the original film was quite interesting in its madcap ghoulishness, complete with Price in one of his most memorable roles (complete with a gramophone voice). Of course, how does one follow a movie involving revenge being done with murders inspired by the Plagues? Well, fiddling with the original is one step, which they do with a voiceover in the beginning that now has the title character aiming to bring his wife back from the dead...after he is restored from when he had replaced his blood with embalming fluid. Oh, and a specific alignment of the planets with the Moon apparently has brought him back. Well, yeah, I guess if this had been a movie in an earlier decade, one could have probably tried to pull a fast one on the audience by just pretending nothing happened (or something). Anyway, if you wanted to see Phibes, I guess focusing on him trying to bring life works...until you think as to why would that be the case if he already got revenge on the doctors who operated on his wife when she died (with him getting in a car wreck while getting home) - of course, I forgot to mention that the earlier film was set in 1925 (which means the sequel is set three years later in 1928). Well, I guess he could also have wanted revenge for the fact he had to come up with a whole new face and voice, and I guess at some point in time he really did just think to himself, "what if I had a hidden temple in Egypt?" Screw it, the important part is that Phibes has returned and is ready for interesting times with designs that maintain the art deco feel from before without too many deviations (of course Kemp is replacing Virginia North as the silent Vulnavia, who had been harmed in the first-forget it), complete with filming done in Spain for the desert scenes.

Of course the simple plan of bringing back his wife from the dead AND finding a river that will give them both eternal life is not so easy, mostly because of the other lead actor in Quarry, playing someone just as interested in the secrets of life. This naturally leads to why Phibes goes around and enacts a new series of inventive ways to curtail the expedition with death, whether involving getting killed by hawks or killed with sandblasting. Honestly, the way that the deaths happen probably reflect the quality of the movie: not exactly as good as before, but still curious enough to work interest well; it may not be very scary, but I guess it will work out for those already comfortable with the usual AIP aims. Price lingers a bit less than before with this film, and while it may not exactly hone all of his tendancies of memorable acting, he still makes it work with sly engagement that keeps us on his side despite everything just as before (accompanied by a silent Kemp, who does fine). Quarry was evidently groomed by AIP to be a replacement for Price (as mentioned by Heyward in an interview, who also felt his career was being mangled), as evidenced by his star roles in both Count Yorga, Vampire (1970) and The Return of Count Yorga (1971), with AIP having served as distributor for each. While Quarry never quite got the star turn he might have merited from more work (as AIP turned away from straight horror in the decade), he at least gives his all in obsessive determination, one whose morality has slipped away faster than his life for intriguing curiosity, playing a fair straight man to all the campy stuff that goes around; besides, he gets to share a scene with Cushing and play ruthless - imagine that; Lewis plays the assuring lead lady that gets the last line (at least if you don't count a singing Price) for a fair chuckle. At any rate, it is also fair to see Jeffrey and Cater again, as they bumble around a bit in trying to step on to the case that results in a few useful cracks, such as one scene involving them coming onto the peculiarity of an organ being brought onto a ship (one that saw a man get killed and put into a giant bottle in the water), which also involves Terry-Thomas being brought in for a chuckle. The conclusion probably saves the movie, in that it is worth it just for the amusement of seeing just who gets what they deserve from their actions (and of course, a song); while the film was fairly successful, the idea to do another film ran into problems in coming up with a suitable script that never materialized.. As a whole, it is a bit more campy the second time around that results in a decent engagement of time (88 minutes) with useful enough imagery to make it worth it in my mind. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.

Also, let me get a note out of the way. In case you didn't know, the Houston Astros are set to compete in the American League Championship Series for the fifth time in five years. As such, I am hoping for a great series that leads to further play in October (and November...?) for the team that starts tonight. 

Go Astros!

Dracula A.D. 1972.

Review #1587: Dracula A.D. 1972.

Cast:

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Peter Cushing (Lorrimer Van Helsing / Lawrence Van Helsing), Stephanie Beacham (Jessica Van Helsing), Christopher Neame (Johnny Alucard / Follower of Dracula - 1872), Marsha Hunt (Gaynor Keating), Caroline Munro (Laura Bellows), Michael Coles (Inspector Murray), Janet Key (Anna Bryant), Michael Kitchen (Greg), and Lally Bowers (Matron Party Hostess) Directed by Alan Gibson (#477 - The Satanic Rites of Dracula)

Review:

Well, here we are again, with another Dracula film. One can always look upon the last one of the Hammer films they see and just make up their own continuity about how there is yet another appearance of the famed icon in elegant-ish horror from the British. One of the films involved death by running water, another involved a test of faith to take down the vampire, and another involved a plague across the world spread by Dracula. This is the seventh of nine overall Dracula film made by Hammer Film Productions, which had started with Dracula (#258) in 1958. The previous film was the 1970 film Scars of Dracula (one of two I have not covered, with the other being the The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974), the true end of the series). Technically one can't finalize a best/worst of the sequels to the original (which I last watched eight years ago with engagement) without having seen all nine films, but one can definitely pull an opinion of the choices to pull Dracula into the 20th century setting with this film - Dracula A.D. 1972 is most definitely a lesser sequel, one that cannot justify itself or its premise even with the promise of having Peter Cushing back into the fray for the first time in a Hammer Dracula film in twelve years (with this being his third of five appearances).

Supposedly the film took inspiration from an actual media case involving supposed vampires that occurred in London in the late 1960s that involved graveyard desecration and supposed mysterious figures being sighted (which naturally involved "vampire hunters" that occurred in Highgate Cemetery. Sure, "vampire hunters" and figures seen in the dark near the graves seem like an apt inspiration when it comes to Dracula, but it doesn't do any favors in the eyeroll of the skeptic with horror, that much is true (one detail of the Highgate sensation involved hunters that were also supposed to have a "magic duel" with each other, I kid you not). The film was written by Don Houghton, who you might recognize from his work on television programs such as Doctor Who (which he wrote two serials from 1970-71), and he would also write the following two films of the Dracula series. Again, the continuity is up to the viewer to pick and poke with, since there are only occasionally dates referred to in these films anyway (the original Dracula was apparently set in 1885, while this film depicts a final fight between Van Helsing and Dracula in 1872, and if you go by Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968, #860), that was set in the early 20th century - oh, and Van Helsing's first name in the original was- never mind, I give up). So yes, the main setting is indeed with swinging hippies in 1972 (i.e. padding) to wash away a charming little start with Cushing and Lee before Cushing is back again at minute 20 (Lee comes back 15 minutes after that). Oh, right, I forgot, there's a bunch of swinging 70s characters, which I guess is supposed to be more fresh than having the usual 19th century British folks, no doubt inspired by the success of earlier 70s vampire films like Count Yorga, Vampire (1970). Is there any more semblance of "plot" than before? Nope, and it only goes to show that just having Lee and Cushing back can't override the sense of boredom that comes from hippies and a Dracula that only comes around to lurk a few feet, never really experiencing the swinging locale besides having people being brought in to scream. Jeez, the blood being poured into the chalice (with ashes from 1872) can't even bring the fright level up. All that is happening is padding but with "hip" stuff, and Lee and Cushing literally only show up together again with five minutes left of a 96 minute feature. They are both at their usual level of curiosity, but they clearly have had better scripts to go along with (after all, they starred in a far better film with Horror Express the same year as this one). Beacham is okay in trying to draw new blood on the catacombs of familiarity, which works to a point in some tension while being quite bland in other respects. Neame is quite silly here, a laughable stooge of dark arts that is at his most bewildering in the fight between him and Cushing - fear the might that comes from a rising sun and "moveable mirrors" to go with water to end it all - oh the horror (there is even a scene that does the whole Alucard = Dracula bit...older fans might recognize this as a familiar bit from Son of Dracula (1943), of all things). At least Munro gets to have a scream scene to note. As a whole, it's a bland movie, reminding me of the "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme that shows the age of the Hammer films even with attempts to move from Victorian era making to 1970s stuff that shows plaque on the fangs of Dracula more than anything. To be fair, there are supporters of the film, with Tim Burton even once calling it one of his favorite films. If one finds something to like or found it to be one of the blocks that built scares as a kid, all power to you. It's a jumbled mess, but it is likely one you could find some amusement with just along the line of the other Dracula films from Hammer - for better or worse.

Next Time: Day of the Dead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Terror's House of Horrors.

Review #1419: Dr. Terror's House of Horrors.

Cast: 
Peter Cushing (Dr. Schreck)

"Werewolf" segment": Neil McCallum (Jim Dawson, Ursula Howells (Mrs. Deirdre Biddulph), Peter Madden (Caleb), Katy Wild (Valda), and Edward Underdown (Tod) 

"Creeping Vine" segment: Ann Bell (Ann Rogers), Bernard Lee (Hopkins), Alan Freeman (Bill Rogers), Jeremy Kemp (Jerry Drake), and Sarah Nicholls (Carol Rogers)

"Voodoo" segment: Roy Castle (Biff Bailey), Kenny Lynch (Sammy Coin), Harold Lang (Roy Shine), Christopher Carlos (Vrim), and Thomas Baptiste (Dambala)

"Disembodied Hand" segment: Christopher Lee (Franklyn Marsh), Michael Gough (Eric Landor), Isla Blair (Pretty girl), Judy Cornwell (Nurse), and Hedger Wallace (Surgeon)

"Vampire" segment: Donald Sutherland (Dr. Bob Carroll), Max Adrian (Dr. Blake), Jennifer Jayne (Nicolle Carroll), and Al Mulock (Detective)

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)

Review: 
"As far back as I can ever remember, without really knowing it I wanted to be an actor. I was always dressing up, you know, playing pretend, putting on mothers hats and things. I'm sure Freud would have something to say about that. It was very much in my blood."

"Making films has never just been a job to me, it is my life. I have some interests outside of acting - I sing and I've written books, for instance - but acting is what keeps me going, it's what I do, it gives life purpose."

Horror, particularly horror in a decade of expanding tastes like the 1960s, can come in any kind of package. Anthology is a particular interesting manner in telling stories revolving around something creepy that can be linked together by either a theme, a character or a framing device. There have been plenty of anthology films in numerous genres, but one key anthology film that helped inspire this was Dead of Night (1945), a British production that producer Milton Subotsky liked enough to feel inspired to do his own multi-story film. He had started his work in television, but soon moved to films such as Rock, Rock, Rock (1956) and The City of the Dead (1960), which he produced with Max Rosenberg. In 1962, they would form Amicus Productions, a British company led by the American producers and writer that lasted until 1977. They specialized primarily in horror over the years that would have a share of name actors alongside young and old actors in the cast, particularly when it came to their anthologies. This was the first of seven anthology films they would do over a span of nine years, with those including Torture Garden (1967), The House That Dripped Blood (1970), Asylum (1972), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973) and From Beyond the Grave (1974). This was filmed in a span of less than three months from Freddie Francis, who had a career of over four decades in both directing and cinematographer that was known for his work on British horror films while winning two Academy Awards for the latter.

Honestly, the parts that are really interesting are the scenes inside the train with Cushing and the main five, since he tries on a beard and an German accent that stand out from the curious others. This isn't surprising to me at this point, because he had a perfectionist and dignified attitude that served him well in six decades of film, stage, television and radio, treating every role with seriousness that he felt his audience would like. One can have a soft spot for British horror when it is done right and Cushing always seems to end up fitting in to most of the right ones. Accompanying him is fellow British actor and friend Lee, who had a career just as versatile and long (nearly seven decades! This includes a singing career before turning 90!) with a distinctive voice that for a change is not playing someone villainous but merely just pompous, which he breezes by without trouble. McCallum and Freeman aren't exactly as well-known in presence (the former being an actor of stage and television and the latter being a disc jockey and radio personality), but they are least serviceable to starting the film with decent leads in their respective stories. Castle, a dancer/singer/comedian comes off with the lesser of the five stories and suffers for it. Sutherland, a Canadian actor doing British roles in film and TV before hitting it big later in this decade, makes for a composed turn in his third career role, fresh in looking for more beyond horror fare.

The segments each have a focus on something you've likely seen in a horror film before, whether that means a supernatural beast or a killer plant/hand or voodoo, and they generally range from average to slightly above average. In this sense, the Lee story involving a hand that follows him around is my personal favorite of the bunch, since it also features Gough for a time (making fun of an art critic, no less) in a segment that has a silly looking effect but enjoyment value regardless. I would say that the werewolf story is a notch below that, having a bit of interest in its coffin hidden in a fake wall that leads to a somewhat played out ending. The vine story also has a silly-looking effect, particularly since it doesn't have much of an ending (regardless of the resolution for the film, which is just as odd), although at least it is nice to see Bernard Lee play his type of authority role and utilize a pipe for safety. The vampire tale is fair, although it probably suffers from having a small time to build a story from the most, complete with the final twist in the knife with its last line (as is the case with the wolf and hand story). The voodoo is the lesser of all the tales (although none are actually terrible), mostly because of how hokey it is in generating actual suspense (copying a tune and getting followed for it, what a twist), but at least none of these tales manage to bore the senses or hold for too long. In the long run, this is a fair package of horror that utilizes its familiar trappings of its genre and stars to useful effect, and it is a serviceable film for its era to pick up on a day for curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Brides of Dracula.

Review #1280: The Brides of Dracula.

Cast: 
Peter Cushing (Doctor Van Helsing), Martita Hunt (Baroness Meinster), Yvonne Monlaur (Marianne), Freda Jackson (Greta), David Peel (Baron Meinster), Miles Malleson (Doctor Tobler), Henry Oscar (Herr Lang), Mona Washbourne (Frau Lang), Andrée Melly (Gina), and Victor Brooks (Hans) 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)

Review: 
One wonders how to make a horror sequel that will properly live up to the scares delivered by the original, particularly when its title villain isn't even included. The film retains the same director and writer from the first film (Fisher and Jimmy Sangster), albeit with additional help in terms of re-writes from others such as Peter Bryan, Edward Percy, and an uncredited Anthony Hinds. The original idea (titled "Disciple of Dracula", naturally) was a focus on an acolyte of Dracula, who would make a cameo (and likely have just as much dialogue as the character would have in further sequels, no doubt). Lee was not big on appearing in the film in any case (one would have to wait six further years to see him as the title character again and six more years to see Cushing return as well), so re-writes had to be done, which meant including Van Helsing along other things. Even the ending was re-written, in part because of Cushing's objection to the idea of releasing bats through an arcane ritual, seeing it as against his character (one could wonder if there would be quite a cost in getting a whole bunch of bats to fly out at once too), which I admit is pretty correct. You want to know what their solution was? Moving a bunch of sails in a mill in a certain shape after having thrown holy water on him. It can't be called the silliest way to kill the vampire, seeing as I've watched these films go from the obvious way (sunlight) to running water, punctured by a cross from a converted atheist, and my particular amusing one: a hawthorn bush. With that in mind, how is the actual film? Honestly, it is a pretty okay film, considering the fact that its vampire is nowhere near as scary in presence as from before, with Cushing being the highlight as one would expect. It does fine with its runtime of 85 minutes in giving off a careful controlled pace that makes for a few scares without aiming for anything too ridiculous or pale in tone for too long. Sure, it can be silly at times (particularly when it comes to its lead vampire trying to romance others), but one can still have a nice time with where it aims to go without being frustrated at wanting something else on screen. Cushing sure can drive a film forward with calm energy, being as usefully entertaining as one should see from an actor like him, where cliches can do no serious harm. He can talk about vampires or some other force of nature any day of the week, really, and one can follow him anywhere. Monlaur does okay, generally being a mild contrast to the calmly grim presence of Hunt and Jackson, with each doing just well at keeping the film afoot at times. Peel is nowhere near as scary or as interesting as Lee when it comes to a vampire that can be so alluring yet so deadly, especially when it comes to his eyes, but at least one can watch him try to act against Cushing without reaching vigorously for the remote. It's an average affair all around, but it keeps its foundations mostly secure without going completely off the deep end and giving some interesting moments to go along with it. The passion that drives these films seem authentic, where seeing one of these kind of films doesn't make the next one irritatingly familiar. It doesn't compare greatly with its predecessor or its successor, but this film could prove just fine for anyone in the right spirit for some old fashioned (yet neatly crafted) horror from the folks at Hammer from a time long since passed yet highly welcome here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

House of the Long Shadows.

Review #1158: House of the Long Shadows.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (Lionel Grisbane), Christopher Lee (Corrigan/Roderick Grisbane), Peter Cushing (Sebastian Grisbane), Desi Arnaz, Jr. (Kenneth Magee), John Carradine (Lord Elijah Grisbane), Sheila Keith (Victoria Grisbane), Julie Peasgood (Mary Norton), Richard Todd (Sam Allyson), Louise English (Diane Caulder), and Richard Hunter (Andrew Caulder) Directed by Pete Walker.

Review: 
Well, well, well, it's a horror-spoof film review in November. Like I said, some things just cross on over into the next month, and it only makes sense that it features four actors who are quite prolific in their appearances in films covered on Movie Night - you may be interested to know that this is the 20th film covered with Christopher Lee (the most for one actor on this show) and the 16th with Peter Cushing, which is fourth most. I hope you enjoy this review for a film that I've been interested in covering for quite some time.

I suppose it is the star billing for this film that attracted me most to watch it, and I suppose I had forgotten that Scream and Scream Again (1970) featured Price, Lee, and Cushing - and that proved a disappointment. But there are a few changes this time around: for one thing, there is also the presence of fellow horror icon Carradine alongside a bit more for the quartet to do. The ones to give us the pleasure of seeing four horror icons together is done by producers Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus for Cannon Films. This is an adaptation of the novel Seven Keys to Baldpate (1913) by Earl Derr Biggers, which George M. Cohan soon turned into a play adaptation. In any case, the original story involved characters of melodrama cliches wrapped as a mystery farce, such as crooked cops and criminals that all somehow make their way to the mountain resort named Baldpate Inn where a writer is trying to write a 10,000 word story in 24 hours to win a bet. Prior to this film, there had been six adaptations of the story, with the first being in 1916 and the last being in 1947. This time around, the bet is that an author can write a novel of the caliber of Wuthering Heights in 24 hours for $20,000.

Wrapped within its 101 minute run-time (with a screenplay by Michael Armstrong) is all of the cliches you would expect from a film like this, such as an old dark house, terrible weather, sinister secrets, and naturally, murder. In a way, the film feels like a homage to the Hammer horror films with the mood and feel, and there is a fine deal of gore to help the film go along without too many bumps. There are almost as many twists as there are deaths in this film, but there is some enjoyment to be had, mostly with the quartet. My particular favorite moment is Price, remarking to someone to not interrupt him when he is soliloquizing while in the dark house; he is neat to watch as always, having an interesting demeanor to him that endures with age. Lee remains as captivating as ever with such great imposing nature and understated charm. This was the fourth-to-last theatrical film that Cushing appeared in (along with the 24th and last appearance with Lee in a film), but he is still adept at playing his nervous role with the kind of respect one comes to expect from him. Carradine, though not given as much to do, does pretty well with his time on screen. Having these actors alone would be enough to make it a look, no matter how much the presence of Arnaz Jr and Peasgood try to mar it. Arnaz Jr isn't terrible, but I find that he isn't too particularly interesting to follow along with, having a few quips and observations that come and go as they please. Peasgood isn't too particularly better, and it doesn't really seem they have any sort of chemistry together, with their pursuit of the inevitable twists being more interesting when Price and Lee are around. While the film is pretty average at times, it never borders on boredom in part due to some of its cast keeping things afloat and a consistently decent pace. The climax is a bit of a mess, in part because it follows the tradition of the story for its main twist, complete with some sort of ham-handed lesson thrown in. In the end, the film is a decent little horror-spoof that will prove worthy enough for anyone with the patience to sit a few clunky moments that accompany the film that works in its own right to give off a few chuckles and scares. It isn't a classic by any means, but it has its own little place with horror and amusement.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Tales from the Crypt.

Review #1145: Tales from the Crypt.

Cast:
"...And All Through the House" segment: Joan Collins (Joanne Clayton), Martin Boddey (Richard Clayton), Chloe Franks (Carol Clayton), and Oliver MacGreevy (Homicidal Maniac)

"Reflection of Death" segment: Ian Hendry (Carl Maitland), Susan Denny (Mrs. Maitland), Angela Grant (Susan Blake), Peter Fraser (Motorist), and Frank Forsyth (Tramp)

"Poetic Justice" segment: Robin Phillips (James Elliot), David Markham (Edward Elliot), Peter Cushing (Arthur Edward Grimsdyke), and Robert Hutton (Mr. Baker) 

"Wish You Were Here" segment: Richard Greene (Ralph Jason), Barbara Murray (Enid Jason), and Roy Dotrice (Charles Gregory)

"Blind Alleys" segment: Nigel Patrick (Major William Rogers) and Patrick Magee (George Carter)

With Ralph Richardson (Crypt Keeper) and Geoffrey Bayldon (The Guide). Directed by Freddie Francis (#854 - They Came from Beyond Space, #856 - The Evil of Frankenstein, and #860 Dracula Has Risen from the Grave)

Review: 
Tales from the Crypt is an anthology film with five segments that are based on stories from EC Comics, which had done numerous horror comics in their three horror comic series - Tales from the Crypt, The Haunt of Fear, and The Vault of Horror (each created by Al Feldstein and William M. Gaines) from 1950 to 1955 before censorship pressure led to its end. It wasn't the first anthology film that Amicus Productions (founded by Max Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky) had been behind, as they had been behind films such as Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), The House That Dripped Blood (1970), and a few others. A year later, they would be behind The Vault of Horror, which also was based on stories from the EC Comics line. In any case, the stories here are meant to feature someone facing ironic punishment through their wicked actions, with the Crypt Keeper (played by a hooded and yet somewhat eerie Richardson) showing up for the wraparound segments.

The segments are a bit uneven, but there is just enough that works to make a winner. To talk about the film, I'll just simply say what I thought about each segment in terms of entertainment quality, since they have their own respective actors and run-times. The first segment is named "...And All Through the House", featuring Collins alongside Martin Boddey, Chloe Franks, and Oliver MacGreevy. It's a decent little segment, with a little bit of terror generated from its setup (involving a maniac dressed up as Santa Claus), although it does manage to get a bit lost with the other parts. Collins doesn't have much to say, but at least she is someone we can follow along with in their terror and own fears, and the ending helps make it worth the effort. The second segment, named "Reflection of Death" features Hendry, Susan Denny, Angela Grant, and Peter Fraser. It is an okay segment with a bit of a simple premise, but it isn't really too memorable, having only one shot that makes it stick out - although it probably won't have as much effect upon a re-watch. The third segment is called "Poetic Justice", featuring Phillips, David Markham, and Cushing. It certainly takes time to get interesting, but it does manage to hold itself enough to warrant entertainment, and it is nice to see Cushing in a warm role that goes well against Phillips. The penultimate segment, titled "Wish You Were Here", is my least favorite segment, featuring Greene and Barbara Murray. It comes off as a tedious version of "The Monkey's Paw" while not really having a satisfying payoff. Honestly, I wonder why they included a story where the lead doesn't even do anything adversarial (is a ruthless businessman that bad when compared to murderers, abandoning your family, an exploiter of the blind, or driving a man to suicide?) to merit his ironic punishment - which is made especially weird since the other stories feature main characters who all do misdeeds. The last segment of "Blind Alleys" makes up for it with a strong foundation featuring Patrick, Magee, and George Herbert. It moves along at a fine pace while being chilling just enough to help carry the film to the finish line smoothly enough. On the whole, the movie does manage to work as entertainment in giving chills to its audience. This is done with enough competence and care generated from its screenplay by Subotsky and direction from Francis to go along with a mostly game cast that manages to overcome some uneven edges to make this a fair piece for the season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Scream and Scream Again.

Review #1129: Scream and Scream Again.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (Dr. Browning), Christopher Lee (Fremont), Peter Cushing (Major Heinrich Benedek), Judy Huxtable (Sylvia), Alfred Marks (Detective Superintendent Bellaver), Michael Gothard (Keith), Marshall Jones (Konratz), Uta Levka (Jane), Christopher Matthews (Dr. David Sorel), Anthony Newlands (Ludwig), Peter Sallis (Schweitz), Judy Bloom (Helen Bradford), and Clifford Earl (Detective Sergeant Jimmy Joyce) Directed by Gordon Hessler.

Review: 
Editor's note: Movie Night will likely have delays with release of certain reviews in part due to my obligations with my new job - in other words, when I have time to write and post, I'll try to get it done, preferably with at least one or two reviews a week. I honestly did not intend to write over a thousand words for this review, yet here we are. I hope you enjoy this review in any case.

The movie is adapted from a novel called The Disorientated Man by Peter Saxon. Peter Saxon was a house pseudonym used by various authors of pulp fiction during the 1960s and 1970s, such as W. Howard Baker, Stephen Frances and others. In the book, aliens tried to colonize the Earth through making synthetic creatures made from people abducted and murdered by the group. The events depicted are done as a series of events that seem unrelated at first - such as people's limbs being taken away from them, investigation of a "vampire murderer", and a brutal foreign country dealing with diplomacy, for example. It generally is considered to be a science fiction conspiracy thriller, with bits of horror. With billing that promotes Price, Lee and Cushing all-together in one film, the expectation (at least for someone like me, anyways) is that there is a product that gives them something interesting to do. Perhaps it is that billing (or a title that invites horror connotations like this does) that makes the eventual result a disappointment. The real focus of actors involves not so much Price or Lee, but people such as Huxtable, Marks, Gothard, and Matthews, with Price only getting real substantial screen-time near the climax. The screenplay was done by Christopher Wicking, who had contributed additional dialogue for The Oblong Box (1969), which shared the same director while starring Lee and Price and having cinematography by John Coquillon (known for cinematography of films such as Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid).

The collage of plot threads would be interesting if things didn't go in such a boring manner as if to produce frustration. For the most part, the film's focus is on its crime thriller angle, with occasional bits of horror before playing sci-fi late in the game. It's like they couldn't figure out whether to be a paranoia-conspiracy thriller or a mad scientist film, so they just threw things in a blender and hoped that people wouldn't care about it making not much sense because it was so "entertaining" - or something like that. Price is the highlight, taking things in stride with a calm and collected manner that nearly makes having to sit through an hour to get more Price involvement. Lee is in the film for probably less than ten minutes (for a movie that runs at 95 minutes), having minimal presence until its climax. He says his lines without too much semblance of emotion, but no one in this film seems to show any particularly interesting emotional responses. Cushing was added in at the last minute to help with box office appeal, having just one scene. With three minutes of screen presence, it is sometimes easy to forget why he can be enjoyable to watch. Then I realize it is the fact that he brings a certain legitimacy and entertainment value to whatever role he brings, and I was thinking of that quite clearly when watching his scene because it reminds me that there isn't quite enough entertainment value from many of the cast-mates, including Jones, the one who nerve pinches Cushing to death. Huxtable doesn't make too much of an impression in a film that likes to talk and show imagery but not go anywhere with it. Gothard, the first adversary for the film (amusingly dubbed a "vampire killer" at one point), can't really make much of an impression aside from a bit of a frenzied face and a ruffled shirt, and the chase sequence is a doozy of amusement. It goes from a car chase to a chase in a quarry to one that ends back at a house where the killer just jumps in a pool of acid. In a better film, maybe it would've felt more interesting and exciting, but it's more of an amusing thing to look at, particularly their attempts to try and chase him down on foot.

Marks plays his police role with a dryness that invites a cursory watch but doesn't give off anything too charismatic. He does get some occasional offbeat lines, such as when being asked about murder: "Is it murder? Don't be so bloody stupid!" Matthews isn't too much better as the second figure to follow, but he plays things off okay at least. Jones plays a somewhat towering adversary that can't inspire much menace besides a mild unintentional chuckle. The other actors aren't too particularly memorable. By the time the film gets somewhere with its climax involving Price, it gets particularly amusing. A movie that likes to confound and confuse decides to shift into a quasi-Frankenstein film. Then again, the Hammer Frankenstein films were actually more interesting to look at and even more amusing to think about. The ideas presented involving creating some sort of composite people is far more interesting than anything the film tried to do for its first half. But truly, nothing can top a fight sequence involving an acid bath between Price and Lee, where they share the screen for a minute before Lee forces Price into the bath not by pushing him, but by...staring and towering over him, I guess. The sight of Price's face as he accepts his fate is particularly amusing, as if someone was dangling rotted cheese behind him. Reportedly, Price and Lee couldn't take the scene seriously, with Lee struggling to keep a straight face at the idea of Price (who didn't use a stunt double for the scene) sinking into some yellowy acid, which apparently affected Price due to the stuff affecting his nose that gave him nasal sinus for years afterwards. By the time the film ends, the idea of pondering what its final moments entail seem like a fruitless challenge, since expressing frustration at the junk produced on screen seems more appropriate. On the whole, this is an amusing misfire that knows to confuse its audiences with a barrage of images and junk without having an entertaining or even intriguing plot to go with it, with Price being the only real saving grace. The only real shock the film has is how much of a mess it is.

Overall, I give it 5 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.

Redux - Special Edition: Star Wars (1977).

Review Special Edition: #113: Star Wars.

Cast

Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia Organa), Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi), David Prowse (Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Phil Brown (Owen Lars), Shelagh Fraser (Beru Lars), Jack Purvis (Chief Jawa), Denis Lawson (Wedge Antilles), and Garrick Hagon (Biggs Darklighter) Directed by George Lucas.

Review

In my original review (#113 - March 30, 2012), I had given the movie a 10/10 rating, and while I stand by the rating, I regretted not saying more about the movie. I barely mentioned the acting at all, among other aspects that I should have talked more about. Because of this, I decided to finally make a Redux Review (which I had done for A Christmas Story, Halloween, Licence to Kill, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Enjoy this "Special Edition" version, if you will. 

Star Wars (also referred to as A New Hope) is a mythical tale that has entertained audiences all around the world for over 40 years, and the scope of its influence on cinema (and filmmakers) can't be understated. It's interesting how a space opera like this had been influenced by other movies such as The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon serials, but also works by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Star Wars at its heart is a fairy tale with the mythical nature of the characters, legends in an epic that is not set in the beginning, but rather the middle. You don't have to watch the prequels before seeing this because this film s manages to introduce itself and its story extremely well, right from the opening crawl. I remember watching this when I was around 13 years old, and I can recall that I didn't know much about Star Wars at the time (aside from the name), but the Battle of Yavin (amidst other scenes) managed to stick out the most in my head, even years later. Perhaps it was the memorability of the characters, or the music (by John Williams) being so in tune to the movie, with Binary Sunset being especially memorable, but other music works extremely well to the atmosphere of the film (Cantina Band) or with adventure with the Yavin sequence at the end.

The characters are interesting to watch interact with each other (particularly our main trio), which is more interesting than the actual acting with regards to the dialogue. While admittedly Hamill can come across as slightly whiny, the progression of his character throughout the trilogy means that it is worth it in the end. Ford is a charming rouge who (along with Chewbacca) manage to be entertaining from the first scene they are in, primarily because of the sheer magnetism of the duo. Fisher also does a fine job, alongside Cushing and Guinness (both already well-established actors of film), who are both memorable in their own ways. Cushing is the perfect actor to play a role that really is the main enemy of the film (as he is the one that commands the Death Star, orders the destruction of Alderaan), even with a Sith Lord at his side. Guinness manages to seal the mysterious wise aspects of an old warrior in his first few scenes while putting Luke onto the path of adventure (even if what he says is true from a certain point of view) and realizing what he must do to play his part in trying to bring down the Empire. It's interesting how David Prowse plays the physical aspects of Darth Vader, and he sure fits the imposing frame of a villain perfectly, with James Earl Jones' voice being quintessential for the character.

Even though the movie has had fixes over the years (most notably the "Special Edition" version), the effects are still impressive to me in the sense that I love the effort it must have taken to get the look and action right, such as the TIE fighter attack and how it was based off of dog fights from World War II. The fun isn't in the themes or the dialogue, but in the adventure that ensues, and how it satisfies you by just being a charming movie that doesn't need slogs of backstory to be enjoyable. You can watch this first instead of the prequels and still not be too confused because it isn't one to try and fill background information, rather it is one that has a story of its own with a mythos that would only get expanded upon in future installments.

Next up on the Redux Review / Special Edition: The sequel that many argue is one of the best sequels of all time...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.