The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll.

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

Cast: 

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

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], #2263 - Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, #2307 - The Curse of the Werewolf)

Review: 

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Curse of the Werewolf.

Review #2307: The Curse of the Werewolf.

Cast: 

Clifford Evans (Don Alfredo Corledo), Oliver Reed (Leon Corledo; Justin Walters as Young Leon Corledo), Yvonne Romain (servant girl; Loraine Carvana as young servant girl), Catherine Feller (Christina Fernando), Anthony Dawson (Marques Siniestro), Josephine Llewelyn (Marquesa Siniestro), Richard Wordsworth (Beggar), Hira Talfrey (Teresa), John Gabriel (Priest), Warren Mitchell (Pepe Valiente), and Anne Blake (Rosa Valiente)

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], #2263 - Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell)

Review: 

I figure that you need at least one werewolf movie every so often to remind oneself about how fresh werewolf tales are for films, since the first few came out in the 1910s before the first definivite one came with Universal's Werewolf of London (1935). Hammer ended up making just one werewolf film. Anthony Hinds produced and wrote the screenplay for this film, which cites the novel The Werewolf of Paris (as written by Guy Endore in 1941, having already co-written film scripts such as 1935's Mark of the Vampire and Mad Love), which happens to have its own interesting idea about werewolves: a person born in awful circumstances, which differs from book to film: the book featured a baby born on Christmas Eve after the rape of a girl by a priest hat is set around the time of the Franco-Prussian War (1870), while the film depicts a servant girl raped by a beggar born on Christmas Day that is set in 18th century Spain. The sets were done at Bray Studios that took the place of their intended use for a "Spanish Inquisition" film that did not go forward due to objections (probably doesn't help the working title was "The Rape of Sabena"). It is the first werewolf film in color. The movie was directed by the same filmmaker that had directed Hammer to success with The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958) and The Mummy (1959) in Terence Fisher, although the result was not nearly as successful, mostly because of censors that saw the movie trimmed down (to one with barely any attacks, apparently). Legend of the Werewolf, as made by Tyburn Film Productions in 1975 as an attempt to serve as a successor to Hammer, was written by Hinds, with inspiration taken from the Endore novel (without credit given to Endore this time around).

So, you get a movie depicting the war between one's "soul" and "spirit" that basically has a guy cursed from the very moment he is born...and a film that doesn't really show its wolf for about an hour into its 90-minute runtime. You basically have three threads loosely connected into each other for a movie that is clearly not Hammer's best film but might be up your alley in terms of mediocre fun. It has less use of the makeup (as designed by Roy Ashton that might remind one of Jack Pierce's work on The Wolf Man) that you might expect to go with a fairly decent look to it all in cinematography for a movie that basically goes all in on the idea of trying to confront the terror of werewolves with love, with bleak results. One basically has three plot outlines to go through in succession that sort of tie together: the story of a beggar and his eventual descent into ravaging (after a drawn-out scene of a Marques), the birth and growing up of young Leon (complete with "dreams") and then Leon in adulthood seeing love and lust collide. It is a strange way to collude things together. This was the first leading role for Reed, who had appeared in a number of bit parts since the mid-1950s, which included appearances in Hammer's The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960) and Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960). He may not get as much time to grab the screen, but he ends up being the highlight of the film anyway, portraying the inner war of spirit and soul with worthwhile timing to make for suspenseful interest. The clash of what makes up a man when confronted with love and lust in a burgeoning adulthood is at least something worth thinking of beyond just labeling it as just a Lon Chaney impersonation. It pretty much overshadows Evans, who is fine if not exactly remarkable (Welshmen playing a "Don Alfredo" is not as silly as it could be). Feller is adequate for a role that doesn't even give her a final shot at the end. Dawson and his scene-chewing in such a short time will be hit or miss for some, but I'm totally fine with it in terms of unsettling strangeness in a land not too strange to us. The movie works just enough for those with the patience to go with its variation on the tragic figure in the werewolf that has a worthwhile performance to lead the way and make things at least end on a solemn note worth noting. As a whole, the movie doesn't compare greatly with the prior work of Fisher, but for a film that has some interesting conflict once it gets good (at least when the censors weren't busy), it might prove enough to win out in the end, depending on one's patience for the overall construction that comes out here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: 30 years later, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

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 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.

Dracula: Prince of Darkness.

Review #859: Dracula: Prince of Darkness.

Cast:
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Barbara Shelley (Helen Kent), Andrew Keir (Father Sandor), Francis Matthews (Charles Kent), Suzan Farmer (Diana Kent), Charles Tingwell (Alan Kent), Thorley Walters (Ludwig), Philip Latham (Klove), Walter Brown (Brother Mark), and Jack Lambert (Brother Peter) 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, and #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed)

Review:
This was the second of the Dracula Hammer films to feature Christopher Lee (eight years after his last appearance), though this time Peter Cushing (as Van Helsing) does not return. In fact, Cushing wouldn't feature with Lee in a Dracula film again until Dracula A.D. 1972 (I should note that Cushing starred in The Brides of Dracula, whereas Lee did not), though he is shown in the prologue, taken right from Dracula (#258) and its climax. This time around, the Kent family are the ones who encounter Dracula, revived due to mixing blood of one of the Kents with his ashes. The scenery is brilliant as usual. Dracula appears halfway through the movie, and the effects used to show his revival (along with his awakening from the place he was buried) is quite excellent. It should be noted that Lee doesn't speak all throughout the movie, with it either being due to Lee not wanting to speak the lines written for him (as said by Lee) or that there were no lines written for him (as said by the writer). In any case, his performance relies on his facial expressions, his hissing, and his imposing features, which he does quite well. Shelley is somewhat annoying (yes, she is the one who warns them to leave), but she is interesting after she becomes one of the undead. Keir is good at giving some sort of exposition about Dracula but also being quite entertaining. Matthews and Farmer are fine, having the sort of chemistry together one would expect in a horror film like this, which isn't overbearing nor too radically different. The scene where Lee and Farmer are alone together is also quite eerie and creepy, in part due to the music by James Bernard. It's interesting to see Walters (who you'd recognize from Frankenstein Created Women) as a sort of Renfield type of character, and he has a certain strangeness about him that works. You don't have to see the first one in order to get a grip on this film, which is nice. This time around, Dracula succumbs not due to the sun or a stake, but...(are you ready for this): running water. There is something amusing about that, in part because of Lee flailing around in the ice, but the movie doesn't really lose too much steam, in part because it ends not long after. On the whole, it's obviously not as good as the first film, but it is enjoyable in its own right, even after over 50 years.

Side note: If one is checking the Labels section and wondering why (British born) Jack Lambert is listed with a (B) next to his label, it is to differentiate him from the American actor of the same name.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

Spaceways.

Review #833: Spaceways.

Cast
Howard Duff (Dr. Stephen Mitchell), Eva Bartok (Dr. Lisa Frank), Alan Wheatley (Dr. Smith), Philip Leaver (Professor Koepler), Michael Medwin (Dr. Toby Andrews), Andrew Osborn (Dr. Philip Crenshaw), Cecile Chevreau (Vanessa Mitchell), and Anthony Ireland (General Hayes) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), and #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein)

Review
Believe it or not, this film was co-produced by Lippert Pictures (named for Robert L. Lippert, who would lead Regal Pictures a few years later) and Hammer Film Productions; most of you may know the latter though their horror films, which have been featured a few times on the show. Both of the companies had a deal in which the former would distribute the latter's films in the US, and vice versa in the UK, with this filmed entirely in England. As fun as the title or poster may seem (if you're into that sort of thing), the movie is actually a murder mystery, with the main lead being suspected of not only murdering two people, but putting them into a rocket that is spiraling the Earth. Naturally, footage from Rocketship X-M (#618) is featured during scenes with the rocket, because sharing is caring. There's obviously a bit of dedication to featuring some technobabble and moderately entertaining effects (and a bunch of gauges!), which is somewhat marred by a barely interesting plot. The cast is adequate for the material, for better or worse. Duff and Bartok are moderately entertaining, but there really isn't that much in terms of energy that can help the movie, which trudges a bit in a mystery that only goes somewhere with less than 15 minutes to go, with a twist that works if you actually thought someone would stuff bodies into a rocket. If you're looking for some sort of British thrill that's only 76 minutes long, I guess this works for you. It's okay, but nothing too spectacular.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Revenge of Frankenstein.

Review #469: The Revenge of Frankestein.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein/Dr. Victor Stein/Dr. Franck), Francis Matthews (Hans Kleve), Eunice Gayson (Margaret), Oscar Quitak (Karl), Michael Gwynn (Frankenstein's Monster), John Welsh (Bergman), and Lionel Jeffries (Fritz) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), and #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Review
It has been exactly one year since I reviewed The Curse of Frankenstein, the first of seven in the Hammer Frankenstein series, released a year before this film. Cushing's back, with an entirely new cast, and new locations...that were used in Dracula (1958), both of which happened to be released in the same year. Frankenstein seems to not know a good disguise, since he uses parts of his name not once, but twice, but I guess time is of the essence, especially in this film, taking no time to establish everything, including how Frankenstein escapes execution...off screen. Yes, it's learned later of how he escapes, but still...off screen? The monster isn't as wrapped up as Lee's monster beforehand, but it does certainly look imposing, and while it may not have too many scares, Cushing does his usual best and the cast isn't too bad, the film is a fine, if not flawless sequel to the first film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

Review #272: The Hound of the Baskervilles.

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

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dracula (1958)

Review #258: Dracula.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Doctor Van Helsing), Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Michael Gough (Arthur Holmwood), Melissa Stribling (Mina Holmwood), Carol Marsh (Lucy Holmwood), John Van Eyssen (Jonathan Harker), Janina Faye (Tania), Charles Lloyd-Pack (Doctor Seward), George Merritt (Policeman), and George Woodbridge (Landlord) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein)

Review
One year later after The Curse of Frankenstein's big success, there would an adaptation of the classic novel Dracula, by Bram Stoker. Cushing and Lee are once again here, and they click here as well. Actually, the whole film works. The scenery looks good, some nice shots in the castle, giving a bit of mood. I don't want to forget Michael Gough and his good performance as well. The film is good, having some chilling moments and in glorious Technicolor. Lastly, the end scene is very climatic, with some really good effects used. In the end, this film works, just like The Curse of Frankenstein, but in an entirely different, but a good way. It's fitting to review both a Frankenstein and a Dracula film, having done this once before (#071 - Dracula and #072 - Frankenstein)

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Curse of Frankenstein.

Review #257: The Curse of Frankenstein.

Cast
Peter Cushing (Baron Victor von Frankenstein), Christopher Lee (The Creature), Hazel Court (Elizabeth), Robert Urquhart (Dr. Paul Krempe), Valerie Gaunt (Justine), and Noel Hood (Aunt Sophia) Directed by Terence Fisher.

Review
Ah, Hammer. The company in 1934, with small films released before garnering its biggest fame in 1957 with the release of this film, the first of many horror films distributed and made by Hammer. And does the film deserve all the honor and prais after 55 years? Yes. The acting is good, with Cushing stealing the show (This is oly my second review involving him, the other being #113 - Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) The effects are good, considering they had to make it not resemble Jack Pierce's famous makeup back in 1931. Speaking of that, Lee does a decent job, given he mostly stands around, lurking. It's an interesting tale that would spawn many sequels and open the door for more horror films from Hammer. Speaking of that, there is a film to link this up to...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.