The Tingler.

Review #2436: The Tingler.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Dr. Warren Chapin), Judith Evelyn (Mrs. Martha Ryerson Higgins), Darryl Hickman (Dave Morris), Patricia Cutts (Isabel Stevens Chapin), Pamela Lincoln (Lucy Stevens), Philip Coolidge (Oliver 'Ollie' Higgins)

Produced and Directed by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, #1418 - The Night Walker, #1703 - Undertow, #2261 - Macabre, #2300 - Homicidal, #2301 - Strait-Jacket)

Review: 

Well, if you are going to try and give audiences a bit of a scare, you might as well try to make it a whole show of gimmicks to grab attention, I suppose. William Castle's Macabre (1958) had the life insurance policy for anyone dying of fright while House on Haunted Hill (released in January 1959) had an "Emergo" gimmick where a pulley system was rigged so a plastic skeleton could be flown over the audience at a certain point in the film.* Anyway, with The Tingler, released in July of 1959, Castle came up with a couple of ideas: Percepto, in which the underside of select seats would have electrical buzzers attached to try and provide a tingling sensation for moments (as one does when having surplus airplane wing dicing motors from the World War II days). As noted in the opening, said by none other than Castle himself, only certain members would get the shock because "some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others." And then of course there is the other idea, which involves planted members of the audience for a certain moment in the climax. As with Castle's two previous horror movies, it was written by Robb White, who did two further scripts for him. It was the second and last time that Vincent Price was the star of a William Castle movie. Obviously, the movie was enough of a hit for Castle to continue on with gimmicks: his next film in 13 Ghosts had a gimmick where you could see the ghosts in "Illusion-O" (a trick involving red and blue filters applied to the footage when dealing with the ghosts).

Really if you accept the premise as, well, with tingling curiosity, you already are half-way to having some enjoyment with the film. You've got a guy thinking he can find a creature that looks like a (big) centipede all in the name of science, at least if one doesn't scream about it first. I suppose the real thing about the tingler is that it could be represented as anything that makes us shudder and how we try to cope with apparent fears ahead of us. It has a small cast that naturally is highlighted by Price, who glides through the movie in making you go for the material in a movie that is actually kind of weird. You have a small ensemble, a few weird relationship dynamics being explored for a bit and the use of lysergic acid, or, well, LSD. Since Price looks committed to the material (as opposed to eyerolling it or just playing to scream scream scream), we find ourselves gravitating to the 82-minute runtime as well. The most interesting sequence could be the bathtub sequence (as acted by Evelyn in her final film role - she actually was brought in at the request of Price, who worked with her on Broadway), since it was shot in color that saw the set painted white/black/gray to go along with gray makeup so that way you could see the blood stick out from an otherwise monochrome background. What is particularly strange is that it comes not too long after Price's character tries out some LSD (in an attempt to spook himself without screaming), but one really wonders if he also gave it to someone else, because where else would a scene of red blood in otherwise monochrome stuff come into play? The movie just plays it as he just gave someone barbiturates for a prescription and then they just happen to see weird stuff but really if this had been made a few years later, it probably could've actually implied more that it was really LSD that did her in more than "oh, scared to death" for a trigger to die. Of course, the mystery of the film is where the tingler is going to end up, since it only can reside in folks that are alive. This is where the climax aims for the astounding: the movie actually stops in the guise of the tingler "being loose" and you have to wonder just how it felt with audience plants being around to pretend the thing was around them, although it should be mentioned that for most of the film, all it really does is get set to choke just one person, and the end goal for our hero is...to sew it back into a dead body. Yep, the thing is just going to go right back in, one can't just shoot it but it will slip right in a corpse fine. At any rate, it is an interesting experience to get wrapped in, if you allow it to do so. I don't think it is better than say, House on Haunted Hill, but you can see where Castle could take showmanship a bit further down the road. As a whole, The Tingler is moderately interesting when it truly kicks into gear for the fun that comes out in remembering just what it means to scream, which may or may not make for one heck of a climax if one finds themselves in the mood for what it is selling in the overall experience. If you like the Castle strategy of playing to the horror audience, you've got a winner here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Evidently, Alfred Hitchcock certainly took notice of the low-budget success of Castle's films prior to making Psycho (1960).

The Baron of Arizona.

Review #2400: The Baron of Arizona.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (James Reavis), Ellen Drew (Sofia; Karen Kester as child Sofia), Vladimir Sokoloff (Pepito), Beulah Bondi (Loma), Reed Hadley (Griff), Robert Barrat (Judge), Robin Short (Lansing), Tina Pine (Rita), Margia Dean (the Marquesa), Jonathan Hale (the Governor), Edward Keane (Miller), and Barbara Woodell (Mrs. Lansing) Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row, #2234 - The Steel Helmet)

Review: 

"The cameraman is master of his own kingdom. I feel the same about the rest of my crew: sound technicians, makeup people, hairdressers, costume designers. We'd discuss the kind of picture I wanted to make. Then I'd give them ample freedom to get the job done. They always did, no matter the budget or time constraints. I was always lucky with my production crews...The Baron from Arizona wasn't a big success. At least it was fun to make." - Samuel Fuller

Once ago, the West was a weird place. There once was a man named James Reavis that claimed to be a Baron of Arizona. The Missouri native apparently first learned he was good at forging signatures when enlisted in the traitorous Confederate Army as a teenager. He soon decided to surrender to the Union and served briefly there before doing a variety of jobs, one of which was real estate. It was only in 1880 that Reavis visited the then-Arizona Territory. He soon honed his plan that would see him file papers involving grants, deeds, and a claim that would've effectively nullified all existing land titles within the grant. Complications arose in the grant that saw him go to a second plan: an heiress to the grant that he could marry. Finally, in the year of 1889, the ball was rolling for nailing down the lack of validity of the claim, most notably with surveyor general Royal Johnson that noted the irregularities such as using a steel-nibbed pen rather than a quill for 18th century documents. Reavis did sue the United States government that went down the toilet in 1895. He was tried for forgery and found guilty in 1896, where he served prison time until 1898. He died in a pauper's grave in 1914. Incidentally, the tale of Reavis loosely inspired the 1939 film The Night Riders. According to Samuel Fuller's autobiography, he came across the Arizona story in the 1930s when drinking in New Mexico, as one does when on the writing beat. At any rate, years later Robert Lippert, satisfied with I Shot Jesse James (1949), was ready to produce another of Fuller's films and liked the pitch Fuller (who aspired to not leave Lippert after having one good time with him) gave to him. To beef up the curiosity, the movie states a source with a 1949 article in The American Weekly by Homer Croy, which had apparently also had material from Sam White that had been published earlier in True magazine. By Fuller's own admission, he wrote a script that he believed was more interesting than the actual Reavis story, particularly in the planning and with the love story.  Fuller even had the benefit of James Wong Howe as cinematographer because Howe, a friend of his, didn't care about the money for shooting a film and just wanted to do it. 

Admittedly, even though the movie is fine at best with the overall experience, you can clearly see the development present in a growing talent. The movie does take a bit of time to really get going with its setup (with narration present in setting certain things up, as they say), but the 97-minute runtime is generally watchable to make things worth it. Obviously first choices don't come to most movies, as Fuller had Fredric March in mind first for the lead role, but Lippert couldn't afford him. Instead, Fuller went with a gentleman that he saw on Broadway with a worthwhile voice and movements: Vincent Price. Fuller wrote a lead character that is arrogant and a conniving swindler to nearly everyone he meets and he has the absolute right guy for the film to work when you consider that Price was more than just a guy in horror movies (which happened later in the decade, as we all know), he could even do comedy in films such as Champagne for Caesar (1950). Simply put, Price makes me smile anytime I see him in a film because the mannerisms and voice just fit right from the word go even when playing a swindler. You love to see him in how the cogs turn in his head about where to jump to next in zest that in some way we all wish we had. The rest of the cast by comparison is okay, as if somehow looking at the film behind them (because Howe's cinematography is nice to experience, for one) is more interesting, but nobody detracts from the experience. You can at least believe Drew's character really does have affection for Price even with all that comes with someone who constricts an entire narrative about being descended from great things. The ending is the old fashioned "leave 'em happy going home", but it is definitely the result of a director that wanted to show that even con men can make schemes they didn't see coming work in their favor (besides, the part beforehand involving revealing ink is charming). As a whole, Fuller's second effort as a filmmaker is relatively fine, telling a worthy enough yarn of a conman and the spirit that it takes to carry things as long as it takes to get what they desire most in the game of life. For those who want a curious type of Western that plays fast and loose with history in the most curious of ways with an icon (for me, at least) in his young years, The Baron of Arizona is practically right up your alley.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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 Mad Magician

Review #2296: The Mad Magician.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Don Gallico / Gallico the Great), Mary Murphy (Karen Lee), Eva Gabor (Claire Ormond), John Emery (The Great Rinaldi), Donald Randolph (Ross Ormond), Lenita Lane (Alice Prentiss), Patrick O'Neal (Police Detective Lt. Alan Bruce), and Jay Novello (Frank Prentiss) Directed by John Brahm.

Review:

Sure, you might have heard of a 1950s horror film with "3D Thrills" starring Vincent Price...with House of Wax (1953). Columbia Pictures wanted to join in on the fun of 3D and employed the sane producer (Bryan Foy) and the same writer from that film in Crane Wilbur, who had gone from acting in the silent era to writing in his own right, which started with the 1922 play The Monster (which itself was turned into a film in 1925); he wrote (and directed) for a variety of genres from noir to horror, which included The Amazing Mr. X (1948). This was the second of three films with Wilbur and Price, with the next one being The Bat (1959). Up until that point, Price was getting lagged in noirs and adventure films, albeit not so much as the leading man (let's just put aside that first contribution to horror with The Invisible Man Returns at the very early part of his career in 1940). But Magician was the second of the eventual run that would come from Price in horror by the time the decade was over. This was directed by John Brahm as he was winding down his directing career. The German-born actor-turned-director had left his native country with the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s, eventually seeing him settle in America. He was a steady director for three decades (he directed the second remake of The Lodger) before adding television to his repetoire in the 1950s (he directed 12 episodes of The Twilight Zone, perhaps most famously starting with "Time Enough at Last"); he directed four features after Magician, with Hot Rods to Hell (1967) being his last prior to his death in 1982 at the age of 89.

Loosely set around the 1890s, what we have is a decent movie that isn't quite at the level of future Price films in devilish interest for what kind of madcap stuff could happen next, but he at least manages to make things work in a cut-rate 73-minute feature. Anyway, here's the gambit: a wannabee magician finds that the only way to get out of people trying to stop him from performing finds that murder is a handy tool. You do get to see a bit of stage magic when it comes to winding up how one would accomplish the act of severed heads or incineration for a curious audience. The plot is a bit out there, made clearest with the landlord character played by Lane, who just happens to be a writer for murder mysteries that surely won't come to play. The disguise parts (yes, in addition to would-be magic making, he also does disguises) is also pretty amusing. The body-count is more about what is implied in gruesomeness than actually seen (just your average stuff like having a head sawn off, death by strangling, and incineration), but it moves at a leisurely pace that leaves the viewer willing to accept at least some of its maneuvering. Price makes for a maniacally useful showman that we can follow with up to a point when it comes to genre-savvy viewers that like to see him play opposite a few weirdos and do-gooders in the mix. Murphy and O'Neal may be ordinary (fingerprint curiosity from the latter notwithstanding), but an average film with quiet faces besides the one we inquire to see is serviceable, while Gabor-Emery-Randolph make for quality fall-guys in such short time (take note of the fact that Price likes to impersonate the latter a few times when it comes to doing stuff). The climax is about on part with Wax the most, but it ultimately is serviceable enough to provide some average charm that might prove worth it for those who've been to the well of films of its ilk, genre, star, or otherwise. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961).

Review #2295: The Pit and the Pendulum (1961).

Cast:

Vincent Price (Nicholas / Sebastian Medina), John Kerr (Francis Barnard), Barbara Steele (Elizabeth), Luana Anders (Catherine Medina), Antony Carbone (Doctor Leon), Patrick Westwood (Maximillian), and Lynette Bernay (Maria) 

Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip, #2113 - The Undead, #2211 - The Intruder, #2275 - The Wasp Woman)

Review: 

"I had a lot of theories I was working with when I did the Poe films... One of my theories was that these stories were created out of the unconscious mind of Poe, and the unconscious mind never really sees reality, so until The Tomb of Ligeia, we never showed the real world. In Pit, John Kerr arrived in a carriage against an ocean background, which I felt was more representative of the unconscious."

Well, when you get one successful movie based on the Poe stories, who not another? House of Usher (1960) and this film share the same screenwriter (Richard Matheson), the same cinematographer (Floyd Crosby), the same set designer (Daniel Haller) and even the same lead actor (Price). Apparently, one plan to follow up Usher was to adapt "The Masque of the Red Death", but either Corman or Samuel Z. Arkoff decided that the 1842 story "The Pit and the Pendulum" by Poe would be better to adapt next (Corman claimed that making Masque would inspire comparisons to The Seventh Seal [1957]); it wasn't exactly set in stone to make a series of Poe films yet, it just so happened that the first was a hell of surprise in being a hit that they thought they could another one. The original story was merely a brief tale involving the Spanish Inquisition that involved a razor pendulum and eventually a contraption involving moving red-hot walls, which made it a tough one to crack for adaptation at first. Matheson reflected on the fact that he basically imposed an "old suspense mystery" in an attempt to do Poe. A prologue was shot for TV that sometimes is included for home media releases to view. The next film in the Poe cycle would be the unusual one of the group in The Premature Burial (1962), which originally started out as a non-AIP venture in financing (before soon becoming one, although Ray Milland was the star). Matheson didn't write that film, but he did write for the next two Corman-Poe films with Tales of Terror (1962) and The Raven (1963).

Admittedly, one probably does have an early sense of familiarity watching this any time after doing so with Usher, since both start with someone going up to a foreboding place involving a doomed Price and a doomed lady. But if you know Corman well enough, you know that he had the spark to make a worthwhile venture when everything comes up his way in execution for 80 minutes. He may have had 15 days to shoot the film, but he makes the film look like it came out of the woodwork with no trouble at all, one that shows his craftsmanship and his imagination in perpetuating his ideas of Poe and the unconscious mind. As spearheaded by Haller, the film utilized a handful of discarded pieces of sets (such as archways and stone wall units) for its look that looks dazzling in unnerving enjoyment. I'm not quite sure which is better among Usher or Pendulum, but one would be forgiven for just going along with the ride when it comes to a seminal actor like Price to lead the way. One can wonder just how to describe how good Price is when you've seen him in plenty of horror movies, but he has that certain type of talent that means one never seems to see him phone it in just for the sake of it all. His descent into madness is our descent because of how lurid everything looks and feels to us. I can't help but smile when the film kicks into the climax in delightful terror, probably because there is something befitting in smiling at what otherwise is a scary prospect: torture-traps and looping into old traumas by manipulation. The fact that the torture device looks spooky enough to actually look dangerous helps to really bring it all together for a movie that could've just as easily weltered with such a specific amount of people to focus on (five, really). Kerr may be ordinary, but he at least is steady enough to keep things Steele may not have much to do, but she does prove a worthy conniving match with Anders when it comes to strange bedfellows, particularly when it comes to that final rundown and shot. In totality, it is a delightful movie, making a worthwhile addition to the horror tradition that plays loosely with the Poe story in the best way possible for one's mind to look with.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Invisible Man Returns.

Review #2279: The Invisible Man Returns.

Cast: 

Cedric Hardwicke (Richard Cobb), Vincent Price (Geoffrey Radcliffe), Nan Grey (Helen Manson), John Sutton (Dr. Frank Griffin), Cecil Kellaway (Inspector Sampson), Alan Napier (Willie Spears), Forrester Harvey (Ben Jenkins), and Paul England (Detective) Directed by Joe May.

Review: 

You have to be a bit bold to flat out call your movie a sequel to H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man, particularly since well, Wells didn't do a follow-up work to his famous 1897 novel. The 1933 adaptation by Universal (as directed by James Whale) even matched the book in killing off its lead character. But here we are because Universal Pictures loved the idea of doing follow-ups to their horror films and had a hit with Son of Frankenstein (1939). Universal apparently had an interesting time to pick a director and an actor for the title role (thinking of Rowland V. Lee to direct) but eventually settled with May to direct and picked Vincent Price (having originally thought about casting someone familiar like Boris Karloff at first before going for "young and good-looking upcomer"). This was released at the tail end of May's career as a director (having emigrated from Austria to America in the 1930s) as he directed just four further films prior to his death in 1954 at the age of 73. Four writers were utilized for this film: Lester K. Cole and Curt Siodmak wrote the screenplay while May, Siodmak, and Cedric Belfrage wrote the story. The movie apparently was shot over the course of a month in late 1939. The effects were credited to John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgcock, which apparently dealt with shooting in black velvet. The next two films dealing with invisible people from Universal were not exactly horror films, but Siodmak wrote both of them (with May being there as well for one of them) with the sci-fi comedy The Invisible Woman (1940) and the action/spy film Invisible Agent (1942). Jon Hall served as the new title character for that film and The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944).

Admittedly, the sequel does have one neat card to play: it isn't merely just doing the last film again, particularly since it seems hard to top Claude Rains and his performance from a few years ago. For one, it is more of a gradual unravelling as one might see from a procedural, complete with a somewhat low-key lead presence (note that "Sir" Hardwicke actually isn't in the film for very long). The justification for how one gets to see a new invisible man is pretty interesting: when framed for murder and on the door for execution, friends resort to helping a guy turn loose and invisible. It has a "fine" pace at 81 minutes that is more interesting when trying to play for effects rather than play itself in showing the locale that is, well, not nearly as effective in relief that one already saw years prior. It probably is more interesting to wonder just what one would end up doing in terms of stability when it comes to the idea of invisibility, and like before it presents someone who gets wrapped up a bit in chaos but otherwise had a genuine idea in mind in going with the whole thing. This was the fourth feature film for Price, who actually would go through a variety of supporting roles (with some top billing) in noirs and period films before getting latched onto as a horror guy by the 1950s. He does just fine for a role that is all about the voice over all, which he plays with concern rather than ham, which probably makes sense. Hardwicke gives the worried elegance of someone doing a job quick and easy while Grey and Sutton at least fill out the movie in casual interest (i.e. a bit of science-babble and babble about their friend). Kellaway isn't even forced to play skeptic to what's going around him, he just plays it straight. As such, it may be a hokey sequel not quite up to the original stuff, but it at least has some commitment to doing drama with some quality effects and useful enough pacing to keep one invested to the bitter end. It's a familiar comfort, go figure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Master of the World (1961).

Review #2255: Master of the World (1961)

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Robur), Charles Bronson (John Strock), Henry Hull (Prudent), Mary Webster (Dorothy Prudent), David Frankham (Philip Evans), Richard Harrison (Helmsman Alistair), Vito Scotti (Airship Chef Topage), Wally Campo (First Mate Turner), and Ken Terrell (Crewman Shanks) Directed by William Witney.

Review: 

Oh sure, an American International Pictures production that isn't just about horror, what could go wrong? The movie is loosely adapted from the works on Jules Verne, specifically the novels Robur the Conqueror (written in 1886) and Master of the World (written in 1904), as screenwriter Richard Matheson (in his second screenplay for an AIP film, as this was released between House of Usher [1960] and The Pit and the Pendulum [1961]) combined elements for this hodgepodge. But hey, we (yes, I include you) are here for the entertainment value in whatever is being cooked up on an "efficient" budget and maybe even in its cast. And this seems especially apparent here with Vincent Price being the star. Believe it or not, there were rumblings of making a follow-up feature, despite the way the actual film ended (an explosion!), complete with drawings, although these plans were scrapped pretty quickly. Witney was an experienced director dating back to the 1930s, which included films such as Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941) along with plenty of television; he directed until he was in his late sixties. 

Really this is a curious movie, because you get a little adventure in color with Price trying to thread the needle of adversary that doesn't require fey qualities to go with Bronson getting a chance of a leading man as opposed to the early heavy stuff (such as Machine-Gun Kelly, if you remember) to go with a few others that either will keep your interest or have the effect of a puddle. 102 minutes is probably decent enough to command the attention of a movie that has pretty routine filmmaking to go with occasional goofy comic-strip moments. So yes, you get the triangle of conflict between the obviously cool adversary in Price (no bias detected), a bullish Hull, and "ambiguity" (nicest word possible) in Bronson. Well, and a bit of hammy old-man acting from Frankham and window-aisle stuff in Webster, but you get the idea. Price seems to be having quite the ball here, playing the angle that arises in pacifism taken to a certain type of notch when it comes to trying to force it down on everyone from the clouds to go with occasional spouting of the Bible. Price isn't playing it for camp, but he makes it fascinating, nonetheless. Bronson and his dryness might not compare to, say, The Magnificent Seven (1960), but it probably does reflect well to see his casual observation at the difference between ideals and methods, particularly with how leaden one finds Hull or Webster (set in the 19th century or not, wondering what is fit for a "gentleman" is not interesting in the slightest for someone like me). Interestingly, this is a movie made for about a million dollars that still manages to look a bit cheap, particularly if you like to wonder just what is made of stock footage and what is not (the opening at least is obvious because hey, "flight'!). Sometimes the aerial view is a bit silly (those familiar with rear projection might have a guess), which is especially true with the rope sequence. At a certain point, one just has to wonder where the low bar is but considering certain other AIP features past and present in terms of trying one's patience (such as here and here), I was fine with it here just enough. I can at least dig the climax for giving one a good sendoff in terms of unsettling ideas. Those with the fortitude to enjoy an AIP film for what it is in goofy entertainment will find something fine here, while others might recognize an even more hammier AIP film than usual. I went with the flow because it went with my expectations of a fairly decent time, which I suppose made it a winner that I could recommend for those with the fortitude to enjoy a goofy film from old yesteryear with one worthwhile performance to follow along with in the usual tradition.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Theatre of Blood.

Review #2116: Theatre of Blood.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Edward Lionheart), Diana Rigg (Edwina Lionheart), Ian Hendry (Peregrine Devlin), Harry Andrews (Trevor Dickman), Robert Coote (Oliver Larding), Michael Hordern (George Maxwell), Robert Morley (Meredith Merridew), Coral Browne (Chloe Moon), Jack Hawkins (Solomon Psaltery), Arthur Lowe (Horace Sprout), Dennis Price (Hector Snipe), Milo O'Shea (Inspector Boot), Eric Sykes (Sgt. Dogge), and Diana Dors (Maisie Psaltery) Directed by Douglas Hickox.

Review: 

"I think of myself as an interpretive director. I'm a narrative director, basically. An audience should become totally involved in the film, the actors and the story. They shouldn't be aware of the director at all or of how things are done."

I'm sure you are familiar with The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) or its sequel. That film was directed by Robert Fuest with Vincent Price as the star that involved deaths with a bit of a theme to them (mostly in the original, which honed familiarity to the plagues). Fuest was actually asked about doing this film but declined by saying he didn't want to be "the guy who makes Vincent Price theme killing movies" (irony, as Fuest basically doomed his career by directing The Devil's Rain two years later). Instead, the film was directed by Douglas Hickox. He had directed a variety of musical shorts and commercials before becoming a feature director at the age of 41 in 1970. He directed a handful of films that had name actors star, whether that involved John Wayne in Brannigan (1975) or Burt Lancaster in Zulu Dawn (1979) to go with a few television shows before he died in 1988. Stanley Mann and John Kohn came up with the idea for the film before Anthony Greville-Bell wrote the screenplay. Apparently, Price later listed the film as one of his favorites he ever made. The theme for this film, if you didn't already guess, involves an actor-turned-killer going around reenacting the words of William Shakespeare while trying to get revenge of a considerable group of critics that apparently denied him the honor he most wanted as an actor to the point where it looked like he killed himself years before; this all starts with a man getting stabbed by a mob of people...on March 15, the Ides of March, the same day that Julius Caesar was murdered (as also covered in the Shakespeare play of the same name). As probably guessed, the film was a British production done on location, complete with filming a decent chunk at the Putney Hippodrome Theatre (auditorium, stage area, exterior) in the last significant use of the building before it was demolished in 1975.

Now this is one that seems practically made for folks like me, or at the very least people who adore Vincent Price in his element. How could you resist the urge for a film that has him act out the words of William Shakespeare going around trying to do creative death sequences? It manages to be better than both Phibes films when it comes to great theatricality in the face of amusing horror, and I would actually argue that it is Price at his best possible moment as an actor. The fact that the film also happens to contain a few other noted names in British cinema also helps make for a diverting film of pathos and humor in the best way. The 104-minute runtime is paced pretty well when it comes to Price and the others around him, mostly because it goes from the jump on ideas before eventually settling to some exposition and then its fiery climax. Price moves along from scene to scene by also getting to do a bit of dress up, which at one point sees him act as a hairdresser. This is the kind of material he was born to play in terms of horrific charm that is more than just scene-chewery but flat-out dominance of composed elegance. He had saved a whole bunch of films before from just being blank mediocrities or just fine B-films (at least until his roles became a bit slower by the mid-1970s), here is one just for him to hold in lunacy. Of course, folks like Rigg do pretty well too, since she plays support in derangement for a semi-significant part that is fairly fun as well. Hendry is the leader among the folks trying to avoid the ax, which mostly involves tempered snobbery that lends interest for the ones who are less fortunate (such as Morley, who gets to be a bit flamboyant right before having to realize that he is being fed pies...made from his dogs), while O'Shea plays the resident authority figure trying to make head or tails of it.  The buildup for the climax does slow the film down a bit when it comes to some oddly included exposition (hey, a man looks like he jumped into the Thames, who needs explanation?), but at least the ending seems just about on point for one more enduring line about critics and the nature of performances. This was a film released in the midst of a decade that saw horror perhaps shift a bit grislier away from the stuff that made Price an attraction, but everything still mostly clicks here for enjoyment that has also not aged after a half-century because of its entertaining composure and timing that is held in check by one really damn fun actor for all it is worth. It isn't a perfect film, but it probably is up there as one of Price's best showcases, and that is a really good thing to say from a horror perspective.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next: Cabin Fever.

House of Usher.

Review #1918: House of Usher.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Roderick Usher), Mark Damon (Philip Winthrop), Myrna Fahey (Madeline Usher), and Harry Ellerbe (Bristol) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, and #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea)

Review: 

“What drew me to Fall of the House of Usher was first the macabre setting, the house itself. Surrounded by fog, deserted…and then within the house, the relationship between Roderick Usher and his sister. The incestuous sexual/horror relationship between them, it was just a fascinating situation.” - Roger Corman

Undeniably, a film by American International Pictures leaves a bit of curiosity to go along with trepidation. Sure, they made plenty of fast and cheap movies in their day, but you always have to pick your hopes and doubts when it comes to wondering how they can handle executing premise the right way...so imagine them adapting the works of Edgar Allen Poe. But they did do so, with Roger Corman behind it all. Instead of making two low-budget black-and-white films (done in 10 days each) fit for a double feature that AIP desired, Corman came to an agreement to make one color movie for them (with 15 days to shoot), and the result became its own cycle of movies, much to the surprise of Corman. He would make eight feature films as director and producer for eight Poe works House of Usher (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), Premature Burial (1962), Tales of Terror (1962), The Raven (1963), The Haunted Palace (1963), The Masque of the Red Death (1964), and The Tomb of Ligeia (1964). All but Burial had Vincent Price as the star, as he was a contract player for the studio. Corman wanted him for this movie, and he got his wish for an actor that loved playing this role, one he felt was the most sensitive of the lead characters of a Poe work (he even bleached his hair for the role). The film was made on a budget of $270,000. Richard Matheson was best known at the time for his novels I Am Legend (1954) and The Incredible Shrinking Man (1956), and he had written film scripts for two prior movies (one being an adaptation of the former novel). He wrote the adaptation of this film and wrote for three more of the Corman/Poe cycle of films. The movie, as you might know, is adapted from Edgar Allen Poe's short story "The Fall of the House of Usher", first published in 1839. The movie changes the dynamic of the trio of characters: the story features an unnamed narrator that visits the house to see the elder Usher, his "best and only friend", while the film has him visit the Ushers because of his fiancé. This was the third adaptation of the book, after La Chute de la maison Usher (1928), the short The Fall of the House of Usher (1928), and The Fall of the House of Usher (1950). It was the last film adaptation for 29 years.

Corman was an engineer before he realized that he was destined to be a filmmaker, you know. By 1960, he was already a five-year director familiar with getting things done on a quick and engineered basis. This proves to be right up his alley, given the limited cast and one big set captured in CinemaScope. Well, that, and a barn in California that had its teardown filmed by Corman to be used in the film, which ended up being used in a handful of future movies. I think it is a splendid film in its execution that benefits most from having Price on screen more than anything. He is the perfect one to emulate such a pale figure of doomed stature, and his belief that the film was a gamble worth believing in is proven correct, and his dynamic with his on-screen sister in Fahey is appropriately eerie. The monster of the movie isn't any one thing but instead the curse that has stricken a bloodline: it is the specter of inevitability that looms over the film when you boil it all down, combining two curiosities into one: folks who love to see Corman try to pull another cheap show of entertainment and Price dominate your attention with dignity, for which you get exactly what you want in terms of fun in horror. Ellerbe may not have the name power of the others or even as many lines, but he fits the puzzle in the tiniest crucial moments needed to keep the movie on point of weird stylings that never get distracted. In a lesser movie, you might focus on Damon, who actually won an award for his performance (granted, it was a Golden Globe...awarded for "newcomer" actors, despite the fact he appeared in a number of shows and movies since the mid 1950s). It isn't a terrible performance, merely just being an ordinary one to contrast with Price and the other doomed figure in Fahey that is, well, a guy trying to make sense of oneself. Corman utilizes cinematography by Floyd Crosby and production design by Daniel Haller to striking effect to make a solid 79-minute ride of creeping atmosphere. You are left to brood for the time required, and it rewards your patience in a movie that is one of Corman's highlights as director. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Good morning. THE HOUSTON ASTROS HAVE WON THE WORLD SERIES AGAIN! Friends of the show know my appreciation for this baseball team and all they have done for the state of Texas, and it feels so good to call them the king of baseball once again. 

Next Time: A redux special.

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!

Return of the Fly.

Review #1738: Return of the Fly.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (François Delambre), Brett Halsey (Philippe Delambre), David Frankham (Ronald Holmes / Alan Hinds), Danielle De Metz (Cecile Bonnard), John Sutton (Inspector Beecham), Dan Seymour (Max Barthold), Jack Daly (Granville), Janine Grandel (Mme. Bonnard), Michael Mark (Gaston), and Ed Wolff (The Fly-Creature) Written and Directed by Edward Bernds (#1017 - Space Master X-7)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember The Fly (1958), directed by Kurt Neumann, based on that short story of the same name by George Langelaan about a man-fly hybrid creature told in flashback about how he ended up where he was, which ended up with a fairly interesting classic and other things. Naturally, there was a rush for another movie (despite the whole "dead fly" thing). Sure, there are a few signs that this might not be the most relevant course for a sequel. For one thing, the only person to return for it from the previous film is Vincent Price, who apparently liked the first draft of the script more than the one cut down later for production costs (Herbert Marshall, who played the inspector, apparently could not do the film because of sickness). Another is the fact that this was made for roughly $200,000 less than the last one. If you remember, both films were done under the unit of Robert L. Lippert (a "King of the Bs" kind of producer, who actually started as a theater chain owner), and he decided to bring in Edward Bernds to direct; perhaps it is fitting that it was him, since one of his five films that he directed with Lippert as producer was the film usually put on the double-bill with The Fly in Space Master X-7 (1958); a handful of his hundreds of films produced for 20th Century Fox involved CinemaScope, since he was contracted to make a number of films for them with the lenses, and this one would be done in black-and-white while re-using the lab sets from before (incidentally, this was put on a double bill with The Alligator People).

So yes, the course of action taken was to set the film years after the original and involve the son of the original lead focus. Honestly, for a made on the cheap kind of movie that was dubbed "The Zipper" by Price, it could have been a lot worse. Again, there is probably a limited amount of ideas one could make involving a guy and a fly costume, but I find what they came up with at least semi-plausible, since it isn't just another fluke accident. Unfortunately, the lesser effects for its title creature and trappings of conveniences and contrivances ultimately help to sink the film into mediocrity. Price leads the film in dignity, mostly because each Fly film doesn't lend itself to many opportunities to ham it up for most folks; there's that tinge of awareness that makes for somewhat useful drama. Of course, it is also evident where in the 80-minute run-time they decided to cut down elements for gimmicks, and it seems apparent right around the time the creature shows up (done out of spite by a secret crook). Halsey does fine with the small moments required in measured curiosity, but it probably doesn't help when he is sidelined for the parts involving the Fly (since not only does it not speak, it is played by a circus giant). Frankham might be an interesting double-crosser, but really this doesn't go too far being convenient stuff. Sutton doesn't exactly stoke much interest as the supposed inspector successor, standing in the background to say mild stuff after over half the film has already ended. I can't quantify exactly what De Metz is to the main characters, and honestly you won't really remember, because there isn't really much to the dynamic between her and Halsey. One will have a weird time figuring out which effect brings the film down more: the effect of seeing the fly-human creature, bumbling around looking like they want to not have the heavy contraption to slip from their head...or the human-faced fly that looks a bit too transparent (the mini-voice isn't helpful either). Honestly, I wasn't really expecting the film to end on a downer note, but the way they manage to tie it all together with its climax is pretty weak. Sure, there are probably only two ways this can end: life or death; however, it just seems a bit too silly to really stick the landing, probably because there's the whole matter of "well, somebody killed two people, but it wasn't the MAN who did it" (a crook may be a crook, but...you know, they are still dead). Really it seems more amusing that the creature can evade a whole bunch of cops (at least ones in the 1950s...wait, just when is the movie set?) and then come back to its original trappings with no trouble.

There would be another Fly film years later with Curse of the Fly (1965), which was one of Lippert's last features as producer. Look, both versions of The Fly (1958, 1986) are good enough to stand on their own without any follow-up, that much is for sure. But I suppose if one really needed to know where filmmakers can go with another story about man-flies, I guess you won't have too much disappointment with this movie. It isn't terrible, but mediocrity with horror is dime of a dozen that may or may not suit one's curiosity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Birds (1963).

Edward Scissorhands.

Review #1615: Edward Scissorhands.

Cast:
Johnny Depp (Edward Scissorhands), Winona Ryder (Kim Boggs), Dianne Wiest (Peg Boggs), Anthony Michael Hall (Jim), Kathy Baker (Joyce), Robert Oliveri (Kevin Boggs), Conchata Ferrell (Helen), Caroline Aaron (Marge), Dick Anthony Williams (Officer Allen), O-Lan Jones (Esmeralda), Vincent Price (The Inventor), and Alan Arkin (Bill Boggs) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, and #1295 - Sleepy Hollow)

Review:
"I think if you've ever had that feeling of loneliness, of being an outsider, it never quite leaves you. You can be happy or successful or whatever, but that thing still stays within you."

Distinct is such an easy word to use when talking about a movie or the director behind it, but it is definitely a word that can be used to go with the career of Tim Burton, who has directed 19 films in 35 years of feature filmmaking. A native of Burbank, California, he had an creative ambition from a young age (inspired by the works of writers like Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss), whether that involved making his own films or doing stop motion animation, with his first short being made with The Island of Doctor Agor (1971) at the age of 13. He described himself as an average student, but his passion for drawing served well enough for his studies of character animation at California Institute of the Arts (a place known for cultivating talent in animation). His short Stalk of the Celery Monster (1979) attracted attention from Disney, who brought him in for an apprenticeship. His time with the studio was mixed in output, in that while he served as an animator alongside various other spots like concept artist on a few films (such as The Fox and the Hound), the management style of Disney did not fully gel with what they wanted from Burton. He did, however, have time to do two animated shorts with them with Vincent (1982) and Frankenweenie (1984), the first being important in its tribute to Vincent Price (who narrated the film) while the latter (which Disney fired him for making a film too dark) helped inspire Paul Reubens to want to hire him as director for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985). This led to...well, I think you know the rest of that story, but it never hurts to reiterate the respect he had when it came time for his fourth feature film here, one that is clearly not wary to studio interference or muddled tone. It matters to mention the upbringing of Burton, since the title character started as a drawing that Burton did as a teenager that reflected his isolated feelings when growing up in the suburbs. Burton (who has called the film his most personal and favorite) approached novelist Caroline Thompson to write a script based on that drawing (which an inspiration being a dog that she adored) that came together in three weeks. As a fable, it takes inspiration from a variety of media, whether that involved fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast or classic horror like The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923). Some casting choices were done quite quickly in the case of Wiest, Ryder, and Price, while casting consideration for the lead proved interesting, since 20th Century Fox desired Tom Cruise (he desired a happier ending alongside asking too many questions about the character) and Gary Oldman rejected the role, but it eventually went to Depp (Burton's first choice), who at the time was known for his starring role on 21 Jump Street (1987-90). It would be the first of numerous collaborations between Depp and Burton over the next two decades.

There are numerous ways one could describe the film, and the easiest one I can say is to call it my new favorite Burton film. Someday, I will have caught up to each and every Burton film, but it will be hard to find ones that are more effective in its soothing effectiveness in making a great fable about what it means to feel or be an outsider. Simply put, I would argue it is a gem worth a watch, preferably during the winter season. It is a triumph of imagination, one that shows the best qualities of Burton in delivering tender efficiency when it matters most, handling style with drama equally as well in delicacy that stirs fascination as well as other certain emotions, and it all comes from a romantic drama with a fair touch of humor that comes from placing a man with a special quality to him in a weird place (as described by Burton) like suburbia life with pastel delicacy. Belonging in one place is hard enough, so trying to find one's touch in society as a whole is another task of difficulty and alienation, which works just as well for a teenager as well as an adult. Depp has the most interesting task, one where he has less than 200 words to say through the whole film while in a leather suit and makeup (credit Stan Winston for those wonderful hands) in Tampa, Florida. It is a great performance, one that delicately handles the struggle of outsider individuality that is tender with innocence like one might see with an old pet but one that resonates with us so easily in the expressions that Depp brings to the role, no doubt inspired by the silent film era. Ryder does well in wide-eyed simmering charm that rolls differently from what one had seen from her before (namely highlights like Beetlejuice or...other works like Heathers), and her scenes with Depp really do bring the film together in soulful mercy, particularly with the ice sculpture scene (or ice dance, if you prefer). Wiest does just as well, having a well-meaning charm and grace to carry the film for those moments where Depp doesn't say much, which goes with Arkin and his momentary time spent together with Wiest. Hall (a few years removed from those John Hughes films) does what is needed from a jock in being a fair mark in jock spirit with menace that sets the alienation on the heels quickly. Baker lends well to dazzled humor and curiosity when paired with Depp to headline the suburb group of actors when it gets to where it needs to go by the time the 105 minutes are up without needing an easy out for resolution. Obviously the last one to highlight is the man making his last appearance in a motion picture with Price (who died of lung cancer three years later), who still has the right track on elegance within that clear expression, and it is the death scene that seals the deal for just how soulfully effective the film is as a whole, because of how he weaves that scene with Depp. And then of course there is that musical score by Danny Elfman, no stranger to memorable collaborations with Burton. It proves quite haunting, one that will stick in your mind after it stops (I know that for a fact, because I inadvertently have had one cue from this film in my head for years as it has been used in a small selection of trailers). Thirty years have passed since its release, but it certainly has a place within the works of Tim Burton when it comes to his distinct storytelling and style and the actors that have taken part in his films for decades that have lent to such memorable experiences and moments, whether involving an ice dance or something much more bittersweet in a classic.

I know there was a review already done at midnight, but I was most definitely looking forward to making sure that this was a special day as it has been for December 20th in each of the last ten years (since there has been a review for each one). Besides, this is a momentous occasion for the numbers - Tim Burton is only the seventh director to have ten of his films covered on Movie Night, and that is a most interesting distinction to have for a place that desires to cover as much as they can of directors that interest them (new voices count under that too, obviously). However, it works out for 2021, I am thankful to have created a haven for me to write about films that have interested me from the director to the star to the premise as a whole and any suggestions for something to cover or look into (such as a re-visit or two...) is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes.

Review #1437: The Abominable Dr. Phibes.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (Dr. Anton Phibes), Joseph Cotten (Dr. Vesalius), Peter Jeffrey (Inspector Harry Trout), Virginia North (Vulnavia), Hugh Griffith (Rabbi), Terry-Thomas (Dr. Longstreet), Derek Godfrey (Crow), Norman Jones (Sgt. Tom Schenley), John Cater (Waverley), Aubrey Woods (Goldsmith), John Laurie (Darrow), and Maurice Kaufmann (Dr. Whitcombe) Directed by Robert Fuest.

Review: 
"I sometimes feel that I'm impersonating the dark unconscious of the whole human race. I know this sounds sick, but I love it."

Any time spent watching Vincent Price in a film is bound to be an interesting experience to watch, regardless of how the film as a whole turns out. This could also apply to films from American International Pictures, so it should only prove to be a match made in heaven to see Price in one of their films, having appeared in numerous films with the company since House of Usher (1960, the first of the eight Edgar Allen Poe stories adapted into films, which featured Price in seven of them). Price originally had an interest in fine arts (intending to study for a master's degree in the subject), but he soon found himself drawn to the theater, and he debuted in 1935. He is known for his horror work, but he had a versatile range that started from his character work in his films (starting in 1938), which could be in noir thrillers and comedy while also doing radio and television work. Although his career veered a bit towards stage and voicework with the 1970s, there was still room for Price to keep busy with film (fun fact: he also was an avid art collector and gourmet chef). Incidentally, Price would star in Theatre of Blood (1973), which was also a revenge story involving elaborate murders (in this case an actor emulating murder scenes from the plays of William Shakespeare). At the helm of director was set designer-turned-director Fuest, who would work on films such as And Soon the Darkness (1970) and the follow-up Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972).

One has an interesting time with a horror revenge film with shades of dark comedy in its methods of madness. The method of the killer this time around? Oh just the ten plagues of ancient times, which lend themselves to amusingly dark highlights such as a man being killed by a mechanical frog mask or being speared by a brass unicorn head horn. In a film that runs at 94 minutes, it certainly is interesting to have Price remain silent for the first third of the film (complete with an eerie voiceless intro), so he is mostly relying on his facial expressions with occasional moments of (literally) phone-in speech. In that sense, this makes for a performance worth viewing from Price. He might be playing a character that wants to bring about the plague to certain doctors, but it doesn't mean Price is playing just for hammy evil moments - he actually does a pretty creepy job for a role that he reportedly found to be very funny (to the point where he giggled and laughed while having plastic makeup on, which made it dissolve time and time again). The other actors stand fine with rolling in the quick paced black comedy, revolving from the strait-laced and composed Cotten to the effectively serious Jeffrey and Jones with not falling to all the bumbling stereotypes of authority. North makes a solemn but sound accompanying figure to the action. A lesser director would have likely presented the material broadly without subtlety or style, but Fuest (who re-wrote a significant part of the original screenplay that was done by James Whiton and William Goldstein) seems to have a touch for making dark ideas come out with their own sense of beauty. There is some creepy moments of horror that are spread out fine without dwelling on too much gore or seeming too tame for its time. On the whole, this is a serviceable film worthy for any purveyor of some creepy horror with a few chuckles alongside the madness with one fun actor in Price to make this a cult gem worth considering in its era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.

Review #1174: Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.

Cast: 
Vincent Price (Dr. Goldfoot), Frankie Avalon (Craig Gamble), Dwayne Hickman (Todd Armstrong), Susan Hart (Diane), Jack Mullaney (Igor), Fred Clark (D.J. Pevney), Patti Chandler (Robot), Mary Hughes (Robot), Salli Sachse (Robot), Luree Holmes (Robot), Sue Hamilton (Robot), Laura Nicholson (Robot), and Marianne Gaba (Robot) Directed by Norman Taurog (#421 - Palm Springs Weekend and #523 - It Happened at the World's Fair)

Review: 
Admittedly, I suppose the basic proposition of "James Bond meets a beach party" must have sounded pretty enticing to turn into a movie, particularly if you have Vincent Price to inject some classiness (or ridiculousness, perhaps) into the whole affair. This was made on a budget of over a million dollars by American International Pictures, who could make and release films of various kinds, such as horror or beach party movies, and I suppose there really must've been something about the latter genre that was big for the 1960s, so what better way to build on that by combining/spoofing it with another thing big for the decade - spy films. James H. Nicholson (co-founder of the studio) helped write the story, while Elwood Ullman and Robert Kaufman helped do the screenplay. Reportedly, the original intent of the film was to have songs integrated throughout the film, for which Vincent Price was looking forward to sing. However, this did not come to pass, which disappointed him. Actually, I imagine it would've been pretty interesting to hear, but Samuel Z. Arkoff (AIP co-founder) thought he sounded too "fey" - wrap your head around that.

The end product is a movie that has a bunch of cheap gags and okay acting, with Price being the only one who really seems to shine with some sort of energy. I can't say that I disliked my experience with the movie, but I didn't find this movie to have enough in terms of successful humor and gags to really make this a worthwhile film to recommend. Price is entertaining, playing this ridiculous role with a fine sense of humor, and he is the only thing to really keep the film from derailing too much into lame gags. He can't elevate the movie into anything really good, but he does save the experience from being bland at least. Avalon and Hickman are okay, but they aren't too particularly interesting to follow along with, with the bumbling and stumbling only going so far before the film seems to grow tired. I couldn't help but think of Our Man Flint (1966), which also served as a spoof of the Bond film while being pretty silly, but somehow that film ends up working much better with its gags and spy hero. At least the song in the beginning by The Supremes is charming, complete with claymation designed by Art Clokey. The sequence at the end involving the streetcar in San Francisco is pretty interesting at least. There isn't really a terrible performance, but the movie simply doesn't have enough consistent energy to make its thin plot and gags work completely. Upon release, the movie was mildly successful, most notably doing well in Italy, which inspired a sequel called Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs that was released the following year. If one is looking for something that is simply silly without needing too much investment, perhaps this will fit right up the alley.

Happy Boxing Day, folks.

Overall, I give it 6 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.