Tag: Movie Review

The Bad Seed (1956)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today’s review is for the 1956 movie about a child psychopath, “The Bad Seed”. This was based on the play and novel by the same name and directed by Mervyn LeRoy. Despite the warning at the credits not to spoil the ending for other viewers, I will absolutely be spoiling it, since the ending factors in to my score. So if you feel the need to avoid those for this nearly 70 year old film you may want to skip this one (or come back to it after you’ve watched). Let’s dig in.

October Review Challenge – Day 30

The movie starts with a very traditional 50’s style family scene with parents Kenneth (William Hopper) and Christine (Nancy Kelly) doting on their 8 year old daughter Rhoda (Patty McCormack). Rhoda tells them and their neighbour/landlady Monica (Evelyn Varden), about a writing medal that she should have won, but some boy won instead. Rhoda has a mini tantrum over this but cheers up quickly to say goodbye to her father who will be away on business for an extended period. She then heads off for her schools picnic at the lake.

Tragedy strikes during the picnic as one of the boys dies on the old pier, an area where the children were not meant to be. The boy in question is “Claude”, the one that won the writing medal, which he had with him on the trip. Though it was not recovered. Rhoda returns home but seems in a buoyant mood, not at all impacted by the loss of her classmate. Indeed her main interest is in the fact that they didn’t get to have the picnic and so she wants feeding.

The Little Terror

Christine finds from Rhoda’s teacher that she was apparently the last person seen with Claude and was apparently trying to steal his medal off him. Meanwhile the creepy caretaker Leroy Jessup (Henry Jones) is teasing Rhoda about the boys death saying he knows she did it, assuming she used a stick and saying that water won’t wash off blood and the police will find it. Rhoda then asks her mother if this is true, which confuses Christine.

Later Christine finds the medal in Rhoda’s room and starts to suspect. Something that comes to a head when she catches Rhoda attempting to dispose of her shoes and she admits that she killed the boy. Christine also realises that she killed an old neighbour of theirs too because she wanted to inherit a snow globe the old woman had promised her. Christine is distraught but determined to protect her girl. She tells her to put the shoes in the furnace and says she will dispose of the medal (Which she later tells Rhoda she did at the lake).

Death and Judgement.

Leroy teases Rhoda again, this time Rhoda reveals she used her shoes and not a stick and that she burned them, to which the caretaker claims to have rescued the shoes from the furnace. To which Rhoda gets made and threatens him if he does return them. It finally dawns on Mr. Dalgie that she isn’t just playing along with him but is actually a killer. Scared, he admits he doesn’t have the shoes, but Rhoda doesn’t believe this. This of course spells the end for Dalgie as Rhoda sets his makeshift bedding alight as he slept in the basement and locked him in.

This turns out to be the final stray for Christine that decides the only thing to do is to kill her daughter. She tricks her into taking an overdose of sleeping pills and then heads to her room and shoots herself. Unfortunately her neighbours hear the shot and save both their lives. However while Christine is recovering in hospital. Rhoda goes down to the lake during a stormy night to try and find her medal and is struck by lightning.

Ironically her characters desire for an award she didn’t deserve wasn’t enough to get the actress one she did.

Oscar Worthy?

First and foremost we have to talk about Patty McCormack and Rhoda. The little 11 year old actress puts on an incredibly convincing performance of a psychopathic 8 year old child. Children in horror isn’t totally unheard of at the time (Night of the Hunter was only a year earlier) however, the idea of a child as the villain in a horror was as far as I can tell unheard of. That would make Rhoda a ground breaking character and even more impressive for the performance of McCormack who would have had no frame of reference. By the 1970’s we’d have Village of the Damned, The Omen and The Exorcist, but those were a long way off when The Bad Seed came around.

While Harvey Spencer Stephens was only 6 when he played Damien Thorn in The Omen, I can’t help but feel that role was a lot simpler, most of the time he just had to look moody while the effects dealt with the actual horror part. McCormack however actually isn’t seen doing any of the crimes, so selling her evil is entirely down to her actions and dialogue on screen and her performance was top notch. Linda Blair on the other hand had a few extra years of maturity before she played the possessed Regan (She was 14 I think, which is probably still too young for what that role required). Rhoda isn’t as scary as Regan, but the fact that The Bad Seed feels like something that could happen in real life means the film is on some levels more unsettling.

Minor Issues

However you frame it, it was a very impressive performance and one for which she was nominated for a Oscar as best supporting actress. I’ve not seen “Written on the Wind” so I can’t just say if Dorothy Malone (the winner of best supporting actress that year) deserved it more than Patty McCormack, but this is another performance that certainly was good enough for a win. One of the things I noted in the film was how much more convincing her performance was than her nemesis’ the families handy man “Leeroy”, played by Henry Jones. In their scenes together 11 year old Patty is acting rings around the 44 year old man. Fortunately Nancy Kelly as lead holds up better and the pair had a great chemistry together.

The story itself is mostly good but isn’t without problems. Rhoda has clearly been evil for a while, but the film relies on her mask slipping just over the period of the film, so much so that her mother starts to suspect her. While there is a trigger event and a few of the other character suspect she’s not what she pretends to be, the amount the mask slips during the film makes it hard to believe it hasn’t slipped before (and regularly). On top of that Christine’s side plot with her fears of being adopted fits uneasily into the story by trying to find a genetic cause for Rhoda being a sociopath. Of course this thread leads to the name of the film and possibly Christine’s final solution, but it could probably have been dealt with faster.

Crime Does Not Pay, at least not between 1934 and 1968 Anyway.

The Hays Code And The 1950’s Audience.

Speaking of Christine’s solution, the ending of the film unfortunately has “The Hays Code” written all over it and in an unfortunate way. The code would have called for Rhoda to be punished for her crimes. That, I don’t especially have an issue with but how it was done felt false and tacked on. They actually had a perfect ending already in the bag but instead of allowing the very sad ending of a mother killing her own child and then herself, they played it out, then had both miraculously survive and then had the movie end with Rhoda randomly get killed by lightning while trying to retrieve the medal she was so covetous of. As satisfying as it was to see Rhoda basically get blown up, it felt a painfully contrived.

This then is followed up by a cast parade and a little scene where Rhoda gets a spanking from her mother. Clearly they wanted to remind people this was only fiction. Clearly the film was considered too dark and that is likely too why they had both characters survive Christine’s murder/suicide. I understand that in 1956 this may have been shocking to the audience but for me it just seemed sloppy. I can’t help but feel if they didn’t want Christine to succeed but did want Rhoda to die they should have found a more natural way for one of her schemes to backfire. I mean the Hays code had been in place for a long time by now, so they must have known the ending was an issue going in.

A Post Credit Spanking

Conclusion

Overall, this is a pretty good film, but one severely limited by the time it was made. Had it come out 12 years later it wouldn’t have been restricted by the Hays Code and wouldn’t have had the messy ending. The movie is ahead of it’s time, but there is a point where you can be too ahead of your time (Sega Dreamcast anyone?) and The Bad Seed is at the very least right up against that line. However, despite the ending and some minor pacing issues (and some bad acting from the supporting cast), this is a compelling story with great performance from Patty McCormack, a very gifted eleven year old (Who is now in her late 70’s of course) along with a strong lead performance from Nancy Kelly. Even with the Hays code stuff, this is still a strong 6.5/10

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Cronos (1993)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight we delve deep into past of legendary film maker Guillermo del Toro. I first came across his work with Blade II in 2002 (Which I still maintain is way better than the first film), but it was actually a decade earlier that Guillermo made his feature film debut with the movie Cronos, a mostly Spanish language film (With some English in places). The film was made for a mere $2m, small even for the day and the lowest of all of Del Toro’s films. Interestingly amongst the cast is Ron Perlman, effectively playing the movies main antagonist. Perlman would have been known from the Beauty and the Beast series of the late 80’s, but didn’t really make a name for himself on the big screen until a decade later in Del Toro’s “Hellboy” (2004).

The lead of the movie though is Federico Luppi as “Jesus Gris”, Claudio Brook supports as the rich and powerful De La Guardia though his ambitious nephew and henchman “Angel”, played by Perlman is the real antagonist. Tamara Xanath completes the main cast as Jesus’ granddaughter “Aurora”. Del Toro is sole writer as well as director.

October Review Challenge – Day 29

The movie begins with an explanation of the Cronos device, created by an ancient alchemist to give him immortality. It seems to have prolonged his life a good 400 years, but after after an old building he was in collapsed and his heart was pierced by debris he eventually died. He was described as having marble skin and his mansion was discovered to the scene of multiple murders. The device however was never found.

Our focus then changes to antique shop owner, Jesus Cris. A strange man takes a particular interest in one of his statues (one of an Archangel) and then quickly leave the shop, which leads to Jesus investigating it and discovering it has a hollow base. Inside of which is a strange device that looks a bit like an insect. He puts the statue back together and returns it to the shop, but sets the unusual device aside. Not long after the statue is purchased by a large man called “Angel”.

Age and Addiction

While investigating the device with his granddaughter Aurora, the decide opens up some sharp leg like sections that grip his hand, puncturing the skin. He tears the device off and goes to treat his wound. Later that night though, he finds himself drawn to use the device again, this time allowing the process to complete it’s cycle. He reacts to it like he is taking a hit of heroin, and is observed by Aurora who is disturbed by this. Jesus assures her he is okay. The next day he discovers he is looking younger and he feels younger too.

On his arrival at the antiques store he finds it has been broken into and a note is left telling him to go to a particular address and bring the device. He arrives to find the man that purchased the statue and is taken to his uncle, De la Guardia who questions him about the device and notices the wound on his hand. Jesus admits he accidentally used the device and De La Guardia calls him an idiot. He points out there are very specific rules for using the device. Jesus gives him a box and leaves, but the box turns out to only contain the broken locks from his store. De La Guardia warns him he may have the device but he will never share with him the instructions.

Funerals and Finales

Later at a New Years Eve party Jesus finds himself drawn to the blood of a man who suffered a nose bleed. He is busy licking some of the blood off the floor when he is kicked in the face by Angel. When he wakes up, Angel beats him and eventually sends his car off a cliff apparently killing him. However after being declared dead and having a funeral Jesus returns from the dead, narrowly escaping his own cremation. With his skin appearing to rot and him now being burned by sunlight he seeks his Granddaughter who creates a space for him in their attic so he can hide out for the moment.

Eventually Jesus determines he must confront De La Guardia and find out what is happening and seek a solution. This leads to a final confrontation with both his antagonists and the decision he must make over his future and what is of most importance to him.

Visuals and Symbolism

As his first feature and with the limited budget it’s no surprise the film doesn’t quite achieve the impressive visuals that Del Toro is known for, but that’s not to say it totally lacks any traces of it. The shots early on of the macabre mansion in which the alchemist lives, along with the visuals from inside the device itself give a hint of the visual imagination that would become one of his trademarks. Even in the rest of the film, while the visuals aren’t quite so lavish they still manage to find time for symbolism, such as a man wearing a clock outfit (part of the NYE celebration but having a additional meaning here).

One of the more subtle elements of this movie I like is the quiet but vitally important relationship between Jesus and his granddaughter Aurora. This is pure Del Toro and puts the story into a more personal level. Aurora’s love allows her to see past the monster he has become, to try and stop his addiction and to stand by him when no one else likely would. She does all this while barely saying a word and ultimately it is this love that saves Jesus. It is the heart of the story.

A New Take On An Old Myth

What does stand out here though is Del Toro’s gift for doing something original with a not so original idea. In this instance it is the story of the vampire (Which of course he would hit once again with Blade 2). Perhaps tied with the space aliens from “Lifeforce” (1985), this is the most original depiction of Vampires I have seen and it is done in such a clever way that it really doesn’t feel like a vampire film until the final act. Interestingly there is something Cronenberg like to how a lot of it is depicted, but Guillermo practices restraint and makes sure to keep focus.

This form of vampirism is something man made, not a curse from god as was depicted in 1992’s Francis Ford Coppala’s “Dracula” and I wonder if that is a deliberate move to be counter to that idea. It’s also not romanticised or even sexualised (part of what prevents it seeming overly Cronenberg) as it tends to be with Vampire stories. Vampirism here is presented as an addiction, with Jesus himself making a direct comparison to how he used to be addicted to cigarettes and the way he humiliates himself to lick drops of blood off the floor is a dark place many addicts have gone to find their hit.

Heaven and Hellboy

The religious symbolism is in full force here and is perhaps a little too obvious. While Jesus is a pretty common name amongst Spanish speaking communities, Gris is not a common surname in those communities (At least not as far as the few minutes of research I just did suggests), so when you have a character called “Jesus Cris” and he gets to return from the grave a few days after dying and is associated with a guy called “Angel” who has been collecting statues of arch-angels, it’s sort of hard to miss. Though I do have to take into account cultural differences here. The Latin countries tend to be more religious, so perhaps this isn’t as heavy handed as it seems to me.

Probably the weakest part of the film is, perhaps surprisingly, Ron Perlman. A decade later he’d be performing his career best as Hellboy under Del Toro’s directorship, but here he puts in a somewhat unconvincing performance, but to be fair a part of that is in the character design. As someone not directly involved with or understanding the vampire curse he is somewhat removed from the main story and yet he is the one that has the most direct confrontation with Jesus and the one he fights in the final act.

It’s not helped that Perlman also seems the main source of comedy relief in the movie (The only other real source being the mortuary worker), so the main antagonist is also the main comedy relief and that didn’t really work for me. I feel like it would have been better for Angel to be relegated to lacky status with his uncle finding a way to the final confrontation. Fortunately the films focus is more on Jesus than on his conflict with the La Guardia family.

Conclusion

While the movie is not perfect and in my humble opinion not Del Toro’s best (certainly not his most visually appealing), it is a movie that deserves accolades both for it’s originality in a well trod genre and for the many layers of substance to the story. From the religious aspect, to the metaphor for addiction to the strength of family bonds it makes for an interesting movie that feels like it has meaning. This is a sturdy 7/10 and possibly the new front runner of my October Horrorthon (I’ll figure that out at the end).

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Wait Until Dark (1967)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s movie we’re going for more of a psychological thriller than an outright horror (Though it is X rated). This is the 1967 Audrey Hepburn classic “Wait Until Dark”. This was Hepburn’s final movie of her main run of movie stardom, after which she decided to semi-retire and she wouldn’t return to the screen until nine years later with 1976’s Robin and Marian (Which is a fantastic film btw, with Sean Connery as Robin). Wait Until Dark won her nominations for the Golden Globes and Academy Awards for best actress (Losing out to Katharine Hepburn).

Her main support in the movie comes from Richard Crenna, who most movie fans will know as Rambo’s only friend Trautman, but alongside Crenna is Alan Arkin and Jack Weston. The movie is helmed by long time James Bond director Terence Young and is based on a Frederick Knott play (Likely why this is mostly a one room story).

October Review Challenge – Day 28

The movie begins with an altercation at an airport. A woman named Lisa (Samantha Jones) is smuggling heroin inside an old-fashioned doll, but is spooked by the presence of a man at the airport. She gives the doll to a man Sam Hendrix (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) for safe keeping with some story about it being a gift she wants to keep secret, with the intention of picking it up later. A few days later a pair of conmen, Mike (Crenna) and Carlino (Weston) arrive at the apartment of Sam and his blind wife, Susy (Hepburn) believing it to be Lisa’s residence.

The pair are surprised by the arrival of Harry Roat (The man from the airport) who tries to convince them to help locate the doll. They discover the corpse of Lisa and Roat blackmails them (As their prints are all over the house by now) to assist him in disposing of the body and then finding the Doll. The criminals assume the doll is either hidden somewhere, or possibly locked in the a safe that is in the front room. The group then engages in an elaborate con scheme to trick Sam’s wife Susy into revealing to doll’s location and/or opening the safe where they think it is being stored. As part of their con they have taken over a nearby phone booth so they can use it as a fake contact number.

Taking Advantage.

The scheme relies heavily on taking advantage of the fact that Susy is blind. However as the evening goes on she starts to become suspicious and she is aided by Gloria (Julie Herrod), a young girl that lives in the flat upstairs and occasionally helps susy with chores who is able to see the men use the telephone booth from her window upstairs. Unfortunately she is a little too trusting in Mike who had been posing as an old friend of her husbands and before she realises he is in on the scheme she admits that she now has the doll (Gloria had spotted it earlier and had “borrowed” it). She quickly hides and then sends him on a wild goose chase to her husbands office a few streets away.

Unfortunately some of the crew have remained outside to watch the building, so she is still trapped. Out of desperation she sends Gloria to meet her husband at the bus station (where he will be returning to imminently) and starts to prepare the apartment to make it more difficult for them on their return, mostly involving breaking all the lights. When Mike returns the situation changes drastically as allies turn on each other and it looks like Susie may be at the mercy of the psychopathic Mr. Roat. No more spoilers though, you will have to watch to find out how this all ends.

Oscar Worthy Performance?

The obvious thing to note here is the quality of Hepburn’s performance. She lost out on the Oscar to Katharine Hepburn for “Look Whose Coming to Dinner” and I can’t help but feel Katharine as great an actress as she was, won that award by virtue of the movies perceived importance and the popularity of her pairing with Spencer Tracy. Take that out of the picture and I can’t help but feel Audrey was cheated. I have never seen a more convincing performance from someone that isn’t blind playing a blind person. She didn’t do it with the benefit of sunglasses either, so every moment she is on screen she had to convince the viewer with her eyes that she couldn’t see and she does it so well it didn’t even feel like an act.

It’s interesting that blind characters seem to be the last thing in Hollywood that can be played by someone that doesn’t have that specific issue. Hollywood insists on casting actually deaf actors as deaf characters, but when it comes to blind ones it seems fair game. Not sure how long that will continue but even while it continues I doubt someone could do a better job than Audrey did here. Outside of acting blind she puts forth the characters good nature, her struggles with her disability and the sheer terror of the situation incredibly well. However, while I have nothing but praise for the performance the character herself comes across as almost naive in her good nature and far too trusting.

The Villains.

There is a solid performance here from Richard Crena too as the primary antagonist and most likeable of the bunch. You feel he is warming to Susy while also becoming frustrated with her. Good job the chemistry was there since the majority of the film is just him and Hepburn. Alan Arkin as the dangerous Mr. Roat however is a more interesting case. He plays his character over the top, almost like a comic book villain but the interesting thing here is that were he to appear in a movie or TV show these days no one would bat an eyelid to it. Indeed the character would probably be praised.

The strangely nonchalant psycho is a mainstay of modern fiction, for example the show “Mr. Robot” was packed to the brim with characters just like Roat. Back in the 60’s however, his performance seemed out of place. Jack Weston as Carlino is largely just there, but doesn’t harm the film. There was however one very minor (uncredited) role of a character called “Shatner” early on that stood out for notably poor acting, but the moment passed quickly and character didn’t return.

Sound and Story

Another strong aspect of this movie is the Henry Mancini soundtrack. While a good part of it is standard Mancini with a somewhat romantic tone, there are good portions of it that make use of discordant harmonies and somewhat off tunings. It is perhaps a bit of an evolution from Mancini’s “Experiment in Terror” soundtrack, but I feel perhaps with a bit of an influence from Bernard Herrmann’s psycho thrown in for good measure. One of the best things about watching movies from the 60’s is getting to hear soundtracks like this.

The plot is perhaps a weakness. The story relies heavily on the actors to raise it up since the truth is not a huge amount goes on here. There isn’t a great deal of character development and no plot twists so to speak. It is simply a matter of Susy slowly figuring out what is going on around her but even when she figures it out there is little she can do other than try and survive the night. The game of cat and mouse is entertaining to watch though in places you need a great deal of suspension of disbelief. Ultimately though the performances trump the failings in the story and make the tension feel real enough to ignore a few plot holes. The film does drag a bit in the middle though, but not drastically.

The Fear Factor.

In regard to it’s horor based aspects, Susy goes full “Final Girl” at the end and we have three murders throughout the night, including the classic discovery of a corpse in a wardrobe. One of the murders involving vehicular manslaughter was outright brutal and while not featuring gore does involve the guy running back and forwards over the body. I can see how the movie got an X rating. Compared to modern horrors it’s not that intense but it does satisfy in the same way an 80’s final girl survival does. That’s not to say this is really a horror, since the majority of the film is just two-three people talking in a room (Well it is based on a play).

Conclusion.

This was always going to be a movie made or broken by it’s lead. Fortunately it’s the former. There wasn’t quite enough to the story to hit a truly high score here but it definitely deserves a spot in this October’s 7/10 club and probably deserved the Best Actress Oscar too, but that’s the Oscars for you.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Werewolf By Night (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s movie is technically as a “TV Special” instead of a movie, but as a stand alone story of 52 minutes length and some of the movies it pays homage to are only around one hour too I feel this counts. “Werewolf By Night” is technically part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, though the story has no direct links or mention of other aspects of the MCU so it is for all intents and purposes a separate world (At least for now). The story is based around two Marvel characters that date back to the early 1970’s, the title character (Often just referred to as “The Werewolf” in the comics) is joined by “Man-Thing” a character similar to DC’s “Swamp Thing” but who debuted two months earlier. The story is directed by Michael Giacchino and written by Heather Quinn and Peter Cameron. It starts Gael García Bernal and Laura Donnelly.

October Review Challenge – Day 27

The story starts (In black and white) with the introduction of an ancient society of monster hunters. The groups leader, Ulysses Bloodstone (Another character taken directly from the 70’s comics) has died recently and so they need to crown a new leader of this society. For this purpose they have designed a special monster hunt where the winner is not only crowned the leader but also gains possession of the powerful artifact the “Bloodstone” (Whose red glow is the only colour on screen for most of the film).

The participants are those hunters with the highest kill ratio, including Jack Russell (Bernal) and Bloodstone’s estranged daughter Elsa (Donnelly). The hunters are only allowed to use the weapons hidden around the estate and may combat each other as well as the creature. Spoilers ahead (Though I don’t feel these are big ones).

Werewolf Amongst Us

Unbeknownst to the rest of the hunters and the events hostess (Bloodstone’s widow Verussa), Russell is not there to hunt the monster and has no interest in the Bloodstone, he is actually a friend of the monster and there to free him. He ends up teaming up with Elsa who is very different to the other hunters herself. The rest of the group are vicious and bloodthirsty, as eager to fight and kill each other as they are to hunt the monster.

But when Elsa and Russell cross paths they clearly have no interest in fighting and as a result end up working together, especially when Russell comes clean to Elsa that he isn’t after the Stone, only the Monster, whom he calls “Ted”. As the Hunt concludes, Verussa turns on Elsa and Russell and this sets up a final confrontation where we finally get to see the Werewolf the story is named for. No spoilers for what happens here, but you can probably guess as a Marvel film who is going to come out on top.

Wait… Marvel did something good again?

One of the reasons I wanted to review this is because Marvel has been incredibly disappointing for me over the last few year. The good story they’ve attempted to tell since “End Game” was “Spider-Man: No Way Home”. As a result I didn’t rush in to watch this, but when I did it was a huge relief. This was very well made. Here we see versions of classic Marvel characters actually done justice too. So while I’m focused on horror this month I really wanted to highlight Marvel doing something actually good!

There is a little bit of modern day subversion thrown in and Jack and Ted have some changes to their comic book personality but the changes work so that’s not really a problem. Elsa being a post 2000 character I’m less familiar with as I have read few Marvel comics post 2000 (and the ones I read I didn’t like that much), but the character on screen is good and seems like a good combination of ass kicking and actually being likeable.

A love letter to Universal

The most impressive part of this story by far though is the visuals. The intent here is to make people think of the classic Universal Monster movies of the 1930’s (and to a lesser extent the 1940’s) and to achieve this the most obvious creative decision is the use of black and white. However, this isn’t a grainy film black and white, it is a very clean modern black and white, with a spot of red thrown in through the bloodstone. A touch that was not needed, but looked damn good visually so I still approve.

The design of many of the visuals, such as the use of the ancient mansion and of the shadow play do a great job of reminding you of the Universal movies without being overly limited by that nostalgia. They have a lot more space to play with but they make sure to drop in a more Claustrophobic feel every now and then. Really outside artificially reducing the the quality of the picture and the effects there is not much else they could do to make it feel authentic. This takes the best aspects of the modern and mixes it with the best aspects of that classic style.

The Wolf Man and The Giant Sized Man-Thing!

One of the best examples here is in the design of The Werewolf. It’s worth noting he’s had several different looks in the comic, so creative changes are par for the course. Here they’ve basically taken a design that is similar to both 1935’s “Werewolf of London” and 1941’s “The Wolfman” but then taken to the pinnacle of what you can achieve with CGI. It creates perhaps the best looking werewolf I’ve seen on screen for a long time. The transformation is done beautifully too with

Contrasting to that Man-Thing (a.k.a. Ted, the hunted monster) is kept largely to his comic book look and while he is black and white, he obviously would never fit with a Universal movie of the 1930’s. They could have tried to make him look like a guy in a suit or something but it would have ruined it so they didn’t, they just made him look like the comic and it worked superbly.

Music To My Ears.

Outside of the look (Which is always going to be the main thing with this special/movie), I have to compliment the use of music. It’s worth noting Michael Giacchino is actually better known as a composer. This is his directorial debut and so naturally he did the music. But this allowed him to work the music precisely against the images on screen. This is another sensible change from how things were actually done for the peak period of the Universal Horrors from 1930-1936.

In those years speech on film was new and while silent movies had accompanying music (and occasionally original scores, such as for Nosferatu), the early talkies tended to have minimal non-diegetic music (that is, music that doesn’t have an on screen source) and the music that was there tended to be stock music, usually classical and in the case of Universal horror often mixed very low. So the use of music here is less about nostalgia and more about enhancing the visuals and it works well. This is a case of creating things how people remember it instead of how it was. No complaints here.

Assessment

Though the story doesn’t really tax any of the actors they all perform their jobs well enough. There is no particular stand out but no let downs either. The story is engaging and fun but also very straight forward. We go in knowing who the Werewolf is (Even if it wasn’t on the poster you’d guess in seconds) and we know inevitably he’ll wolf out, so there is no real complexity there.

Along that many of the side characters lack a bit for the short screen time. Honestly though with only 50 minutes of time they tell the story they needed to, they don’t break anything in doing it, they introduce three interesting characters and the have a good mixture of fun and engagement along the way.

It does what it needs to and nothing more. Clearly Giacchino was given free reign to do what he wanted (where as with the MCU usually the directors have little control) and it paid off big. I don’t know if this will prod the MCU into a more interesting direction through it’s success, but I do hope we get to see more of these characters in the future.

On the other hand it may end up as Marvel’s “Joker” an outlier reminding us of what is possible, but what may not ever be the studios preferred path. Perhaps more of note for the future though is Giacchino, a man that clearly has as much of an eye for visuals as he has an ear for music. If Universal had any sense to them they’d pouch him and get him to work with the actual Universal Monsters.

Conclusion

Overall, with such a short amount of time this achieves a lot. It’s not perfect, but what it lacks is mostly what could have been added instead of mistakes with what is there. I think this is well deserving of the second 7/10 from me this October. Time is running out for anything to overtake so as it stands so far this “Special” is my number 2 horror (or horror adjacent) movie this year around.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Barbarian (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s feature is the recently released film “Barbarian”, written and direct by Zach Cregger and staring Georgina Campbell with support from Bill Skarsgård and Justin Long. This has built itself up quite the degree of hype recently and done alright for itself at the box office (That is to say, it’s made back substantially more than it’s $4.5m production budget). Does it deserve that hype? That’s what we are here to find out. As this is a new release I will tread carefully with the spoilers. They will be mild, but I’m not going to directly reveal the nature of the threat in the movie or tell you how it ends. I am going to go further than the trailer however (Which includes no footage from after the 40m mark, though it’s not actually hiding much of note with that). Anyway let’s dig in.

October Review Challenge – Day 26.

The film begins when our heroine Tess (Campbell) is heading to her AirBnB, she finds the place already occupied due to an apparent mix up. At first she doesn’t trust the other renter, Keith (Skarsgård) but eventually she realises he is okay and actually a decent guy. He agrees she can stay and take the bed while he takes the sofa and after a fairly restless night she wakes to find he had to head off. She goes to her job interview (the reason for the stay) and on returning Keith still isn’t back. Left in the house alone she becomes curious and looks around but ends up locked in the basement when the door closes behind her. While trying to find a way out she discovers a secret passage with a hidden room with a bed, a camera, a bucket and a bloody hand print on the wall.

Tess panics but hears Keith trying to get in (Tess has the front door key), she attracts his attention at the small window to the basement and he frees here. She tells him about the room and so he investigates. When he doesn’t come back Tess looks for him and realises there is another secret door behind the first. This is where we reach serious spoiler territory, so I’m going to skip a bit. Things happen in the basement, but around the 40 minute mark, after exhausting all the trailer footage we pretty much reset.

Enter The Douchebag.

We begin again, this time following “AJ” (Justin Long), a sitcom actor and apparently a bit of a douche. He’s facing financial ruin after a co-star made allegations of rape against him and as such having to sell a lot of properties he owns to pay for his legal defence. Once such property is the Airbnb that Tess and Keith were at. He decides to visit the property to assess it’s value. When he arrives he discovers the pairs belongings and suspects them to be squatters as there is no record of the place being rented recently.

While investigating the house naturally he too finds the basement (It’s clear he’s never visited the property), though instead of responding in shock to the first room he just starts measuring it up considering it an asset in the sale. On discovering the second door he too ends up in trouble. At which point we get another total change of scene and flashback to the 80’s for a sort of explanation to what is happening (and what happens next). That’s as far as I’ll cover the story, since this is fresh out and clearly the film makers wanted most of this to be a surprise

The Good, The Bad And The Unnecisary.

So the first thing to say about this is I really liked the first 40 minutes. I was thinking “This is going to be a 7/10 film at the minimum” for a lot of it. We had a 20 minute intro to the characters, then some creepy stuff happens and we are at the crunch moment of any horror film where the world gets turned upside down at that 40 minute mark. But then… then we start from the beginning again but with a less likeable character. We get about 20 minutes of this douche just going about his life before he starts investigating the basement and we’re back to where I thought we were nearly half an hour earlier.

Then once that segment is over we get our origin story which frankly was totally unnecessary. I’m sure they felt it was visually good to do it, but the character that introduces barely factors in to the story, what it tells you about the rest of the story could have been discovered by other means and the whole section is just a time waster. It’s especially a time waster when another character shows up in the main story that is a classic exposition dump character. This character basically informs the audience exactly what it is all about, making the whole flashback totally redundant.

More Padding Than A Padded Cell.

On a personal note, I really hate exposition dump characters, especially when their time in the film is so short that you know they were literally written in for that one purpose and especially when most of the info wasn’t actually necessary for the film. Along with the double start, the double explanation (Flashback and Mr. Exposition) I can’t help but feel that Cregger simply couldn’t decide which path to follow and so just did both. Either that or he realised he only had about an hour of material and desperately needed to pad it out.

The thing is you could edit this film down to around an hour. Take the first 40 minutes and the final 20 and you wouldn’t actually miss anything. At that point you have a pretty good hour long story, though it has to be said the final act is not great either. Not only do we have an exposition dump character we also have cops so incompetent that it breaks suspension of disbelief. The AJ character is also too far over the top at one point throwing his own gun away because he’s that much of an incompetent tool.

Conclusion

What is in the basement is actually well done and creepy. The actors do a good job and sound design and music add to the tension but it’s not enough to make up for the time wasting pace crash in the second act and the generic cheese of the third. If I was to rate each section we’d have 7/10 for act 1, 4/10 for act 2 and 5.5/10 for the conclusion. That averages at 5.5 but a film isn’t just three acts separately (Anthologies aside) and as a whole there remains some additional gaping plot holes that were never addressed. So with that in mind I’m marking this down as a 5/10. Disappointing.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Alone In The Dark (1982)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s horror movie is 1982’s “Alone in the Dark”. This is no relation to the 1992 video game or the Uwe Boll. This was the first movie actually produced by New Line Cinema (Previously they were only a distributor). This is the second movie of my October reviews this year to be directed by Jack Sholder (“The Hidden” being my previous one). This however was his feature film debut.

The movie features a lot of recognisable names. The lead however is Dwight Schultz who you may recognise as “Mad Murdoch” from the A-Team. This movie clearly gave him a lot of tips on how to play crazy people. Notable support includes horror legend Donald Pleasance as “Dr. Leo Bain”, the great Jack Palance as “Frank Hawkes” and Martin Landau in one of his strongest performances as Byron ‘Preacher’ Sutcliff.

October Review Challenge – Day 25

The story begins with psychiatrist Dan Potter’s first day on the job at the experimental psychiatric hospital “Haven” in New Jersey. He is replacing a doctor that has moved on to a different hospital in Philadelphia and amongst his new charges are dangerous psychopaths Frank Hawkes (Palance) a former POW twisted by his experiences, pyromaniac Byron “Preacher” Sutcliff (Landau), the child molester Ronald “Fatty” Elster (Erland Van Lidth) and shy serial killer John “The Bleeder” Skaggs (named for getting nosebleeds when he has the urge to kill), who refuses to show his face.

The security system that keeps the psychopaths in check is one that relies entirely on electricity. Which is obviously a terrible choice and leads to them getting out when shortly after there is a power cut. Thanks to Hawkes tendency towards conspiracy theories the group believe that Potter has murdered their previous psychiatrist so he can take their place and that he intends to kill them next and so they intend to hunt him down first. When the town has a total power cut they kill theri lone guard and escape and head to town where they tool up. “The Bleeder” separates from the group after he kills a random person (He will of course show up later) and the rest head to the Doctor’s house.

Isn’t Everyone Crazy?

With the Doctor not at home the killers lay in wait. Elster poses as a baby sitter for the doctors daughter Lyla and then he and Sutcliff brutally murder her actual baby sitter and her boyfriend while she sleeps. While that is going on and Dan is at the hospital, Toni and Nell are arrested while at a protest against nuclear power and meet up and are helped out in jail by a man named “Tom Smith” who lets them take his turn to make a call. The three of them arrive back at the house to find Dan and the police already there. They have apparently found out that Elster was present in the house (presumably the daughter described him to Dan).

Out of caution police Detective Burnett remains with the family for dinner and Toni invites Tom to stay too. After they hear a noise outside and Burnett is killed with a crossbow they realise they are under siege by the group of psychos and the rest of the film turns into a tense stand off between the group and the family. Since I don’t like to spoil the end of movies for my readers, this is where I’ll leave the plot break down. Let’s get to the analysis.

Psycho Happy Fun Time!

On the positive side, the film features quality actors doing a great job of playing interesting characters. This is the movies strength by a long way. First of all we have Donald Pleasance as the hippy psychiatrist Dr. Bain in charge of the asylum. A man who seems to be stoned most of the time and doesn’t like terms like “psychopath”. I can’t help but feel Bain has spent too long around madness and that his own grip on reality has failed. The fun thing here is in how this character contrasts with Pleasances more famous psychiatrist role as Dr. Loomis in the Halloween series. Another character of note is Lyla Potter, the families daughter that manages to add a touch of comedy to the story while still be suitably terrified when needed.

The key to the movie though are the psycho’s themselves, lead by Jack Palance who doesn’t get much screen time at all but is so good when he does that it raises the quality of the entire film. He feels genuine in his craziness, both dangerous and vulnerable at the same time. Most of the screen time for the psychos though goes to Martin Landau and Erland Van Lidth. Landau delivers a fantastic performance as “Preacher”, the least stable of the psychos. He really makes you feel that he could flip and kill someone at any given moment. Van Lidth’s doesn’t have the most difficult role role as the Paedophile killer “Fatty”, but he still performs it admirably and gets the best two kills of the movie along the way.

Chop Chop

The movie features a soundtrack by Italian composer Renato Serio and it’s exactly the kind of soundtrack that nostalgia bait 80’s films try to impersonate. It’s worth noting outside of the work of John Carpenter, these kinds of horror soundtracks tended to be from Italian cinema and composers like Serio. Not that it’s all like that, there are the classic horror stabs and a notable performance by punk band “The Sic F*cks” that seems to fit effortlessly into the theme of the film (with a performance including a huge fake axe and machete). The soundtrack finds a good balance between style and purpose.

The Messy Bits.

The plot here has a lot of holes and there are a lot of pacing and coherence issues. While watching I could tell there were scenes missing that really needed to be in there. For example we go directly from Toni and Nell’s meeting with Sutcliff posing as a mailman at their house to them in jail after being arrested at the protest with little on screen to explain it. We also go straight from Lyla’s baby sitter calling her boyfriend to him showing up to a trail of clothes leading to the bedroom, one hour later, but with little to indicate the passing of time. Meanwhile a lot of other scenes could either have been cut or reduced in length (Especially mid siege).

In regards to plot holes, the main one is how a doctor that appears to be permanently stoned was allowed to run an asylum with dangerous psychopaths with a security system that is entirely dependent on electricity, with no failsafe, that in a power cut basically just allows the psychos to wonder out with nothing to stop them. The entire film relies on this stupidity and it’s hard to believe. On top of that there is a big reliance on both the police and psychiatrists not knowing what one of these psychopaths looks like. Sure the Bleeder likes to hide his face, but he was in an asylum, there would be a record and you’d think people would have seen it.

Conclusion.

Overall, this is a movie with pacing issues, a few aspects that just didn’t really add anything (Such as the older daughters mental illness), and a plot that doesn’t bare much in the way of scrutiny. On the positive side the story is lifted up by some superb performances and interesting characters. It features at twist that while predictable does a good job of hiding itself in plain sight (though it brings in additional questions that it’s best not to dwell on). Donald Pleasance is a definite highlight, despite his limited screen time there are some fun kills. Not quite enough here to drive the score up towards the higher end of good, but this is a solid 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Phantoms (1998)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today I finally look to answer the age old pop culture question: Was Ben Affleck the bomb in Phantoms? If you are scratching your head at this point you probably haven’t seen “Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back” or maybe just didn’t like it. Understandable but back in 2001, when Kevin Smith was still funny and in touch with pop culture I was watching and had never actually heard of the film Phantoms (Which only came out 3 years earlier). It’s been on my list ever since but only now, 21 years after that throw away line of dialogue that put the film on my radar have I finally gotten around to watching it. So is Affleck the bomb?

October Review Challenge – Day 24

First thing to mention here is that this is a Dean Koontz adaptation. Often I find Koontz doesn’t translate especially well to screen, however in this case Koontz himself wrote the screenplay (Something he never repeated). The movie is directed by Joe Chappelle whose previous two movies were Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers and Hellraiser IV: Bloodlines. Perhaps not the strongest of films to have on the CV but at least he was experience in the genre.

The movie stars Affleck, Joanna Going and Rose McGowan with support from Peter O’Toole and Liev Schreiber. The casting is perhaps a little confusing. O’Toole received top billing, but was in less than half the film, Affleck meanwhile is clearly the hero but doesn’t himself turn up for the first 20 minutes or so. The story mostly follows McGowan and Going though they are mostly just along for the ride. Schreiber meanwhile is effectively the human face of the antagonist.

Two Girls and One Cop

The story begins with sisters Jennifer (Going) and Lisa (McGowan) Pailey arriving at the small ski resort town of Snowfield, Colorado (Where Jennifer works as a doctor). They find the town appearing deserted but upon further examination they find a number of bodies killed in a variety of ways, all gruesome. At first Jennifer thinks it may have been a virus but as she finds more bodies, including decapitated heads they realise something more sinister is happening.

Into this arrives our hero, Sheriff Bryce Hammond (Affleck) along with his deputies (Including Schriber as Deputy Stu Wargle) who is investigating the killings. They arrive at a hotel where they find the words “Timothy Flyte” and “Ancient Enemy” written on a mirror. The deputies are killed off, one mysteriously and Wargle by a bat like creature. However Wargle appears shortly after to Lisa in the bathroom in a creepy scene and the grop find the body is missing. Hammond radios out for assistance.

The Witness

And this is where things start to come together. The government moves in and brings with it Dr. Timothy Flyte (O’Toole) to investigate. However they are quicly all taken out (other than Flyte and the original three survivors) with something taking over their body to communicate with them. The entity reveals itself as “The Ancient Enemy” (Theorised about in Dr. Flyte’s book) and that it deliberately brought him to it so he can “Bear witness”.

The creature seems to believe it is the devil but Dr. Flyte summises that the organism absorbs knowledge and intelligence from the life forms it feeds on and as it fed on more humans it became more intelligent but also absorbed their spiritual beliefs and beliefs on what the creature is. Thus it assumed the role of a demonic god like being. It then comes down to this remaining four to find a way to stop the monster.

The Thing From The Same World

So first thing’s first, “Thing” being the operative word. The creature here very strongly resembles the alien from John Carpenter’s “The Thing” from 1982 and while this story is source from Koontz novel, that only came out in 1983. The novel is clearly influenced by H.P. lovecraft, but it’s hard not to make some parallels at least in regards to how it is portrayed on screen with The Thing. In any case it’s impossible not to compare the films. In that regard… well I can’t help but feel Phantoms is far inferior. The monsters are far less creative and the effects less scary despite having 16 years more advancements in effects available to them. They even heavily feature a dog monster that simply can’t stand up to Carpenter’s version.

Comparison’s aside though, the effects aren’t bad and the scenes where they create freakish monstrosities are reasonably entertaining, though in this movie these effects are used sparingly. The odd thing is the use of the dead Deputy Wargle as a sort of wise cracking villainous face of the monster. He often seems to act independent of the larger monster and with a twisted sense of humour reflecting the man before he died. It seems odd that of all the things absorbed it is the only one (Well maybe the dog when it first appears) that seems to demonstrate individual characteristics. While there could be in universe explanations for this (and certainly budget ones), I can’t help but feel it doesn’t fit with the rest of the story. That said Schreiber is at least good at playing creepy characters.

Characters and Actors

As far as characters and performances go though, while this is a solid cast and they perform their part well, outside of Affleck’s Sheriff the characters themselves seem largely lacking. Affleck ultimately is the character with the story arc and that leads the battle against the enemies. Jennifer and Lisa mostly are just there and their story climaxes with a fight against the corrupted Deputy Wargle (Who seems isolated from the whole and acting independently), a character who was basically being creepy to the pair even before he died. It almost seems like they are in the wrong movie. It’s a shame because the actresses are talented.

O’Tooles Dr. Flyte though is totally wasted. He comes in very late on, comes up with the way to defeat the ancient enemy and then writes a book about it (Which of course no one believes). While his performance is as top notch as you’d expect from this exceptional actor, the character is largely there to move the plot on and little else. In my view, especially given he has top billing, it would have been nice to have his character involved at the very start. Perhaps this is a problem with having the author write the screenplay, they may be too precious about their work to make necessary changes for it to work on screen.

Conclusion

When all is said and done, the movie is actually entertaining. Unsurprisingly from Koontz the premise is a good one and the acting is solid. However, the pacing is a little iffy, most of the characters seem wasted, the ending comes a little too quickly and easily and ultimately the enemy is just a less cool version of John Carpenter’s The Thing. But is Ben Affleck the bomb? Well, he stands out largely only in comparison to other characters in the film, but yeah, I can agree with that. The film itself though just about makes a 6/10. Better than it’s IMDB score suggests, but perhaps not as good as you may hope from the names involved.

One final note. I think this is a film that has actually aged well. When it came out it was perhaps too similar to a lot of films that had come out in the 80’s and 90’s (The Thing, The Blob, Tremors, Screamers, Mimic, Event Horizon… the list is endless really). I suspect this is a good part of why the movie was originally panned, but now this kind of idea feels a bit more fresh and a change from all the uncanny valley based horror we have these days (Where things look mostly human but then move or do something that doesn’t fit with human, triggering discomfort in the viewer). That alone may make it worth revisiting or checking out for the first time.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Haunted Palace (1963)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s movie is the Roger Corman horror “The Haunted Palace”. Although considered part of the series of Edgar Allan Poe adaptations Corman did with Vincent Price in the 60’s (Starting with House of Usher in 1960), it is actually an adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward”. Corman wanted to do something different but the studio didn’t want to take the risk so they worked in Poe’s poem “The Haunted Palace” and presented it as another Poe adaptation. Retrospectively this is a shame as this is actually the very first adaptation of Lovecraft’s work and as far as I can tell the first appearance of the Necronomicon in a movie. The “Haunted Palace” in Poe’s poem was actually a metaphor for the human mind, but here it is implied to be about the mansion in which most of the action happens.

October Review Challenge – Day 23

The movie is set in the fictional village of Arkham (A regular Lovecraft setting, though not actually the setting in the source material). A dark shadow looms over the town thanks to a curse placed by the evil warlock Joseph Curwen (played by Vincent Price) upon his death at the hands of the villagers. It is believed the curse has caused many of the new born of the village to have horrendous mutations (often missing one or both eyes) and after 110 years these mutants are numerous. The remaining non-mutated ancestors of those that killed Curwen live in fear of the second part of Curwen’s curse which was his promise to return and take direct vengeance on those that burned him to death. Curwen’s old mansion looms over the town from a nearby cliff and has remained abandoned since his death.

Into this comes Curwen’s descendent, Charles Dexter Ward (Also played by Prie) and his wife Anne (Debra Paget in her final motion picture performance before retiring from the business). Ward is a decent man and not a superstitious one, but having just been notified of his inheritance (Curwen’s mansion on the cliff top) he has decided to visit his new property and assess what to do with it. Due to his striking resemblance to Curwen the villages are on the whole hostile to him and they all encourage him to depart and burn the deed to the mansion. Ward ignores them and travels to the mansion where he is greeted by a painting of his ancestor. The painting seems to have a hypnotic effect on the man.

Yog-Sothoth and the Necronomicon

Over time Curwen’s evil presence starts to take over control of Ward and while in control he continues his plans which revolve around two things, his revenge on the villages and his original goal which he was engaged in prior to be lynched over a hundred years ago which was to use the ancient evil book, The Necronomicon to summon the Elder God Yog-Sothoth and then breed captured women from the village with the creature with the goal of creating a race of super beings and unlocking the door to Yog-Sothoths realm. This it turns out is the reason for the deformities amongst some of villagers.

Curwen with the assistance of two other necromancers manages to bring his fiancée (Cathie Merchant) back from the dead, meanwhile Anne has sought help from the local doctor, Dr. Willet (Frank Maxwell) and the townsfolk after finding two of their own dead are ready to form a new lynch mob to take care of Curwen’s descendent. Curwen and his evil group capture Anne and plan to give her to the Elder Gods, but as the mob reach the mansion and set it on fire, they burn the painting of Curwen giving Ward a chance to take back control. But will it be enough? I’ll leave that part for you to find out should you chose to watch.

Assessment

The movie features a strong cast. Vincent Price gives the kind of powerful and creepy performance you expect from his horror appearances, but getting to play a villain and a victim he also gets an opportunity to show more vulnerability (something he was also very good at when needed). The rest of the cast includes a number of recognisable faces, probably most notable is Lon Chaney Jr (A horror legend himself as 1941’s “The Wolfman”), but I was also happy to see character actor and Horror and Film Noir regular Elisha Cook Jr. (“The Maltese Falcon”, “Rosemary’s Baby”). To be clear though Price is who people are tuning in for though and he doesn’t disappoint.

The plot is a little messy. It certainly has interesting elements but it feels a bit like it should have been a little more simplified or increased in length to properly explore the different elements. The Elder Gods and Necronomicon are somewhat wasted on a plot that didn’t really need them, though the deformed villagers certainly give the piece a bit of a Lovecraftian tone but they too are underused. Ultimately as tends to be the case with Corman’s horrors the source material is largely pushed to the side to allow for something that seems a little bit generic and it’s a shame when dealing with something so unique as the first Lovecraft adaptation. Slapping on the Poe poem doesn’t add anything of worth, this is a Corman film first, a Lovecraft film second and Poe Film a very distant third.

Conclusion

The movie is above average for a horror, but far from exceptional and this isn’t a surprise as that was pretty much Corman’s thing. Regularly producing decent horror films on a low budget. Not many of them could be considered classics, but many managed a good enough standard to entertain the audience in the day and to entertain me decades later. This one was weak in some places almost descending into self parody but strong in others, especially in Price’s performance. Overall it made for an entertaining experience and I do recommend checking the movie out. I’m going to give this a firm 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Black Cat (1934)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For tonight’s horror I’m going back to the golden age of Universal’s dominance of the Horror genre and visiting the very first collaboration between the two biggest legends of that era – Bella Lugosi and Boris Karloff. This is “The Black Cat” from 1934. Universal’s highest selling movie of that year, a movie that lay the foundation for the Psychological Horror sub-genre, a pre-code movie (meaning it could be edgier than those that would follow for the next few decades) and last but not least was one of the earliest movies to feature a continuous musical score (present for about 80% of the movie). Question is though does this 88 year old movie still stand up?

October Review Challenge – Day 22

Our story starts with Newlyweds Peter and Joan Allison (David Manners and Julie Bishop respectively) on their honeymoon in Hungary where they meet Dr. Vitus Werdegast (Lugosi), a Hungarian psychiatrist that is returning after being in a prison camp in Serbia for 15 years after WW1. After the bus they are on crashes, Peter and Dr. Werdegast take her to the home of Hjalmar Poelzig (Karloff) an Austrain architect. The home is built on the ruins of an old fort, which Poelzig used to be the commander of. Werdegast explains Poelzig is an old friend, though in truth they are bitter rivals with Werdegast believing Poelzig betrayed him and his men to the Russians during the war resulting in the death of thousands.

Once inside things start out friendly enough but soon become sinister. Werdegast believes Poelzig stole his wife from him, and later after he is shown her preserved body that he has killed her. This may be true as it seems Poelzig has a collection of dead women on display in glass cases. Also in the mansion, but unknown the guests is also Werdegast’s daughter. Poelzig has married her and told her that her father died in the war.

Eventually it becomes clear that Poelzig wants to sacrifice Joan in a Satanic ritual, but Werdegast is determined to stop him and take down his rival once and for good. Initially he plays Chess for the freedom of the newlyweds, but loses to Poelzig who then prevents the newlyweds from leaving, imprisons Peter and prepares Joan for her sacrifice. It is a conflict that would see few survivors of that fateful night. But you’ll have to watch this classic to learn any more.

Bitter Rivals

Karloff and Lugosi are better actors than they are usually given credit for and they both put in a good performance here. Interestingly playing bitter rivals on screen may have been the start of their real life rivalry. Despite working together eight times, Karloff usually got top billing and that never sat well with Lugosi. It’s possible their rivalry started during filming this movie, after all the top two horror stars of the day playing bitter rivals on screen, hard not to imagine them wanting to outperform each other and of course since they are playing bitter rivals that comes through on screen and makes for a definite highlight for the film.

The rest of the cast is just sort of there but when you’re on screen with two icons it’s hard not to get lost in the shuffle. None of them were bad though. Being a 30’s movie there is little in the way of effects and the horror is all implied, though those implications can at times be pretty grewsome, including someone being skinned alive (Just not on camera, though you see some shadows). As a psychological horror it doesn’t have to rely on monsters or direct conflict, a lot of it is about the build and it handles this pretty pretty well.

Sound and Fury

In regards to the musical score, this is something that while fairly ground breaking, hasn’t actually aged that well. The movie features a mixture of compositions by Liszt, Tchaikovsky and Chopin instead of original material and as a result lacks the same sort of impact as scores would later give to horror movies and also makes the soundtrack somewhat interchangeable with a lot of other films of the 1930’s. Of course as you’d expect from those three composers the music itself is of a very high standard but it tends to be a bit too overbearing and draws too much attention to itself.

That said it’s hard to judge how this was received at the time. Audiences used to silent movies were used to hearing continuous music, but earlier horrors of the 30’s such as Dracula and Frankenstein would have felt strangely silent, with an opening and closing theme but little else in between. Of course the same year as The Black Cat came out King Kong changed the game for film scores forever by featuring an entirely original score, so this was a product of a short transitional period for movie soundtracks.

The Black Cat

The title “The Black Cat” only really factors into the story a couple of times. It seems Werdegast has an extreme fear of black cats. So naturally his rival keeps a few of them around. The Black Cat is also pointed out to be symbolic of evil in the film and of course Poelzig is Satanist. But really the title of the film was just an excuse to link the story to Edgar Allan Poe’s story by the same name, to which it bares no resemblance at all.

One of the most interesting things I find with this film is that were it to be made in the 2020’s it would probably be 3 hours long, yet they told this story in one hour and five minutes. It’s not like the plot is overly simple either. True some characters could have been given more time, but the story is all there and the truth is the audience even in the day probably only cared about Karloff and Lugosi anyway. So if the daughter seems somewhat wasted and the husband and wife couple of little consequence, it’s not the biggest blow to the movie.

Conclusion

Anyway, all told there is a reason this is a classic. Rating it from the point of view of how it stands today however instead of how it must have felt when it came out I give this a strong 6.5/10 (Meaning I’ll likely make that 7/10 for my IMDB rating since I can’t do half points there). If I was reviewing this in 1934 though it would probably get an 8/10. So, it’s lost some points after 88 years but a 6.5/10 is still a strong score from me. Once again I am reminded why Universal’s Horror movies of this era are so well regarded.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Count Dracula (1970)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s movie is Jesús Franco’s take on Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” from 1970. This is reputed to be the truest adaptation to the novel and a version of the story I’ve never seen before. It is also in the unique position of being Christopher Lee’s single non-comedic appearance as Dracula outside of the many Hammer films. Indeed it was actually made in a year when he appeared twice for Hammer in the role and had a cameo as the character in a Spike Lee comedy. For someone concerned with being typecast it seems like probably a bad move. Lee’s interest in this particular movie though stems from one of his long standing issues with his Hammer appearances: He always wanted to play the character more like he was in the novel. So now he had his chance.

October Review Challenge – Day 21

The story starts with lawyer Jonathan Harker (played by Frederick Williams), travelling to Transylvania to secure property for Count Dracula. If you are reading this you probably know how this goes by now so I’ll keep it brief. Dracula is of course going to feed on him after doing the necessary paperwork for his new property in England. After the first feeding though Harker manages to escape and finds himself back in England (Apparently someone found his unconscious body in Transylvania and transported him asleep back to the UK. Handy).

Back in the UK, Harker finds himself at a psychiatric clinic owned by Dr. Van Helsing. Naturally no one believes him about Dracula, until Van Helsing spots the bite marks on his neck. Harker’s fiancée Mina and her friend Lucy arrive to take care of Harker, but unbeknownst to them Dracula has followed and begins to prey on the women. Lucy dies and returns as a vampire herself, at which point Van Helsing and company set out to rid themselves of Dracula and his cohorts. This eventually leads back to Transylvania where the Count is attempting to return.

Production Quality

Despite the expanded role for Lee (Who never talked much in the Hammer series) and the accuracy to the source the movie clearly lacks in a lot of the production values Hammer brought to the table. The sound designed is grating to say the least and a number of times the effects reminded me of those used in Bela Lugosi’s time (40 years earlier). On top of this a lot of the camera work is downright shoddy. I know this is low budget, but I wasn’t expecting it to look that low budget. While the music obviously couldn’t utilise Hammer’s themes for the character, what it does present doesn’t seem to quite fit.

The plot meanwhile, while relatively true to the source really seems to drag, despite the relatively short run time for the film. The conclusion of the film feels anti-climactic and I can’t help but find myself missing the more action orientated endings of the Hammer films. Those always seemed to deliver a dramatic finale, but here it’s a bit of a matter-of-fact ending; It just sort of happens.

Characters and Performances

Christopher Lee does an decent job, but by his standards it is below average and the truth is while he may talk more than in the Hammer films he still doesn’t get a lot of screen time. Like in the novel Dracula initially appears as an old man but gets younger every time he feeds, this doesn’t really factor in to much in the plot outside from a casual reference later on.

Klaus Kinski puts in a very good performance as the bug eating Renfield, though the characters role in the film is relatively short. Herbert Lom performs his part as Van Helsing with authority but the character itself seems largely wasted in this version, having a stroke about 2/3rds of the way through and then being relegated away from the action. In the novel while he doesn’t kill Dracula himself, he is still involved in the action, disposing of his minions. The rest of the cast are pretty average.

Conclusion

Overall, while a bit of a curiosity and perhaps of mild interest to fans of Christopher Lee or Bram Stoker’s novel, it is ultimately a poor vampire horror that compares badly to the original Hammer Dracula with Lee. The opening scenes with Harker at Castle Dracula are good, but it’s all downhill after that. This is a 4/10.

Rating: 4 out of 10.
https://youtu.be/jsxst69muTY