But We're British!

The Legend of Harrow Woods

2011-12-02T18:54:00.009Z

A group of students travel to Harrow Woods; a place that is believed to be where a novelist and his family were killed. As the plot unfolds we learn that a witch was burnt here and put a curse on the land so whoever comes here is killed.

The Legend of Harrow Woods is a House of Fear production. It stars Steven Craine, Rik Mayall and Norman Wisdom. It is written, produced and directed by Richard Driscoll.

Ignore the bollocks review on the DVD cover.

Since I first heard of this back in 2008 (when it was called Evil Calls: The Raven) I tried my best to get hold of it, I couldn't even get it from the official website. It seemed I had missed my window for getting the limited release of this seemingly good British horror film starring Jason Donovan, Rik Mayall and Norman Wisdom. Then this year (2011) it was released properly on the high street under the new title of The Legend of Harrow Woods. At long last the film I've been searching 3 years for was in my grasp. I got it and have just watched. I am so glad a friend of mine watched it before I did and told me it was bad, because if I was expecting the film I thought it was back in 2008 then I may just have put my foot through my TV. This film was so, so, so BAD that I'm not even going to review it. I'm instead going to write a list of everything that I hated about The Legend of Harrow Woods.

1. It's shit.

2. Jason Donovan with an American accent. In fact, everyone's American accent in this was shit and annoying.

3. Jason Donovan clearly has a PC from the 90s yet he's there running Windows Vista on it.

4. It's poorly made. There are cameras set up in the woods so they can stream their investigation online. But instead of one still camera angle (as you would expect from security style footage), the supposedly webcam footage is the same as the footage we the audience are seeing i.e. cutting from face to face within a conversation completely destroying the realism.

5. The story makes no fucking sense. I was with it at the start then it got to a point (I can't even remember what point) where it just went like a hallucination, at the time I'd been eating Jaffa Cakes. This film left me wondering if someone had spiked my Jaffa Cakes. SPIKED MY JAFFA CAKES!

6. This film is “From the special effects creators of The Shining” I don't remember there being piss poor special effects in The Shining. There's obviously fake CGI rain, shower water and blood splatting on the screen. It's like this film was made using Windows Movie Maker and Paint. Also if you plan to make a film that is a rip off of The Shining then don't advertise that it has any relation to that film as a means of promotion.

7. There's a stupid fireball with a raven's eye in it bursting on screen between scenes every now and then. It's like Richard Driscoll is trying to keep waking up the audience from the boring events of this fucking film.

8. Christopher Waken as the creepy narrator reading Edgar Allen Poe's The Raven. This was stupid for 2 reasons, when he's reading the story there's stupid blaringly loud music that keeps overpowering his voice. And secondly, I like Christopher Walken I really do, but all that happened when I heard him reading was I laughed, if they wanted someone with a creepy voice to read it then why not get the guy who read it on The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror?

9. It also annoyed me that this stars Rik Mayall and Norman Wisdom (in very small roles thank fuck). They are (and were) so much better than this shit. It made me feel that bit better that this wasn't technically Normal Wisdom's last acting role as he filmed his scenes back in 2002. But for anyone who doesn't know and is just casually watching it they'll see it as being his last acting role.

10. And on top of all the shitiness and confusion, it's actually rather boring.

In a sense this has hindered my anticipation for the 3rd instalment in Richard Driscoll's Raven trilogy. At least I think it's the 3rd, some websites say Back2Hell is the 2nd and others say it's the 3rd and that the 2nd was in fact a film called The Devil's Disciple. I don't fucking know, it seems Richard Driscoll's method of producing films is as confusing as his storytelling within them.

The Legend of Harrow Woods 0/5

The Abominable Snowman

2011-09-22T21:46:00.001+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

A group of adventurers man an expedition to the Himalayas in search of the mythical Abominable Snowman (aka Yeti). Among them are a scientist, a trapper, another guy, a Himalayan local and Tom Friend; the leader of the expedition who has plans to exploit the yeti for his own personal gain. But things soon spiral out of control when misfortune strikes the team.

The Abominable Snowman is a 1957 Hammer production. It stars Forrest Tucker, Peter Cushing and Maureen Connell. It was directed by Val Guest. The story and screenplay are by Nigel Kneale. It's also known as The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas.

First thing, this is directed by Val Guest the guy who directed the first two Quatermass films, and it's also written by Nigel Kneale the guy who written the Quatermass saga. So this seems to already be off to a good start.

Tom Friend, is it just me or is that a really stupid name? He better not turn out to be a baddie with a name like that.

Now that's interesting. The scientist's theory; the yeti isn't a missing link, but a parallel evolution. During evolution there was a stage at which a creature's evolution split and went in 2 directions; one becoming apes and chimpanzees, the other becoming man. But the theory of the yeti is that the creature in fact evolved in a 3rd direction and became the yeti.

Ah shit! Our first glimpse of the yeti. A big hairy hand reaching inside the tent and grabbing a gun.

They managed to kill themselves an abominable snowman. I say “an” because there's more than one, and they know one of their own has been killed as they howl in the distance. Shit is going down.

Oh shit! A guy (I think in a trance) climbed to the edge of a cliff in all the snow with no climbing gear and jumped off, smacking off a rock as he hit the ground. Dead instantly, eesh.

Friend ironically isn't much of a friend at all. He's so determined to bring back a living yeti that he'll sacrifice the members of his own exhibition to do so. He used one man as bait and gave him a gun filled with blanks so he wouldn't be able to kill the yeti when trying to defend himself. He should have been called Tom Bastard, or Tom Twat.

Wow! I am so disappointingly underwhelmed by the appearance of the abominable snowman. It looks like a hobo with a beard. A big beard. I suppose it was a twist I never saw coming, the yeti looking like a hobo.

You know what? I don't know what just happened. Peter Cushing's Dr Rollason is the last surviving member of the expedition, and he sees the yeti in the flesh. Next thing he's found out in the snow unconscious. Then he's brought back to the local village where he tells the Buddhist people that he didn't find what he was looking for because it doesn't exist. I'm not sure whether he was lying for whatever reason or whether he was traumatised by the yeti so much that he lost his memory. I have literally no idea. That's the ending, so if anyone can shed some light on that for me I would very much appreciate it.

I've been wanting to see The Abominable Snowman for a long time. I wasn't necessarily disappointed, it just wasn't as good as I had expected, especially when it was written by the guy who wrote the Quatermass saga and directed by the guy who directed the first 2 Quatermass films. I can't comment on Quatermass 2 as I haven't seen it yet, but as for The Quatermass Xperiment, I remember watching it nearly 10 years ago and loving it. As for The Abominable Snowman, it is pretty good it's just a bit of a slow burner, which fair enough it's building up the tension but we don't even see our first glimpse of the yeti until 49 minutes in and seen as the film is 86 minutes long that's quite far in. I was also disappointed by the appearance of the yeti, the first glimpse of it was brilliant, just a huge hairy arm. But the actual yeti itself just looking like a hobo was not what I expected. I expected something a bit more monstery, hell I would have settled for the one from Monsters, Inc. The ending confused me, but maybe I missed something I don't know but it's worth another look because it is actually pretty good. There's also some beautifully filmed shots from atop the Himalayas. All in all, it's not bad. It's worth a look to see one of the early black and white Hammer horrors. If you watch it and you can shed some light on the ending I'm confused about then please comment and let me know.

The Abominable Snowman 3/5

Island of Terror

2011-08-27T12:59:00.007+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

On a remote island, scientists have been experimenting to create a cure for cancer. But their experiments go wrong and create a creature that goes about killing the locals. Now doctors from the mainland must travel to the island to stop these creatures before they consume the entire population.

Island of Terror is a 1966 Planet Film Productions production. It stars Edward Judd, Peter Cushing and Carole Gray. It was directed by Terence Fisher.

“If we're successful today, we may have the cure for cancer.” Just from that one line alone I now know they're not going to have the cure for cancer and that instead it's going to go horribly wrong. This is reinforced by the title blasting onto the screen just after he delivers that line. ISLAND OF TERROR in massive red on screen text.

Hmm, intriguing a body has been found but there's something not quite right about it. It has no bones. He's just a sort of jelly thing, think Boneless Chicken.

Woh shit! I wasn't sure whether we'd get to see the boneless guy, all we'd seen was the body from obscure angles and seen/heard people's reactions to it. But then we get a shot of his face when the doctors are about to perform an autopsy. It completely got me by surprise. Then on top of that is Cushing's Dr Stanley who delivers the best possible response “Not a very pretty sight.” Classic.

Oh no! This infection is spreading. They head to Dr Phillips' place (Dr Phillips is the one who was working on the cancer cure) to use his lab, but they find that he and others have gone mushy too.

No, not the animals. It's effecting the animals too, a farmer found his horse all squishy.

Ooh! Something slid down the back of the car, we see if from inside the car so it looked like a flat creature. It looked a bit like a giant pancake. It would be funny if it turned out to be Pancake Day and some guy figured he'd try and beat the Guinness World Record, but when he flipped it it flew out the window and landed on the car.

Ooh! They've bumped into two of the creatures back at Dr Phillips' place. (They are not pancakes.)

As it turns out, these creatures are of Dr Phillips' creation. He was creating a creature to consume cancerous cells, but it went wrong and he accidentally created a creature that consumes bone. Now these creatures are running riot all over the island consuming people's bones. And if that isn't enough, every 6 hours they divide doubling their population each time. Additionally, they have a strong exoskeleton so they're hard to kill. So essentially, the people of this island are screwed.

That was brilliant! There's a group of people, locals and the mainland doctors, throwing bombs and shooting the creatures in the woods. But then no one noticed one of them lurking up a tree which then drops down and lands on top of one of the locals. Classic.

Intriguing. A radioactive dog (contaminated from one of Dr Phillips' previous experiments) got eaten by one of the creatures, but it killed the creature. HA! They are effected by radioactive material. The plan: contaminate the cattle and make them radioactive so the creatures eat them and die.

Shit! One of the creatures latched onto Dr Stanley's hand, so the other guy did the only thing he could to to save his life. He chopped Dr Stanley's hand off with an axe. Got me by surprise I was expecting him to cut the creature's tentacle latching thing, but no Dr Stanley's hand. Bit like Evil Dead 2. Holy shit, Peter Cushing running around with a chainsaw for a hand would be awesome.

Yey! It worked. After what appeared to be a failed attempt to stop the creatures as after they consumed the cattle they divided which in turn halved the effect of the radioactive substance. But it just made the effect take longer to kick in. It managed to kill them just in time before the creatures got all the locals.

As the helicopter flies in to land, one of the men says “We're lucky this is an island. If this had have happened anywhere else I don't think we would have been able to destroy them.” Next thing we see is another lab (I presume in China seen as the signs on the door are in Chinese) where a scientist screams as he is killed off screen by one of the creatures.

I rather liked this, I knew absolutely nothing about it so I was expecting a horror but I was pleasantly surprised to find it was a sci-fi. The story seems to me like something you could picture being either a Quatermass film or a Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker Doctor Who story. It's a good story, the acting is good. It's an enjoyable sci-fi. It's got Peter Cushing starring and it's directed by Terence Fisher so you know it's going to be good. I really liked the model work for the boneless people, I thought it was really good and as I mentioned earlier it got me off guard because I was expecting not to see it as it had avoided showing the face for some time then the reveal got my by surprise which was great. It's a good 60s science fiction film, watch it.

Island of Terror 4/5

X

2011-08-16T18:06:00.008+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Experimenting with the idea of enhancing the receptors in one's eye to allow a person to see through objects, Doctor Xavier tests his serum on himself. Now with the ability to see through anything, Xavier continues studying it and continues increasing the dosage. But how far will he go? And how long will his sanity last with this God-like vision?

X is a 1963 American International Pictures production. It stars Ray Milland, Diana Van der Vlis and Harold J Stone. It was directed by Roger Corman. It is also known as The Man With the X -Ray Eyes.

Wow, I don't believe he is a real doctor, lighting his cigarette in the lab with a Bunsen burner. It's not like he's experimenting with something important and potentially dangerous, he's only creating something to inject into HIS EYES so lets light up the cigarettes and pollute the air around it.

Xavier's point of view X-ray vision does look pretty cool, especially later in the film when he's taken too much and everything becomes all psychedelic and groovy.

He may be an older gentleman be he knows how to use X-ray vision like a teenager. He's uses his new found snazzy vision to look at people in the nip while they're dance at a house party. This is what X-ray vision was meant for, none of that so you can operate on patients more accurately. Bah, it's for looking at people in the nip, even if Xavier does only look at people's backs and feet. It appears he can see through everything but necklaces, these women may be nude but they're still proudly wearing their pearl necklaces. This is his weakness; pearl. Then again I say weakness, he's not Superman he could be killed by something as simple as a nut allergy.

There are some very bad camera errors in this. They're only small niggly things but there's that many of them that these somewhat little niggly errors are building up and really aggravating me. For many of the Xavier point of view shots the camera isn't even positioned correctly, for instance when he's talking to someone and it's his point of view the camera isn't looking at them as it would be if you were taking to someone, the camera is positioned looking at them from a different angle so the person is side view on even though they're supposed to be looking Xavier in the eye. It's done so many times too, which is so annoying. Even more annoying is the fact that they have a fair few of them done correctly, so why not do them all correct? It's piss poor, that's what it is.

Holy fuck! Xavier pushed Jim (his friend) out of the window in what appeared to be a little shove to get him out of the way knocked him flying out of the window and plummeting to his death. X-ray vision has given him increased strength?

There's more stupid mistakes, unless they're intentional, they're not referred to as being intentional so I can only assume they're mistakes. Now he's gone on the run from killing his friend and is now posing as a psychic at a fairground. He sits on a stage with a band over his eyes and “sees” things about people. But the things he sees wouldn't be possible even with X-ray vision at the distance he is sitting. He is able to see the details of the contents of a guy's wallet even though he's sat some distance away from him. What, does he have zoom vision now?! This wasn't mentioned! It's worth noting that by the end of the film he says he can see the centre of the universe, more zoom vision? Fucked if I know what's going on, for a film about a man with X-ray eyes this film has gone too far beyond reality.

What a tool! If you intend to take on Vegas with the help of your X-ray vision, then don't show off to the extent that you're telling the dealer what the next card in the deck is. Dumb ass!

Ah! His eyes are getting worse, they're now black with gold irises.

Ah! They're completely black now!

He enters a religious gathering and explains about seeing the centre of the universe and no longer liking what he sees (guess that's what you get for not being content and wanting the vision of the Gods). So the Preacher reads out a ling from the Bible “If thine eyes offend thee, pluck it out.” So Xavier proceeds to very quickly pluck his eyes out. END. That is a good ending actually, from all the annoying things that have gone on before it that have “offended thee” that was a good way of trying to make up for them. I liked it.

Apparently there is an alternate ending where Xavier plucks his eyes out then when it fades to black we hear him scream “I can still see!” That would have been brilliant, apparently Roger Corman didn't like it so he stuck with the one we've got, but I personally think that would have been a brilliantly dark and horrifying ending.

This is a film I've been wanting to see for the best part of 10 years, I first read about it years ago and thought it sounded brilliant. Only just recently I was able to get hold of it, and unfortunately I was vastly disappointed. It was just no where near as good as I expected it to be, whether it was my years of anticipation that ruined it I don't know, but it just didn't thrill me like I had hoped. It was at times just slow and boring even though it's got a cool plot about a guy going about with X-ray eyes seeing through stuff. I'll admit it is good in areas, the bit when he knocked Jim out of the window completely got me by surprise and instantly caught my attention again. It's doesn't drag too badly as it's only about 75-80 minutes, but for a film of that length you would expect constant entertainment. Ray Milland was good, I liked the groovy visuals which for a low budget 60s film were good. Maybe a second viewing will improve my viewing pleasure for this one because I really wanted to like it but it just left me disappointed. The story is great, I just don't think it was executed greatly, fair enough I understand it was a low budget feature but come on it doesn't take budget to get the camera positioned correctly.

X 2/5

The Man Who Haunted Himself

2011-07-31T22:09:00.005+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After recovering from a car crash, Harold Pelham begins experiencing losses of memory, or so they seem, as people keep telling him about things he did yet he doesn't recall ever doing them. But it soon gets out of hand when he discovers he has a mistress. But is he suffering from amnesia, is he going mad or has he got a doppelgänger?

The Man Who Haunted Himself is a 1970 Associated British Picture Corporation production. It stars Roger Moore, Hildegard Neil and Alastair Mackenzie. It was directed Basil Dearden. It is based on the novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham by Anthony Armstrong.

Clearly the best way to show someone turn bad is to have them undo their seatbelt and start speeding on a motorway. Oooh you bastard. So yeah, it appears almost as if Mr Pelham has become possessed as he was steadily driving at 50MPH with his seat belt on then just suddenly changed. But then something weird happens, we see a different car with him in speeding alongside him which then merges with the car we originally saw him in. Now from seeing this I instantly figured that I knew the twist ending. My theory is this; Parallel universe, an alternate Mr Pelham, a bad Mr Pelham has somehow crossed over into our universe and merged with Good Mr Pelham. That's my theory anyway. After the cars merge Mr Pelham then loses control of the car and crashes.

He's then rushed to hospital where a stupid surgeon does CPR on his stomach area, y'know cos he needs to get his stomach beating again. Duh!

Ooooh, now that's cool. They manage to revive him but the heart monitor shows TWO heart beats. But one of the surgeons dismisses it by smacking the monitor which then clears the problem up and begins displaying one heartbeat as usual.

Ooooh, Pelham drove off in his car, but then we see what appears to be another Mr Pelham sitting in another car watching. DOPPLEGANGER!

Haha, Pelham (played by Roger Moore, just in case you didn't know) mentioned James Bond when discussing commercial espionage, little did he know he would soon play that super spy in 3 years time. [Evil laugh. Not sure why, but an evil laugh seemed like a good end to that sentence.]

Oh, something is afoot. People have started mentioning stuff to Pelham that he hasn't even done, or has he? He doesn't remember. A guy even came up to him and gave him a fiver saying that's what he owed him as he beat some guy at a game of pool last week. On one hand you're potentially going mad, losing your memory or you've got a doppelgänger on the loose. On the other hand some guy has just given you a fiver for doing nothing. I call that a win.

Oh, shit is going down. As he entered his workplace he went to hand his hat and umbrella in but another hat and umbrella had already been handed in by Pelham (or a Pelham). Now he's certain someone is pretending to be him so he's hot on his tail. He runs from place to place following the trail until it takes him to the pool house, but he's not there. Dead end. Poor Pelham, maybe next time. There's a couple of other close misses, one time he's even on the phone to the other Pelham but he still doesn't manage to catch him face to face.

The other Pelham doesn't waste much time, he's been having his end away with a saucy young photographer, but poor innocent Pelham is there to get mixed up with the other one.

Believing himself to be going mad, Pelham checks himself into a hospital under the supervision of a psychiatrist. Whilst he's in there the other Pelham goes about continuing to live Pelham's life. When he's finished in the hospital the psychiatrist explains that Pelham is a repressed individual and that this split personality persona has been caused by that. So in order to avoid it happening again he must start expressing himself more, wear some brighter coloured clothing, live his life a bit more. And simply stop being so uptight.

Then Pelham manages to catch the other Pelham in his own home, but he's unable to prove who he is to his family as the other one uses his dress sense against him, stating that he'd never wear anything like that. Bloody psychiatrist! Then when he gets him alone the other Pelham explains that he's always been there inside him and the crash allowed him to get out. Whilst on the operating table Pelham was meant to die, but he managed to live this then created the situation of there being two of him. And as the other Pelham puts it; now one of them must die.

Whilst he's explaining to him there's a shot which absolutely has me mind boggled. This is a film from 1970 yet they have a shot where Roger Moore circles another Roger Moore, it's not split screen because he walks in front of him and behind him all in the same shot. That shot is brilliant for 1970, no wait, it's fantastic, I have no idea how the hell they have achieved it.

Pelham then does a runner and speeds off in his car in an attempt to contact the police. But the other Pelham follows in pursuit. Dazed and confused he begins seeing hallucinogenic images, then next thing we know the other Pelham who was behind him is now somehow in front of him heading straight towards him. So he swerves to avoid another crash and instead smashes off the bridge and heads towards the water. But whilst in mid air as the car plummets towards the water Pelham fades away inside the car. Don't ask me, I have no fucking clue. Next thing, the other Pelham stands and watches the car sink, suffers some chest pains as it sinks but then recovers and that's it. END.

I am so confused. Roger Moore, you sir have confused me. Many people sight this as a very under rated film. I wouldn't say so, it's ok but it's nothing special. I agree with the appreciation of Roger Moore's performance, he's good. After finishing The Saint he wanted to do something different he did another film and this one, the other one was some spy film, but this allowed him to play duel roles and allowed him to express his ability as an actor. Many of Moore's fans sight this as one of his finest performances. As for the film, I like the story, the plot is quite interesting but there's just some aspects of it that are so confusing as I've mentioned at various points earlier. But again the one thing I loved which also completely baffled me is that one single shot of the two Roger Moores I have absolutely no idea how they achieved that in 1970. Besides which British horrors and thrillers weren't exactly the biggest of budgeted films so I am so confused by it, but in a good way (I think). Overall, it's ok. It's definitely worth watching but prepare to be left confused. If nothing else you should watch the trailer and you will be sold on this film as I was, simply by the fact that this is a film starring Roger Moore with a moustache, and if that wasn't enough there's two of him. WAHEY!

The Man Who Haunted Himself 3/5

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed

2011-07-15T20:54:00.008+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After escaping being caught in one town Frankenstein moves on to another and begins his experiments once again. This time he acquires the help of a young couple, one of which is a doctor who works at the local asylum. In the asylum is a colleague of Frankenstein's who before having the chance to reveal how to freeze a brain without damaging it he went mad. But Frankenstein plans to cure his insanity in order to obtain the secret. Easy? Not bloody likely.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is a 1969 Hammer production. It stars Peter Cushing, Freddie Jones and Veronica Carlson. It was directed by Terence Fisher. This is the film in the Hammer Frankenstein series.

Straight into the action. A guy walks down a street then an arm brandishing a sickle from an unseen assailant pops out from around a corner and swipes his head off, a mass of blood gushes onto the wall. Awesome! [Note: as the scene develops it's revealed to be Frankenstein who cut the man's head off.]

You're a mean one, Dr Frankenstein. He overheard a young doctor who works at the asylum discussing with his fiancée about his drug trafficking. Using this to his advantage Frankenstein blackmails them into helping him with his experiments.

The Baron tells the doctor's fiancée to make him some coffee. “You don't need her. Let her go.” “I need her to make me coffee.” He's quite a bastard in this one. Although he did thank her for the coffee before going to bed, at least he has some manners.

Frankenstein's plan is to break a colleague of his out of the asylum and cure his insanity in order to retrieve information from him that he wasn't able to get because of his insanity. The information will allow him to freeze a brain without damaging the tissue. His reason for this is that the human brain is at it's peak of intelligence at the moment of death, and all we do is bury it in the ground to rot. What he wants to do is remove it and preserve it for future use; transplanting it into another body to continue the brilliant mind it once had.

DR FRANKENSTEIN'S 10 MINUTE MEDICAL SCHOOL – LESSON #1
If you are unable to inject your patient with a sedative, then punch him in the gut.

I hate that police inspector, I actually hope he gets killed. He's such an arse. He's sarcastic, snooty, smarmy and he has an annoying voice. Kill that bastard!

Holy fuck! Frankenstein is really dark and sinister in this one. Frankenstein rapes the doctor's fiancée while he's working at the asylum for Frankenstein. I'll repeat that, Frankenstein played by the lovely Peter Cushing rapes a woman. Frankenstein is somewhat darker in this film than he ever was in the other films. Quite an unusual but interesting approach to take on the protagonist of the story, I mean I understand he was always a bit of an anti-hero anyway but this is really sinister. Apparently the rape sequence was filmed against the wishes of Peter Cushing, Veronica Carlson and even Terence Fisher, as it was the Hammer executive who wanted it putting in in order to keep the American distributors happy.

I love how Frankenstein always does his operations fully dressed in a suit, with just an apron covering part of the suit. He's even wearing the tie still, for God's sake.

Frankenstein manages to cure his colleague's insanity, but the wife of the man spots Frankenstein out and about. So she follows him back to the lodge where he's staying, but he welcomes her in and explains everything about how only he could cure his insanity and shows that it worked (what he doesn't tell her is that he transplanted the brain into another head, but she'll never know because his head is bandaged up, hahaha). He gives a demonstration that he is cured, and tells her she can visit any time she likes but he must stay in his care for a week, then after that they can start a new life together. He walks her to the door and as soon as the door closes he turns to the young doctor and says “Pack. We're leaving.” They then relocate to an old abandoned house that looks a bit like Dracula's castle.

The creation awakens and asks the doctor's fiancée for help but in fear she stabs him then he flees. When Frankenstein learns of what she has done he then stabs her. But the creation armed with the brain of a doctor is able to care for his wounds before escaping to look for his wife. But baring the face of another man, this can not end well.

The creation sets up a trap for Frankenstein knowing that he will come looking for him. He must choose to either face the police or face the flames. If he chances the flames then he also chances getting a hold of the creation's secret to freezing a brain successfully. He manages to retrieve the information and get out of the house, but the creation then grabs him and carries him back into the burning building trapping both himself and Frankenstein inside. END.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is an odd one, it's good but it's unusual in the sense of how sinister they decided to make Frankenstein in it. He's never been as sinister in any of the other films as he is in this one. Throughout the previous films he's been portrayed as a dedicated follower of science, willing to murder in the name of science, a slight hero-esque character, an almost father-like figure then in this he's just quite simply a bastard. He is quite easily able to blackmail, rape and murder. Which is such an unusual thing to do to a character who is the protagonist of the story. As I mentioned earlier I know he's meant to be an anti-hero but the things he does in this seem to push the boundaries of that concept quite a bit. Peter Cushing as ever is great, in fact it's always fun to see Cushing as Frankenstein because he usually is always seen as this lovely man and plays good guys, so for him to play an anti-hero is always great but in this it's an interesting change to see him playing a character who is a borderline villain. As for the story, it was good not the best story but it was simple, just Frankenstein wanting to retrieve some information from a man who is in a state that leaves him unable to tell him. That's another thing, the creation in this is quite possibly Frankenstein's biggest success. He isn't a monster like any of the others, he has a scar running around his head but his personality is fully intact he doesn't go about killing people, in fact the only violent act he does is to enact revenge on Frankenstein, but that's revenge not mindless violence. Overall, it's a decent enough Frankenstein film, not the best but it's certainly different from the others due to it's darker, more sinister nature and that alone makes it stand out amongst the others.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed 3/5

The Skull

2011-07-13T22:17:00.007+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Christopher Maitland, a collector and writer, is offered the skull of Marquis de Sade a French madman who wrote about horrific torture methods and such. But the skull holds a dark secret, it has evil powers and is able to possess whoever holds it. Can Maitland resist the power of the skull or will he fall victim to it's unrelenting evil?

The Skull is a 1965 Amicus production. It stars Peter Cushing, Patrick Wymark and Christopher Lee. It was directed by Freddie Francis. It is based on a short story by Robert Bloch; The Skull of Marquis de Sade.

First of all, look at the cast. Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Michael Gough (but he only appears in one scene [sad face]).

Ooooh something is clearly afoot. Maitland and fellow collector (and friend), Matthew Phillips, had a bit of a competition going at the auction over a set of four sculptures of demonic figures. Ending in Phillips paying way over the odds for the bid, then when Maitland asked him why he paid so much when they clearly weren't worth it he replied saying he didn't know, almost as if he were under a spell.

Marco, an unscrupulous antiques dealer, comes to Maitland with a book all about Marquis de Sade, explaining about how he was a handsome young man before he began meddling with witchcraft. After that he changed and became twisted, he began writing books about sex, torture and the like. The following night, as he now knows he has Maitland's interest in Marquis de Sade, Marco comes to his house and presents him with the skull of Marquis de Sade. Then we learn that the skull has powers, it can possess the living, turn them evil and make them do the it's bidding. He tells Marco that he'll think about making the purchase and will let him know later.

I absolutely love that shot. It's a trait of Freddie Francis' even though he only used it in one other film (that I'm aware of), that being The Creeping Flesh. Still, very good shot.

As the plot develops, over a game of snooker Phillips tells Maitland that he had the skull and it was stolen from him, but he's glad it was stolen as it had power over him. For instance, the whole auction hoo-ha was all due to the power of the skull wanting him to get the demonic figures for a ritual that happens on the night of the new moon. So he warns Maitland against buying the skull telling him it's dangerous because he believes that Marquis de Sade wasn't mad at all, but in fact possessed by a demon, a demon that still inhabits the skull even after the man's death. He explains that on the night of the new moon the skull would move around as he would find it the next day out of it's cabinet which he locked the night previous to which only he has the key.

Even the shots panning and fading around Maitland's office are eerie because he collect some creepy fucking stuff. So the creepy objects mixed with the uneasy music don't help but make you feel a little unsettled. Just wait until the skull kicks off, jeez.

The skull begins to take effect on Maitland, giving him a bizarre and surreal hallucination about the police taking him to an empty room where there's a judge who makes him play three rounds of Russian Roulette before sending him into a room filling with gas and where the walls are closing in. And if that wasn't enough, the skull comes floating through the mist towards him. It's then that he wakes up screaming and realises he's in Marco's apartment building, but he doesn't know where Marco lives. Almost as if something was drawing him there. Ooooooh.

Against his friend's warnings Maitland heads to Marco's apartment to buy the skull from him, but when he arrives he finds Marco dead so he hides the skull in the cupboard and calls the police. Maitland then has another discussion with Phillips who once again warns him, explaining that Marco was killed on the first night of the new moon, and that tonight is will be the second night of the new moon and the satanic rituals. Again, against his warnings, Maitland heads to get the skull from it's hiding place but is caught by the landlord who tries to stop him, but the skull takes control and makes maitland strike out pushing the landlord off the top floor and plummeting to his death.

There's some brilliant shots in this film. One in particular is when Maitland places the skull in the cabinet and walks away but the camera remains looking at the skull and we can see Maitland's reflection in the glass cabinet turning back and staring at the skull. My description may not be doing the shot justice, and I can't get a screenshot as I have the Region 1 DVD which I can't play on my computer, so my suggestion is go and watch the film.

A baddie that is just simply a skull, so simple but so effectively scary. The shots of it slowly gliding through the air and placing itself in new locations just staring at Maitland are brilliantly creepy.

Oh no! Maitland got possessed by the skull and it made him go and steal the demonic figures from Phillips' house. But Phillips caught him so Maitland walloped him in the head with one of the figures. Maitland is now completely under the power of the skull, he even goes to kill his own wife. He is about to plunge the knife right into her chest but at the last moment catches sight of the cross hanging around her neck and manges to shake off the skull's possession. So he returns to his study and places the skull into a glass cabinet and wraps a holy relic around the handle so that the evil of the skull won't be able to touch it.

He thought he could stop the skull, HE WAS WRONG! The skull simply smashed though the glass and repositioned itself on the table, once again taking possession of Maitland. But again he managed to shake it off by remembering the cross and stabbed the skull right in the eye socket with the knife, then assuming it's all over goes to bed. Again, HE WAS WRONG. The skull simply locked him in his bedroom and appeared in there with him slowly approaching him as he screams. Then the next day, Maitland's wife wakes up to find her husband dead in the other room with a knife sticking out of his chest. The police inspect the crime scene comparing it to the Marco case, asking “What's the connection?” “Witchcraft?” “Not in this day and age...not in this day and age.” END.

The Skull is a great film, great acting from great actors, a great story and visually thrilling. I can clearly see how this film could have terrified people years ago, the sequences where the camera moves though the corridors with the skull slowly gliding before it is creepy as hell. In addition to the eerie tale about a possessed skull is the fact that Marquis de Sade was in fact a real person, so they've taken real facts and tweaked them a little to create a terrifying tale. Also an interesting bit of trivia, the skull of Marquis de Sade was exhumed from his grave in the asylum where he was buried for scientific analysis, but it was later lost and it's whereabouts are still a mystery today. There's nothing more really to say, except it's a really good film, so go seek it, find it and watch it.

The Skull 5/5

The Uncanny (REVISITED)

2011-07-01T18:30:00.007+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Writer Wilbur Gray visits his publisher to try and sell him the idea for his new book to him. A book that reveals the true terrifying nature of cats. To do so, he tells three tales of feline terror.

The Uncanny is a 1977 The Rank Organisation production. It stars Peter Cushing, Ray Milland and Samantha Eggar. It was directed by Denis Heroux.

Peter Cushing's Wilbur Gray doesn't seem to have a good relationship with cats. They don't like him and he's shit scared of them. This is all because Wilbur has knowledge, knowledge that (if it got out) would change the world for ever.

He arrives at his publisher's house and is left uneasy as he discovers he has a cat, so the cat is present for the whole time Wilbur is telling his three tales.

STORY 1

1912, a rich old woman dies and leaves all her earthly possessions to her huge collection of cats. The servant girl (Janet) seizes the opportunity to steal the will for her own personal gain. But the cats have other plans.

Nice bit of foreshadowing from the old woman. “That girl will be the death of me one day, I'm sure of it.”

The old woman missed out her nephew from the will (because I think he's a bit of a dick). But he's knocking about with Janet, so the plan is for her to steal and destroy the other copy of the will hidden in the old woman's safe, so that he gets all the money and Janet gets to be married to a “very, very rich man”.

Just when all seemed to be going well, she'd opened the safe and had hold of the will. Then a cat jumped on the bed and woke up the old woman who startled Janet making her drop the will on the floor. Before she was able to alert anyone to what Janet had done, Janet suffocated her with a pillow. But the cats were watching the whole thing. Believing her to be dead, Janet stopped pressing down on the pillow and turned around facing the other way. What she didn't see was the old woman had survived, oh wait no she didn't. I mean what the fuck? She clearly survived suffocation as she was able to sit up and grab Janet's shoulder but then she suddenly just passed out and died. Surely if she survived the suffocation then she should still have been alive after sitting up. So what the fuck killed her?!

When the old woman startled Janet she dropped the will on the floor so all she has to do is pick it up. Easy. Or is it? Every time she goes to pick it up off the floor a cat's paw comes from off screen and claws her hand. It just looks so funny though, it happens several times. Oh how I laughed. And to think I was terrified of this years ago.

AH! CATS! They all start pouncing on her and clawing through her clothes and her skin. So she takes refuge in the pantry. She spends several days in there, surviving on scraps of food and a jar of brown stuff that doesn't look too appetising, even she borks when she eats it.

These cats are fiendishly clever. They're like the Cravendale Cats with opposable thumbs, but minus the opposable thumbs. They rip open the post (or Mail for my American readers) that comes through the letterbox.

I'm assuming the brown stuff must have pushed her beyond her limits because not long after eating that she takes her chances amongst the cats, armed with only a bread knife she tries to get the will one last time. AH! The cats have been eating the old woman in order to survive. Then they kill Janet, she didn't stand a chance against man-eating cats. The old woman's nephew then comes to the house with the police (because there's been no reply at the house for days) only to find Janet dead and his aunty mostly eaten. Then he tries to get the will and the cats kill him too. They bite him right on the throat.

BACK TO WILBUR

Wilbur gets even more anxious once his publisher lets the cat out and he sees it “talking” to the other cats. Presumably telling them about Wilbur and his knowledge.

STORY 2

Lucy's parents died in an accident and now she has to live with her aunt and uncle and their daughter Angela. She's been allowed to keep her cat because it's all she's got, but Angela isn't suited and soon becomes jealous of Lucy having a cat.

Apparently “Cats can talk, it just takes time before you can understand them.” Thanks Lucy.

Wow, Angela is really jealous of Lucy having a cat. Her mother said that Lucy is allowed to have a cat because her Mam and Dad died. So Angela asks “If my Mam and Dad die would I be able to have a cat then?”

Angela continues to try and steal Lucy's cat from her, it seems that if she can't have it then no one can. So she starts doing stuff around the house and blaming it on the cat until eventually her parents take it to get put down. What a bitch.

Angela is such a bitch! At one point she even shouts at Lucy “You haven't got a Mummy! You haven't got a Daddy! You haven't got anybody!” Oh I do wish someone would just use some black magic to shrink her to the size of a mouse and then stand on her. But like that's ever going to happen.

Even though Angela's parents took Wellington (Yes, the cat's called Wellington. Probably should have mentioned this earlier. Nevermind.) to get put down, somehow he must have escaped because on the night he turns up at the house. He even opened a book of witchcraft for Lucy to use. It essentially told her to use it. Bad kitty!

Oh what do you know. Lucy used witchcraft to shrink Angela to the size of a mouse, she let Wellington toy with her a bit then she stood on her with a splat and a crunch.

BACK TO WILBUR

Wilbur continues to be fearful of the cat, now the publisher has let it back in the house after talking to it's cronies and it's just sat there watching him.

STORY 3

1933, the actor Valentine De'ath's (I know, he's called Mr. De'ath. But his initials are also VD) wife is killed during a death scene gone wrong for a film. So he gets his lover to replace her but his late wife's cat has a few bones to pick with him over that.

This tale is about an actor in the 1930s played by Donald Pleasence so why when Wilbur showed his evidence was there a photo of Donald Pleasence as Blofeld in You Only Live Twice? Stupid Cat Movie.

After Valentine's wife is “accidentally” killed by what was meant to be a prop pendulum blade thing, Valentine then recommended his wife's stunt double to replace her, she just so happens to be having an affair with Valentine.

“Oh, VD, I love you.” Yeah I laughed, the awkward pause after she said it added to that too. I wonder if it was intentional.

Fuck! Valentine's late wife's cat gave birth to some kittens, so he flushed them down the toilet. What the fuck? That's horrible! But it's ok, the cat then goes about exacting revenge on VD and his bit on the side. I don't fucking blame it. First of all it tried to kill him at work by chewing through the rope holding up a light which fell and narrowly missed him. VD and his lover have a few failed attempts at killing the cat so they leave out some traps before going to work. But this cat isn't stupid. Another Cravendale Cat.

At work they are rehearsing a death scene where she is killed via a box filled with spikes, but the cat is on hand to lock the safety door of the box so that she is actually killed by the spikes. In a fit of rage VD chases the cat off screen where we hear some screams from the cat. Next day, one of the film's crew members walks on set talking to VD who is sat in his chair. In response to VD not answering him he says “What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?” then he sees the cat dragging a tongue along the floor and that VD is sat in the chair dead with a mouth full of blood.

BACK TO WILBUR

Wilbur's evidence suggests the idea that instead of human's being the masters and cats being the pets it is in fact the other way round. So he wants his book publishing so that he can get his word to the masses in order to warn people about cats and their manipulative ways. After Wilbur leaves, the publisher's cat who has heard the whole conversation stares at him until he eventually burns the evidence and then goes and gets the cat some milk then says “I can't deny you anything can I?” All the while Wilbur is chased by cats until he is eventually attacked by them, falls down some steps and breaks his neck. Poor Wilbur.

Right, The Uncanny. Well, it's ok. It's not great by any stretch of the imagination, the idea behind it I quite like. The whole taking something we see as one thing, in this case cats we see them as pets and then flips it on it's head to create this idea of horror that human's aren't the dominant species after all. But the problem there is you would assume this will be a collection of three tales where innocent people are killed by evil cats, but instead it's three tales of evil people getting stopped by the cats or the cats taking revenge on them. So from these three tales I'd say “Yes cats are fiendishly clever, but they're also like vigilantes helping the good people by stopping the bad people. They're like batman.” So the three stories kind of miss the point of the overarching story's theme. It's funny watching this now, because I remember being scared of this as a kid, it left me terrified of my own cat. I specifically remember the first story where the cats eat the old woman and being cautious of my cat for days wondering if it was going to eat me, suffice to say my cat has not eaten me... yet, but she still has time. Clearly the best bit of this film is Peter Cushing as the petrified Wilbur Gray, he's great. Even Donald Pleasence is a bit iffy in this but maybe it was meant to be a bit of an over the top performance, then again maybe he just couldn't be arsed. All in all, it's ok but not great, even if you really like Peter Cushing (LIKE ME!) it's not really worth your time. Peter Cushing is great but the film is just ok.

The Uncanny 2/5

The Kiss of the Vampire

2011-06-19T23:04:00.005+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After heading off course and running out of fuel, newly weds Gerald and Marianne Harcourt become stranded in Bavaria until they can refuel their motorcar. Whilst there they get caught up in a vampire cult. Two out-of-towners against a full cult of vampires, not good odds.

The Kiss of the Vampire is a 1963 Hammer production. It stars Clifford Evans, Noel Willman and Edward de Souza. It was directed by Don Sharp. This was originally planned to be the third Dracula film in the Hammer series, and Hammer's second go at a Dracula-less Dracula film, the first one being The Brides of Dracula.

Woh! The film starts with this nice, slow paced funeral sequence. Then Professor Zimmer walks over to the coffin, presumably to pay his respects. Then he whips out a spade and whacks it into the coffin right into the “dead” person's chest. Blood and screams ooze from the coffin. Then it's revealed she was a vampire! If that's not a great opener then I don't know what is.

The newly weds have been invited to dine at Dr Ravna's home with his family. This can't be good, it's never a good idea to accept an invitation to someone's home in a Hammer film.

Oh no! A vampire tried to remove the spade that Professor Zimmer put into the dead vampire's chest, but Zimmer intervened. Then there was a bit of a struggle, well more of a kerfuffle really. A kerfuffle that ended with Zimmer getting bitten on the hand by the vamprie. Rut-Roh! Ah, he's ok. He used the Peter Cushing's Van Helsing technique for curing vampirism; burn the wound. Although Van Helsing used a dash of Holy Water in there too.

Oh that's nice, blame the wife. What a dick. Gerald explains to Dr Ravna that they ventured off course from where they were meant to be and that's how they came to be in Bavaria. “That's over thirty miles away. You WERE off your track.” “My wife is not a very good map reader, I'm afraid.”

Hmm, Dr Ravna's son and daughter pop to see Gerald and Marianne at the place where they are staying to invite them to a masked ball, but at the discovery that the sun is coming out, they suddenly panic and run off. I wonder why.

Holy Shit! Giant Creepy Devil Mask! I don't think I could ever go to a masked ball, I'd probably shit myself, even more so if I got drunk. I'd probably forget it was a masked ball, look in the mirror and scream.

Oh you sly vampire bastard. Putting on the same mask as Gerald so you can trick Marianne into thinking you are her husband and then locking her in a room with you're vampire dad. You bastard.

Oh! Double sly bastard. After getting Gerald so drunk he collapses that when he wakes up the party is over and Dr Ravna's son tells Gerald that he doesn't have a wife, and that he arrived alone. But it's not just Carl who's keeping up this charade he's also got the town's people so scared that they are also keeping the lie going. Professor Zimmer is the only one who tells Gerald the truth and also helps him to plan a way to save his wife.

After getting caught by the vampires Gerald is then tied up. One of them scratches his chest and goes in for the kill. But before she manges to bite him he escapes and smears the blood on his chest into the shape of the cross. Nice!

What? How can a swarm of black magic controlled bats kill a cult of vampires? That ending doesn't make sense to me. No wonder Peter Cushing didn't want that as the ending for The Brides of Dracula, instead they went for something simple and rather cool involving a windmill.

For a film that started out so well, I was left a bit confused and disappointed. That ending should have been good, a swarm of killer bats conjured up by black magic, but no it left me disappointed. As for the rest of the film, it was ok, nowt special. This film seems to get heralded as this all great hammer film, and a quint-essential of their Gothic films, I wouldn't quite say that. It's ok but it's by no means quint-essential viewing and whatnot. It's an average Hammer vampire film, see it if you like but don't expect the full film to stay as good as the pre-credits sequence.

The Kiss of the Vampire 2/5

The Mummy's Shroud

2011-06-09T19:21:00.007+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Set in the 1920s, a team of archaeologists go in search of the lost tomb of the boy Pharaoh Kah-To-Bah. They are warned about a curse, but still they proceed to open it anyway only to receive more than the bargained for.

The Mummy's Shroud is a 1967 Hammer production. It stars Andre Morell, John Phillips and David Buck. It was directed by John Gilling. It is the third of Hammer's four Mummy films. There is a narrator at the start who is uncredited and sounds remarkably like Peter Cushing but there is no record to confirm this belief.

Essentially, it's much the same thing again. Some people disturb a cursed tomb and the curse (involving a Mummy coming to get them) is fulfilled.

Ooooh one of the members of the expedition searching for the tomb is psychic. That could come in handy. Ooooh, she's predicted that there will be danger after they have discovered the tomb and after they have left the desert, a danger of which not all of them will survive.

Woop woop. Roger “The Master” Delgado plays Hasmid, one of the locals. Guess what? He's a baddie too.

They found the tomb but one of the members of the team got bitten by a snake, then he did something (off screen) with a knife. I have no idea what he did but it must have been bad as the other members pulled squeamish looking faces as he did it.

When asked if he's concerned about the apparent curse that they were warned about, Stanley Preston (I think he's the guy funding the expedition) states that they aren't concerned about it. Fair enough, I mean it's not like the same thing has happened in the LAST TWO FILMS. There's always a curse on these bloody things and yet they always ignore the warning, resulting in the Mummy coming back to life and hunting them down one by one. These people deserve to die, stupid bastards. If I saw there was a curse on something I wouldn't even touch it let alone open it. In fact, I would probably run away screaming.

There's another psychic, and she has a sense of humour. She was talking to the man who was bitten by the snake.
“You will soon die, but not the way you think.”
“I just want to rest.”
“But soon you will be dead, you can rest then.” [laughs]
I like her.

Woh! I think the Mummy crushed the guy's skull. It was off screen so I'm not sure but it did clamp it's hands onto his head, then the camera cut away as he screamed. But when he's discovered he's found hanging from a rope round his neck. I prefer the first one, it was cooler.

Another cool moment, again on the Mummy's behalf. It smashed a bottle of flammable corrosive liquid onto the photographer. First it burnt through his clothing on impact then it ignited and set him alight burning him to death.

CROWNING MOMENT OF AWESOME (Again all thanks to the Mummy)

Longbarrow (played by Michael Ripper) awoke to not be able to find his glasses, as he searched the floor he accidentally crushed them and began to cry. Poor Longbarrow, as if his day wasn't bad enough, he tried to make his way out the room without his glasses. But he was greeted at the door by the Mummy who wrapped him up in his bedsheets (ah, to suffocate him? You'd be wrong) then he picked him up and threw him out of the window. It got me completely by surprise that it turned my feeling sorry for Longbarrow into laughing in hysterics at him being thrown out of the window.

Stupid Hasmid. As the good guys try to stop the Mummy by speaking the sacred words that will send him back to the grave, Hasmid holds out the shroud and says “HAHAHA. Only he who holds the shroud can speak the sacred words.” So the police officer shoots him and takes the shroud off him. You never know maybe he'll have better plans when he becomes The Master. He might even have a dummy in a rubber mask.

Another cool moment. The Mummy's destruction, after they speak the sacred words he starts to crumble into sand and bones, it looks really cool.

Overall, it's not bad. From what I've heard The Mummy's Shroud is considered a B-Movie amongst the Hammer films. I wouldn't say that, it's not that bad but it's also not that great either. When it started I was completely engrossed. Then as the film progressed my interest began to deteriorate, but then as it began to near the end as the Mummy started killing more people my interest grew once again. I don't know what it is but maybe I'm just not that into Mummy films, because of the 3 I've reviewed I've not been that fussed about them. Don't get me wrong I like them, but they just don't rank very highly like other Hammer films do for me. It wasn't in any way a bad film though, it's decent enough but I think it's just an average Hammer film. Also lets give the tagline a mention: Beware the beat of the cloth wrapped feet. It's better than the tagline would lead you believe. It's not great, but it does have it's odd moments of awesome as I've mentioned earlier, and it's worth watching even just for them.

The Mummy's Shroud 2/5

The Gorgon

2011-05-26T13:37:00.005+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

The village of Vandorf has a secret. A secret so terrifying that the locals live their lives in fear. After every full moon victims are found dead, but their deaths aren't caused by normal circumstances, their death's are due to being turned to stone.

The Gorgon is a 1964 Hammer production. It stars Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Richard Pasco. It was directed by Terence Fisher..

As if a film starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, and directed by Terence Fisher wasn't good enough, there's also PATRICK TROUGHTON added to the formula too!

A young couple were killed at the start, when their bodies were found the woman had been turned to stone and her fiancée Bruno was found hanging from a tree. But at the court case the witnesses fictionalised the facts stating that her cause of death was due to being beaten to death. Their summary is that her fiancée killed her. But Bruno's father was in the court room too, and when he stood up he stated that all he had heard was lies, lies formulated from fear. But what do they fear? So Bruno's father goes about investigating just what it is that is giving these locals the willies.

Legend has it there were three gorgons. Two of them were killed but one of them (Megaera) escaped and fled to these parts near Vandorf. Could it possibly be the last remaining gorgon that has been killing people for the last five years? (Of course it is, it's in the bloody title.)

You sly gorgon bitch! She tempted Bruno's father out of his house with her beautiful singing he walked to her ruined castle and BAM she turned him to stone. It's pretty cool actually, he doesn't instantly turn to stone, he slowly changes so we see him all grey looking but still alive barely able to move. He managed to get back to his house and write a letter for his other son (Paul) who would be arriving the next day so that he can inform him of the gorgon.

“The correct term is Gorgonised which means literally turned to stone.” I don't know what it is but I love that word, it sounds so funny and just makes me laugh. Ha, Gorgonised. I can imagine it being used in a prank TV show “You've just been Gorgonised.”

Paul is rather bloody lucky, he saw the gorgon THREE times in the space of about a minute and managed to survive. This is because he saw the gorgon as a reflection, twice in water and once in glass. Well, he's maybe not that lucky, it did knock him into a coma for five days and turned his hair grey. But at least he didn't die a slow and painful turning to stone death. And on the plus side he awoke in hospital to be greeted by Nurse Carla where they then sort of fall in love.

The locals fear the gorgon and want to get rid of it yet when someone comes along with knowledge of the gorgon and also wants to destroy it they still won't admit it's existence. Why not just admit it and work together? You'll get rid of the gorgon a lot quicker. Think about it, it makes sense. But no they continue to ignore it.

YEY! Paul's professor (Christopher Lee) has come to Vandorf to lend a hand.

Megaera died a long time ago, but her spirit lives on. It's the spirit of Megaera that is terrorising the village of Vandorf. Her spirit has took control of someone and Professor Meister thinks it is Carla as she suffers from amnesia. During the cycle of the full moon is when Megaera's strength is at it's best so Carla will not be able to control her actions. All this is Professort Meister's theory, could it be true?

Oh no! Cushing's Dr Namaroff tried to behead Megaera. He got close to her by shielding his eyes with his arm but at the last moment just as he was about to take a swing at her he removed his arm and looked straight in her eyes. Silly Namaroff, now you're turning to stone. Cushing's gorgonised face is classic.

Professor Meister snook up behind Megaera with a sword as she was trying to make Paul look her in the eyes. But he looked just before Meister sliced her head off. As Paul began to turn to stone Megaera's severed head transformed back into Carla's [GASP] Meister was right! Meister says to Paul “She's free now.” then Paul dies.

All in all, it's ok. I was actually disappointed. For a film starring Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Patrick Troughton, Barabara Shelley, directed by Terence Fisher and about a woman with snakes for hair that turns people to stone, it was disappointingly boring at times. Don't get me wrong it has it's good moments, the ending especially. I absolutely loved the ending, the sword fight between Namaroff and Paul (even if it was obviously two stuntmen at times) then the final confrontation with Megaera, that was absolutely brilliant. But a lot of what came before it seemed to be a bit boring. The atmosphere and set pieces were, as ever with Hammer, great. Overall, it's an average Hammer Horror. I personally was disappointed for the most part of the film but again the ending was great, it ended the film brilliantly.

The Gorgon 3/5

Announcement - New Blog

2011-05-17T23:11:00.002+01:00

Hi But We're British! readers,

For all lovers of time travel I have started a new blog where I review all things time travel in my usual style conveyed in But We're British! reviews. I will continue to write reviews for both But We're British! and Time Wimey. To visit my new blog click this link Timey Wimey.

Thanks

Andy

Countess Dracula

2011-05-11T18:59:00.006+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

17th Century Hungary. Countess Elisabeth discovers that if she bathes in the blood of virgin women then she can temporarily restore her youthful good looks. Posing as her daughter she uses this new found ability to go about lusting after a young soldier, but as the romance blossoms the death rate of young women in the area increases, even to the point where the Countess' maids start to become suspicious.

Countess Dracula is a 1971 Hammer production. It stars Ingrid Pitt, Nigel Green and Sandor Eles. It was directed by Peter Sasdy.

This film is based on the legends of “The Blood Countess” Elisabeth Bathory. Much in the same sense of how Dracula is based on the legends of Vlad the Impaler. Countess Elisabeth is based on Elisabeth Bathory who is said to have tortured and killed hundreds of women, but although she was never convicted of the crimes she was later imprisoned in bricked up rooms where she would die 4 years later. The character of Elisabeth Bathory is also used in the novel Dracula: The Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker, which is the official sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula. That adaptation of her portrays her as being a lesbian vampire which isn't in this film but both do have the bathing in women's blood, as in one scene from the book she has a woman hung over a bath and cut open so her blood pours into the bath.

Ingrid Pitt, one of the most iconic stars of Hammer and she was only ever in TWO Hammer films! Nice bit of trivia for you there.

Right from the start we're getting the general gist that Countess Elisabeth is a bitch and no one likes her. At one point she hits a maid and causes her to slip and cut herself on the knife she was holding. As she cuts her face blood spurts out onto the Countess' face so she tells her to leave. But when she rubs the blood from her face, she notices that the area the blood touched has rejuvenated and is now young looking. Thrilled by this discovery that the maid's blood can make her young again she rushes to the maid's room. The next day the maid is nowhere to be seen and the Countess is fully rejuvenated. I suspect foul play!

Oh you sly bitch! In order to enjoy this new found youth she has her daughter's arrival delayed by arranging to have her kidnapped, so she can pose as her daughter and lust after a young Lieutenant. All the while, her lover Captain Dobi who knows her terrible secret must keep schtum and just sit and watch.

Oh no! It wasn't permanent! Whatever will she do now?! She'll kill again of course, duh.

That's brilliant and unintentionally hilarious! The Countess is just sat there dabbing blood on to her face with a GIANT sponge.

Naked Ingrid Pitt WOOOOOOOO, but she's covered in blood ewwwww.

Ah! They've found some of The Countess' victims. THREE dead bodies hidden behind a mere few barrels and nobody noticed before now? Didn't anyone notice the smell? I recommend some Olbas, it gives you the power to breathe naturally.

AH! She turned old during the wedding ceremony! She has a knack for picking the worst moments to turn old, earlier she turned old just as she was about to get it on with the Lieutenant, but then caught a glimpse of her reflection and ran away. This time though she was kind of fucked as she did it in front of everyone, and decided to attack her daughter but the young Lieutenant got in the way and got killed instead. Next thing, The Countess is in prison awaiting trial or execution (one of the two) all the while people outside are chanting “Devil” and “Devil woman” until one woman says “Countess Dracula”. Ah, so that's why they called it that.

All in all, it's not bad. First time I watched this a few years ago I really enjoying it, but this time round not so much. I suppose it's worth giving a look, especially if you're a Hammer fan and even more so if you're an Ingrid Pitt fan for obvious reasons. Because she was only in TWO Hammers! Dirty minded people. Nigel Green is good as the jealous Captain Dobi, as funny as his name is he's a fiendish man who keeps trying to drive the Countess and the lieutenant apart. One method, was to get him completely smashed and in bed with a whore so he could get the Countess and show her. There isn't particularly a lot of horror, there's a bit of blood but nothing major and as for nudity, there's the odd boob flying about the place, and that's pretty much Countess Dracula in a nutshell. I'm not really selling it am I, well what can I say, it's ok and that's about it. The title choice wasn't good either, obviously they were trying to gain interest by chucking Dracula into the title which obviously is a good selling point when it comes to Hammer but there is no relation between this and Dracula, she's not a vampire, she doesn't drink blood, it's a completely separate story. Even the porn versions of Countess Dracula have her as a vampire! They should have named this after one of Elisabeth Bathory's nicknames like “The Blood Queen” or “The Blood Countess”. I think that would have sold it and without having to mislead audiences by piggy backing on the Dracula name. All in all, yeah sure go watch it, it's not bad but don't be expecting anything spectacular.

Countess Dracula 2/5

Dr Terror's House of Horrors

2011-05-01T21:34:00.011+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Dr Terror boards a train with five other men, after discovering he is a fortune teller they ask him to tell them their future. Four Tarot cards are dealt to tell the person's fate, the fifth card tells them how to avoid it. With fates involving severed hands, vampires, werewolves, voodoo and killer plants they may have to take the fifth card's advice.

Dr Terror's House of Horrors is a 1965 Amicus production. It stars Christopher Lee, Roy Castle and Peter Cushing. It was directed by Freddie Francis. This was the first in Amicus' series of portmanteau films.

I'm not too sure why the title comes on screen in German with the English translation as a subtitle. I know Dr Terror is meant to be German but that doesn't mean the title should be in German. Unless Amicus figured that 1965 audiences were so easily scared that even the German language would put the shits up them.

Oh Roy Castle (the film's funny man) pissing off Christopher Lee (the film's angry man) by accidentally closing the train door on him. Bad idea that, but someone had to annoy him. It was inevitable really, if Christopher Lee plays a sophisticated person then you can guarantee he'll get pissed off and angry.

I do love Peter Cushing, but do you know what I love more than him? His dodgy Dr Terror eyebrows. They're so hairy, they'd give Roger Moore's a run for their money.

FIRST STORY

Jim Dawson returns to his family home to help the new owner (Mrs Biddulph who moved there for solitude after her husband's death) make alterations to the house.

No! Don't do that! If you find a tomb hidden behind the wall of the basement belonging to the man who lost his house to your family and died during a conflict with your family but also swore vengeance on the owner of the house, then DON'T and I repeat, DON'T pull it out and open it!

As it turns out it was all an elaborate trap concocted by Mrs Biddulph who is actually the werewolf who has been skulking around and that she is also the wife of the man in the tomb. She's been waiting 200 years to avenge him.

After being shown his fate Dr Terror then deals the fifth card, the escape card, the card which will tell him how to avoid this nasty fate. The fifth card is Death.

SECOND STORY

Bill Rogers and his family return from holiday to find a vine has grown up the side of their house. But there's more to this plant than meets the eye.

When Plants Attack! They thought to cut the vine, THEY WERE WRONG! The vine simply smacked the sheers out of Bill's hand. This is no ordinary vine. And as if that wasn't enough. NO! Not the dog! Anyone but the dog! He was one of the good ones! The vine killed the dog.

Bill then enlists the help of some plant specialists, one of which is working at their home and discovers that the plant actually has a brain. But before he's able to tell anyone of his finding the vine kills him too.

Well what do you know. Smoking isn't so bad after all. The other plant specialist decides to light his pipe and does so near the window. But as he does it the plants move away from the window. There he realises FIRE! The one thing everything fears. Then he lights some paper and heads out to bring help. Disappointingly that's it. Now yeah, I know killer plants are bad and all but Bill didn't die or suffer a horrible fate, his story ended with him in the house with his wife and daughter waiting for the other guy to bring help. Yet, his fifth card states his only escape from this actually-not-that-bad-of-a-fate is Death. Bit harsh really if you ask me. I mean come on, they would have been rescued in a bit.

THIRD STORY

This is the humorous one of the five stories, after all it stars Roy Castle. Biff Bailey is a jazz musician constantly looking for the next hit. But how far will he go?

What a tool! Not only is it common sense to not meddle with voodoo but his friend warns him not to have anything to do with it. Yet, he still goes out to write down and steal the voodoo music being played at a ritual. No! Bad Joojoo don't meddle with voodoo. That's the moral of the story (it's also common fucking sense).

Even the chief voodoo guy tells Bill not to steal the music because it belongs to a jealous and vengeful voodoo God who, if he steals it, will have his revenge. Yet, he still steals it. This guy needs a slap. Then he takes it to a London club and plays it. Whilst playing it, a powerful wind blows through the club and smashes the place up. Then on his way home to work on the music he starts getting nervous and paranoid as he begins to be, in a sense, haunted.

Wait what? He fell over and when he picked himself up there was a poster on the wall for Dr Terror's House of Horrors, to which he looked at it and look even more scared. [shrug] Beats me.

When he makes it to his apartment, doors and windows start slamming and the lights go out. When he turns them back on the voodoo God is there and takes back the sheets of music as Bill collapses to the ground. And that's it, he could well have suffered a heart attack which then at least he died but that isn't specified, so as far as I'm aware he could well have just fainted. And with that, he is given Death as his fifth card too.

FOURTH STORY

Franklyn Marsh is an art critic who is more critical than appreciative of art work. Unfortunately, the artist Eric Landor gets the brunt of it.

Yey! Christopher Lee being an arsehole art critic. Double Yey! Michael Gough is the artist Eric Landor.

Oh harsh! But yes I like it. Landor gets even with Marsh by showing him a painting by a new rising artist, Marsh loves the painting and asks to meet the artist. To his surprise and humiliation it's a monkey. From then on Landor continues to torment Marsh with paper cut outs of monkeys when he's trying to deliver a speech and so on. But Marsh being the arsehole that he is, he's not going to stand for this much longer, so he runs Landor over crushing his hand.

This has to be the single most harsh sentence to leave a doctor's lips. After being told that the patient is an artist he replies “Artist? Not anymore.” What a bastard!

Shortly after leaving the hospital Landor kills himself, but then his severed hand takes on a life of it's own and begins terrorising Marsh. He burns it, stabs it, drops it to the bottom of a river and still it continues to come back. I think Marsh might need a hand with this one. Ho-Ho.

The hand comes back one last time and makes Marsh swerve off the road and crash. As he is being placed into the ambulance a guy says “he'll be blind for the rest of his life.” Then we hear Marsh scream. Now that is what I call a dreaded horrible fate. And like the others his fifth card is also Death.

FIFTH STORY

Dr Bob Carroll returns home with his newly wed wife. But there's something not quite right.

Freaky bitch! It can't be good when a woman sucks the blood from your cut finger. GET OUT BOB! GET OUT NOW! AH! Whilst Bob sleeps his wife turns into a bat and flies out the window! VAMPIRE!

Dr Blake is a good doctor. After seeing a kid with fang marks on his neck who claims to be feeling weak, he jumps straight to the conclusion of VAMPIRES! There's no reasonable explanation first just straight to the supernatural. Surely he should be grounded a bit more in reality, after all he is a doctor. What's next, A kid entering puberty who has stubble? WEREWOLF!

Oh, that was cool. As Dr Blake was about to be attacked by the vampire bat he coincidently made the shape of the cross with his arms as he defended himself. This obviously caused the bat to fly away.

Oh shit! Dr Blake (rather easily I might add) persuaded Bob to stake his wife because she's a vampire. After he does it the police and Dr Blake arrive, but Dr Blake denies telling him to kill his wife and says there's no such thing as vampires. After the police arrest Bob and leave, Dr Blake turns to the camera and says “This town isn't big enough for two doctors...or two vampires.” then he turns into a bat and flies away.

Again, the fifth card is Death.

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!

The five men then tell Dr Terror to deal his own cards and his fifth card is also Death. Coming to the conclusion that none of them has a future they believe that it must be the train, and that it must be going to crash. I don't fully understand the logic in that but I'll come back to it. Marsh then turns to Dr Terror and asks “Who are you?” to which he replies “Have you not guessed?” Then the lights go out. When they come back on Dr Terror has vanished and the train has stopped. Believing it to be all over and that all is well they exit the train to find an empty platform and the train to have vanished. They then see a newspaper with the headline “TRAIN CRASH – FIVE DEAD” They then see Dr Terror who has now revealed his true identity – Death. I love that, I think it's brilliant that they were travelling with Death all along I think that's a great twist. But that doesn't forgive it of it's other problems.

As far as I'm concerned they've been shown their future, surely by knowing your future you could avoid it. It doesn't make sense for the only way to avoid it is to die before it happens because they now know what lies ahead and can simply not do it. On top of that, not all the stories ended nastily, some ended in such a way that the guy will be fine afterwards. For instance, the killer plant story Bill and his family will be rescued, the other guy went for help so why was he dealt Death as his only option to avoid it? In fact why were any of them dealt Death as the only option because as I mentioned earlier they now know their own future and can simply just avoid it by not going back to the family house, informing plant specialists immediately, not stealing voodoo music, not being an arsehole and not marrying a vampire. But that BIG problem aside, I quite like Dr Terror's House of Horrors. The stories aren't that great but it was always one of my favourite classic British horror films, that might well be because it was one of the first ones I ever saw but it isn't bad. The best stories are probably the last two, the other three aren't that good. But for Amicus' first portmanteau story it's pretty good, when compared to their other productions though, it's not that good. But as a starting point this was pinnacle for what would come in the following years from Amicus. If you're interested in Amicus then sure I'd say give it a look but I'd recommend seeing it after seeing one or two of their others because they made some brilliant portmanteau films, unfortunately this isn't one of them.

Dr Terror's House of Horrors 3/5

Dracula AD 1972

2011-04-25T22:25:00.006+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After being defeated by Van Helsing in 1872, Dracula is then resurrected in present day 1972. Here he goes about hunting Jessica Van Helsing in order enact his ultimate revenge; to end the Van Helsing blood line once and for all.

Dracula AD 1972 is a 1972 Hammer Production. It stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Stephanie Beacham. It was directed by Alan Gibson. It is the 7th film in the Hammer Dracula series. It was due to the success of 1970's Count Yorga, Vampire (which is a modern day set vampire film) that Warner Bros commissioned Hammer to make 2 present day set Dracula films. The time frame of this Dracula film is different to that of the previous ones, the segment at the start portraying Dracula and Van Helsing's final battle is set in 1872 but in Dracula where they meet for the first time it is somewhere in the 1880s.

This one gets straight into the action and it's pretty good too. Dracula and Van Helsing are doing battle, their “final battle” I might add, on top of a runaway coach. As if that isn't enough, the coach then crashes into a tree causing Dracula to get impaled with a broken wheel. AWESOME! Van Helsing watches him as he dies and then dies himself. What can I say, the whole ordeal must have knocked it out of him. All the while another person has been watching the whole thing, presumably a disciple of Dracula's as he then puts some of his remains into a glass container and buries them near Van Helsing's grave just after his funeral. Cue the funky 70s music.

The funky 70s music, which I might add is the same one track used throughout the film, is terrible. I mean, fair enough use it at the start to establish the setting. There it's fine, the camera moves away from the shot of Van Helsing's grave still in 1872 with on screen text saying “Dracula” then looks to the sky and suddenly a shot of a plane and the rest of the title “AD 1972” appears as does the funky music. That is fine, it sets the time frame for the film. What isn't fine is the continuous use of it, it completely kills great scenes. It sounds like that of what you would expect in a blaxsploitation film, but more about the funky 70s music and how it kills the mood later.

Hey, these teens are smart, they seem to know their stuff about how long it will take for a police car to arrive to the house to arrest them, they've taken into consideration that it's Saturday night, that they'll have to take an alternative route to avoid the traffic, hell they've probably even taken into consideration airspeed velocity. And there's me thinking they were just a bunch of drunken hippies. Oh wait, they were wrong. Nee Nor, Nee Nor. The police have arrived.

Where frilly shirts still in, in 1972?

Call me dull, but why does every group of young people want to play with black magic and raise the Devil. I was always content just playing with pogs. Why can't they just get pissed and stoned, then settle down and play a nice game of Monopoly in the old church instead of resurrecting Dracula?

The guy who is resurrecting Dracula is a descendant of his 1872 ancestor (who also looked exactly like him that's Spatial Genetic Multiplicity that is), but what I'm wondering is why did he wait til 1972 to bring him back. What made him think “1972, yeah I think he'll like this.”? I know it's the whole 100 years to the date of his death malarkey but they never waited 100 years to resurrect him in the other 6 films. He must have been resurrected every other week in those.

Again with the funky 70s music. It's just killed the atmospheric mood. I don't know why it's used so much because there is some creepy Hammer-y style music in there that works brilliantly. But then it gets blended into the funky music and kills it. They should have just used the typical Hammer style creepy music for those scenes and it would have been brilliant, we don't need reminding that it's set in 1972 they're wearing flares for fuck sake!

BEST LINE EVER! “I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit” What the hell does it even mean? I have no idea, but it's brilliant! I'm going to use that.

That's twice now that I've seen a teenager parking their car outside and walking into the old church leaving the car headlights turned on. Don't they realise it'll drain the battery? Good luck fleeing from Dracula in your car when the battery is dead. Idiot.

Great choice of music for the sequence when Peter Cushing's Van Helsing is in a panic running around the streets searching for his grand daughter. Yep, you've guessed it, the funky 70s music. Very appropriate, obviously. Now let's go and have a dance, after all I reckon Van Helsing would be if he wasn't all in a fluster.

Completely loving the use of Stephanie Beacham's boobs by the way. Now I know they're lovely and all, but do they really need to be peering into shot when the focus isn't even her but is instead Dracula and his hand burning because he held a cross?

Great death! Van Helsing throws Holy water at Dracula which causes him to lose his footing and fall into a grave full of stakes. And if that isn't enough Van Helsing then grabs a spade and pushes it into Dracula's back forcing him even more onto the stakes so that they go right throw him and out the other side. Fuck yes!

Overall, it's not the best Dracula film as you will have gathered, and as such it does get a bad rap from most people. But I can't help but still enjoy it, it has it's faults (mainly the constant use of the same piece of funky 70s music) but for me it's a sort of guilty pleasure. It's just a fun film. It's a shame Dracula doesn't do much mind, but the scenes when both him and Van Helsing are together are when he kicks into action. Unfortunately those scenes are what start and end the film, so what you have in between is Dracula telling his disciple to bring Jessica to him but he keeps bringing the wrong women so Dracula keeps being pissed off, and Van Helsing assisting the police in hunting Dracula. What is great about this though is it's the first Dracula film to star both Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing since the first Dracula film in 1958. There seems to be this running theme of reincarnation, or at least the idea of a descendant looking the same as a person from the past. Both the disciple and Van Helsing look like their ancestors, so that's interesting. All in all, I'd probably say only watch this if you're a big fan of the Hammer Dracula films (like me!) otherwise it will probably put you off watching any of the others.

Dracula AD 1972 3/5

Don't Look Now

2011-04-08T16:59:00.006+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After the death of their daughter Christine, John and Laura move to Venice where John is helping to reconstruct an old church. Whilst there Laura meets two old women, one of which claims to be psychic and tells Laura not to be sad about Christine because she's happy. This causes Laura to feel immensely better, the best she's felt since before her daughter died. So she keeps talking to them and wants to contact Christine. All the while John is sceptical and refuses to be part of it. The psychic woman claims that Christine is warning them of danger that lies ahead. John begins to see a figure wearing a red trench coat the same as that of which Christine was wearing when she drown. But who is it? Could it really be their daughter back from the grave...and in Venice?

Don't Look Now is a 1973 Casey Productions and Eldorado Films production. It stars Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland. It was directed by Nicolas Roeg.

That was weird. John was looking at a photograph of the church he's going to be reconstructing, not only did he notice someone sitting there (you can only see the person from behind) who looks remarkably like his daughter. But then he spilt a drink (some wine I think) on the photo which at first was a small splodge on the person's head but then it spread more and more like blood right across the photo. As it spread John suddenly got up and ran outside, almost as if he knew his daughter was in danger. To which he was right, she had drown in the pond.

The old crow's got something! Now in Italy, Laura has got talking to two old sisters, one of whom is blind and claims to be psychic. She tells Laura that her daughter is happy, but most shocking of all is that she is able to describe what she looked like and what she was wearing when she died. So this confirms to Laura that she is telling the truth. This being the beginning of their beautiful friendship, well, the beginning of Laura hanging out with them as it gives her comfort knowing more about Christine being happy now she's dead. They have some interesting things to say though, the psychic one even at one point suggests that maybe John is psychic because he knew something was wrong just from looking at the photograph, he appeared to sense Christine was in danger.

GOD DAMN IT, JOHN! That's what you get when you choose to parade around nude. After getting showered John decides to continue with his painting IN THE NUDE! There's no reason for it, he could easily have got dressed and done some painting but no he chose to be in the nip. Resulting in the cleaning lady walking in on him sat nude at his desk.

Inevitably, I have to at least mention the controversial sex scene. Well, other than it being a bit long (THE SCENE!) if I hadn't have already known about it being controversial then I wouldn't have given it a second thought. After all, it's not like we saw it going in, if that were the case then my reaction would have been something more along the lines of “HOLY SHIT!” But then again, this is my 21st Century perspective looking back on a sex scene deemed controversial in 1973. So in an analytical sense, I suppose I can understand the shock. It does seem a bit strong and obviously at the time sex scenes as strong as that would have been made available only in porn, so fair enough.

This is an odd film. The psychic woman from earlier is performing a séance for Laura and her means of contacting the dead is to go into a trance where she moans and rubs her boobs alot. I'm so confused!

HOLY SHIT! John's been working on restoring an old church. He was on a piece of wobbly scaffolding whilst working on a piece of the wall. Then it cuts to a slow motion shot of a plank of wood falling from the ceiling, which leaves the audience sort of state of panic but obviously unable to do anything. Then it cuts back to John (not in slow motion) working on the wall, then the big plank suddenly smashes through his scaffolding causing all sorts of havoc leaving him swinging on a rope and the church wall he was working on ruined. It was done rather brilliantly I might add, we see it falling in slow motion leaving us worried for John but unable to help, then cuts back to him and it's SMASH! AHHHHH!

What a right kerfuffle! After learning that their son has been injured whilst at school, Laura leaves to return home while John stays to get on with his work. Then a couple of hours after seeing her leave he sees her on a funeral boat with the two old women. So he hastily reports this to the police, as not only does he not trust the two women, but he believes they have brain-washed his wife into joining a cult. On top of that, there's a murderer on the loose. Then after reporting it and worrying for his wife's safety, she phones him from England saying that their son is fine and that she'll return soon. Learning this leaves John confused as he could have sworn he'd seen his wife. But obviously he can't have done she was in England.

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!
(If you wish to avoid the ending being spoilt then please skip the following paragraph)

After learning of his wife being in England, John goes to the police station where they have arrested the psychic sister, feeling terribly guilty about his misunderstanding and getting her arrested over it, he escorts her home. Along the way he explains the misunderstanding, after he gets her home he leaves and she falls into a trance. Screaming for her sister to go and get John back as he's in danger. But she is unable to find him. Whilst returning home, John sees the person in the red trench coat once again but this time decides to pursue the person believing it to be his daughter. But when he finally gets the person cornered, she turns around and it's an old woman with a knife who then cuts John's throat. It's at this point that we realise he is psychic, and that he's been having various premonitions of his own death. The reason Christine was trying to contact them was to warn of this. Then what follows is the funeral boat with Laura and the two old women on heading to John's funeral so then we see that the boat incident was also a premonition. It's one of those films that really plays with your head.

Wake Wood has been compared to this, which I can see why as there are a few similarities. Most of all there's the common factor that it's about a grieving couple who's daughter has died. There's also the recurring motif of the daughter's trench coat. And also that the couple move away after the death, in Wake Wood's case it's that they move to a small remote town. In Don't Look Now's case it's that they move to Venice. That's pretty much where the similarities end, the two stories are rather different after the point when they move to another location. Another point that was similar is that both get right into the story, establishing the family then killing off the daughter without a long drawn out build up towards it.

Originally, I was baffled and confused by this film. But after some reading, I see that I didn't properly register some bits which obviously effected my enjoyment/understanding of the story. But after reading up on it, I rather like it. I knew there was the recurring motif of red; the trench coat and blood. But what I didn't realise was there were more recurring motifs; water – Christine drowning and Venice, and most of all the idea of doppelgängers. John after all is reconstructing an old church, then there's the sightings of someone who looks like Christine, lots of shots of reflections in water which in themselves are doppelgängers. It is a very deep film, there's alot to it. It's one of those films that really gets you thinking. And as such I intend to watch it again, as I'm presuming it's one of those films that takes repeat viewings to increase one's enjoyment of it. Afterall, in the booklet that came with the DVD it even says “this is a work that grows richer with every viewing.” which although I haven't re-watched it yet I'm still going to agree with because just from reading into it and discovering what I didn't take in first time round has increased my enjoyment for the film. As is I'm still going to review it based on my first viewing, the title Don't Look Now is apparently an instruction to the audience which obviously we the audience disobey and do look now, I like this because I felt compelled to keep watching maybe it was just the idea of rebelling against the title. “Hell no! I'll look at whatever I want!” but most likely it was just due to it being really interesting, I was hooked from the start and wanted to know just what the hell was going on. So as it is from my first viewing it's not a bad film, not as great as it's made out to be. But like I said this is based on my first viewing and I believe it's one of those films that requires repeat viewings for greater understanding and greater enjoyment.

Don't Look Now 3/5

Wake Wood

2011-03-30T22:45:00.008+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After the death of their daughter Alice, Patrick and Louise move to a remote town called Wake Wood. They discover that the town's people are practising a Pagan ritual which allows the dead to be resurrected but only for 3 days. When offered this unique opportunity which will allow them to see their daughter once more and say goodbye properly, they gladly accept the agreement to stay in Wake Wood and never leave. But what will they do when their 3 days are up?

Wake Wood is a 2011 Hammer Production. It is the 3rd production from the newly resurrected Hammer Productions. It stars Aidan Gillen, Eva Birthistle and Timothy Spall. It was directed by David Keating.

There's none of that slow build up malarkey, it gets straight into the story. We're introduced to this young happy family. It's Alice's birthday, and she's gone to visit a dog that her dad has made well again as he's a vet. But she opens the cage and the dog attacks her, in a rather grisly fashion I might add. Yeah, it's not nice. But this is all within the first 5 minutes.

Within the first 10 minutes, they've moved to Wake Wood and begin to come across some odd locals. So from early on the audience begins to feel weary of the inhabitants of Wake Wood. It all starts when a woman and her niece enter the pharmacy where Louise works and the woman asks for a new inhaler for her niece. But she hands over a prescription that ran out last year, when Louise brings this to her attention the woman just simply gives her a blank look. Looks like we're in for another one of those flicks about a village full of weirdos, or are we? Well they're not weirdos as such, but it comes about that Arthur the village leader performs a ritual to bring back the dead but only for 3 days. He explains that they must have been dead for less than a year for it to work. So yeah, they are strange folk in the sense of meddling with rituals to resurrect people but they're not as bad as those who would burn people in a wicker man for example.

We see that a woman has had her partner brought back and that another woman plans to have her husband brought back. Arthur explains that they come back exactly as they were. Now I presume that they will want to be intimate with their loved ones so my question is this. Is it still necrophilia? Well I think it's a fair question.

AH! DEATH BY BULL! A man gets crushed between a gate and a bull, and if that wasn't bad enough when the others manage to get the gate open the poor fella falls on the floor and gets stood on by the bull. So yeah, he's pretty dead. Nasty business working with animals.

During the agreement, Arthur tells Patrick and Louise that they won't be able to take Alice past the Wake Wood limits and that if he is to perform this ritual for them they must remain in Wake Wood and never leave. Which without hesitation they agree to the terms, but as it develops they have other plans. At a later point they try to leave with Alice but once they pass the wind turbines which mark the Wake Wood limits, Alice sustains all her injuries that originally killed her. So Patrick and Louise quickly return her to Wake Wood where her injuries vanish and she returns back to normal. It's then that they realise they can't leave.

I liked the method of resurrecting Alice, there was none of that reading passages or sacrificing a goat or whatever. They have to get a recently dead body, crush the rib cage, rip out the spine and other nasty stuff. Then they place something belonging to the dead person they are resurrecting into the dead body. They then burn the body, then start cutting it up and hay presto the resurrected person comes out covered in blood, almost mirroring an actual birth. I thought this was great, a dark and grisly method of bringing back the dead.

The parents do have an odd dim moment that made me laugh, they go and play hide and seek in the woods with their daughter...and LOSE HER! In the middle of their panic to find her and the shots of her wondering around on her own, I was rather banking on another dog turning up and for them to find her and be like “NO, NOT AGAIN!” but no, all was well. [thumbs up]

The town's people come to Patrick and Louise's home telling them that they believe something went wrong, that something is a miss and that Alice must be returned to the woods otherwise there will be consequences. Patrick and Louise refuse, but will soon come to regret it. The next day, Alice goes on a killing spree killing some animals and some of the locals. She turns up in Arthur's home and demonstrates some supernatural powers (changing the radio station, flickering the lights, ringing the door bell, closing doors – all with her mind), she kills one of his visitors and before she manages to kill Arthur he banishes her with the use of some powerful words. It's from this point where we see that the people of Wake Wood aren't the villains of this story, Alice is. There were some suspicious things earlier like when she went up to Louise and asked her when the baby is due, and Louise didn't even know she was pregnant. But it's here that we see that even Arthur is afraid of her. She has returned from the grave but not as she once was, she's come back evil.

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!
(If you want to avoid the spoilers about the ending then please skip the next 2 paragraphs.)

It comes about that Patrick and Louise lied, Alice had been dead for over a year. So there's the reason why she's come back evil. I didn't properly notice first time round but there were hints at various points. There was the death date on her grave stone – 2008, but I just presumed that the film was set either then or in early 2009. And just before they arrive at the grave there's a shot in their car when Patrick asks Louise “Do you think she knows?” referring to the widow who's husband's body they are going to use to bring back Alice, as when she met them she said “Something isn't right” when she examined them. I liked that, everything was there for the viewer to pick up on, but it's subtle and therefore easy to not properly register, so it's still a surprise.

After an ordeal in the woods Louise manages to get Alice in a weak state after tricking her to pass the wind turbine, she then takes her to the area in the woods where she needs to be buried. When she gets there they are all there waiting, she buries Alice and I thought that was the end of it. At this point I was expecting a sort of similar ending to Premonition in the sense that she went through this whole ordeal to help her get over the death and also gets pregnant so it's sort of like one life has been lost but a new one will be born. But no, Alice's hand pops out of the ground and drags Louise down with her. Fuck, that was good. But that wasn't the last of it, we see (sometime later) Patrick taking one of Louise's hairs from her hairbrush to get her resurrected. Then I thought that was the end, but no, there's more. When Louise comes back we see that she's quite heavily pregnant so we see that he's left it near on 9 months to bring her back. Then we see Patrick sat on the bed with his operating equipment next to him, Louise comes into shot and says “I'll be there in a minute” then Patrick turns and looks at the camera. End. That I think is brilliant, I did not see it coming and I loved it. I thought that was such a brilliant ending, the idea that he brought her back at a point in the pregnancy when he will be able to perform a caesarian. Some people might not like the ending, but I thought it was great, and it wasn't as out of the blue as you might think. It was actually foreshadowed early on, the idea that the dead continue to grow and develop. This was shown when Alice first came back and Louise is cutting her hair and says “Your hair's gotten so long.” So with that in mind, it would make sense for the pregnant Louise to continue being pregnant in the afterlife and for her baby to continue growing and eventually be born. It's not so great the idea of being born straight into the afterlife mind. Which is why I think it's a sort of happy ending. Alice said she didn't want to go back to being on her own, so she took her mother with her. This then left Patrick on his own, but after the caesarian not only will Patrick no longer be alone but the newborn baby will have a life in our world. And on top of that, both parents will have a child to look after.

Wake Wood is for me the first proper new Hammer. For starters, it's British made. Also you know it's been made on a low budget, it's not as pristine and clean as Let Me In or The Resident. It's rough around the edges and gritty, and that for me is Hammer all over. Wake Wood is a throwback to the classic Hammer films, and that is brilliant. The story is great and the acting is brilliant from not only Aidan Gillen, Eva Birthistle and Timothy Spall but also from newcomer Ella Connolly who was great as the creepy resurrected Alice. Although I like Let Me In and The Resident, this for me is a return to form for Hammer and I hope that this is where the future lies for the company. Hopefully the American ones were just to get the company back in the public domain and on it's feet. Now they've released a low budget British film, hopefully this is where the path for Hammer lies. My only quibble with Wake Wood is that it's a Hammer right? Where was the Hammer ident at the start? Hell, I don't even think Hammer's name went up in the opening credits! It's the most Hammer-y new Hammer we've had and Hammer's name is nowhere to be seen [waves fist in angst]. People have compared this to Don't Look Now, I can't agree nor disagree with that as I've never seen it, but I do want to, even more so now I've seen Wake Wood. But the one I was able to compare it to was The Wicker Man in the sense of an isolated town where the locals practice Pagan rituals. So yeah, Wake Wood was a good film, very good in fact. So go buy it!

Wake Wood 5/5

The Resident

2011-03-11T20:18:00.005Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After splitting up from her boyfriend, Dr Juliet Devereau has moved to Brooklyn to start a new life away from her ex. She moves into a dream apartment for a stunningly low price, but the apartment soon turns out to be a nightmare when her landlord Max develops an obsession with her, an obsession with no limits. But just how far will he go to be with her?

The Resident is a 2011 Hammer Production. It is the second theatrical production from the now resurrected Hammer Productions. It stars Hilary Swank, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Christopher Lee. It was directed by Antti Jokinen.

Well first of all, Jeffrey Dean Morgan is brilliant in this. For the first half hour he's this quiet, friendly and lonely man (as he spends all his time caring for his Grandfather August). But literally half hour in, this opinion of Max is flipped on it's head as the film rewinds back to show us the first half hour only this time as a 5 minute segment all from Max's perspective. During this we see that he has been stalking Juliet from the moment he saw her in the Hospital. He planned each move carefully ensuring that she would come to his building for an apartment, and continued after that so they would bump into each other at an art exhibition and eventually hook up in her apartment which is the half hour mark it rewound back from. This I thought was great, I had expected this to be one of those that the shocking reveal is at the end, which unless there was going to be a twist then the big reveal had been spoilt by the trailers and posters. But the question isn't who is it? But is instead what will he do next? And just how far will he go? So for the rest of the film we see that he's actually this creepy, obsessive, lonely guy. We see him skulking around her apartment whilst she sleeps and even using her tooth brush whilst she's out.

I can't describe how much I loved the fact that this wasn't just a typical suspense thriller, my first reason being what I mentioned already that the fact of who done it? isn't the mystery, the mystery is what will he do next? Even the ending wasn't what I expected so this I loved even more. I'll explain about the ending a bit later. In my opinion, because there isn't a surprise twist to reveal who has been stalking her because that was already revealed very early on, I believe that this film will hold up well to repeat viewings. Some films with a twist at the end aren't as good second time round due to the shock factor no longer being there, although this isn't always the case but sometimes it is. Anyway, because this doesn't have that typical unexpected “oh the butler did it in the library” sort of twist then I believe it will hold up to repeat viewings.

The Resident reminded me quite a lot of Psycho. There are several reasons, firstly the baddie is a landlord whether it be of a block of apartments or of a motel. Secondly, is the way he stalks the female tenant he likes by spying on her through a hole in the wall. And thirdly, he even has a sick relative to look after, although at least in The Resident's case August isn't a skeleton wearing a wig being kept in the fruit cellar.

Later on in the film, Juliet gets an ADT security system set up in her apartment to capture any goings on whist she's out as she is getting suspicious because she is starting to sleep through her alarms all the time and wakes up with an unusual feeling. Up until this point we know Max is a bad person for stalking this poor woman and obsessing over her so much that he drugs her just to look at her whilst she sleeps. But at times we see an emotional side to him when he starts crying over her. He even has this childlike demeanor at one point when he tells her he's confused because she kissed him first. To which she replies that she was experimenting, that's what people do. Then he says that he doesn't do that and leaves. I took this childlike behaviour to be due to him not having much of a social life as he spends his time looking after August. This made me feel at times all most sympathetic for him, he's devoted his life to looking after August and as a result is out of touch with humanity, he doesn't go out unless he has to and his only company is August. But then all sympathy is lost when Juliet checks out some of the recordings captured by the ADT security cameras, she witnesses him raping her during her deep sleep which was caused because he has been drugging her.

WARNING! I AM ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!

I thought the ending was great, as I mentioned earlier I felt it wasn't the stereotypical ending for a film of this kind, so for that it surprised me and left me shocked (in a good way). First of all, there is a point where Max gets Juliet's boyfriend and we don't see what happens to him. I expected for him to turn up at the end all tied up so then there's this happy ending once it's all over. But nope, he's dead. During the 10 minute fight at the end between Juliet and Max she comes across his dead and badly beaten body in a cupboard. Then there's the ending, which for me was very traditional of Hammer films of the past. She has a nail gun shoots it into his chest, then after he jumps up at her she gets him in the head, then there's a shot of him dead followed by a shot of Brooklyn Bridge then the credits. I thought this was brilliant, it was a very Hammer-esque abrupt ending, none of that “One Year Later” malarkey in which we would see her moving into another apartment. So yeah, it's pretty much BANG! DEAD! CREDITS. But that's not all that I felt was traditionally Hammer about it, the film's length is only about 90 minutes which most Hammer films years ago had similar running times. For a typical thriller I would have expected a 2 hour film maybe 1 hour and 45 minutes, but 90 minutes surprised me, again in a good way because it didn't drag it out and the suspense was still great even on a shortish length film. And of course the use of Christopher Lee was very, very Hammer-esque (obviously).

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed The Resident. I thought it was really good, I loved the break aways from traditional suspense thrillers that it made. The film was at times brilliantly creepy and had me on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen next, so credit to director Antti Jokinen. And again credit to Jeffrey Dean Morgan who was brilliant, he was great at the start as this friendly, helpful man, and then flipped this perception on it's head with one 5 minute segment revealing his true identity, obviously Jeffrey Dean Morgan was better after the half hour mark in this role after all he's always better as a baddie. I felt more sympathetic with Max rather than Juliet, the whole stalking shabang aside, her character just wasn't that likeable. She was a bit of a bitch. Then you get August played by Christopher Lee, it seems almost as if they wrote August in after they had finished the script just so they had a role to offer to Christopher Lee. The annoying thing about that is not only does he not get to do much, but whilst filming he tripped over a cable onset and pulled his back. This resulted in him not being well enough to play the main role in The Wicker Tree (a sort of sequel to The Wicker Man), so in doing a minor role for a pretty decent Hammer film (but not really on par with The Wicker Man) he then ended up having to pass on the main role and instead accept a minor role in THE WICKER MAN SEQUEL. For that reason, The Resident has been tainted for me. On a lighter note, I personally prefer Hammer Horrors over Hammer thrillers, but I would happily see Hammer make more thrillers like this one. It's out today 11th March, so go see it.

The Resident 4/5

The Flesh and the Fiends

2011-03-08T21:27:00.008Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Edinburgh 1828. Dr Knox is in need of corpses for his research, luckily for him Irish duo Burke and Hare are able to acquire fresh meat for a more than reasonable price. The more bodies they provide for the good doctor the higher the risk becomes, as they get to a point where they are even having to kill witnesses and folk who suspect them of killing the people they are bringing to Dr Knox. One of the suspicious people is a student of Dr Knox's (Jackson) who falls in love with a pub tart who later becomes one of Burke and Hare's victims that is then presented to Dr Knox. Making Jackson suspicious person #1. But for how much longer can they continue committing these murders before creating too much suspicion?

The Flesh and the Fiends is a 1959 Triad Productions production. It stars Peter Cushing, June Laverick, Donald Pleasence and George Rose. It was directed by John Gilling. In America the film was released under the title of Mania.

At about 10 minutes in we get our first Boobies Flash (I say first because there's more later on at a party in the pub where there's a few topless women about, which was even more surprising as this is what I would have expected from Hammer in the 70s). I imagine for 1959 this must have been pretty strong, but then again it is in black and white. Blood and gore wasn't considered as shocking when it was presented in black and white so maybe it's the same principle. It's hilariously ridiculous though, fair enough she is one of the pub tarts and has been snogging a drunk who has pulled her top down slightly, but she grabs her drink, takes a sip then her top just flops down for a quick flash then she pulls it back up. It's almost as if it's only there to make 1959 audiences shout “Oh my giddy aunt! It's a pair of jubblies!” Hell nevermind the 1959 audiences, it shocked me and almost made me yell out “Oh my giddy aunt!” and I wasn't even born until 3 decades after the film's release (note: in my defence it was purely due to me not expecting to see boobies in a 1959 black and white film.)

Dr Knox gets one of his students, Jackson, to pay the grave robber (not Burke and Hare, this is Dr Knox's grave robber before he hired Burke and Hare) for the body that was brought to him. Whilst in the bar he gets into a pub brawl with a man who has pulled the skirt off Mary, one of the pub tarts. After getting her skirt back for her she offers to buy him a drink, but he declines and leaves. As soon as he leaves the pub he gets mugged by none other than Burke and Hare. He should have stayed in the pub! What's today's lesson? Always accept a drink from a woman. Good advice. Luckily for him she comes out and helps him as he had helped her, this being the beginning of their love and the film's romance plot.

Donald Pleasence's Irish accent continues to amuse me from scene to scene. I don't know what it is, it just sound a bit iffy. That aside Donald Pleasence is great as William Hare. In fact all the scenes with Burke and Hare are good, there's the perfect blend of black comedy and shocking horror. There's one scene where Burke is suffocating an old woman by nipping her nose and covering her mouth, all the while Hare is dancing around them nipping his own nose and covering his own mouth. This I found lightened the mood, we've got the physical horror of a poor defenceless old woman being suffocated with intermittent shots of Donald Pleasence jumping around. In fact this is kept up for the other murders too. Some of them are at times uncomfortable to watch, which is funny because there is no blood what so ever, it's all down to the brilliant acting which creates the shocking horror. The murder sequences are drawn out (as they are usually a suffocation) and allows a lot of time for having the victim wriggle around, screaming and squealing which for me was at times uncomfortable to watch. Each murder has one of them doing the killing whilst the other stands and watches (usually Hare is the one watching) this only adds to the horror, then to lighten the mood there'll be a bit of black comedy afterwards. One example is after they kill Mary, Burke's wife walks in on them and instead of questioning why there's a dead body she questions her husband's faithfulness to which Burke says “Nobody touched her.” and Hare adds “Willy just killed her, that's all.” Instantly creating an uplifting mood after the traumatic scene with Mary screaming and pleading for her life and for him to let her go.

That is nasty, now I know he and Burke killed people, but his comeuppance is after being released from the police station he is confronted by two men who restrain him and burn his eyes out with a torch. Although you just see the torch coming towards the camera then the aftermath of him with burn marks where his eyes where, it's still grizzly.

The film itself, I feel, is made up of 3 stories that intertwine. These stories are:
1.The life of Dr Knox; his striving to better humanity and his constant disagreements with the medical council.
2.Burke and Hare and their search for more corpses to bring to Dr Knox (which for me is the prominent one of the 3 stories, even though the film continues after their story has ended).
3.The love story between Jackson and Mary (which ends just over an hour in).

Although for me Burke and Hare's story is the prominent one, their story ends once they are charged of the murders and receive their comeuppance. Which by this point the 3rd story thread has already ended, in fact that was the first one to end when Jackson went to avenge Mary's murder but got killed by Hare in the process. So this leaves Dr Knox's story which ends with him discovering that in turning a blind eye to Burke and Hare's methods of acquiring his bodies has resulted in him becoming the opposite of what he wanted. Instead of helping mankind with great advances in medicine he has instead become no better than Burke and Hare. He realises this when a child fears him and calls him an ogre. So the ending is the realisation that this seemingly evil man was actually just a poor misguided soul.

“As a child I believed in God and the devil, it took a child to show me what I am now. I have failed. Yes, I have failed.”

The Flesh and the Fiends was pretty good, Peter Cushing's Dr Knox is somewhat similar to his Victor Frankenstein which is always good. Donald Pleasence as I mentioned earlier was great too bringing both shocking horror and black comedy to the role (as well as a dodgy Irish accent). I have to give the film credit for creating shocking horror that caused discomfort without using a single drop of blood, now that's what I call good film making. Bizarre thing is though even with all these really good things the film still didn't seem outstanding to me, from what I've read of other people's reviews for this film they love it and think it's brilliant. But although I liked it I didn't think it was as good as others have stated, now maybe I've missed something I'm not sure, so this is one I'm definitely going to have to give another look. But as it currently stands it's still a pretty good film and worth giving a look, anyone who is a fan of Hammer and the like should also like this. So as for anyone considering watching this, I'd say go ahead and give it a go, after all I'm going to give it a second go.

The Flesh and the Fiends 3/5

Legend of the Werewolf

2011-03-03T13:24:00.005Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

In 19th Century France, a young boy is born in the woods at Midnight on Christmas Eve (which automatically gives him the curse of Lycanthropy). Shortly after his birth his parents are killed by a pack of wolves. The boy is then brought up by the wolves, until one day when a circus comes across him in the woods and decide to use him in their act as “The Wolf Boy”. They then bring him up into adulthood, but he then experiences his first change before the full moon. Whilst he's a werewolf he kills the one man band and flees the circus, where he moves to a city and becomes a zoo keeper. Here he falls in love with a prostitute and driven by his love for her and his anger at her clients his animal instincts kick in and he attacks them. But in the presence of the full moon with his full werewolf ability he goes about killing her clients. All the while Professor Paul who works for the police is on his trail.

Legend of the Werewolf is a 1975 Tyburn Film production. It stars Peter Cushing, Ron Moody and Hugh Griffith. It was directed by Freddie Francis. It is the second adaptation of Guy Endore's novel The Werewolf in Paris. The other adaptation being The Curse of the Werewolf, both Curse and Legend were written by Anthony Hinds under the pseudonym of John Elder.

The first thing that hit me (especially seen as it was within the first few minutes) was the WOLF VISION! It's pretty much the same as any other vision only it's BLOOD RED!

Legend seems faster paced than Curse mainly because we get our first werewolf change and attack at only 15 minutes in. Whereas in Curse we don't even see Oliver Reed until (if I remember rightly) nearly an hour in, let alone him change into the werewolf.

Peter Cushing's Professor Paul delivers the best response to seeing a man who's throat has been bitten by a werewolf. He's in the middle of his supper when another body arrives for him to perform an autopsy on, so bare in mind he is still having his food when he gives the body a look and then in a calm relaxed tone of voice says “Oh dear, that's very nasty.”

What can I say? I found it very difficult to write about Legend of the Werewolf. Nothing really seemed to stand out. Obviously Peter Cushing as ever gave a good performance and provided a huge support for this film, he is essentially the film's lifeline and if he hadn't have been in it I daren't even imagine how boring it would have been. As it is, it's still not that interesting of a film even with Peter Cushing, his scenes are enjoyable to watch but there's just so much of the film that doesn't feature him. Even Roy Castle who adds to the positives only features in TWO scenes. On a lighter note, the overall look and feel was pretty decent, presumably a lot of work had gone into making it look very Hammer-y. The make up for the werewolf was pretty good too, even if it was pretty much the same as how Oliver Reed looked in The Curse of the Werewolf 14 years earlier. It was good that they got right into the action of him becoming the werewolf early on, as it would have been even more dull and boring if they had created a slow build up to it. As I mentioned earlier this was Anthony Hinds' second stab at Guy Endore's novel and he probably should have just had the one go. Hammer's The Curse of the Werewolf is far superior to this, it may well be a bit of a slow burner but the quality is much better. It's just such a better film, it's more enjoyable and more entertaining. Whereas Legend is unfortunately just dull and at times boring. I'd been really looking forward to seeing this for years, as I'm a big fan of werewolf films and seen as there aren't many British horror werewolf films. The only ones I know of are The Curse of the Werewolf, The Beast Must Die and this. So my recommendation; watch the other two.

Legend of the Werewolf 2/5

Horror Express (REVISITED)

2011-02-27T21:00:00.005Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

1906, anthropologist Alexander Saxton has discovered the frozen body of a half-man half-ape creature. He believes it to possibly be the “missing link”, and if so it would be the discovery of the century. So Saxton loads the creature onto the Opulent Trans-Siberian Express in order to get himself and his find from China back to Europe. On board the train is Saxton's rival anthropologist Dr Wells. But both, although they have their differences, soon have to team up as the creature not only comes back to life but it also escapes and is amongst the passengers. But this one isn't going to be easy to find, it can possess anyone making everyone a suspect.

Horror Express is a 1973 Spanish made Benmar Productions and Granada Films production. It stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Telly Savalas. It is directed by Eugenio Martin. The film wasn't successful in Spain, but in the UK and other countries where the Hammer style horror audience was pre-established the film did rather well. When Peter Cushing arrived in Madrid to begin filming he told one of the producers that he couldn't do the film as he was still distraught over his wife's recent death. But Christopher Lee stepped in and put him at ease just by talking to him about their films together and changed Cushing's mind.

Ah I see that makes sense, Saxton's “fossil” (as he calls it) is evil because the Monk wasn't able to draw a white chalk cross onto the white cloth which is covering the crate containing the creature. Wait a minute, no it doesn't! That doesn't prove anything. How did he ever expect white chalk to show on a white cloth. It's a good theory he has that the cross can't be drawn on an evil object but what he should have done is used a black marker then maybe he would have something substantial.

NO! DON'T LOOK AT IT'S EYES! Ah to late. Whoever looks into the creature's red eyes begin to bleed from their eyes, nose and mouth resulting in their death leaving them with plain white eyes and (as Wells discovers after an autopsy) a completely smooth brain, which Wells explains has been erased of it's memories as all the wrinkles on a person's brain are that person's memories. It is later discovered that the creature boils a person's head resulting in the white eyes and at the same time absorbs the person's memories and knowledge.

Poor Dr Wells just can't get any, he either gets cock blocked or just gets mocked. Firstly, he was about to share his cabin with a nice young lady then suddenly Saxton bounded in with his luggage and informed Dr Wells that they're bunk buddies. Secondly, when he's a having dinner with the young lady some stupid twat comes and sits with them whilst they were enjoying a nice romantic meal with just the two of them. Thirdly, Dr Wells leaves his meal in order to perform an autopsy and says to his assistant Miss Jones “I shall require your assistance” to which she replies “Well at your age I'm not surprised” and looks at the young lady at the table. Dr Wells looks to see what she's referring to and in shock informs her “With the autopsy.” Lastly, there is just Dr Wells and the young lady in the cabin, before going to bed she just pops to the bathroom but...OH NO! The creature kills her. Poor Dr Wells, no one will let him get his end away, not even the Neanderthal creature, what a bastard.

If you thought a Neanderthal creature running rampant on a train boiling people's brains and stealing their memories was bad, well as the story develops it turns out that the creature can transfer it's life force from one person to another. Leading to a situation where no one is safe because anyone could be the creature. This situation allows for my favourite line of the film. One of the passengers talking to Dr Wells and Saxton, claims that as the creature could be anyone it could even be one of them two, to which Dr Wells replies “One of us the monster? We're British you know.”

There's some cool science in this, through taking a sample of blood from the creature's eye and looking at it under a microscope Dr Wells and Saxton are able to see what the creature has seen. They see what the creature saw whilst on the train and what the creature saw before it was frozen, which were dinosaurs and even a shot of the Earth which could only have been seen from space. (GASP) IT'S AN ALIEN! Though the Monk has a different theory, he believes it to be “the evil one” who was said to have looked down upon the Earth from the Heavens. So either way it's still bad, they've either got an alien or the devil on their hands. Bugger.

In 1906 mankind was apparently on the verge of being able to journey into outer space, but the creature kills the man with the knowledge to have it for itself. BLOODY ALIENS! Putting humanity SIX DECADES behind. We could have been on Mars by now!

Telly Savalas' Captain Kazan is the coolest motherfucker ever to have lived. The first time we see him he's in bed with a woman which is in a station office. But best of all, when he kicks into action on the train he casually and with ease throws a knife underarm into the creature's back and then whips out a gun and starts shooting it.

The creature explains to Saxton that it doesn't have a physical form, it is an entity that can possess other physical beings and that it is from another galaxy. It and others have been on Earth a very long time shaping humanity. So it was an alien all along.

The passengers manage to get a Morse code message sent out to a station to switch the tracks so that the train will plummet off a cliff. The people at the station don't seem to really question this request they just say maybe its war. Anyhoo, the end carriage containing all of the passengers gets unclipped from the rest of the train just in time. So only the creature goes off the cliff and dies.

I really like Horror Express, it's just really enjoyable. There isn't a dull moment, even with things like the Monks flawed logic it just adds to the entertainment factor. There's horror, there's a bit of violence and (for 1973) gore, humour, action, interesting characters and a great story. It may not be British made but it's made for the Hammer audience and even stars the two most iconic British Hammer stars; Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. So for me this is a must see, it's very good.

Horror Express 5/5

The Asphyx

2011-02-13T19:51:00.006Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

A scientist, Sir Hugo Cunningham, has been investigating what happens at the moment of death. As he has captured on film what he believes to be the soul leaving the body, which appears as a smudge mark on the photos. After creating a device (a light booster) to allow him to see the being more clearly he discovers that it is infact an Asphyx (a Spirit of Death), every person has an Asphyx and it only appears at your moment of death to take your soul. Using his light booster he believes he can capture the Asphyx and transport it via the beam of light into another light booster in the form of a box with a constant beam of blue light to keep the Asphyx imprisoned. If he can successfully capture and imprison a person's Asphyx, then that person's soul can never leave their body and this will allow them to live forever. But to what cost is Sir Hugo willing to go in order to immortalise himself?

The Asphyx is a 1972 Glendale Film Productions prduction. It stars Robert Stephens, Robert Powell and Jane Lapotaire. It was directed by Peter Newbrook. A remake of The Asphyx is currently in the works.

First of all, I'd like to commend whoever designed the Asphyx, as the actual Asphyx itself is of rather eerie design, and accompanied with it's horrifying squeal, it makes for quite a disturbing and terrifying creature.

I love the science to this story, I may not understand all of it, but it's well within reason and belief. With the exception of those “magic” blue crystals which power the blue light in the light boosters, I'm not too certain as to why they can trap the Asphyx. Other than that the science is sound. Essentially, everyone has an Asphyx (their own personal Spirit of Death which takes their soul at their moment of death) and so if you can capture your Asphyx and stop it from taking your soul then your soul in turn can not leave your body and theoretically you can live forever. I think that's a brilliant premise for a story.

Hugo not only uses photographs to capture the soul leaving the body but he also uses moving pictures using a device he has invented to do so. So essentially, he has just invented the world's first camcorder and hasn't gone public with it. Doesn't he realise he could make a lot of money of this invention? Then he'd have even more money to fund his experiments.

That is hilarious! Sir Hugo has enlisted the help of his adopted son (Giles) and now they are conducting the experiment to trap Hugo's Asphyx so that he may live forever. Now in order to do this there are two very important pieces of equipment that have to be turned on; both light boosters. So that should be simple enough to remember. The Asphyx only manifests itself at the moment you are about to die, so Hugo straps himself into an electric chair and Giles is in control of the light booster. Everything is going tickety-boo until Giles has captured the Asphyx in the beam of light from the first light booster then realises he forgot to turn on the other light booster to contain it in and in horror shouts “THE OTHER BOOSTER!”. All the while poor Hugo is still being electrocuted, which is done brilliantly by the way, it's horrible there's even smoke coming off him because he's been a good while getting electrocuted that now he's actually beginning to burn. Don't worry all gets sorted in the end. Hugo's daughter comes down after hearing the screams from her father as he's being electrocuted and the screams from the Asphyx. So Giles gets her to hold the light booster while he turns the other one on.

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!
(note: it's a good ending, and as such I want to discuss the sheer brilliance of it, but obviously if you don't want it spoiling skip the next 2 paragraphs)

Hugo promises to immortalise both Giles and his daughter whom Giles wishes to marry. After being pressured into being made immortal, the experiment goes wrong and Hugo's daughter is killed. This leaves Giles resentful and as such he plots against Hugo. Hugo now no longer wants to be immortal because he no longer has anything to live for, but he doesn't know the combination to the locked door on the room which contains his trapped Asphyx, so now he's unable to release it. Only Giles knows the combination and makes a deal with Hugo so that if he immortalises him he will give him the combination. Giles explains that he wants to be immortalised so that he may actually have a chance to overcome his guilt of his wife-to-be getting killed, as one lifetime wouldn't be enough to do so. Hugo accepts the terms of his agreement. Just before the experiment, Giles gives Hugo a sealed envelope containing the combination. Giles' chosen method of death is to be gassed, but having no intention of being immortalised he changes the blue crystals for white ones, which results in Hugo not being able to capture the Asphyx, believing his equipment to not be working. Then when Hugo isn't looking Giles strikes a match and ignites the gas which is being used to bring him to his moment of death. Giles is killed leaving Hugo believing that he has killed Giles as well as his daughter, so heads down to the room to release his Asphyx so that he may die. But as he gets there he thinks about what Giles said about needing more than one life time to be able to overcome his guilt for what he had done and instead burns the envelope containing the combination. Then we see a very old Hugo in present day 1972, who walks out into the street in between two cars just as they are about to collide, then the screen freeze frames and we hear the cars crash. Now to back track to the beginning of the film which I haven't mentioned yet, it starts out in 1972 with a policeman attending to a crash where we see a man's legs sticking out of the wreckage so the policeman goes to pull him out and states that the man is still alive. Which I think is a great ending, the film actually comes full circle.

Alternatively, the American cut has an extra 10 minutes or so of scenes that were deleted from the UK cut. One such scene I feel is redundant as it shows Giles burning the combination, leaving the audience to believe that he is double crossing Hugo giving him either an empty envelope or (what I was expecting) a letter explaining his double crossing just to piss Hugo off. But no, it ended the same as the UK cut, with him burning it in order to overcome his guilt, so for me the American cut isn't as good because the ending doesn't fully make sense, that scene with Giles burning the combination is irrelevant.

Overall, I thought this was a great film with a brilliant and original story. The acting was really good, except maybe Jane Lapotaire, she seemed a bit over the top at times for me and just not as good as the others, she was a bit of a disappointment compared to the other actors who were good. Robert Stephens was brilliant as the man obsessed with his work, obsessed so much that he wouldn't even let his daughter who didn't want to be immortalised stop his plans of having his family immortalised. Robert Powell was great too, being a fan of him anyway, I just love seeing him in stuff even though whenever he shouts all I can think of is him shouting at Jasper Carrott in The Detectives. So far I've only seen (because I only know of) 2 British horror films starring Robert Powell (Asylum and The Asphyx) and both are great. So hopefully there are more out there, all I can say is “Keep 'em coming”. Back on the topic of The Asphyx, there may be some aspects of the science that I don't fully understand but as I mentioned earlier it's not completely out there and unbelievable, it's fully within the parameters of believable reality and as such makes it even better. I personally feel it is made better for being set in the 1800s, it's just a personal preference that I have for quite a lot of horror films. So I'm really hoping that the remake isn't set in present day which I have a really bad feeling it will be, as most horrors usually are these days. So yes, go see this. Seek it out and watch it, it's very good. But don't get the Anchor Bay release from the early 2000s as the quality is terrible, get the 2 disc release that came out either last year or the year before.

The Asphyx 5/5

Crucible of Terror

2011-02-08T15:39:00.009Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Jack Davies, a London art dealer, is in financial trouble and needs more work from the reclusive artist Victor Clare, whose work Jack has shown at his exhibition is selling very well. So he and his fiancée Millie travel to Victor's remote house where they stay a few days to finalise a deal to sell his art work. Whilst there it's clear to see not all is right in the Victor Clare household. His wife clearly has a mental illness yet all he does is bully and insult her, he himself has an obsession with the capturing the beauty and essence of the female form. Just about the only normal people there are Victor's old friend and his current model, which he is quick to ditch whenever he sets his eyes on a new young woman. On top of that people begin to get killed off by an unseen assailant, these people are then claimed (by Victor) to have driven back to London. But who could this murderer possibly be?

[note: I wasn't able to find the original poster for this anywhere, so I'd really appreciate it if someone happens to come across it and could let me know]

Crucible of Terror is a 1971 Glendale Film Productions production. It stars Mike Raven, James Bolam and Mary Maude. It was directed by Ted Hooker.

WAHEY! The Likely Lad himself (well one of them) James Bolam stars as the art dealer Jack Davies. Obviously this was before he became reknown for Grandpa in My Pocket.

After Jack and Millie arrive at Victor's house they all sit down for dinner. Referring to Marcia; his latest model, Victor says this at the dinner table:
“Look at her, beautiful isn't she? Now look at my wife. She was beautiful once. Weren't you my dear.”
To which she actually replies “Sorry Victor”

WHAT A BASTARD!

Then later in the film, he says this to his wife in a room with other people:
“You're old and ugly. Look at her.”

DOUBLE BASTARD!

Mike Raven is rather good in this, he's great as the obsessive artist and is a complete bastard in it, especially to his wife. He has such an eerie presence, no offence to the guy but he is pretty creepy looking in his films and his creepy acting on top of that really heightens his all round creepiness. He seems to have a sort of screen presence similar to that of Christopher Lee. Which on the topic of Christopher Lee, Mike Raven reminds me quite a bit of him, in the sense of screen presence, acting style and a similar sort of look. Hell, he should have been Christopher Lee's replacement as Dracula in The Legend of The 7 Golden Vampires, he'd have been great!

It's a bit of an odd film this one. There's the whole obsessive (possibly) psychopathic artist story, there's the haunted tin mine story and there's the whole Millie experiencing deja vu and strange visions, especially when she's around ancient objects. Could this be a possible reincarnation plot also being thrown into the mix?

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!
[note: it's actually not a bad ending, the twist was pretty good so if you don't want it spoiling then skip the next paragraph.]

After a nasty piece of art at the start of the film involving a woman being made into a bronze sculpture whilst still alive, the audience is left fairly confident that the killer is obviously the artist Victor Clare. Well you'd be wrong, well no you'd be right about that murder, that one was Victor Clare's doing, but the others weren't. The twist at the end actually got me by surprise, and for that the film improved slightly for me because prior to that it had been a bit dull and boring. Anyway the twist, the statement made earlier in the film about spirits being able to possess the living and make them do stuff for them comes back. As it turns out, the Japanese woman at the start who Victor is seen to have bronzed alive, her spirit has possessed Millie through her kimono which she bought at a market. What are the chances you might ask? Well the guy explaining this to Jack has an answer, the forces of evil are always more powerful than the forces of good. So as soon as Millie wore the Japanese woman's kimono she was able to possess her and go about exacting her revenge. So all the deja vu and visions were infact memories from the Japanese woman. Now I rather liked this ending because I really didn't expect it. I actually narrowed the unseen killer down to being either Victor or Marcia, yes, obvious choices I know, but I also thought that there could be an outside chance of it being Victor's wife. But I didn't ever expect it to turn out to be Millie.

Overall, this is not a great film, I don't even think I'd call it a good film. It's just watchable, the ending certainly knocked it up a notch but that's just for it being a decent twist that I didn't see coming. Mike Raven is probably the best bit about this film, though I wouldn't say it's worth watching just for his performance. He is good don't get me wrong, he is great at doing creepy and in this film him being a creepy artist is good. But the film itself is at times just dull and boring. There's a few nasty murders which is always good in a horror. But aside from that it's just not that good of a film.

Crucible of Terror 2/5

The Man Who Could Cheat Death

2011-01-20T18:14:00.006Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Paris 1890. Dr Bonnet (a scientist and an artist) is celebrating his latest sculpture. Little do people know that he is harbouring a dark secret, a secret that has allowed him to live to the ripe old age of 104, yet he only looks 35. Dr Bonnet has achieved this by replacing his glands every 10 years. But he needs living glands to replace his own with, hence he needs a living person every 10 years. As he has lived for a long time a pattern has began to emerge; every ten years a young woman goes missing who posed for an artist who was also a doctor, each missing person happened in a different place as Dr Bonnet has moved from place to place to keep a low profile. But now a detective is on his trail, and Dr Bonnet is in desperate need of a gland transplant as he's currently only surviving on a serum that keeps him alive for 6 hours per dosage.

The Man Who Could Cheat Death is a 1959 Hammer Production. It stars Anton Diffring, Hazel Court and Christopher Lee. It was directed by Terence Fisher. It's a remake of the 1945 film The Man in Half Moon Street which itself is based on a play of the same name.

Firsty, Anton Diffring is really good in this. Accompanied by his melodramatic acting and upper class German accent, he's great as the mad scientist (and artist) hell bent on living forever. His acting style and accent only help to aid the eeriness of his character. As far as I'm aware he wasn't in any other Hammers, which is a wonder because he's really good and it's just a shame he didn't get to feature in any others. He is in another British horror though, Circus of Horrors, which I'm now interested in seeing just because of him.

All hail the Hazel Court side boob. She's modelling for Dr Bonnet and as this is the early days of Hammer the extremity of nudity we get is a shot of Hazel Court's naked back with the glimpse of a side boob. Oh how this would change in future films, Hammers would come to be known for their violence and nudity.

I don't get why when Dr Bonnet is ageing up and going mouldy, if he touches someone they burn at his touch. Their skin literally scorches at his very touch. We see him do it to two people, now it looks good but I just don't get why it happens. The first time looks the best when he grabs a woman by her arm and puts his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming and it leaves a scorched hand print over her mouth.

The story seems quite similar to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. Both have a protagonist who has achieved a way of never ageing or dying, whether it be through the use of a painting or by simply getting a gland transplant every 10 years.

Now that's an interesting touch. As Dr Bonnet nears the end of his 10 years with one set of glands, he can survive on a serum but needs to take it every 6 hours otherwise he'll die. Now the bit that interested me is that if he doesn't take the serum then he'll begin to receive all 104 years at once as well as all the diseases and illnesses he has avoided over the years by getting his gland transplants. Now I'm guessing that's why when he touches people they burn, although that doesn't properly explain it it's the only explanation we get.

Now I don't get why the woman from the start, the first person we see Dr Bonnet kill, well I figured he'd killed her seen as he scorched her skin and then took her glands for himself, I don't get how she's still alive at the end of the film. Dr Bonnet has her in a cage but now she appears to have gone insane. Unlike the other part I pointed out earlier that confused me, this doesn't receive any form of explanation so it beats me.

This is a poor Hammer film and a big disappointment, I had such high expectations for it because after seeing the poster and the trailer I was left really looking forward to it and as such I expected it to be a pretty decent Hammer film but instead after seeing it I was left simply disappointed. There was stuff happening of course, but for most of the film there didn't seem to be a lot happening. At times (and it saddens me to say this) it was boring. It seemed to lack the entertainment and dynamism of other more well known Hammer films. Now by all means it wasn't terrible but I definitely wouldn't call it good. The ending seemed potentially promising and left me thinking (and hoping) it might pick up a bit, as in the final scenes we see a fire brake out and Dr Bonnet start to go full on mouldy, but even that was short lived. On a lighter note, I really enjoyed Anton Diffring's performance, he's great especially when he goes all wide eyed and stressed out because his serum has run out and he's beginning to age and go green. To sum up, I wouldn't recommend this Hammer film, maybe to an already established fan of Hammer, but to a new comer I can imagine it only putting them off Hammer before they've even tried some of the good ones.

The Man Who Could Cheat Death 2/5

ANNOUNCEMENT - The Double Take Radio Show Download is Now Available

2011-01-17T14:19:00.008Z

Hi But We're British! readers,

If you were unfortunate enough to miss my radio debut on the Saturday 15th January edition of Double Take or would simply like to listen to it again then follow the link below. Which will take you to the Double Take blog, where you can download it as a podcast and listen to it as much as you like. Enjoy!

http://doubletakeontheradio.blog.com/2011/01/17/download-show-7/

Thanks for your time,

Andy

Scars of Dracula

2011-01-11T13:21:00.009Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

A bat drips blood onto the remains of Dracula which resurrects him. As he lie sleeping in his crypt, the local villagers come to burn the castle down. They get past his servant and manage to burn part of the castle but Dracula survives. When the villagers return to the church where their wife's had been hiding they are horrified to discover that Dracula has controlled some bats to kill them all. From now on the villagers live in absolute fear of the Count and isolate themselves from anyone other than the other locals. So when a young man (Paul) comes wanting somewhere to stay the local pub landlord sends him on his way and leaves him with nowhere other than the castle to go to. At the castle he becomes Dracula's prisoner. The young man's brother (Simon) along with his fiancée (Sarah) pass through the local village searching for his Paul. None of them are willing to help except for one young woman who tells them that he went to the castle. After getting in the castle and discovering the truth about the Count they manage to escape, but shortly after and with the help of the local priest they return to battle the Count and save his brother.

Scars of Dracula is a 1970 Hammer Production. It stars Christopher Lee, Patrick Troughton and Dennis Waterman. It was directed by Roy Ward Baker. From what I've read this was planned to be the first of a new series of Dracula films but at the distributor's insistence the resurrection scene was added at the start of the film.

I think by this point we can just accept that Dracula is with us for good, he's never going to die no matter how many times we've actually seen him die. I mean how many times and in how many different ways can he be resurrected after turning to dust? This said I still really enjoy the Dracula films though, even with his constant deaths and resurrections, I enjoy seeing how imaginative each one can be. I have to say the death in this film I did not expect but I'll come to that later.

OH MY GIDDY AUNT! It's Patrick Troughton!

I love Dracula's Bat Alarm clock. Although it's no use as Dracula is obviously a deep sleeper, it flies above him squawking and squawking yet he still sleeps through it. Either he's a deep sleeper or it's one of those crappy alarm clocks, hell I don't want one any more.

Then we see Simon and Sarah at a social gathering to celebrate Sarah's birthday. Hold on, her birthday cake is Christmas cake! There's a huge group of people at this birthday celebration and not one of them could afford to get her some Victoria Sponge? Tight Bastards.

Yey! Dennis Waterman. I wonder if he sang the theme tune.

There is a very Carry On-esque moment. Paul is in bed with a woman, then he suddenly says he has to go, she assumes he is leaving to meet another woman (why he didn't deny it I don't know, afterall he was only going to his brother's fiancée's birthday bash) and she chases him down the stairs wearing nothing except the bed sheet. Then her father walks in, she accuses him of trying to interfere with her to which the father grabs him by the scruff of the neck in a comical fashion shouting things like “You young swine?!”. Just what Dracula needs, y'know the whole raunchy, bawdy comedy and sexual mishaps style comedy. Comedy? But this is Hammer. THIS IS HAMMER!

Dracula brutally stabbing a female vampire was both horrible and funny, horrible because of what it was, but funny ...also because of what it was. Why would he stab her? Why would he stab her with a knife? And how does a knife manage to kill her? She's a vampire! Use a steak! You should know this Dracula, God knows you must have been killed via a steak in at least one of your many deaths.

I have to give credit to the visual effects in this, they're actually rather good. Obviously by today's standards they're not but for 1970 I think they're pretty good. The make up on the victims attacked by the bats looked pretty gristly and good for that reason. The model effects for the castle are rather good too, the castle itself isn't bad but most of all the shots when the camera is looking down the side of the castle and we see right down the edge of a cliff, the effects on that bit alone were surprisingly good.

There is such a bad continuity error that keeps losing more and more continuity every time we see it. Paul got Sarah a picture of herself in a frame as a birthday present, but the glass got cracked at some unseen point when it was in his jacket. The crack is constantly changing direction every time we see it. Originally its a vertical crack, then at one point its a diagonal crack then it's a horizontal crack, and for the whole film it can't decide which way to stay. I just don't get how that could even happen, it's one prop which for the whole film has been cracked, so no change has had to have been made to it yet there's still this constant continuity error, how difficult is it to keep one prop the same for the whole film?

Oh! That is nasty. When Simon finally finds Paul in Dracula's crypt, he is dead and hung up on a hook on the wall which has pierced right through him and is sticking out of his chest. This is horrible but looks really good, so again more credit to the effects team on this one.

Dracula scaling his castle wall is an instant win. Not only for being awesome but for being the first time a film has attempted to capture the famous wall climbing scene from Bram Stoker's original novel.

Sarah is a bit shit, now I understand a bat was flying at her trying to bite the cross from around her neck and yank it away, but come on she just stood there gasping. The bat was struggling anyway to even get a hold of the cross so surely she could have just hit it. COME ON! PUNCH THE BLOODY THING!

I don't really know what to think about Dracula's death. It definitely got me by surprise but is surprise enough to make it a good death. I mean Dracula's had some great deaths over the years; the combination of a candlestick cross and sunlight, landing on a cross. And there's also been the not so great ones; realising he's in a church and falling onto the altar, and falling into water for instance. But this I mainly like purely for it's surprise factor. Simon throws a metal pole into Dracula's chest, the pole is then struck by lightning setting him on fire. Burning him to death as he falls and plunges off the castle. Like I said it's definitely not one I saw coming, and for that I have to give it credit and I suppose it's a decent death, it definitely beats fresh running water.

Overall, I liked it. This film (from what I've read on other sites) seems to get a bad rap but I liked it, aside from the unnecessary Carry On bit it was quite a good Dracula film (now I like my Carry On's but it just didn't seem right having a place in a Hammer Horror). The visuals were pretty good, the story was decent enough and I liked the cast, it was great to see Patrick Troughton and Dennis Waterman in a Hammer, what can I say Hammer they could be so good for you.

Scars of Dracula 3/5

ANNOUNCEMENT - I will be appearing on the radio

2011-01-08T19:20:00.007Z

Hi But We're British! readers,

For all you who are interested, I will be appearing on the local radio show Double Take. I will be on there to discuss "Hammer Horror" in it's generic sense, meaning British horror films of the time that had a similar look and feel to Hammer Productions, these include Amicus, Tigon and the like. I will also be giving an insight into how I got into "Hammer Horror" and I will also be talking about my all time favourite film, and no it's not a British horror. [GASP]

Double Take will be on Saturday 15th January at 1pm on CVFM 104.5FM, but depending on what area you live in though that may vary to 104.4 or 104.6, or alternatively tune in online at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/cvfm-live.

Thanks for your time,

Andy

ANNOUNCEMENT - Films to get a Revisited Review

2011-01-04T18:18:00.009Z

Hi But We're British! readers,

I'm posting this just to let you know that in the near future I will begin re-reviewing my first 13 films (and possibly the 14th but I haven't fully decided on that one yet). I will do these revisited reviews every now and then whilst I'm still doing the new reviews. This is because after these reviews my review style and format changed as you will have noticed, I don't beleive my old style is as good as the current one and it has left these films poorly reviewed. Amongst them are some gems, one of my personal favourites Dracula as it is goes reviewed to a standard that I am not happy with, I beleive it and the others deserve a better review and deserve the current review format. Also the reason I haven't decided yet on the 14th review (The Tomb of Ligeia) is because that was the first review where my format changed and started to become my current one.

The 13 (or 14) films to be Revisited are:

Dracula
The Brides of Dracula
The Curse of Frankenstein
Horror Express
Hands of The Ripper
The Uncanny
The Curse of the Werewolf
Tales from the Crypt
The Mummy
I Don't Want to be Born
From Beyond The Grave
The House That Dripped Blood
The Hound of the Baskervilles
The Tomb of Ligeia

Thanks for your time,

Andy

Count Dracula

2011-01-02T21:38:00.005Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Jonathan Harker is travelling to meet Count Dracula to discuss a property in England. After the discussion he unwittingly becomes Dracula's prisoner. Whilst there he witnesses unholy goings on involving Dracula and three females with sharp teeth. After he manages to escape he awakes to find himself a patient at a psychiatric clinic and under the supervision of Dr Van Helsing and Dr Seward. Later, Jonathan's fiancée's friend Lucy becomes victim to Dracula. After examining the evidence Van Helsing, an expert in vampirism, comes to the conclusion that Count Dracula is a vampire and must be stopped. As Dracula goes about picking off victims and regaining his youth, Van Helsing and his band of heroes are planning their attack to stop Dracula once and for all.

Count Dracula is a 1970 European horror film. It stars Christopher Lee, Klaus Kinski and Maria Rohm. It was directed by Jess Franco. It is an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. Although Christopher Lee stars as Count Dracula this is not a Hammer Production and is not part of the Hammer Dracula film series.

Jonathan Harker climbs into a carriage to take him to Dracula's castle. But wait, that carriage driver's voice sounds suspiciously like Christopher Lee, which can mean only one thing. DRACULA! AHHHHHHHHHHH! Hold on a second, that also means that Dracula is either very tight or he can't afford to hire any staff around his castle, not even the typical hypnotized servant or whatnot. Which means Dracula plays all and every role needed to keep his castle up and running, these include Chef Dracula, Servant Jeeves Dracula, Cleaning Lady Dracula and of course when he gets time Count Dracula.

Now that was rather bloody cool. Mina is following Dracula and before she can catch up to him he turns into a shadow on the wall and fades away. Dracula's abilities seem to be somewhat more supernatural in this adaptation which in my opinion only adds to the fear factor, giving the impression that nothing can stop him, nothing will get in his way (except of course a cross, but shhh).

I love the fact that in this adaptation the aspect of him starting out old and drinking blood to regain his youth is utilised, it gives a great effect to the idea of drinking someone's blood, that you take not only their life but their youth, it's brilliant. And, and, and on top of that...DRACULA'S GOT A MOUSTACHE! Yey!

There is a frequent use of zoom in close ups on characters' faces to the sound of music that connotates a sense of surprise, shock or horror for the character. This to me is very “70's” which I'm not saying is bad, it's just a very “70s” technique which I would commonly associate with Grindehouse films of the time. I actually rather like this camera technique, it does what it's meant to do; express the character's shock, and it's amusing when used quite often as it is in this film. I like to imagine it would start to be used when it's not necessary like for instance Van Helsing pops to a corner shop “I'd like some rice pudding please.” “We're all out of rice pudding I'm afraid.” [zoom in close up on open mouthed horrified Van Helsing].

Poor old Renfield, Dracula doesn't even use him to do anything for him, he just makes his life worse and worse. It all started when Renfield's daughter was killed by a vampire; presumably Dracula, and he was left no longer sane. So Dracula kills Renfield's daughter, causing him to lose his mind and end up in an asylum where he eats insects. Then when Dracula uses his mind control on him, he makes him break open the bars on his window and simply jump out. After that big drop and hitting the ground appearing as if in pain (obviously), the next time we see him he's back in his cell in a neck brace. Poor Renfield.

Now that was creepy, another one of Dracula's many abilities, whilst using his remote control ability over Renfield he is also using some sort of control thing over a collection of stuffed animals making them, or at least making them appear, as if they are returning to life. It's really creepy seeing a stuffed owl shaking and and making noises all the while with red glowing eyes, along with various other animals doing much the same thing.

It's a shame about the ending, such a shame in fact. I was rather enjoying the film up until that point. It was pretty anti-climactic, they just set him on fire. They being Jonathan Harker and Quincey Morris, the only two who went to destroy Dracula. Whatta gang, whatta crusade. Van Helsing didn't even go to fight along side them as he decided to go and have a stroke so he ended up having to stay at home and look after Mina. So that left Harker and Morris as the only two to take on the Prince of Darkness in an epic final battle. Problem with that is it's not an epic final battle, there seems to be an absence of a race against time before the sun sets and Dracula regains his powers. Not only that but when they do open up his coffin there isn't even a struggle Dracula just lays there and gives them a shocked look leaving them enough time to slowly set him a light and throw the coffin off a cliff. Not only was there no epic battle, no fight from Dracula but they didn't even stake him and cut off his head like they did with other vampires, they just set him on fire and chuck him off a cliff, I mean what's that all about?! No stake?! It's a disappointing end to what appeared to be a pretty decent Dracula film. It's not a brilliant Dracula film but it certainly wasn't bad, and like I said earlier I was rather enjoying it then came the ending. The ending just seemed to damage the film for me. By all means it wasn't a terrible ending but it was certainly a disappointing one.

To end on a lighter note, it being a lighter note purely because it's a bad but funny visual effect. The burning Muppet Dracula.

Count Dracula 3/5

The Creeping Flesh

2010-12-28T17:30:00.006Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

In 1893, Professor Emmanuel Hildern has returned from an expedition in New Guinea with a skeleton he believes to be of pure evil pre-dating the existence of man. As he experiments with his belief that evil is a disease that can be cured from the human race creating a Utopia on Earth, he uses blood samples from the skeleton that appears to be more dormant than dead as when it comes into contact with water it begins to regenerate. Using the blood from the skeleton he creates a serum that he believes will vanquish evil from a person, so he tests it on his daughter who he is concerned will end up like her mother; in an asylum, which he blames the mental illness on her having the disease of evil inside her. Now as he struggles to protect his daughter from discovering the truth about her mother spending the remainder of her life in an asylum he also has to stop his half brother from stealing his work, which could end drastically for all of humanity if the skeleton ends up in the wrong hands and is allowed to come into contact with water

The Creeping Flesh is a 1973 Tigon Pictures and World Film Services Production. It stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Lorna Heilbron. It was directed by Freddie Francis.

Right away we're off to a creepy start as the camera creeps around this creepy painting. It eases in and pans across this painting of what appears to be some sort of demon eating something bloody. The creature is surrounded by images of horror including hands with missing fingers and even those missing fingers floating in mid air. It is essentially a rather creepy painting, the perfect introduction for a film called The Creeping Flesh.

AWESOME! Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee play a pair of half brothers; Professor Emmanuel Hildern and Dr James Hildern. And not just that but there is a rivalry between the brothers. They are both competing for the Richter Prize, and coincidentally they are both experimenting in the same field about evil being in the blood and so on.

I love the fact that this isn't one of those typical “It should never have been discovered” kind of monsters. Instead Emmanuel states that it has been discovered 3000 years too early, it was always meant to be discovered but naturally when it would rise to the surface itself at a time when humanity would be much more advanced and capable of handling such an evil being. I also love this idea that it's a being from a war that started before humanity even existed, a war between good and evil. The fact that he has discovered this being that is beyond mere man and he is using it to win the Richter Prize is brilliant.

This film has a great story with several intertwining plot strands happening at once. I counted four plots within the same story.
1.Professor Emmanuel Hildern's experiments into evil and his discovery of the ancient skeleton.
2.Dr James Hildern's experiments into mental conditions which rival Emmanuel's chances for winning the Richter Prize.
3.Emmanuel's daughter, Penelope, who he is striving to protect from the knowledge of her mother being committed to James' asylum. Penelope instead lives in the knowledge that her mother died when she was very young. Emmanuel dare not let his daughter know the truth in case the knowledge makes her go the same way as her mother.
4.The patient who has escaped from James' asylum.

All these plot strands meet each other at various points throughout the film.

Since water is what gives life to the skeleton, then it was inevitable that the skeleton would go without touching water. So when James gets his carriage driver to steal the skeleton he carelessly lets it's hand fall into a tub of water whilst carrying it, which left me shouting “No, not the water! Anything but the water!”

I love the shot from the creature's point of view. This seems to be a recurring shot that Freddie Francis does in his films, he does it in both this and The Skull. Coincidentally both times the being that the point of view is of just so happens to be looming over Peter Cushing. These monsters do seem to have an eye for Peter Cushing.

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!

The ending is great, it all turns out that Emmanuel has been in James' asylum the whole time he was telling this story to the man who visited him in what appeared to be his lab at the start of the film. So we the audience are left thinking was this all just the ramblings of a mad man? James explains to the man that Emmanuel believes a fellow patient to be his daughter pointing at Penelope, the man then informs James that Emmanuel believes that James is his half brother. Then James remarks that Emmanuel has been at his asylum for 3 years, in fact since the week he won the Richter Prize, then we see Emmanuel in his cell and then the camera zooms in on his hand which has a finger missing just as he did at the end of his story when the creature took it.

Overall, I think this is a great British horror. It stars both Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing who are both great in this. I love the various plot strands that cross and intertwine. The film at times is rather creepy, especially scenes that feature the evil being, even more so when it begins coming to life. I just plain and simple enjoyed the story, above all what I liked most was the fact that it was something I haven't seen before. This idea of evil being a disease that can be cured, I'm not sure if this has ever been done in a film before or since The Creeping Flesh, as far as I'm aware it's a new concept, new since 1973 that is. All in all The Creeping Flesh is creepy, scary and intriguing, it's definitely worth seeing.

The Creeping Flesh 4/5

Asylum

2010-12-24T11:45:00.008Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Dr Martin arrives at a secluded asylum for an interview for a job. Once he arrives Dr Rutherford has a unique method of determining whether he is suitable for the job. The previous occupant of the now vacant job position was Dr Starr who has recently become one of the patients. So Dr Martin must listen to four patient's stories and determine which one is Dr Starr, if he is correct he will get the job.

Asylum is a 1972 portmanteau Amicus production. It stars Peter Cushing, Britt Eckland and Herbert Lom. It was directed by Roy Ward Baker.

Right away the first person that graces our screens is ROBERT POWELL! Obviously this is before he became the messiah and then downgraded to the dim witted Detective Briggs.

At various points there is a noticeable use of music that is reminiscent of Hammer's music especially that of what was used in Dracula (1958). Very loud and powerful, bounding music that uneases the viewer. It's used rather effectively as Dr Martin mooches about the asylum looking at eerie drawings on the walls.

The first story is about a man and his lover who plan to kill his wife who studies voodoo, after killing her the the wife and the voodoo have a few tricks up their sleeves.

After hacking her to pieces with an axe and packing her into a freezer he says “Rest in pieces.” HO-HO-HO BU-DUM-TSH.

When all seems well (except the fact he has the hacked up body of his wife in his freezer) he hears a noise then turns to find her head rolling, of it's own accord, towards him. So what does he do? He throws his bottle of whisky at it. Then next thing, the head is gone. So he investigates further. He wonders down into the cellar where the freezer is only to find the freezer door wide open. Now he knows he closed that door and he's just seen the head moving, so logic would tell you to get out of there. If the head is moving then surely other parts could be too. But no he sticks his head in the freezer and gets himself strangled by one of her hands.

What started out as rather surreal and eerie becomes ridiculously funny once the lover turns up and finds her lover's corpse in the freezer. As after that every body part starts to wriggle it's way towards her; legs, arms, the head, even the torso! The torso which has no limbs to move it somehow glides across the floor towards her. It all ends with a hand grabbing at her face and her trying to get it off by hitting it with an axe. Then we return to the asylum where we see that she has scars on her face from the axe.

The second story is about the owner of a tailor shop in desperate need of customers to pay off his bills. Just as luck would have it Mr Smith turns up wanting a suit made for his son from an odd material, which he states must be made precisely to his instructions, which includes only making it between midnight and 6am each day. After making the suit, the tailor discovers that the man's son is dead and that the suit is some form of black magic to resurrect him. After telling him he has no money yet to pay him the tailor refuses to give him the suit, resulting in a brawl with a gun ending with Mr Smith getting shot. The tailor flees the scene and returns to his shop where he tells his wife of what happened and tells her to burn the suit. But instead she places it on the shop mannequin which brings the mannequin to life with the life force of Mr Smith's dead son. Then after the story the tailor proclaims to Dr Martin that the mannequin is still out there killing people.

I have found that Peter Cushing always has this way of playing these small but very poignant roles. As such this is no exception. Playing the grieving father of a dead son who has sold everything he owns in order to buy a book of black magic which details how to produce the suit that will bring his son back to life. He's brilliant, you watch him and you believe his sorrow, you actually feel sorry for him. He may well be meddling with nature but in that moment when he explains everything you want the tailor to just give him the suit.

The third story is about Barbara who is returning home from a period of time in an asylum. She's being looked after by her brother and her nurse. Then after taking some medication, Lucy appears who proceeds to “free her” and in order to do this she kills Barbara's brother and her nurse. Then we return to the Asylum where she proclaims to Dr Martin that it was Lucy who did it. And says she's here in the room with them, pointing at the mirror.

Possibly the best imaginary friend ever (except Drop Dead Fred of course) BRITT ECKLAND!

The whole Lucy being an imaginary friend and being a manifestation of Barbara's personality was clever but still very obvious. I pegged from the start as soon as she took the medication and Lucy appeared. Unless of course the writer was trying to be clever and bluff us only to surprise us with the fact that the bluff was in fact a double bluff all along. Even with the obviousness of the shock ending to that story what is creepy is the shot when Barbara points at the mirror and there we see Lucy as her reflection looking back at her laughing.

The final story is about Dr Byron who has been constructing miniature figures of himself which he believes he can transfer his life force into and control. Without listening to his full story Dr Martin leaves to see Dr Rutherford and tells him how this asylum is a disgrace as the patients aren't even being helped they're just being locked away and left in their own worlds. All the while Dr Byron is transferring his life force into a miniature figure which he makes go downstairs and stab Dr Rutherford in the back of the head. Dr Martin horrified that Dr Byron was telling the truth stamps on the miniature figure revealing that inside it isn't all nuts and bolts but instead blood and guts. Dr Martin then dashes upstairs to Dr Byron's room only to find he too has been crushed. After this he wonders into another room and discovers a dead body here he discovers the true secret of the asylum and his predecessor.

There are a collection of comically silly moments (the little mini tin versions of Dr Byron being able to kill Dr Rutherford even with the immensely slow speed in which it was moving towards him. The torso gliding across the floor towards her husband's lover.) but they're not bad, they're just funny and then we get the brilliant ending which shouldn't be spoilt, you have to see it. It was great, it completely surprised me. The ending itself made me like the film even more than I already did up to that point. With it's running theme of bringing life to inanimate objects; the mini tin men, the shop dummy, hell even the chopped up dead body, Asylum scares, amuses and haunts. One of the most haunting moments for me was the hysterical laugh at the end that sounded like a cross between a laugh and a baby's cry, it was eerie enough when I heard it in the trailer but when you see it in context it's horrifying. Another aspect I really liked about Asylum is that, aside from the last story, you don't actually know which stories, if any, are true or if they are simply the ramblings of the mentally insane. The decision is completely at the viewer's discretion.

Asylum 4/5

And Now The Screaming Starts!

2010-12-12T21:39:00.002Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

England 1795. Catherine has just married Charles Fengriffen and moved into his castle. Unbeknown to her there is a dark secret surrounding the castle and the Fengriffin family, but no one dares to tell her the truth as they fear the ghost with the severed hand will kill them. Terrorized by the ghost she goes in search for answers only to discover the horrifying truth about Charles' grandfather.

And Now The Screaming Starts! is a 1973 Amicus production. It stars Peter Cushing, Herbert Lom and Patrick Magee. It was directed by Roy Ward Baker. It is based on the novel Fengriffen by David Case.

This is from Amicus, the production company most famous for it's portmanteau films, this is one of the company's few full length horror stories. Others include The Skull (1965), I, Monster (1971) and The Beast Must Die (1974).

If you liked the short story in Dr Terror's House of Horrors where a severed hand hunts and attacks Christopher Lee, then this is the film for you.

There's a great jump scare pretty early on in the film, I'm saying nothing more as I don't want to completely spoil it but yeah it caught me off guard. Enjoy.

I love the make up used on the ghost. It's very well done to appear like he has no eyes and a severed hand. Accompanied with a blood dripping stump it looks great and rather scary.

I was disappointed to find that although Peter Cushing is top billed in this film he doesn't actually appear until over half way through. As it is, his presence is great as ever.

There are some brilliant and beautifully creepy shots that feature in this film. This is one of my favourites.

Although And Now The Screaming Starts! is very appropriate for this film as all Catherine does is scream, I still can't help but feel it's a bit of a lazy title, surely Amicus could have come up with something better. But I have to hand it to them with a title like And Now The Screaming Starts! it's pretty hard not to be sold on that alone, and it does exactly what it says on the tin.
Severed Hand “AHHHHHHHHHHHHH”
Ghost “AHHHHHHHHHHHHH”
Smashed Window “AHHHHHHHHHHHHH”
Medicine “AHHHHHHHHHHHHH” (Well for the medicine it was more of a horrified look then a hysterical laugh)

A moment of awesomeness is when the ghost comes to Catherine and tries to open the window, but when she locks it shut. He then smashes it by punching it with his stump. This ghost is awesome!

The big reveal of the family secret is horrible, Charles' grandfather, Henry, rapes Silas' wife on their wedding night and cuts off Silas' hand for fighting back and trying to stop him. So in return Silas puts a curse on the Fengriffen family promising that the next virgin bride to enter the household shall be violated just as Henry had violated his wife. Now this explains why the ghost haunting Catherine has a missing right hand, but it doesn't explain why he has no eyes. But then by the end of the film the woodsman who bares a remarkable resemblance to Silas even down to the birthmark on his face gets shot in the eyes, so his face looks like the ghost but he has both hands. So what confuses me is why the ghost has a severed hand and missing eyes, he has features of both Silas and the woodsman; whom I believe to be Silas' son. But if he isn't his son then somehow without ageing the woodsman is Silas then that wouldn't explain the ghost unless it was a future ghost. So either this film doesn't make a lot of sense or I've missed a very big plot point, I think this is one of those films that requires a second viewing, just in case you've missed an important plot point as I obviously have.

Overall, it's far from being a bad film but it equally doesn't stand out amongst the greats, I'd say it's an average Amicus production and although a decent film with an interesting plot, I still believe it'll be forgettable. The visuals in it were great, the violent bits were just right, again the make up for the ghost of Silas was great and really creepy, and it was at times just beautifully shot. The atmosphere was really good, it was dark and eerie. The ending was good but rather predictable. Even though it had so many good points it was still missing something, and for that it was just an average Amicus horror story.

And Now The Screaming Starts! 3/5

Frankenstein Created Woman

2010-12-03T18:43:00.009Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Baron Frankenstein is now experimenting into the metaphysical aspect of life, specifically the question of one's soul and it's relation to the human body. At the same time a young man (Hans) and a disfigured young woman (Christina) fall in love, all the while she is constantly bullied by three snooty upper class young men. After they get Hans framed for murder and executed, Christina kills herself. Frankenstein then comes into possession of their bodies. He repairs Christina's disfigured body and places Hans' soul into it. With a new, seductive look and the souls of both Hans and Christina they go about avenging each other by killing the three upper class men.

Frankenstein Created Woman is a 1967 Hammer production. It is the sequel to 1964's The Evil of Frankenstein. It stars Peter Cushing, Susan Denberg and Thorley Walters. It was directed by Terence Fisher. It was originally planned to be the sequel to 1958's The Revenge of Frankenstein but eventually went into production in 1966. It is one of Hammer's most critically acclaimed films. It is one of Martin Scorsese's favourite films, he even chose to show it as part of his 1987 National Film Theatre season. He was quoted as saying "If I single this one out it's because here they actually isolate the soul... The implied metaphysics are close to something sublime."

What's different about this one from all the other films in the Frankenstein series is that it's not just about science. It crosses science with religion. Frankenstein is experimenting with the transference of one's soul and it's connection to the physical body.

Another difference from other Frankenstein films is that there are two interweaving stories happening at once. Firstly, that of Baron Frankenstein and his experiments. Secondly, that of the two lovers; Hans and Christina. In fact their story seems to be more important than Frankenstein's. Obviously his is important too as it's his experiments that allow for the revenge plot but it's the story of Christina and Hans that is prominent throughout, Frankenstein's is almost a sub-plot to the love story one. They start off separate with Hans connecting the two, as he works for Frankenstein and is in love with Christina. Then about half way through the stories merge into one when Frankenstein acquires their dead bodies. Although Frankenstein is doing stuff that is key to the plot, it's still almost as if he is a secondary character featuring in a story about Hans and Christina. Which I have to say by no means is a bad thing, it's just different to the usual format and as a change spruces it up a bit and makes for a very interesting new format. This format also allows for character development of Hans and Christina, as they are the two new main characters to the series that can develop, whereas Frankenstein on the other hand doesn't have much where else to develop to as we've seen his character take centre stage for the three films prior to this one. So to have some of the individual film's characters develop is great.

Frankenstein in the court room made me chuckle for two reasons. 1. It's probably the only time he's been in court without being the one on trial. 2. He's a terrible witness, as he's being questioned about the accused (Hans) he is just idly flicking through The Bible and asking if he has to be here because he's a busy man.

When we get the reveal of Christina's new look after Frankenstein's surgery to repair her damaged body, we see that he has completely removed all evidence that she was ever disfigured, he has made her a beautiful, young woman. She doesn't even have her limp any more. What's more is that she now has blonde hair where she was once a brunette. Obviously removing her disfigurements wasn't enough, he had to dye her hair too because dying hair is a very skilled scientific process on par with plastic surgery.

In Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, Frankenstein says “If I succeed this time then every sacrifice will have been worth while.” But he obviously hasn't succeeded, one reason being that he never does, his creations ALWAYS go wrong. Maybe he should go for another occupation, like a hairdresser we've all seen in this how well he dyed Christina's hair. The other reason is just looking at the “monster from hell” he obviously hasn't succeeded in creating the perfect human, his greatest achievements have been in The Revenge of Frankenstein where he created a normal looking bloke and in Frankenstein Created Woman where he made an “ugly” woman beautiful, he removed her disfigurements and her limp creating a “perfect” and beautiful woman. His skills obviously peaked with Christina because after her he just went downhill. In the next film he creates a bald man, and in the final film he creates the “monster from hell”. So look at his creations and you tell me which was the closest to a success. Bare in mind I'm talking physically because they all end up with mental problems, whether it's a damaged brain caused by a bullet or their lover's soul telling them to kill.

Frankenstein Created Woman, 1967

Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, 1974

The one niggle I have with this film is the order in which Christina kills the three upper class men. Generally in revenge plots the avenger takes out the henchmen first and builds up towards a climactic finale with the head of the group. In this she kills the leader (Anton) first. Now the other two aren't henchmen, all three are of the same level, but Anton seems to be their leader. So for him to get killed off first and then the other two afterwards confused me. But it's no biggy, it doesn't spoil the film.

I really like this Hammer film. I agree with critics in that it is one of Hammer's best productions. It's one of my personal favourites along with 1958's Dracula and The Revenge of Frankenstein. I love the changes it made compared to other films in the series, the introduction of a love story that doesn't involve Frankenstein, and the fact that he isn't the main character in this film. I found it to be a very ingenious change to the usual template, and it worked. It gave new life to the Hammer format. Another thing I'll point out is that it didn't seem as violent as I would have expected for a Hammer. You don't even see the detail of Christina killing the three men, it cuts away before hand. We see a couple of decapitated heads, well the same head but at different times. But it has a great story so the lack of the usual amount of violence doesn't effect the quality of the film. On another note, I really liked the blending of science and religion in this film, where in the past they've always been about science, to bring in the aspect of one's soul and link it with science was fantastic. It's a brilliant tale of love and revenge, science and religion with a dash of murder and monsters. I would highly recommend this to anyone who is into Hammer.

Frankenstein Created Woman 5/5

The Oblong Box

2010-11-16T19:37:00.008Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After being disfigured by a voodoo curse whilst in Africa, Edward Markham is locked away from the public in his brother, Julian's mansion. After an attempt to escape goes wrong, Edward accidentally gets buried alive, but fortunately for him some grave robbers dig him up and bring him to Dr Neuhartt who experiments on dead bodies. But Edward is still alive and blackmails the doctor into allowing him to stay at his home while he goes about taking care of business along the way causing havoc for the local people.

The Oblong Box is a 1969 American International Pictures production. It stars Vincent Price, Christopher Lee and Rupert Davies. It was directed by Gordon Hessler. It is credited as being an adaptation of Edgar Allen Poe's story The Oblong Box, when in actuality it only bares the same title.

FOOL! The guy was warned several times not to get too close to Edward. Since his disfigurement he can't control his anger and can lash out. But no the guy still went close enough for Edward to grab him by the throat, luckily for him he's in league with Edward and they are both plotting his escape. So the strangling malarkey was just a threat. The guy's still an idiot though, he knows Edward is troubled and was warned several times to be careful.

After Edward escapes he begins taking care of business, thusly by killing people who have wronged him. Now I presume being stabbed is a nasty experience, but this guy has a great “being stabbed face” and from the look of his face it must have hurt yet not even a whimper of pain left his lips.

Poor Dr Neuhartt, everyone threatens to use the knowledge of his experiments against him. First, Edward blackmailed him into letting him stay at his house otherwise he'd tell the town about his methods of experimenting on stolen corpses. Then there's Sally the maid, who does the same when he tries to discharge her, she says she'd need money and that he best make it worth her while to leave otherwise she'll tell.

This film depicts what must be the secret origins of Sadomasochism, after all it's set in 1865. “You can leave your mask on, I don't mind.” says the prostitute to Edward who is parading around town wearing a red cloth mask.

WHY DOESN'T ANYBODY EVER LEARN?! DON'T FUCK WITH THE GUY WEARING THE CREEPY RED MASK. He'll end up cutting your throat or smashing a vase over your head. So whatever you do, DO NOT REMOVE HIS MASK! He doesn't like it.

Even by these type of films' standards the throat slitting effect is pretty poor. It's obviously getting sprayed from the knife. There's even a point were you can see the “blood” has been smudged on the victim's throat, and ends up just looking like a mucky mark. But the worst one is on Christopher Lee as he is at the time filling the screen so we can clearly see his throat hasn't been slit, it looks more like a nasty knick if anything. It looked best on the prostitute, but even then it didn't look great, I suppose at least when it was on her it didn't look like a smear.

Vincent Prices' Julian Markham is so impatient when knocking on someone's door. “Hello. Anybody there? Hello, Hello.” then just opens the door and walks in anyway. How rude.

The big reveal of Edward's face at the end was so naff. The film was made so cleverly as to not show his face at any point, we only see glimpses whether it be from the back of his head or the top of his head. And the build up was great, it left you imagining horrifying ways in which his face must look, due to people who see his face screaming and falling to the floor because their legs have gone weak from fear. It's even stated at one point that Edward's face is inside out, which added to the horror of how disfigured he must now be. So to see that his face instead looks like he has a slight case of Eczema or some form of rash accompanied by him keeping his eyes closed, was more than slightly disappointing. Infact at the very end after Edward has bitten Julian and it's revealed that he has passed on the disfigurement to him, we see this by the fact that the cheek on one side of his face has began to blister and presumably turn inside out, the effects on this were much better than the BIG ONE we were all looking forward to and also dreading (due to how extreme they made you think his face was going to appear.)

We don't get to see Edward's face before the voodoo curse is put upon him, this, I suspect, is because when audiences see his disfigured face they would then realize “Hey he looks pretty much the same except for the Eczema and the fact he's walking around with his eyes closed.” So for various characters to scream in fear of his so called “inside out face” is just uncalled for. The man has Eczema, so give him some ointment.

The big appeal of this film is that it stars not one but TWO horror legends; Christopher Lee and Vincent Price. The problem with that is they only appear in one scene together, and in that Christopher Lee's Dr Neuhartt is kind of in the middle of dying, so it's not a big exciting scene containing two great horror icons. It's certainly not what you would expect from a film that has acquired these two actors to star in it.

Overall, I'd certainly say that the film is watchable but nothing at all special. The story is decent enough, it keeps you guessing as to what Edward's appearance is going to be like, even if it is a disappointment. Regardless of the disappointment of Edward's face, the build up is great it keeps you pondering for the whole film. I also liked the twist at the end, the reason why the voodoo curse was put upon Edward, what he had done to deserve such a fate. It's just unfortunate that I found the film to be a disappointment. Just don't expect too much from it, infact watch it with no expectations otherwise you'll end up being disappointed with it like I was.

The Oblong Box 2/5

Vampire Circus

2010-11-11T14:25:00.010Z

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

The children of a village have been going missing, the villagers then discover that it's the doing of a vampire called Count Mitterhaus with the help from a wife of one of the villagers who has joined the vampire. The villagers lay siege to the castle and slay the vampire but not after he puts a curse on their village and swears his return. 15 years later, the village is dying of the plague and a circus comes to town, unbeknown to the villagers the circus is a group of vampires who are using the blood of the innocent to reawaken Count Mitterhaus.

Vampire Circus is a 1972 Hammer production. It stars Adrienne Corri, Thorley Walters and Anthony Higgins (as Anthony Corlan). It was directed by Robert Young.

The battle at the start of the film is pretty good, especially by Hammer's standards. The vampire Count Matterhaus takes on a group of villagers one after the other, biting their throats, cutting their throats with a knife and so on. It also has to be said that Robert Tayman is great as Count Matterhaus, he is at times very creepy looking and makes you feel quite uneasy. It's just such a shame that he only appears at the beginning and the end of the film.

I could swear that guy just staked him in the crotch.

He DID! He DID stake him in the CROTCH! I realise it didn't hurt him because it wasn't a stake to the heart, but you'd think surely even a vampire would react to getting a stake to the goolies. But no, not him, he's a bad ass vampire with balls of steel!

Now I know it's a circus but the film is set in a time when people would yell “WITCHCRAFT!” if someone was good at holding their breath under water. So for them to think nothing of a panther transforming into a man or a pair of bats transforming into a twin brother and sister is more than a bit odd. Surely this would be a call for “WITCHCRAFT!” They should at least be suspicious, especially seen as 15 years earlier they fought a vampire, and vampires are commonly associated with bats and that of the ability to transform between human and bat.

The graphic violence seems that bit more graphic than usual for Hammer, notably when we see the remains of 3 people after they were slaughtered by the panther. Another strong moment was when we see a female victim with blood oozing out of her throat after being bitten by one of the vampires.

I think this is the only other thing I've ever seen Lalla Ward in other than Doctor Who, and it's quite a change from the family friendly Romana she would go on to play several years after the role of a seductive, kidnapping vampire in this.

It's evident that this was one of Hammer's experimental films, made when they started experimenting with their greatest asset; period vampire tales. Around this time they continued to make vampire tales but changed them slightly to give them a fresh new angle, to try and branch out and keep with the times, because in the 1970s audiences were growing away from typical period horror films. Other experimental films Hammer made around this time were Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter which tells the tale of Captain Kronos who was once a vampire but cured himself of it and now hunts vampires, it was a sort of Gothic style Blade. There was also Dracula AD 1972 which does exactly as it says in the title, takes Dracula and plonks him in 1972. After that there was The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, which crossed Gothic vampires with Kung Fu. HAI YAH!

Awesome Moment Number 1: Lalla Ward's character getting staked by a giant falling cross. Which not only kills her but also her twin brother because they're twins they are for some reason connected so they feel each other's pain. She gets staked and he gets a huge puncture hole in his chest, killing them both.

Awesome Moment Number 2: Count Matterhaus getting decapitated by the wire of a crossbow. He gets his head put through a crossbow then the guy holding it fires causing the wire to go straight through Count Matterhaus' throat, taking his head clean off.

Overall, I rather liked it. It was different to other Hammer vampire tales, the violence seemed to step up quite a bit compared to usual. The story was fresh and original and succeeded in what Hammer had intended; a fresh new take on classic vampire tales. I would definitely recommend this to fans of Hammer and other classic British horror films.

Vampire Circus 4/5

Vault of Horror

2010-10-31T17:45:00.007Z

HALLOWEEN SPECIAL!

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Five man enter a lift which takes them to the secret basement vault of an office building. Unable to return to a higher level, they sit at the table and begin exchanging stories of their dreams that all end in their demise. The dreams range from vampires and voodoo to good old fashioned insurance scams.

Vault of Horror is a 1973 Amicus production. It is an anthology/portmanteau story made up of five short stories accompanied by an additional framing story that begins and ends the film. It stars Dawn Addams, Tom Baker and Michael Craig. It was directed by Roy Ward Baker. It is the sequel to 1972's Tales from the Crypt, and is also based on the Vault of Horror and Tales from the Crypt comics that inspired the Tales from the Crypt film.

To begin, this is one of my favourites, if not my favourite portmanteau Amicus Production. This and Dr Terror's House of Horrors I'd say are my top favourites.

The first story is about a man who kills his sister in order to claim the full inheritance from his deceased father. Little does he know that the town is over run by vampires, he soon finds out when he dines at the local vampire restaurant and is asked how he would like his blood clots, roasted? etc. The vampires realise he isn't one of them and then they string him up from the ceiling and stick a tap in his throat, allowing them and his vampire sister to have his blood on tap.

The second story is about an obsessive compulsive who makes his wife's life a living hell with his constant idea of “everything in it's place and a place for everything” he explains this to her by showing her his workshop where every single item has a designated position (Useful tip: DON'T MESS WITH HIS WORKSHOP HE WON'T LIKE IT). He even has a chart in his kitchen cupboard so he knows exactly how much of each item of food he has. She tries her best but by the end of the story her clumsiness takes over as she causes havoc to his orderly household through a calamity of slapstick events that unfold like tumbling dominoes. From a simple cup mark on the table she ends up spilling polish on the carpet, knocking a picture off the wall which rips the nail out of the wall. Then in order to fix the picture she heads down to his workshop and empties all his jars of various nails. [NOTE: THIS IS DEFINATELY A BAD IDEA, YOU KNOW HOW MUCH HE LIKES HIS ORDERED NAILS!] It's almost cringe worthy how clumsy she is and how much damage she is causing, especially when she messes about with his work shop because we all know how much he loves the order of his workshop items, and she messes it all up and breaks so much stuff. Then he arrives to see what has happened, tells her off but she snaps and wallops a hammer smack into the top of his head. Then we see that she has tidied the house and sorted everything into it's designated place. She has even sorted him into various jars; Eyes, Liver, Odds and Ends and so on. She's even picked up his motto “Everything in it's place and a place for everything” then laughs maniacally.

The third story is about a couple who travel to the East and try to steal the Eastern people's “magic tricks” for their own magic show. When they are refused a price for the secrets to their magic acts they turn to committing murder to obtain the flute that can make a rope stand erect from a basket high enough to be climbed. The robe then kills the couple and we see the woman who the couple killed is no longer dead but has somehow come back to life and is still continuing her magic flute and rope act.

The fourth story is about a man who has faked his own death in order to claim his life insurance, he's even took it as far as to be buried alive. The plan being for his friend to dig him up after the funeral. He also plans to kill his friend after he has collected the money for him. But his friend has other plans, he decides to leave him buried alive and collect the life insurance for himself. As the story unfolds his friend dies in a car crash and the graveyard caretaker kills the man in the coffin as a natural instinct to seeing a dead man jump out of a coffin at him.

During the fourth story we get a not so subtle reference to the previous film Tales from the Crypt, we see the man reading the novelization of the film, to which the camera zooms in on the book. They could have at least tried to make it subtle, I like the reference but I don't think it needed a close up of the book to reinforce that.

The fifth story is about an artist who after being cheated and robbed for his paintings learns how to perform voodoo through his artwork. His reason “to get revenge on those who wronged me”. He creates a painting of each of the men that wronged him then damages them in ways he deems appropriate for each individual, the loss of sight for the man who is an art critic, the loss of hands to the man who handles art work and for the man who oversaw it all, he is made to shoot himself in the head. But the artist also has a self portrait which before he can return to it in time a workman accidentally spills turpentine all over it resulting in the artist getting ran over, leaving his face resembling his now ruined painting.

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!

The end, after they have all told their tales the lift doors open revealing a graveyard to which they all walk off into and each disappear one by one. The last of the men explains to the audience that every night they must come together and tell of the evil things they did when they were alive, that they must do this every night for all eternity. This I think is brilliant, its so dark and horrific, the idea of every single night having to tell of the evil things you have done for all eternity. This is a brilliantly horrifying concept.

In true Amicus tradition it's a horror with a dash of comedy. It contains both intentional and unintentional comedy. The unintentional tends to come from the actors' hammy acting (as usual), but we love it!

The best stories are the second and the fifth, the second one is more funny than horrifying but the fifth one which is the best of the lot is rather horrifying the idea of an artist taking revenge through the use of voodoo art, its brilliant and creepy at the same time. Plus Tom “The Doctor” Baker is the artist, I can't think of anyone else who would have been better than him, he isn't as eccentric as in Doctor Who but he's still good. The third story kind of bores me, it's definitely the weakest of the five, the fourth one is pretty decent with it's extravagant life insurance scam, the first one is ok, but nothing special, but the ending is good so that makes up for the rest of it. The idea of vampires sticking a tap into a man's throat so his blood is on tap is brilliant. I think I may have found the tap thing a lot funnier than I probably should have done, especially seen as I didn't find it scary just funny. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone interested in Amicus productions.

Vault of Horror 4/5

The Devil Rides Out

2010-10-22T22:07:00.008+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Set in the 1930s in the South of England, Duc de Richleau and Rex investigate the goings on of a friend, Simon, who has become involved with the Occult. The Occult headed by Mocata plan to baptise Simon and Tanith, another young member, in the name of the devil. The Duc and Rex manage to rescue the two young members, but Mocata is determined to get them back, so now The Duc and Rex along with the help of a few others must help Simon and Tanith from falling into the clutches of Mocata once again.

The Devil Rides Out is a 1968 Hammer production. It stars Christopher Lee, Charles Gray, Nike Arrighi and Patrick Mower. It was directed by Terence Fisher. The film is based on the 1934 novel, The Devil Rides Out, by Dennis Wheatley. The film was first proposed in 1963 but due to censorship on the subject of Satanism it took 4 years for the censorship to ease allowing the film to go into production in 1967. In the US the film was released as The Devil's Bride.

Right, where to begin? Well for starters, we've got Charles Gray as the baddie Mocata, you may remember him more famously for one of the several portrayals of Blofeld in the James Bond films, or as the guy giving you the step by step low down on just how to actually do the time warp. “It's a jump to the left.”

As the Duc de Richleau, we've got Hammer legend Christopher Lee, who is rather brilliant. Apparently on many an occasion, Christopher Lee has stated that of all his films this is his favourite, and is the one he would most like to see remade with new special effects and that he would like to reprise the role of a mature Duc de Richleau.

Then there's our victim; Simon. Patrick Mower in another role where he is caught up in other people's evil doings. If it's not being under the spell of a vampire (Bloodsuckers), then it's meddling with black magic and the Occult. He just doesn't learn.

Leon Greene's Rex van Ryn is brilliant. There's a scene where he's in a car chase, Mocata frosts up his car windscreen and unlike any normal person who would at least have a second of panic or rationally stop the car or try to look around the windscreen, his initial reaction, his split second decision as soon as the windscreen frosts up is PUNCH IT! And amazingly he is the only person who can punch their entire fist right the way through a glass windscreen and not cut their hand.

During the ritual where Mocata is about to baptise Simon and Tanith, just before The Duc and Rex rescue them, we see the devil himself in the form of the Goat of Mendes. Now what this film taught me is that you can make the devil explode by throwing a cross at him as (my favourite character) Rex shows us.

So remember kids. If you're confronted by the devil in Goat of Mendes form. Throw a cross at him, he'll explode.

There is a great scene in the last half hour of the film where The Duc and three other people are in a room and standing within a chalk circle, the circle being the only protection they have against the black magic attacks Mocata is sending their way. They have to fight off a night full of black magic attacks, well when I say “night full of black magic attacks” you'd expect a lot. Well there's two big ones and a couple of minor ones if you count them as attacks; the candle lights were dimmed and the fresh water was made to taste bad. Them aside we're left with the two decent attacks, firstly there's a giant tarantula. Sorry I'll rephrase, GIANT TARANTULLA! Then after the GIANT TARANTULLA! is defeated by throwing a jug of water on it, the next attack is from the Angel of Death, who rides into the room on horseback and whips his helmet off to show us his bare skull. He is then defeated by The Duc who chants some form of incantation to vanquish him.

Overall, I rather liked The Devil Rides Out. The cast was great, the story was good. Terence Fisher's directing was (as always) spot on. It's one of those Hammer Horrors that is up there with the greats, it's not brilliant but it's definitely worth a watch and I would recommend it any day, unless of course you really don't like the devil...or goats.

The Devil Rides Out 4/5

Incense for the Damned (aka Bloodsuckers)

2010-10-08T12:53:00.006+01:00

A group of people travel to Greece to search for a missing Oxford student; Richard Fountain. They discover that wherever Richard has been there has been an unsolved murder. They dismiss the idea that these crimes are Richard's doing and press on with their search, when they find Richard they discover he is under the spell of a vampire. Believing they have killed the vampire, they return to England with Richard. Unbeknown to them the curse has returned with them, and Richard becomes under the vampire's spell once again.

Incense for the Damned (also known as Bloodsuckers) is a 1972 Titan International Productions and Lucinda Films production. It stars Patrick Macnee, Peter Cushing and Patrick Mower. It was directed by Robert Hartford-Davis. This film is based on the novel Doctors Wear Scarlet by Simon Raven.

I've heard a couple of things about this film, the first thing being that the film's budget ran out part way through production so a number of scenes weren't filmed and the film was pieced together with what they had filmed so far. To help with any inconsistencies they added a narrator over the top to fill in the gaps. The second thing I heard about this film is that when it has appeared on television it has been the full uncut version, whereas the versions that were released in the cinema, and then on home video and DVD were various cut versions. In fact, on the DVD one of the cut scenes is used as an extra feature appearing as a deleted scene, why it wasn't just left in the film I don't know. It's annoying because it's the scene likely to have been controversial as it features sex, nudity and blood, exactly what these films were famous for; extremity and causing controversy, constantly pushing the boundaries, and they cut it out.

The synopsis to this film sounds rather good, but the final piece is disappointing, even more so when you look at the cast. Although Peter Cushing is credited in the top 3, he appears as a still image at the start and appears properly in the latter half. Then we have the Avenger himself, Patrick Macnee, but he gets dropped half way through the film, literally dropped off a cliff. There's even Edward Woodward who appears for one scene just randomly in the middle of the film. And then we have Patrick Mower again another good actor, at least he lasts the film's duration. Even with all these great actors the film fails, these actors aren't given the opportunity to be as great as they are in anything else they are in.

Some of the action sequences did have their moments, funny moments. Best of all being Patrick Macnee hitting a guy's head between 2 gates. Even then it was just slapstick violence, very much like the sitcom Bottom, when they hit each other in the head with the fridge door, which I don't think was the intended approach for this horror.

Now I know they hadn't killed the vampire as she was still able to have her influence over Richard later in the film, but to think she had been killed by being pushed off a small flight of stairs is ridiculous. An ordinary human could survive that fall, so for a vampire to be killed by it is a bit naff, presumably the reason she survived is because they didn't stake her, but still for a fall to even injure her is pretty poor story telling. SHE'S A VAMPIRE FOR GOD'S SAKE!

Overall, this film is a big disappointment, although it has its moments of action that amused me, I still found it dull and boring for most of the film. The great actors aren't used effectively or to their potential. As I mentioned earlier about the missing scenes, this makes the story a bit confusing at times and again rather poor. It's just very poor and not what you would expect as the final piece when you've read the synopsis. The synopsis leaves you with high hopes and intrigue, but the film let's itself down and spoils a potentially great story.

Incense for the Damned 1/5

The Two Faces of Dr Jekyll

2010-10-02T22:02:00.005+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

London, 1874. On the belief that within every person there is two personalities, one who they are, the other who they could be without moral restrictions, Dr Henry Jekyll studies endlessly on the human mind and creates a serum that will unleash the other personality and create a person free of life's moral restrictions. He tests the serum on himself and becomes Edward Hyde, as Hyde he discovers that his wife Kitty is having an affair with his friend Paul Allen. Paul Allen, whom always uses Dr Jekyll for his money, in order to pay off his own debts. Jekyll begins questioning just who he is when Hyde and Allen become friends and begin exploring London's seediest nightspots. Jekyll decides to close the door on Hyde and destroys his work, but Hyde still manages to resurface regardless of the serum. Now Jekyll must do battle within himself, two personalities fighting for control, the two faces of Dr Jekyll at war within the same mind and body.

The Two Faces of Dr Jekyll is a 1960 Hammer production. It stars Paul Massie, Dawn Addams and Christopher Lee. It was directed by Terence Fisher. In America the film was released under two different titles; Jekyll's Inferno and House of Fright. It was based on Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

This is quite a dark depiction of Mr Hyde, especially so for a 1960 film, its rather clear that Hyde has raped Kitty, obviously we don't see it but what we do see is him forcing himself on her and the aftermath where he has already left but she awakes with scratches and cuts on her. On top of this we see him strangling a woman who we later see with strong red marks on her throat to show how forcefully he was strangling her. This I thought was quite a daring move on Hammer's part, again evidence towards the aspect of hammer constantly pushing the boundaries.

On a lighter note, there were a lot of funny faces pulled by Mr Hyde in this film, so I think The Many Faces of Mr Hyde would equally work as an appropriate alternate title.

WARNING! I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS THE ENDING! WARNING!

As the poster puts it “A shock ending that you dare not reveal!” well, I dare reveal this “shocking” ending. The ending seems somewhat rather promising for a while, Mr Hyde kills three people and frames Jekyll for the murders, putting Jekyll in a situation where he must give up to his Hyde persona and allow him full control. To which Hyde then destroys Jekyll's research and sets up the scene of the crime to look like Jekyll killed himself. Allowing Hyde to escape and live a new life free of Jekyll. This I thought was brilliant. Next, we see Hyde and a group of others at a hearing about Jekyll's crimes. As they leave Hyde walks alongside Jekyll's old friend, a fellow scientist we see at the start of the film, Hyde then grabs hold of the man and says “Help me” in Jekyll's voice. Now, that for me would have been prefect, what should have followed should have been Hyde shrugging off Jekyll and walking out the building presumably to live a life of his own. Instead, Jekyll begins to fight Hyde once more, then he transforms back into Jekyll who says that he has destroyed Hyde, to which the other scientist says that he has also destroyed himself. Which I quite like the aspect of saying that he has destroyed himself, not physically but mentally, as Jekyll a mild mannered, dull reclusive has now become a murderer and a rapist, and will now most likely be executed for his other persona's crimes. I suppose its a decent ending but I wouldn't call it so “shocking that you dare not reveal!” I think a more shocking ending would have been everything up until the point where Hyde speaks with Jekyll's voice saying “Help me.” so that we know Jekyll is still alive in there. Then have him shrug it off and leave to live a notorious life all the while with Jekyll having to bare witness to all the horrors Hyde inflicts on people. That for me would have been a more shocking ending and a much more horrifying prospect to happen to Jekyll.

This is a decent Hammer film, I personally think Terence Fisher has directed better Hammer films but this isn't at all a bad film. What I do like about this Jekyll and Hyde adaptation is that it's different to other adaptations, its still the same story but certain aspects are changed, and more crucially its one of few adaptations that doesn't have Jekyll/Hyde die at the end. It's also unique for making Jekyll a dull and bland character in contrast to Hyde who is portrayed more exciting and suave. The reason for this was to reflect Terence Fisher's belief in what critics have called “the charm of evil”. I really liked the dark yet charming depiction of Mr Hyde, it worked very effectively, and I think made the character that bit more terrifying than having him just simply being a bad man all the time, in this he comes across as a gentleman, which allows him to gain people's trust but even Mr Hyde is two faced. This is definitely one for any Jekyll and Hyde fan, I wouldn't say this is the best Jekyll and Hyde adaptation but it is good, and made better for tweaking certain aspects and bringing a fresh new angle to the classic tale.

The Two Faces of Dr Jekyll 3/5

The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb

2010-09-22T23:50:00.006+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

After the discovery of the tomb of Ra-Antef. Three men, against all warnings and threats, arrange to have the mummified remains exported to England to start a European tour with the mummy. The mummy then comes to life and begins killing various members of the expedition, but one of the members has a secret that involves the mummy's past.

The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is a 1964 Hammer production. It stars Terence Morgan, Ronald Howard and Fred Clark. It was directed by Michael Carreras.

George Pastell who was in 1959's The Mummy as Mehemet Bey returns in this as Hashmi Bey. As far as I'm aware this isn't a sequel to the 1959 film, so why he's dressed exactly the same in both films and has the same surname bewilders me, though he does have a different first name which confuses matters more. Now we know he's not the same character, yet he has clearly been made to look exactly the same as in The Mummy. This film is even set 5 years after the previous film, so he could easily have been made to be the same character. I really doubt that Hashmi is Mehemet's twin brother, because if he is and they dress exactly the same like their mother would have dressed them when they were babies, then that's just silly. I mean if he were his twin, and they continued doing this for a series of Mummy films, then we would end up with a Mummy franchise just like the American Pie Presents franchise. We'd be introduced to Mehemet's twin, younger brother, cousin and so on. I know Hammer reused their regular actors, but to have the same guy playing two different roles where he dresses and looks exactly the same and even has the same surname is pretty daft. This film could have been made as a sequel to The Mummy just by using the same Mr Bey in both films, but no he's a different character...though he also isn't.

Mehemet Bey, The Mummy, 1959

Hashmi Bey, The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, 1964

I rather liked that the mummy wasn't just your everyday killer mummy, instead by the end of the film we see that he still retains his human side, when he saves a woman from being killed and then ultimately he kills himself to end his curse.

Overall, I think it was a bit slow in the first half, still good mind just a bit slow, whereas the second half was better. The film picked up once the mummy turned up, shame it took him a while to turn up in his own film. There was some good old fashioned Hammer violence intermittently from start to finish, there were a lot of hands getting chopped off which is always good in a Hammer Horror. I also liked that the mummy wasn't your typical mummy as I mentioned earlier. I enjoyed the mummy being different to what I expected. This film didn't feature any of the Hammer regulars, except George Pastell, but even he can't be classed as a hammer regular as he's only been in a few Hammer films, he's not exactly Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee. Due to it not featuring any well known Hammer regulars I figured this wouldn't be very good, as I've found the better ones tend to be saved for the Hammer regulars. But this film surprised me, I rather enjoyed it, it wasn't brilliant but it equally wasn't bad. It's a decent Hammer Horror, especially so for a Hammer featuring non-regulars.

The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb 3/5

The Evil of Frankenstein

2010-09-14T13:32:00.004+01:00

After being chased out of town for yet again more experiments, Frankenstein returns to his home of Karlstad, where he and his young assistant, Hans, take shelter in Frankenstein's old abandoned manor house. Here he defrosts the frozen body of his first creature, the one from The Curse of Frankenstein, and begins reviving it. Physical reviving is unsuccessful, so he uses the aid of Zoltan, a hypnotist, to revive the creature's mind through hypnosis. The creature is successfully revived but only obeys Zoltan, and as such he uses the creature for his own personal gain. First, he makes the creature go to the village and steal gold from the church, then he starts making the creature “punish” certain residents of the town. But when the creature returns with blood stained fists, Zoltan is horrified that the creature has killed. When Frankenstein throws Zoltan out of his home for what he has made the creature do, Zoltan then commands the creature to kill Frankenstein.

The Evil of Frankenstein is a 1963 Hammer production. It is the sequel to 1958's The Revenge of Frankenstein and is Hammer's 3rd film in the Frankenstein series. It stars Peter Cushing, Peter Woodthorpe and Duncan Lamont. It was directed by Freddie Francis.

This film picks up presumably a while after the ending of The Revenge of Frankenstein, as he was no longer in London but some place else, so I'm led to presume he's been chased from place to place a couple of times in the 5 years between the release of the 2 films. Which I have to say is disappointing, as I really would have liked to have seen more of Dr Frank with his Moustache and monocle as seen at the end of The Revenge of Frankenstein.

The amount of violence was disappointing, the best the creature could do was thump a man against a wall. Come on! I could do that! He didn't even thump him hard enough to damage the wall.

This film completely rewrites The Curse of Frankenstein for the flashback sequences, much like how Evil Dead 2 did with the flashback sequence of The Evil Dead. Its all newly shot footage and is just generally different to the original. A few of the changes are as follows. The creature now resembles that of Boris Karloff in the 1930s Frankenstein films as opposed to Christopher Lee in the actual film its meant to be a flashback of. The creature is seen to have fell into a glacier and was frozen, whereas in The Curse of Frankenstein the creature fell into a bath of acid and was dissolved. Then Frankenstein states that he was then ordered to leave town and never return, when in actuality he was sentenced to death, but escaped the guillotine in The Revenge of Frankenstein. For these reasons and more, lots of fans regard this film to be non-canon, like The Horror of Frankenstein which was a remake of The Curse of Frankenstein.

On a lighter note. It has to be said, I for one, did not expect to see Batman and Robin in this film.

I'd say this is an average Frankenstein film, a bit of a disappointment but all the same pretty average, it's neither bad nor great, just ok. So far it's definitely the worst Frankenstein film I've reviewed. I'd say it's easily miss-able but of course if you fancy watching it then by all means do, just don't expect it to be as good as the previous 2 films.

The Evil of Frankenstein 3/5

Taste the Blood of Dracula

2010-09-08T18:50:00.004+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

Weller, an English Businessman, travelling through Eastern-Europe witnesses the events from the end of Dracula Has Risen From the Grave. The man collects Dracula's blood which has become a power substance, along with his cape and his ring. Some time later, three gentlemen go to a brothel, there they encounter Lord Courtley who takes them to buy Dracula's blood from Weller in order to perform a ceremony. Courtley fills four goblets with the blood of Dracula, one for each of the men including himself. The three men refuse to drink the blood, so with Courtley being the only one willing to finish the ceremony he is left to drink the blood alone. After drinking from the goblet, he falls to the ground screaming in pain begging for the three men to help him. But instead they beat him to death and flee the scene, returning to their everyday lives. The dead body of Lord Courtley then transforms into Dracula, here he vows to avenge his servant's death by killing those who killed Courtley.

Taste the Blood of Dracula is a 1970 Hammer production. It is the sequel to 1968's Dracula Has Risen From The Grave. It stars Christopher Lee, Linda Hayden and Anthony Corlan. It was directed by Peter Sasdy.

I really like the way that this film actually picks up exactly where the previous one left off, in fact it picks up before the point on which the other one ended, but the story ties in with the previous film's ending. This I feel was a really interesting story telling method which makes Dracula Has Risen From The Grave and Taste the Blood of Dracula an almost 2 part story. Which I like just because it was a different approach from Hammer.

Due to Christopher Lee's increasing reluctance to reprise the role of Dracula, the film was originally written without him and instead written to have Lord Courtley become the new vampire of the Dracula series, he was intended to become a vampire after his death at the hands of the three gentlemen and then exact his revenge upon them. But Hammer's American distributor refused to release the film without Dracula in it, so Hammer had to convince Lee to return. I personally think it would have been a bit naff to continue the series without Dracula, it then would have became a non-Dracula franchise claiming to be a Dracula franchise, but I do think they could have got away with it for this one. Afterall the title is Taste the Blood of Dracula, which Lord Courtley does do in the film, so I think the film could have worked as a Dracula-lite film, much like 1960's The Brides of Dracula. That way Hammer could then have picked up once again with Lee as Dracula for the next one. This would have not only given Christopher Lee a break from the role but also audiences a break from the character, leaving them anticipating his return.

Vincent Price was originally cast to play one of the three gentlemen, but when the film's budget got cut they could no longer afford him. Which is a shame really, it would have been nice to have seen Vincent Price alongside Christopher Lee in a Dracula film, all that would have been missing then would have been Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, and then there ladies and gentlemen we would have the perfect Hammer Horror.

Notably, there was some interesting camera work and visuals, I liked the use of the camera zooming in on Lord Courtley's face in rhythm to the throbbing of a heartbeat. There was also the rotating camera, showing Dracula's point of view looking down from the top of the window inside the church, which gives us the same dizzy, vertigo sensation that Dracula presumably is going through. I also really liked the use of a cross that has a blinding light on the side facing Dracula, I just thought it was really cool.

It was nice to see Ralph Bates in the film, true he didn't have a big role but it was vital to the story, after all Lord Courtley is the one that resurrects Dracula. Just would have been nice to have had him in it a bit longer than he was, it's always a treat to see a Hammer with Ralph Bates in. It's a shame he wasn't in many. But the ones he is in are rather good.

Just like the previous Dracula film, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, the certificate this film received at the time bewilders me, in America it got a GP rating, which is the equivalent to nowadays PG rating, even though the film contains nudity and violence. Yet when the film got released in America on DVD it got an R rating. What can I say it was a different time.

There are some good deaths, these include one of the three gentlemen getting a spade to the head. Another one played by Peter “Wallace” Sallis getting a stake through the heart, vampires' revenge I call it. They're sick of getting staked all the time so they've decided to do it in return on a non-vampire.

Overall, I rather liked this Dracula film, it was definitely an improvement on the previous one. I think Peter Sasdy, director of other Hammer films including 1971's Hands of the Ripper, did a good job with this film. The dark, eerie atmosphere was well executed and as I mentioned earlier he gave the film some quirky camera angles which I rather liked. I liked the plot, I liked the idea of Dracula on a revenge mission, as opposed to just randomly killing people. I also loved the creative ways for Dracula to exact his revenge; spade to the head, staking a non-vampire. The only thing this film was missing was Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, but I say that every time I review a Dracula film without him in it, so I guess you can take that to mean this is a pretty good Dracula film.

Taste the Blood of Dracula 4/5

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave

2010-09-06T23:06:00.005+01:00

SPOILER ALERT! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! SPOILER ALERT!

One year has passed since Dracula was defeated in Dracula: Prince of Darkness. A Monsignor visits the village that was once terrorized by Dracula, only to discover that the villagers still live in fear of the vampire. The local priest has lost his faith and the villagers don't attend the church for mass because “the shadow of his castle touches it”. In order to end their fear of the long since gone vampire, the Monsignor climbs to Castle Dracula to perform an exorcism. In the process of the exorcism the priest, who climbed part of the way with the Monsignor, falls and hits his head and at the same time cracks the ice which Dracula lays frozen in. Unbeknown to the Monsignor, who is still conducting the exorcism, blood from the priest's head spills into Dracula's lips and re-awakens him. Dracula wastes no time in hypnotizing the priest into being his servant, and begins his reign of terror once again (obviously).

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave is a 1968 Hammer production and is the sequel to 1966's Dracula: Prince of Darkness. It marked Hammer's 4th film in their Dracula series. It stars Christopher Lee, Rupert Davies and Veronica Carlson. It was directed by Freddie Francis.

Upon looking up the poster for this film's review I discovered it had several, several of which were made with a comical design. The reason for this is beyond me, it's not like the film is made with a comical approach, it's a straight forward horror like all the rest. But the advertising campaign was somewhat comedy orientated. This was done by adding comical taglines to the poster these include, “You can't keep a good man down!”, “I always said he had plenty of get up and go!”, “Boy does he give a hickey!” and adding (obviously) after the title Dracula Has Risen From The Grave. The other comical poster has a photograph of a woman, who has clearly been bitten by Dracula, with two elastoplasts on her throat.

Another thing that confuses me about this film is the rating. It got rated G for the general public. It's a Dracula film, you know, for kids. Though I wouldn't say its suitable for kids at all. I wouldn't say there's as much violence as in the previous Dracula films, thinking in particular to that of Dracula: Prince of Darkness and it's controversial throat cutting scene, but there is still some. A couple of scenes in particular include one scene where Dracula gets stabbed with a stake whilst sleeping in his coffin to which masses of blood oozes out around the stake. Then there is the climactic ending, which I'll get to in a bit. It will continue to bewilder me as to how this film passed for a G rating, it wouldn't pass for a U rating now, in fact the DVD is 15 rated, so how on earth did it pass for a G rating back in 1968?!

The climactic ending is brilliant, if it weren't for the ending I would have been rather disappointed by this film, it's not bad but it in no way is as good as it's predecessors. But the climactic ending is brilliant, it has to be the best death Dracula gets in the entire Hammer series (as far as I can remember). He falls from his castle and lands on a giant golden cross which pierces right through his back and out of his chest. To which he begins bleeding from his eyes when the priest starts praying, then eventually he perishes and all that's left is the cross, a puddle of blood and his cape. The only thing that could have made this scene even better is if Peter Cushing's Van Helsing had been in it, but as is it's still really good.

I think practically everyone in this film was hammy and melodramatic. Hell, I'd say the entire cast overshadowed Christopher Lee by their collective of hammy acting. The story isn't great, and all in all this isn't the best Hammer Dracula that I've reviewed so far, in fact out of the 4 it's probably the worst, not to say it's terrible because it's not, but I find the other 3 to be so much better. But again, I have to say the ending improved my opinion of the film considerably. It's an average Dracula film and is worth watching even just for the ending.

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave 3/5 (obviously)

Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde

2010-08-31T18:06:00.005+01:00

Whilst experimenting to develop an elixir for eternal life, Dr Jekyll creates a serum made up of Female hormones. The reason for this being that he has concluded that female hormones have stronger life than male hormones, for example how women manage to not go bald whereas men do. After believing he has accomplished his goal, he drinks the serum but not all goes to plan as he becomes a woman; Sister Hyde. Dr Jekyll needs more female hormones to create more of his serum, and after Burke and Hare, the two men doing the dirty work for him, get punished by the public for their crimes, Jekyll himself has to go out committing murders in order to get the bodies he needs. The more he does it the more his Hyde side likes it and begins trying to take over. Here the battle begins, the battle of the sexes, the battle for control.

Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde is a 1971 Hammer production based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story, The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It's a retelling of the classic tale but with a twist, he doesn't turn into a monster of a man, but into a woman. It stars Ralph Bates as Dr Jekyll and Martine Beswick as Sister Hyde. It was directed by Roy Ward Baker.

This isn't the only time Hammer have remade a film or franchise they have already made, but made it a black comedy. The only other one I know of is The Horror of Frankenstein which was a retelling of the original Frankenstein tale but with an added dark humour. Both The Horror of Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde star Ralph Bates in the title roles. Maybe it was a possible future direction Hammer was heading in, to remake certain tales with added humour and have Ralph Bates in all of them, much like the use of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing in most others. Or maybe it was just a coincidence. But I have to say it would have been nice to have had some other Hammer black comedy remakes with Ralph Bates. Ralph Bates, much like other Hammer regulars, was a good actor and an enjoyable person to watch in these films, obviously not as good as the classic icons of Hammer; Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, but he's certainly up there.

Although it's made with a tongue in cheek black comedy approach, I didn't find it had a lot of humour in it, except the obvious comical element that he turns into a woman instead of Mr Hyde. But what is a funny sight is in the middle of a scene where Hyde is killing Jekyll's friend, Hyde begins changing between herself and Jekyll, so in other words we get to see Ralph Bates in a corset. Another funny plot development is that of Jekyll and his neighbour, Susan, taking a fancy to each other just as Susan's brother and Jekyll's “sister” Hyde take a fancy to each other too. We've seen love triangles done again and again, but I think this is the first and only time I've seen a love square.

I liked the inclusion of historical aspects to the story, these include Burke and Hare who gather the women's bodies for Dr Jekyll, and then there's Jack the Ripper who is actually Jekyll collecting the bodies for himself then Hyde who begins killing for the fun of it.

Overall, I really liked it. It was at the time a new take on the classic tale that has been adapted and remade so many times, so to take it and put a twist on the story was something of ingenuity and I think quite a brilliant move for Hammer, especially when you think about other franchises they did like Dracula and Frankenstein where they just churned out sequel after sequel after sequel. Now I have nothing against the Dracula and Frankenstein franchises I love both. But I really appreciate Hammer taking a story we've seen so many times before and instead of just doing the same thing again, changing one major element and through that creating something original, even though it is actually an adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's story.

Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde 4/5

Dracula: Prince of Darkness

2010-08-22T23:10:00.005+01:00

Two Couples are travelling together to Carlsbad, along the way the coach driver leaves them stranded as it's getting near dark. They take advantage of an empty, driverless horse and carriage which turns up out of nowhere, but once they board it the horses begin taking them in the opposite direction to Carlsbad and instead to Castle Dracula. They are greeted at the castle by Dracula's servant, who states he was told by Dracula to look after guests even after his death. Later that night, the servant uses the blood from one of the men to resurrect Dracula from his ashes. Here his reign of terror begins once again.

Dracula: Prince of Darkness is a 1966 Hammer production. It is the sequel to 1960's The Brides of Dracula and is Hammer's third Dracula film. It stars Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley and Andrew Keir. It was directed by Terence Fisher.

It was nice to see Peter Cushing make an appearance even though he wasn't in the film, this was achieved by opening the film with the final scenes of Dracula, in which Van Helsing destroys Dracula through the use of a candle stick cross and the sun.

This film taught me one thing that warming your backside is an “earthly pleasure” stated by Andrew Keir's Father Sandor as he warms his backside on an open fire with glee.

This Dracula film is notable for two things. Firstly, the controversial scene in which one of the men gets his throat slit while hung upside down above Dracula's coffin, allowing the blood to pour from his throat into the coffin filled with Dracula's ashes. Secondly, Dracula doesn't speak a single word throughout the entire film, the reason for this is from one of two claims. One being that Christopher Lee states that when he saw the script he refused to speak the dialogue, the other being that the screen writer, Jimmy Sangster, didn't write any dialogue for Dracula as he didn't believe vampires should speak and instead should be a visual image of horror.

Dracula is portrayed really well in this film, the technique of having him with no dialogue is brilliant. It creates a visual image of horror, as opposed to a creepy voice or whatever, the character relies on Christopher Lee over acting and heightening Dracula's actions, resulting in a completely visualised depiction of horror to instate fear without anything other than sight.

What can I say, for what (as far as I'm aware) is considered to be the best of the Hammer Dracula films, I disagree. Don't get me wrong it is rather good, but I stick with my previous statement that 1958's Dracula is the best in the series. Though there are some dodgy effects, like the sun setting in a matter of seconds and in the controversial scene whenever there is a shot with the man within it there isn't any blood dripping yet we can still hear it, but when its a shot of the coffin there is masses of blood pouring into it from off screen. In fact the blood is almost wiggling all over the place as the source of the blood appears to be moving from off screen as the blood is pouring, almost as if the man is being shook about as he hangs. But these aren't important, they don't spoil the film they're just noticeable. The film is fun and enjoyable and all round a decent Dracula film but I wouldn't agree that it's the best one. Maybe it's just that I feel it was missing Peter Cushing too much I don't know, but it's definitely worth a look either way.

Dracula: Prince of Darkness 3/5

The Revenge of Frankenstein

2010-08-15T12:22:00.003+01:00

SPOILER ALERT This review contains spoilers SPOILER ALERT

The film picks up where the first one left off, with Frankenstein heading for the guillotine. He escapes his execution thanks to his faithful assistant Karl, who has made a deal with the baron to save him from the guillotine in return for a new body, as karl has a fine brain but his body is deformed. Frankenstein relocates to Carlsbruck, where he poses as Dr Stein, a voluntary doctor helping the poor. After one of the Medical board doctors recognises him and wants to work alongside him, Frankenstein accepts and they begin work on his new project. Using the amputated limbs of the patients at his clinic, he builds a new body for Karl's brain. Previous experiments into transplanting brains into other bodies have gone wrong, one such experiment was that of a monkey who after the operation ate another monkey. But Frankenstein is confident this won't happen to Karl. All appears to be going well, Karl just needs time to adjust to his new body but when he learns of Frankenstein's plans for him; to be exhibited to scientists from all around the world, to be constantly stared at which he already has been his whole life for being different, he then escapes and Frankenstein's plans begin to fall apart.

The Revenge of Frankenstein is a 1958 Hammer Production and is the sequel to 1957's The Curse of Frankenstein. It stars Peter Cushing, Francis Matthews, Eunice Gayson and Michael Gwynn. It was directed by Terence Fisher.

What I felt was a nice touch in this film was the idea that he is operating using living organs, as opposed to using dead people's body parts which in itself is nasty, I liked how Frankenstein had moved up a notch and was amputating patients' limbs for his own end. This I thought was pretty dark and really effective for a Hammer film.

I love the fact that Frankenstein is this genius of a scientist but when it comes to creating aliases he's not very good. He moves to Carlsbruck and calls himself Dr Stein, later in the film he relocates to London and calls himself Dr Franck. As Dr Stein he doesn't even wear a disguise, he looks exactly the same at least as Dr Franck he does actually try, he has a moustache and a monocle. But the names aren't even unrecognisable, what's next? Dr Frank Victor? Dr Frank Stein? Dr Franklin Stein? Hell why not just call himself Dr Frank N. Stein? Very imaginative. His imagination aside, people do actually fall for it. Literally everyone believes he is this new doctor and in no way could be Dr Victor Frankenstein, only one guy recognises him as Frankenstein, and even he is a fan of his and wants to work with him.

I really enjoyed the ending, I think it must be one of very few Hammer films that doesn't end abruptly, usually right after the baddie is killed then the credits roll. Instead this has the whole monster ordeal then there is the operation to save Frankenstein's life by putting his brain into a new body. Then the film cuts to London, where we see Dr Franck's clinic and we see that Frankenstein is still alive and presumably HE'S AT IT AGAIN. Which I have to say I really like this kind of ending, now the abrupt ones work with Hammer films as it leaves it open for a direct continuation of the story, but I like this ending, its a novelty and it really effectively works. A similar sort of ending, the whole HE'S AT IT AGAIN ending, also features in The Quatermass Xperiment which I also really liked.

On the whole I liked The Revenge of Frankenstein. This is a good sequel, a good Hammer and a good Frankenstein film. I all round enjoyed it. I found the violence was a bit tame for Hammer mind, it was actually more bloody in the previous Frankenstein film. But that didn't matter much, the story was still good and the film was still enjoyable.

The Revenge of Frankenstein 4/5

The Pit and the Pendulum

2010-07-31T17:28:00.007+01:00

Set in 16th Century Spain, after the mysterious death of his sister, Francis Barnard travels to his brother-in-law's castle to find out what really happened to her. He learns that she died of fear as she discovered in the castle's basement that Nicholas' father was a Spanish Inquisition torturer and she died upon witnessing his horrific torture and killing contraptions. After this, mysterious happenings begin at the castle, happenings that are believed to be that of Nicholas' dead wife's unresting soul or as Nicholas believes her living body as he fears he may have buried her alive.

The Pit and the Pendulum is a 1961 American International Pictures production. It was directed by Roger Corman and stars Vincent Price, John Kerr and Barbara Steele. This is one of several Edgar Allen Poe adaptations produced and directed by Roger Corman and starring Vincent price.

For approximately the first 5 minutes there isn't a word spoken, just eerie music plays as we see Francis Barnard travelling to Nicholas' dark and creepy gothic castle which is located in the middle of nowhere. I felt this built up the intended sense of unease and tension brilliantly, preparing the audience from the very beginning.

There are some rather interesting visual effects used for the flashback sequences, not necessarily great but definitely an interesting choice nonetheless. The use of various colour tints I didn't mind so much, though I think it would have been equally as good to have just used the blurred outline of the screen and left the use of colour tints out. But they did seem to work, though I wasn't initially keen on them they did serve a purpose, they disorientated the viewer which I think worked rather well, especially when used in the sequence where we see the swinging pendulum from the victim's point of view. All in all I didn't particularly mind that visual effect, but I'm not to sure about the rectangle outlined with blackness moving in towards the eyes of the person who is thinking back, it was definitely an effect I hadn't seen used for that purpose before, and maybe it's just that it's different to what I would have expected. On another effects note, a very good and rather horrific model effect is that of Nicholas' dead wife, her body twisted and distorted in her tomb made for a really good piece of horror.

In fairness, for a film about a pit and a pendulum, there isn't a lot of pendulum. There's a good bit of pit but not a lot of pendulum, which I have to say the pendulum was the selling point for me, without knowing anything about the story I assumed it was about a guy killing people with his blade pendulum. But I have to say the actual story is better, some of the plot developments are very good especially near the end, and I even liked the use of the pendulum. It may have been a small use of it but very well built up to, it's just unfortunate that the surprise killing contraption wasn't particularly a surprise as it makes up one fifth of the title, and I imagine for anyone going to see this film at the time they would have went for the “surprise” pendulum killing method.

Overall, I really enjoyed The Pit and the Pendulum. It's the best Roger Corman/Vincent Price collaboration I've seen so far. It was creepy and atmospheric, even the use of colour tints which I wasn't initially keen on worked, as I mentioned earlier. Vincent Price hammed it up as usual which is always good. The story was interesting and kept my attention throughout, the ending I thought was perfect for the film but I would never spoil it, you have to watch the film.

Additionally, it has to be said. I love the tag line to this film, now call me easily pleased but this tag line just amuses me “Betrayal cuts both ways!”

The Pit and the Pendulum 4/5

The Lost Continent

2010-07-22T18:17:00.010+01:00

The passengers of a tramp steamer are travelling from Africa to Venezuela. The captain is smuggling a dangerous cargo which explodes when in contact with water. So when a hole is put in the ship's side the surviving passengers must all abandon ship. They sail out into uncharted seas and come across descendants of previously marooned passengers, killer seaweed and giant killer sea monsters. In order to survive and hopefully get back home, they must do battle against the inhabitants of this lost continent.

The Lost Continent is a 1968 Science Fiction Hammer and Seven Arts Co-Production. It was directed by Michael Carreras, and stars Eric Porter, Hildegard Knef, Suzanna Leigh and Tony Beckley. It is an adaptation of Dennis Wheatley's novel, Uncharted Seas. The film's screenplay was actually written by Michael Carreras, but it's stated as being written by Michael Nash; a pseudonym of Carreras'.

Possibly not the best of starts but this is an odd one. Its a bit of a strange film for Hammer. It's sort of like two films in one, there's the plot at the start about the captain smuggling this highly volatile substance that when in contact with water explodes. Then after the crew have to abandon ship begins the second plot, that of killer sea weed and giant sea monsters, but bizarrely it works. This melding of two stories makes for an interesting piece of film. But I did find it to be a bit slow, especially the first part or as I'm going to call it the first story, the pre-sea monsters part. When there was action it was really entertaining, but any other times seemed to be a bit slow going.

I'm not sure whether it was intentional comedy or what, but there many moments that made me laugh though it might have just been some bad acting. One of which was the unusual laugh that Patrick the bartender had when he was drunk. I also liked when the Captain was attacked by killer seaweed, it binds his hands piercing the skin, and as he struggles to get them off the other passengers just sit and stare, to which after he has removed the seaweed and is caressing his cut and bleeding hands one of the passengers, who was previously just sitting and watching him struggle, says “You alright sir?”

Another funny aspect of the film was the alcoholic Harry Tyler, who was best in the earlier segment of the film before he decided to go teetotal, this being much to the disappointment of one of the female passengers who is trying to get him drunk by spiking his glass of orange juice with vodka. Upon his realisation of there being vodka in it she claims he was more interesting when he was drunk and storms off to find another male passenger who may be of more interest. She goes to the top deck and finds another man and they begin to chat, but they get attacked by a killer sea monster. Could this be a moral message; stick with your man, he may be dull and boring, but you won't get attacked by a killer sea monster when you're with him. Anyway, I liked Harry Tyler, he was instantly my favourite character, he wore a jacket lined with notes of money, and when he was in his drunken state he was so relaxed and chilled out about the whole ship sinking situation that he continued to drink and began playing the piano. Then after they escaped the sinking ship and were sailing on a lifeboat, he started a fight with one of the other passengers and knocked him off the boat, but not just leaving it at that he then jumped in after him to continue the fight. But this is cut short when a shark begins pursuit. Harry escapes but the other man is eaten by the shark. This must have been his turning point, the reason for his teetotalism.

I rather like the effects in this film, especially the various miniatures shots of ships and the misty seascapes of which they resided in. We all know they're miniatures when watching them, but I really liked them. I felt they must have had a lot of work put into them, as they looked to me to be some of the best Hammer miniatures I've seen. I just really enjoyed the many seascape shots of these miniatures. The effects on the battling giant sea monsters was a bit iffy mind, they were very sixties, as was the entire film. Very sixties being determined by the use of music, the effects and pretty much the entire feel of the film. This in no way is bad, I actually really liked this identifiable sixties feel and mood to the film. As well as the miniatures there are some pretty good other effects, the best one being when a guy gets shot in the stomach with a flare, quite a cool way to kill someone and put an end to a group battle, well done to the lady who fired the flare.

The Lost Continent is a strange one, but this doesn't make it bad, it's not great but it is worth a look if you're into odd sixties cult classics. If the pace of the film had been a bit faster then I would have enjoyed the film a whole lot more, but that aside I didn't mind it, I thought it was about average and I'd say it's one of those Hammer films that stands out, even if it is for being an odd ball amongst Hammer's other fine pieces of cinema.

The Lost Continent 3/5

Carry On Screaming

2010-07-17T23:20:00.010+01:00

As a change from the regular schedule I have decided to review Carry On Screaming, this being the Carry On series' take on Hammer Horror films.

Set in Edwardian London, there have been six disappearances, all women, all vanished in Hocombe Woods and all in the space of a year. “Could there be a connection?” “Possibly.” is what Constable Slobotham and Sergeant Bung have to say on the matter. These are the two police men assigned to the case. Their investigations take them and the latest missing woman's boyfriend, Albert Potter, to an old house inhabited by a collection of typical monster movie baddies; a brother and sister; Dr Watt and Valeria, Dr Watt we know to be un-dead, Valeria is possibly also un-dead but this isn't confirmed, there's a Lurch-esque manservant, and two Neanderthal creatures, Oddbod and Oddbod Junior, that do as Dr Watt and Valeria tell them. It becomes apparent that Dr Watt and Valeria are kidnapping the young women, turning them into dummies and selling them to clothes shops, so it's up to Slobotham, Bung and Potter to stop the monsters and their evil doings.

Carry On Screaming is a 1966 Peter Rogers Production. It is a parody of Hammer Horror films, which were also popular at the time. It was directed by Gerald Thomas and stars Harry H. Corbett as Sergeant Sidney Bung, Peter Butterworth as Constable Slobotham, Jim Dale as Albert Potter, Kenneth Williams as Dr Watt and Fenella Fielding as Valeria.

Just to let you know from the start, I love the Carry On films, yes there are some naff ones near the end of the Carry On's run, but the majority are gems. This is one of those gems. The comedy is top notch and I felt it captured the hammer horror feel brilliantly.

There are several homages to iconic cinema monsters and horror stories within the film. These include Dr Watt who is un-dead and as such would be considered a zombie, but he's far from the traditional kind. There is the inclusion of Dr Jekyll's potion which is used twice during the film. The resurrection of a mummy, King Rubatitti, also features. The biggest homage of them all is to the 1953 film House of Wax of which Carry On Screaming has a similar plot to, only instead of covering the bodies in wax, Dr Watt uses a similar process to that of frying fish, placing them in a giant dish of “batter” and then into a second dish to fry the “battered” person, to which Dr Watt always inappropriately yells with glee “Frying Tonight!”

The Carry On films had their own equivalent to Hammer Glamour, this easily transferred to Carry On Screaming and perfectly emulated Hammer's traditional usage of Hammer Glamour. For this film they used Fenella Fielding as the voluptuous Valeria and Angela Douglas as Albert Potter's girlfriend Doris Mann. The character of Valeria has a somewhat similar appearance to that of Vampira in Ed Wood's 1959 film Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Harry H. Corbett was perfect for the role of Sidney Bung, even though the part was originally wrote for Sid James, but he was unavailable as he already had stage commitments. The character's name was still left as Sidney, as Sid James' characters were usually named after him in both TV and film. But even though Sid James was always great in other Carry On films, I can't picture him being better than Harry H. Corbett in this one, he was that enjoyable to watch. Both he and Jim Dale captured the Hammer style of melodramatic acting perfectly, most notably in the transformation scenes both of them went through. It will have helped that the Carry On films were acted very over the top anyway so the Carry On cast will have already been used to that style of acting only more comically than that of Hammer.

Overall, I really enjoyed Carry on Screaming. It was funny not only to Hammer fans but to the already established Carry On fans, but I'd say there's a bit more to appreciate in the film for the fans of Hammer Horrors, the little homages are always fun. The acting is perfect for the film, over the top and hammy, just as we like it.

Carry On Screaming 4/5

Wichfinder General

2010-07-15T19:07:00.007+01:00

Set in 1645, during the English Civil War. Richard Marshall, a young soldier (Roundhead) visits Sara, his lover, and marries her promising to her uncle, the village priest, that he will take her away from the forthcoming dangers that the priest fears will be coming to the village. Marshall then returns to his duties as the end of his army leave is over. Whilst he's away, Matthew Hopkins rides into town. He is the witchfinder who abuses the current current legal system in order to punish anyone he feels to be a witch. This time he has decided that the priest is a witch and proceeds to torture a confession out of him, to which in the end he eventually kills him. When Marshall rides back into town and discovers what has happened he vows vengeance and seeks out to kill Matthew Hopkins and his gang of witch hunters.

Witchfinder General is a 1968 Tigon British Film Productions and American International Pictures Co-Production. It was directed by Michael Reeves and stars Vincent Price as Matthew Hopkins, Ian Ogilvy as Richard Marshall and Hilary Dwyer as Sara. The film got cut considerably in the UK as the violence was considered too graphic as it depicts grisly torture methods. In a 2005 poll in the magazine Total Film, the film got ranked the 15th greatest horror film of all time. Since the director Michael Reeves' death due to a drug overdose at the age of 25, the film has gained a cult following.

Tigon British Film Productions was one of several film companies that made films in a similar style to that of which was already established by Hammer, they even used some of the same actors; Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Tigon produced several notably good films, the one that stands out in my mind is The Creeping Flesh which starred both Lee and Cushing. I haven't seen all of the Tigon productions but I'm pretty confident to say that Witchfinder General will rank up there with the company's best. It's nice to see a British film starring Vincent Price, this being due to the film being co-produced by American International who held an exclusive contract with him at them time, this being the reason he was unable to star in Amicus' The House That Dripped Blood.

Wilfrid Brambell makes a small appearance, and to my amusement it's notable that even when he's playing a 17th Century villager he is still cleaner and even just that little bit more presentable than when he plays 1970s Rag and Bone man Albert Steptoe.

The film itself I found rather entertaining, it kept me thrilled and interested. Although a lot of the graphic violence was removed from the final cut, I could still see how for the time, what remained could still provoke complaints. I personally felt the graphic violence was necessary as the film is depicting the horrific torture methods that real life witch hunters used in order to gain false confessions from their victims. I felt that Vincent Price gave a pretty good performance in this, better than in some of his other films in fact, I didn't feel he hammed it up as much. In fact I found him to be more sinister and creepy in this role, which worked perfectly. The film at times was rather beautifully shot, especially during the montages of Richard Marshall riding on horseback in search for Matthew Hopkins lit against the strong blue sky in one shot and against the setting sun in another. I rather enjoyed Witchfinder General and would recommend it to lovers of British Horror and of Vincent Price.

Witchfinder General 4/5