TheFinalAlias

Remakes, especially of horror films, generally tend to fall into three categories: 1)Crap. 2)Improvement. 3)Ones which improve on some things, but aren't so effective at others. This film is a textbook example of #3; it manages to come up with a remarkably clever twist on the original's plot which ties together a lot of disparate elements of the original and fleshes out character back-story. But it also fails at capturing the magic of the original's themes, or comes up with great new ideas, but does little with them. For example, here we are given a plausible back-story for Larry Talbot(Benicio Del Toro, who looks like a cross between Lon Chaney Jr & Oliver Reed)'s estrangement from his father, Sir John(something only vaguely explained in the original), a traumatic event in his childhood which builds up sympathy for him, and a plausible reason for why everyone dislikes and suspects him(he was once committed to an asylum in his youth). But the pathos Lon Chaney Jr built up in the original was based off of how no one believed him and thought he was insane; here, he gets caught after his first night out! A major theme in the original, subtly handled(not often you can say subtle discussing a Universal horror film)was how Sir John was inadvertently the film's real villain for his terrible parenting; here, Sir John flat out IS the villain!!! Another example of this problem comes from this version's handling of Larry's romance with Gwen(Emily Blunt); it comes up with a plausible reason for why she falls in love with him so swiftly(she was engaged to his deceased brother, who he reminds her of), but their romance doesn't come into play until late into the film, so no one really cares by that point.

These aren't the film's only flaws either; Benicio Del Toro is a fine actor, and he manages to capture Larry's suffering and lifetime of hardships, but he doesn't get to do anything else before he's bitten and becomes a werewolf. In the original, we got to know and like Larry, who was a horny, fun loving, not-too-bright, but likable fish-out-of-water. It was what made his fate all the more tragic. While I'm not saying that Del Toro is not as good an actor as Chaney Jr(Jr never could compete with his famous father in the acting department), he doesn't get a chance to make us get to know or give a crap about Larry other than: 'His life sucks, he's depressed'. Like I said, this isn't a slam against Del Toro, but he doesn't get a chance to turn in a really good performance. His dialog delivery also sucks; he's one of those actors who can emote excellently, but always flubs his lines. The film is also too fast-paced at times; this is literally a "blink and you'll miss it" sort of film.

Inspite of these flaws, the film still works as an out and out monster bash. For anyone who grew up as a "Monster Kid" in the 60's and 70's who made up their own monster scenarios in their head; this is everything they ever liked about Universal, Hammer(yes I know they made only one werewolf film) and Paul Naschy's werewolf films rolled into one. I can safely say that in terms of action, monster-design, atmosphere and gore, this is the best werewolf movie ever made: It's what you wanted, but never got. And best of all, the werewolf isn't some lame CGI effect that looks like a walking dog(like the crappy 'werewolves' of "Underworld" etc.), it's an actual guy in makeup(the transformations are CGI though, but that I can forgive). That alone makes this film praise-worthy. I always find it more satisfying to actually have something in front of the camera. The high-point of the werewolf scenes is when Talbot transforms in front of a bunch of Nazi-like psychiatrists and slaughters them before going out and wrecking London(yes, this version is in London, not Wales).

The atmosphere is great. The cinematography is the best I've seen in a modern film. It's like Mario Bava, Freddie Francis and Terrence Fisher(horror's greatest visually-oriented directors) all came back from the dead and collaborated on this. Every scene is like a painting. I'm definitely buying one of those "Art of" books for this movie.

The murder sequences are also awesome. My favorite is when a guy gets stuck in a bog while fleeing from the Wolf Man; He tries to kill himself, but his gun is jammed, so the Wolf Man decapitates him in one swipe. That alone is worth seeing the film for.

The acting is also good, Hugo Weaving is great as hypocritical police inspector Aberline(former foe of Jack the Ripper), this guy is one of those lawman antagonists you love to hate. Anthony Hopkins(as Sir John), as usual, steals the show. Whoever it was playing Maleva the gypsy was good too, I just wish she was given more screen-time, Maleva was my favorite character in the original.

Not great art, and certainly flawed, but a fun thrill ride for lovers of classic horror. I just wish that Paul Naschy(aka. Jacinto Molina), who starred in many werewolf films in his native Spain, had lived to see it(he died last year). I dedicate this review to him.~

Now THIS is a cast! The screen's greatest horror stars: Basil Rathbone! Star of "Son of Frankenstein", "Tower of London", and 'Hound of the Baskervilles'! Lon Chaney Jr! Star of "The Wolf Man", "Man-Made Monster", and "Spider Baby"! Bela Lugosi! Star of "Dracula", "The Raven", and "Murders in the Rue Morgue"! John Carradine! Star of 'Bluebeard", "House of Frankenstein" and "Face of Marble"! Tor Johnson! Star of "Bride of the Monster", "Plan 9 from Outer Space', "The Unearthly'! and Akim Tamiroff! Yeah, Akim! Star of such horror classics like...uh....uh...I dunno, maybe he snuck in through the back?

Any fan coming in to "The Black Sleep' eager to see his favorite horror stars cavorting in a 'Bat pack' of the horror genre will be sorely disappointed, as Basil Rathbone(more of a mystery star and villain in costume dramas than a horror specialist) and Akim Tamiroff(playing a role intended for Peter Lorre) get the juiciest roles, and the rest are relegated to cameos at best. This dilemma has made the "Black Sleep" more of a "Black Sheep" among horror fans, but there are worse things to lose sleep(hehe heh) over, and if you stop yer' whinin' for a minute, you'll find this to be a perfectly satisfying, and quite literate, Gothic horror film which, as has been pointed out, spreads the seeds of what would be sewn in the oncoming Hammer films cycle the following year.

Herbert Rudley plays Dr. Gordon Ramsay, a neurosurgeon(and TV chef) who is about to be hanged for the murder of a moneylender which he did not commit. He is saved by his former mentor, Sir Joel Cadman(Rathbone)who has discovered a drug which places people in a death-like coma which he acquired under mysterious circumstances(Friar Laurence needed the money you see, after that little Montague/Capulet scandal...). He arranges to have the body delivered to his wisecracking tattoo artist henchman Udo(Tamiroff); a lecherous gypsy who thinks he's the reincarnation of dozens of things. Cadman offers Ramsay the chance to hide out in his seaside manor in return for his assistance in performing experimental brain operations. Having no real choice, but grateful to the doctor, our hero accepts.(Hmmm, hero is framed and sent to prison, becomes mad doctor's assistant, what Hammer Frankenstein movie did I see this in? It may have had a MONSTER in it, FROM HELL possibly).

Right from the beginning, it becomes apparent that Cadman's medical practice is not what it seems, first, the butler named Cassimir(Lugosi) is mute, apparently as a result of Cadman's experiment, second, a gigantic homicidal maniac named Mungo(Chaney Jr) is loose! Mungo, a mute tard dressed like a medieval highwayman, runs around trying to rape/strangle a servant girl named Laurie, but all it takes to calm him is a command from Cadman's aged but attractive housekeeper, and then he's gentle as a lamb.

Ramsay recognizes Mungo as Dr. Munroe, a kindly professor from medical school. Cadman claims that he operated on Munroe to save him from paralysis, but accidentally destroyed his capacity to reason. This should be final proof that Cadman isn't as benevolent as he seems, I don't know about you, but if a formerly gentle college professor became a gigantic strangler because of a guy's experiments, who also changed his name to that of a circus gorilla and gave him clothes a few centuries out of style, I'd be mighty suspicious! It doesn't help that Laurie turns out to be Munroe's daughter(!!!). The clincher comes when Ramsay witnesses Cadman's callous experiment on a sailor's exposed brain(An amazingly graphic scene for this film's era), then there's the implication that there have been past victims of the experiments, and more to come, as Cadman is ruthlessly devoted to his secret goal....

Rathbone gives what is probably his best horror performance. His character is ABSOLUTELY a prototype for Peter Cushing & Whit Bisssel's portrayals of Baron Frankenstein, but with a considerable depth of character, as Cadman has a rather sympathetic goal(his wife is dying of a brain tumor). This also makes him a prototype for Vincent Price's various Poe-villains. Rathbone masterfully portrays a good man who has become pure evil through his ruthlessness and obsession. Rudley is a refreshingly mature and unattractive leading man, and his romance with Laurie is very convincingly played. The girl playing Laurie generates a lot of sympathy too, as she battles the monster her father has become. Chaney is legitimately menacing as Mungo, but also pitiable. Akim Tamiroff's wisecracking gypsy provides a great contrast to the dour Cadman: He may be more likable, but he's just as evil. John Carradine is a laugh riot as a test subject who thinks he's a medieval crusader("KILL THE INFIDELS!!!").

I was expecting Ed Wood-level trash, but the superb acting and literate dialogue(overlooking the plot holes and requisite horror trappings)won me over. I really enjoyed this. Don't miss it.~

Wow. I can't believe the hate this film got. Sure it rehashes the Blair Witch 'This is real footage' gimmick, but who gives a damn? Sure it's unoriginal, but you want to know why it doesn't matter? It does everything 'Blair Witch' does wrong, right.

As you who have had the misfortune of watching that piece of crap are familiar with, it's big claim to fame is that it was the first horror film to use (fake of course)'found footage'(it wasn't) as well as the first horror film to suggest it's monster but never show it(fine and dandy, if you overlook the many, many horror films that did the same thing many decades before, and better)and to not rely on blood and gore(overlooking the literal thousands of horror films without a single drop of blood in them). As any serious horror film fan knows, those claims are all a bunch of BS. But let's just say for a moment that( neglecting all of the obvious facts and overlooking crucial film history)all of those claims were right, the footage was real, the films of Val Lewton never existed, 'The Last Broadcast' and 'Cannibal Holocaust' didn't use the same concepts years before, and 'Blair Witch' really did innovate all the things it's fans claim it did. Well you know what? I don't care. 'Blair Witch' was a terrible movie anyway, and the fact that so many thought it was real is less a testament to the film's ingenuity, and more to the colossal stupidity of Indie film fans. Of all the 'subtle' horror films, it may be the most un-subtle ever made.

'The Fourth Kind' however, has no pretensions of subtlety or innovation. It fully acknowledges that it's a mockumentary that will try it's hardest to scare the living crap out of you, and to lure you in on an obviously bogus William Castle-style gimmick, and it delivers.

The film has all the feel of what it claims to be: A real life event which has 'real' footage juxtaposed with 're-enactments'. And if you didn't know better, it really is convincing. The 'actress' playing the 'real life' woman looks nothing like her counterpart; which provides for a wry commentary on films purporting to be based off true life events that cast super-attractive Hollywood actresses and actors as fairly average, homely people. By imitating this aspect, the film succeeds not just as a horror film, but as a subtle parody as well. Too bad most audiences can't grasp this.

The film is at it's best in the first half-hour, a real sense of menace and unease is created(the cinematography of the Alaskan mountains is top notch) and the 'real' footage that is interwoven in seems almost plausible. The characters are well-portrayed too and behave like real people, they can't believe what's going on and refuse too once they see proof. Once it's confirmed that the aliens are real, the film admittedly is weakened, but it still succeeds as an at times genuinely disturbing alien abduction flick. All of the actors do fine, intentionally hammy jobs, creating the feel of a real dramatization. I never liked Milla Jovovich, but she does a fine job here, convincingly creating an unbalanced but sympathetic character. We sympathize at first because we know she's right, but is she really? It's a truly harrowing psychological performance which is a refreshing new take on the old 'is the main character just imagining it?" trope. Will Patton also does a fine job as a despicable sheriff, who, in many ways, really is the villain of the film, but one with a considerable depth of character.

All of this helps to create a tangible atmosphere of horror. It's very similar to watching a good episode of 'Unsolved Mysteries', and if you enjoy shows like that, I can't recommend this enough. It may be fake and not based off real occurrences, but it still has that eerie, twilight feel that the best of those shows create.

But the real reason I loved this film? Simple. It finally ditches all the 'benevolent alien' crap we've had to put up with recently. I'm so sick of the belief that if aliens exist they would have grown past violence. Sure, it was great to read all those comic book and pulp stories where people would drive aliens away and find out in the last page that "Oh my god the alien just wanted peace! We are the real monsters for driving him away! WAAAA!", but that gimmick is OLD. I'm sick of it, frankly. There was 'District 9', 'Planet 51', and just recently, the biggest offender; James Cameron's "Mein Kampf' for whiggers, furries and hippies called 'Avatar'. Brrr. Give me aliens that are evil, bug-eyed, ray-gun toting monsters that abduct scantily-clad babes until some square-jawed hero blows their heads off! That's what alien movies should be! 'Fourth Kind' may not be that, but it comes closer to that awesome formula than all other recent alien movies. For daring to break away from the crappy 'sympathetic aliens' trend, that alone earns this film my eternal respect. Hopefully there will be more films like this, and finally, man can look up at the night skies again...and shiver. Just like Wells & Lovecraft wanted us to do.

So rent this movie and watch it(along with 'Invaders from Mars', 'The Thing'(both versions) 'Invasion of the Saucer Men', 'Not of this Earth', throw in 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' for laughs) cuddle 'round your fireplace(with 'District 9', 'Avatar', 'Planet 51' as firewood)) with a bottle of beer and some spicy cheezits, and take a trip back to when aliens were SCARY. Thank you so much 'Fourth Kind', on the behalf of all true sci-fi fans, you are a true rarity and a kind of film we need more of. Enjoy. Oh, and keep watching the skies!

I had mixed feelings about this one, but wouldn't you know it? I liked it. Sometimes great fictional characters deserve a revamp. I'm not saying go and do some 'hip' revamp of every famous fictional character, like say, make Captain Ahab into some bad-ass space marine with a cybernetic leg who fights alien whales in space or something like that, but sometimes reinterpretations can work. I can safely say that 'Sherlock Holmes' is one of them.

Here, the roles of Watson & Holmes are reversed. Traditionally, Holmes is a no-nonsense, nearly emotionless man who ruthlessly conforms, and demands conformity despite his many eccentricities, while Dr. Watson is a warm, emotional reader/audience identification figure who, despite his intelligence, comes off as an idiot compared to the brilliant Holmes and frequently makes the mistake of simply being human. Here, Holmes is the audience identification figure who makes mistakes, gives into his emotions(sexual and otherwise)and is looked on as a fish-out-of-water, while Watson is a stuffy, conservative man trying to lead a normal life who takes things way too seriously. It's an interesting twist, and thankfully obeys the golden rule of revamps: It does not in any way destroy the essential integrity of the characters. One could even say this version fleshes them out a bit. Robert Downey Jr. is an odd choice to play Holmes, but he handles the role well. My only complaint is that he never gets to wear Holmes's famous Inverness cape and deerstalker hat, although I'm sure this was an intentional move on the filmmakers part.

There are however, several flaws in the film's setup. For what is supposed to be an introduction, the film already feels like the umpteenth entry in a series, and makes the audience feel as if they missed a previous installment. This could be seen as either a good or a bad thing. Holmes and his supporting cast is so well-known that treating them as typical character archetypes(buddy cops, obnoxious boss, heroine on the wrong side of the law, depraved nobleman, hulking henchman, unseen criminal mastermind)keeps them from becoming caricatures, but it also keeps them from feeling like real, multi-faceted characters unique to their world; One could easily rewrite the film to be about James Bond or Batman. That is the film's biggest flaw, but it was easily overlook-able. And considering how stupidly most modern film-goers react to more complex and introspective characterizations(Christ, look at the bad reception 'Tropic Thunder', 'The Dark Knight', and 'Watchmen' got for their bizarre, satirical, nontraditional, or deconstructive looks at stereotypical characters), maybe this is a good thing.

I also have to give the film props for it's sets and atmosphere. The setting really does feel like Victorian London in all it's filthy, poverty-stricken glory. I also liked the old-fashioned look of some of the gadgetry, and the huge French henchman was pretty cool. For some reason, his big ears, crooked nose and grimacing brow remind me of Rondo Hatton as 'The Creeper', a supporting villain from the 1944 Universal Sherlock Holmes film 'Pearl of Death'. If that was an intentional reference, nice touch.

'Holmes' isn't perfect, but as an introduction to the character for a new generation, I have to say that it's the best I could have hoped for.~

"Curse of the Werewolf" is a film steeped in uncertainty. Sometimes referred to as a wasted opportunity, sometimes considered the greatest werewolf movie of all time, "Curse" isn't really either, and although a well-made film, it isn't very good. But what I am certain of is that it's my favorite Christmas movie of all time!!!

Don Alfredo Corledo(Clifford Evans)is apparently an omniscient immortal, as he begins the film(after the creepy opening credits showing the werewolf's crying eyes)by informing us(through past-tense voice-over)of events he could not possibly have witnessed or found out about and that he states happened "200 years ago", when by the time we meet him during those events, he is clearly a middle-aged man. Oh well, the film starts with the ringing of a church bell in a small Spanish village, where a handsome but scruffy beggar(Richard Wordsworth)inquires why the bell is ringing even though it's not a Sunday. After several curt dismissals, he finds that the local Marquis has just gotten married to a village girl(and left the village impoverished by raising taxes to fund the wedding), and from what we can tell, it apparently wasn't a marriage she was willing to enter into. A sarcastic barfly tricks our rag-clad hero into going to beg the Marquis for food. And as you may have gathered, the Marquis isn't exactly a charitable man....

The Marquis(Anthony Dawson, from "Dial "M" for Murder") is a sadistic creep who loves abusing his underlings, and he makes no exceptions with the beggar, making him act like a dog and dance. After the Beggar makes a suggestive comment, he ends up being locked in a dungeon where he gradually loses his grip on reality(and his good looks too). Meanwhile, the Marquis, now suffering from leprosy and more occupied with creating houses of cards than the outside world, tries to rape a busty mute servant girl(Yvonne Romaine, who effectively uses facial expressions to emote for a role that requires no talent)who bites him. He has her thrown in the same dungeon as the beggar, who rapes her anyway. The beggar dies, and the girl escapes after killing the Marquis. She tries to drown herself, but is rescued by Don Alfredo and brought to his home, where she is taken care of by his maid, Teresa. The girl dies giving birth on Christmas eve, but because widdle baby Jeebus has some serious birthday attention issues("For an unwanted child to be born on Christmas is an insult to heaven!" says Teresa), the child, Leon, is cursed.....

I'd like to point out that this has all happened in the first 26 minutes.

Following some boring, long-winded exposition involving an explanation for Leon's affliction, a comedic subplot involving the goat-herder's rivalry with the night watchman(two of the most British sounding 'Spaniards' I've ever heard!), and some truly awful overacting(Teresa's line "I just mean--he didn't come through here!!" gets my medal as the most meaningless line ever uttered with such over-the-top conviction) balanced with some very good acting(John Gabriel gives a wonderful, naturalistic performance as a kindly priest), scenes intended to be frightening that will give rise to all kinds of lewd jokes(check out the kid's hairy palms), we finally meet the adult Leon(Oliver Reed) who sets off to work at a local vineyard and falls in love with the owner's daughter Cristina(Catherine Feller) and the story begins....at last.

Its' pretty much just a retread of "Romeo & Juliet' with elements of the 1941 universal film thrown in. The difference being that there we got to know and like Lon Chaney Jr's character. Here, we find out NOTHING about Leon, and what we do find out pretty much makes him come off as a jerk, yelling at Cristina and shaking her, even before he finds out that he's a werewolf and needs a woman's love to cure him. Cristina pretty much sees that Leon is little different from her controlling dad and obnoxious fiancée, but decides to give him a shot anyway(what girl could resist a young Ollie Reed?) Leon refuses to show some simple patience and instead goes to a brothel with his Benny Hill-like coworker Jose. Apparently being in a 'sinful' atmosphere awakens the beast in Leon, and he becomes a werewolf, Don Alfredo finds out, and you can guess the rest....

Oliver Reed is one of my favorite actors, but he doesn't get to do much here. We see or hear so little of Leon, and what we do makes him come off as an impatient jerk who is hard to pity. He does however, pull off the transformation scenes incredibly well, and as the werewolf, he's simply one of the coolest-looking monsters of all time. Larry Talbot couldn't escape a bear trap, Leon can rip a rip an iron prison cell down and chuck doors and bales of hay at people! The rest of the cast is competent, Clifford Evans is obviously disinterested, Hira Talfrey overacts badly as Teresa, and although she does a good job as Leon's mute mother, Yvonne Romaine has little screen time(despite prominent billing and poster art depicting her as Leon's love-interest!). Martin Matthews provides good comedy relief as Jose. Catherine Feller isn't believable as an object of affection for two handsome men, but she succeeds at evoking sympathy, and is the film's most pitiable character. The real standouts however, are Wordsworth and Dawson as the Beggar & Marquis. Both actors deserved better careers.

"Curse' isn't great, despite nice sets and cinematography, but it's great to pop in at Christmas time! Where else can you see a movie about Christmas with cruelty to the homeless, food wasting, leprotic lechers, a mute woman being raped, werewolves, drunk guys named Jose who kiss paper-cutouts, and 'Spaniards' who talk like Monty Python extras?

Ah, what better film to review for my 50th than Brian De Palma's weird and wonderful Rock & Roll send-up of "Phantom of the Opera'. Alternately overpraised as a Kubrickian genius, or dismissed as a lame Hitchcopycat, De Palma is still a genuinely interesting director to study if not exactly easy to understand. While I agree that 'Carrie' is his masterpiece, his most unique and re-watchable film is this bizarre take on Gaston Leroux's often-filmed tale, which is filmed with lots of things which will alternately make you marvel or start scratching your head in confusion, not the least of which being that this version probably features THE most faithful portrayal of the Phantom since the days of Lon Chaney Sr and drives home the Faustian element of the story farther than any other version, and in some ways, much better than even in Leroux's own novel.

Yeah, you read that correctly.

The film sets its tone with the opening scenes(following a bizarre "Twilight Zone'-like voice-over)as we see a greaser nostalgia group called the Juicy Fruits perform a deceptively cheerful song about an unsuccessful musician who kills himself so that he will become a legend overnight so that it will help support his sister. Scenes like this are great, as they pretty much tell you that you will be getting more of the same in alternating doses of effectiveness. The whole film is like this opening: Fast-paced, bouncy, but with an underlying sense of menace, tragedy and heartbreak. If James Whale was alive in the '70's, this is the film he would have made.

The plot is a comedic update of the 1962 Terrence Fisher version of 'Phantom'. William Finley plays Warren Zevon-look a like Winslow Leach, a character clearly patterned after Herbert Lom's Professor Petrie. The nerdy but easily angered(he goes berserk at the prospect of his music being sung by the Juicy Fruits, whom he despises)Winslow is writing a rock opera based on 'Faust' which he insists on performing himself, and although he does quite a good job in my opinion, record dealer Swan(Paul Williams, playing a cross between Phil Spector, Dorian Gray and Michael Gough's Lord D' Arcy character from the 1962 version)decides he likes the music more than Winslow and steals it. After several unsuccessful attempts to get his music back, Swan has drugs planted on Winslow and he ends up getting life(?). However, after hearing his music performed on the radio by the Juicy Fruits, our hero snaps, kills a guard and escapes in a montage straight out of Loony Tunes, only to get disfigured by, wait for it, a RECORD PRESS.

Yeah.....

You can tell what happens next, but that doesn't mean things don't become more and more twisted. He may now be the disfigured, caped masked madman, but Winslow is soon going to discover he's not the only one inhabiting Swan's performance house who is worthy of being called "The Phantom".

Often criticized for his overindulgence(only in the '70's could such a minor celebrity have so many guest appearances) and diminutive size, Paul Williams nevertheless crafts a wonderfully slimy and urbane villain in Swan. The Phantom may be deformed, kill and terrorize, but Swan is the real monster in more ways than one. William Finley shines as Winslow, managing to make us instantly care and sympathize with him despite being a nerdy, naive, egotistical goof-ball. Yet, as the Phantom, he is genuinely menacing. Winslow, much like Erik in the novel, is more at home writing and performing than interacting with other people, and although he is targeting a genuinely evil man, he nevertheless has no qualms whatsoever about brutally slaughtering innocent stagehands and musicians he does not care for, annoying though they may be. It is genuinely disturbing watching him cackle insanely with his high-pitched robotic voice as he maims and kills people. Like Erik, he may be a tragic victim, but he really does enjoy being an evil monster more than he would care to admit. Finley makes his murders progress from bad tempered outbursts, to circumstantial ones to "Wheeeee!!! Murder is FUN!" in a believable fashion. And his Phantom costume, depending on your point-of-view, is either the best or worst ever created, even though he looks more like a superhero(or villain)than anything else. Husky-voiced Jessica Harper is also good as Winslows' love interest, man can she sing. Despite prominent billing, Gerrit Graham has little more than an overlong cameo as quite possibly the biggest gay stereotype on the face of the earth; a metal singer named Beef(!!!??)who ends up being killed in an outrageously offensive quadruple-visual pun(I'll let the smart people guess what I mean, and no, it's not because of his Frankenstein costume).

The film has great songs, and a fun cartoon sensibility that makes several gaping plot holes and outrageous coincidences overlook-able. The film's only flaw, is that it is too short, and too fast-paced. Nevertheless, this is still essential viewing for any cult film enthusiast.~

One of the biggest ironies of film is that, even though moralist losers would have you believe that everyone involved in horror films is a warped sicko, the truth is that just about every major genre star from Boris Karloff to Robert Englund has been extolled by co-stars as a nice, in some cases, unusually nice person, while 'respectable' stars of light-hearted films or "A" dramas like Danny Kaye, Judy Garland, Stan Laurel, Marlon Brando and Joan Crawford are infamous for being less than pleasant to be around off-camera. Sure The Chaney family was eccentric, Bela Lugosi would probably have preferred being Dracula than himself, Christopher Lee is(lovably)arrogant, John Carradine was a less than ideal father and Herbert Lom is less than eager to talk about his horror work, but horror stars are, by and large, often friendly people. My interactions with many of them at conventions(as well as a once in a lifetime encounter I had with Peter Cushing while on vacation in Britain)have confirmed this for me. Even minor actors like Whit Bissel and Paul Ehlers(star of the silly slasher movie 'Madman')have come off as very normal or down-to-earth in person.

But wouldn't it be great, however, if for once there WAS a horror film star who truly was just as much a fiend off-camera as on? It may not be very good, but Norman Thaddeus Vane's 'Frightmare' aka. 'The Horror Star' provides you with an opportunity to see such an actor!

Ferdy Mayne, who gave what is in my opinion, the greatest portrayal of a vampire of all time as the menacing Count Von Krolock in Roman Polanski's 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' plays Conrad Ragzoff(mispronounced 'Ragoff' and 'Radzoff' several times)an aging horror film star with a homicidal temper who has this hilarious ability to brutally murder people in plain sight and just walk away from it. Still, Ragzoff comes off as the closest thing to a sympathetic character in this. It's clear he loves his wife and fans. Although I eagerly anticipated each coming slasher flick in the era when this film was made and I was young, my true interest lay in the classics of Hammer & Universal, so I felt like a fish out of water back then. I could really relate to Conrad as I too felt like a discarded relic; a fan of Gothic castles, foggy cemeteries and moonlit nights rather than horny teens getting sliced and diced(and now in this era of crappy remakes and lame plot twists I'm nostalgic for those things too!).

After dying, Conrad's body(still wearing his vampire costume) is stolen by a gang of the most blandly nondescript teenagers(each of whom pretty much has VICTIM stamped on their heads) imaginable. Seriously, the cast was almost entirely killed off and I still had no clue to who they were!(one of the teens is played by a young Jeffrey Combs; take a guess who gets top-billing on bootlegs of this movie). Conrad's grieving widow contacts him through an obnoxious medium, and he comes to life with demonic powers and goes on a killing spree, But because the teens are so nasty, with them humiliating Ragzoff's body by kissing him and dancing with him, one's sympathy ultimately ends up lying with Ragzoff rather than the teens.

It's here where the film starts going to hell. For the first 17 minutes it is a good send up of the horror film industry, with a great performance by Mayne(though nowhere near as good as Krolock)but then it just turns into a typical slasher film with Gothic overtones, Conrad may as well just be Jason wearing a Dracula costume since he has no dialog. The murders are well-handled, but fairly uncreative(though a scene where Conrad levitates a coffin to bash a woman unconscious, and later to levitate a coffin with a live victim inside into a crematorium is so awesome it must be seen to be believed.). The film also has lighting that ranges from very nice, soap opera-like chiaroscuro to so bad you can hardly see what's going on. The plot has lots of holes too, the teens specifically mention that their boarding house is where Ragzoff once lived, and it's apparently the same building that we see him living in just a few days earlier! Did his heirs rent it out THAT fast? It's obvious the teens had been living there for some time. It also seems unrealistic that Ragzoff would be allowed such an elaborate and well-publicized funeral considering that he was working in commercials and it's made clear that he wasn't an "A" horror actor like Karloff or Price but a "B" lister like George Zucco or Lionel Atwill, one of the characters even says "His entire life was a B-movie". Bizarre.

Still, there's a nice chase through a cemetery at the end, as well as a consistently creepy atmosphere. The ending is also superbly downbeat. I'd say it ranks with 'House of the Long Shadows' as an interesting attempt to revive classic horror.

Ferdy Mayne never got the deserved chance to become a horror star, but at least he got to show what he could have done. Long live Conrad Ragzoff! Let him rank with Paul Toomes('Madhouse"), Byron Orlock("Targets"), Basil Karlo(Batman villain Clayface), Luis Belski(From Marvel Comics "Dracula Lives" magazine) and Paul Henderson("The House that dripped Blood") as the greatest(fictional)horror star who ever lived!

^^^^This is a quote from the film, and it sums up my opinions on this film perfectly. The difference being that I know it's not art, but I'm not sure what it is.

Wikipedia lists 'Spookies' as an Indie movie. As anyone who has followed me for any length of time knows, I'm in the minority in that I actually take some time to decide whether an Indie film is good or not, I don't automatically grant any indie movie a 10 just because it's an indie, I judge it as a movie, what I rate it depends on how good or bad it is. But do not think this means that I HATE indie films, I respect their makers for trying to make films outside of the Hollywood system, I just don't automatically rate any Indie film a 10 in order to defy 'The Man'. People need to learn that there's a fine line between respect and ass-kissing.

So what has this to do 'Spookies', you ask? Simple, this film shows it's indie roots firsthand. Rather than relying on the typical mainstream filmic ingredients for what makes a movie; such as Plot, Characterization, Thematic content, Acting, storytelling etc, the film instead offers us in their place these elements: 1) Gravestones that quiver like bed-sheets. 2) A werewolf in effeminate-gypsy clothing that looks like Zacherley in black-face with pointed ears who has a hook for a hand who makes cat noises and puts tree branches in the road for some reason. 3) A 13 year old boy on the lam because no one celebrated his birthday who talks in soliloquies where he explains EVERY single thing that happens who stupidly enters an abandoned mansion he's never been in before thinking his family is waiting inside for a surprise party. 4) A creepy sorcerer who looks like Warren magazines's Uncle Creepy who is trying in vain to bring his dead, preserved, non-decayed wife back to life. 5) A bickering group of teenagers who look so old that you think at first that one couple are their parents. 6) An abusive tough-talking wise-ass Italian-guy named Duke. 7) An alcoholic who can't slam the car door properly. 8) A comedy-relief guy who looks like John Waters who has a hand-puppet he uses to scare everyone with. 9) A cute but whiny broad-shouldered British chick named Adrian with the most British accent I've ever heard in a white business suit who looks like me and shares the same name. 10) A birthday party that appears out of nowhere with a severed head inside a box. 11) A creepy midget in a druid robe with green face-paint all over his face but who has normal flesh-colored hands with which he holds a knife. I can't tell if he's MEANT to be a real monster but has crappy makeup, or is meant to be wearing crappy makeup and is just a normal midget.

I've seen all of this in just the first 20 minutes. I think I may have found the greatest WTF movie of all time.

And it gets better. There literally are skeletons in the closet, who have Ouija boards in their arms that Duke thinks is a Parcheesi board. 'Spookies', where have you been all my life?

Then the zombies come!!!

And then it has the greatest line of all time....that I've heard this week: 'I've never met an electrical cord that can get the best of me', but that's not the best part. Guess what's next?

Farting wine-soluble mud mummies with pickaxes!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this movie just destroyed my brain, and I love it.

Go and buy this movie! Now! This may just be the pinnacle of all film! I'm resigning from my job, I'm going to start a church for this movie!!!

I think I may have done it. I have discovered a sure-fire crowd pleaser that will satisfy virtually anyone. It's not a GREAT movie, Per Se, but it's time to re-evaluate that often-used word.

What makes a movie great? Some say acting, some say atmosphere, some(mostly fundies)say family values, some say music, some(mostly liberals)say method of distribution, but what makes a movie great in my opinion is themes. Love, hate, death, betrayal. Throw all that in, handle it well, and I'm usually pretty satisfied.

'Spider Baby or The Maddest Story ever Told' has all that and all of the other stuff I mentioned, but in spades.

It has atmosphere(the Merrye house is so creepy it doesn't need fog or full moons to look foreboding), music(Lon Chaney Jr. practically invents rap with the theme song: "Shrieks and groans and bats and bones, teenage monsters in haunted homes, a spook on the stairway, a vampire's bite! Better beware! *heh* *heh* There's a full moon tonight!". Eat your heart out Kanye West, MC Chaney's slammin' it old skool, dawgs), great hammy acting by the whole cast, a complicated distribution history(it was filmed in 1964 and not released until 1968)and family values so prevalent you can eat them.

Lon stars as Bruno; a chauffeur who acts as father to the Merrye family. The Merrye's suffer from a syndrome caused by inbreeding which makes them mentally regress after puberty. And since this is a horror movie, you can count that it's not going to simply be some sappy Lifetime feel-good crap about a bond between an adult and some retards like that new Sandra Bullock movie or 'Radio', nope, the Merrye's are homicidal maniacs who wear pigtails, subsist on a healthy diet of cats, grass, mushrooms and human flesh, pretend to be spiders and kill washed up Poverty Row comedians. These are my kind of mentally handicapped people!

So yeah, as irredeemably monstrous as the family is, Bruno still loves them dearly, trying to impart them with strong morals and manners even after they brutally butcher strangers. Since the father is dead and Bruno has no other acquaintances, it's clear that he functions as a kind of quasi-father figure to them. It's actually very poignant and touching. But Bruno's idyllic world he has created for them is threatened when a greedy businessman named Schlocker arrives. Can family overcome the evils of the outside world?

Whats interesting is that, as dangerous as the Merrye's are, it's clear that they never leave the house, and hence, pose no danger to anyone. Everyone they kill is an intruder of some sort. Even Bruno mentions that the only person from the outside world they have harmed were kids who broke in once(who escaped), it's clear that the family is no danger to anyone so long as they are left alone in their own little madhouse. Bruno has taken great means to protect them, and is successful for the most part, they never harm anyone in his presence and invariably obey, they only kill when he's not around, and sadly, he has to go away a lot. But that doesn't make him irresponsible either. It makes you wish that a different fate was in store for them.

From that point-of-view, the real villain of the piece is not the family; who cannot help being what they are, or Bruno; who covers up for their crimes, but Schlocker, an amoral man so set on controlling everyone and everything that even when he is killed he goes out babbling less about being murdered but at 'the indecency of it all'. He is a 'square' who the audience must have cheered to see butchered. He represents the 'bully' presented by the outside world that all families must face, and as Bruno says, 'There will be many more Mr. Schlockers, and worse'.

Ironically, the family is destroyed from within. Associates of Schlocker arrive who are distant relations to them. The one who treats them kindly survives, while the one who doesn't ends up going mad, and dies writhing among them; her rage making her indistinguishable from them.

Chaney gives what is probably his best performance as Bruno, who, in many ways, is a commentary on his role as Lenny in 'Of Mice & Men' in that here, he gets to play the George figure. He watches out for the family(Lenny)and in the end, kills them to spare them the world's cruelty. Always great to see actors playing the anti-thesis of their usual role. Karl Schanzer is wonderfully slimy as Schlocker, Jill Banner & Beverly Washburn are wonderful as the twins, who feel like real bickering siblings anyone could have, only homicidal, yet they still seem innocent(and sexy in a Lolita-ish way)despite their blood-lust. Sid Haig is very funny as lovable pinhead Ralph, and Mary Mitchell and Quinn Reddeker are refreshingly funny romantic leads, going into long, hilariously pointless discussions about health food and movie monsters. If only falling in love was so easy in real life.

'Spider Baby' may not be the maddest story ever told, but it's still one I'd rather re-experience numerous times again than that other '-est Story ever Told'.

'Gather round children, I got a story for you all. There once was a magical land called Cuba that everyone in America saw as a high-class equivalent of Mexico where you could do all kinds of crazy stuff you couldn't in America. It was the perfect place to go when hiding out from the law, smoking fancy cigars and finding romance and intrigue. Like Vegas if it was an island. Everyone lived happily, until a big fat man introduced communism, and soon Cuba became a land of poverty and woe.

But in it's heyday Cuba captured the popular imagination of American storytellers and held it in it's grip for quite a while, and a great way to recapture that nostalgic appeal is 1940's 'The Ghost Breakers'.

Bob Hope plays Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence(his parents were unimaginative), a corrupt radio broadcaster who stays in cahoots with local racketeers for stories. After a chain of circumstances(which must be seen to be believed)leads to Lawrence believing that he murdered a man, Lawrence and his chauffeur Alex(Willie Best)come into contact with a beautiful young heiress named Mary(Paulette Goddard)who has inherited a reportedly haunted castle in Cuba, and they follow her.

Hope isn't as funny in this film so much as charming and witty, but he does a good job and his mastery of wordplay is used expertly here. Goddard captures the perfect combination of strong-willed heroine and fainting ingénue as Mary. Good supporting performances by Paul Lukas & Richard Carlson(who would also play a similar role to his role here the following year in the Abbott & Costello comedy 'Hold that Ghost', before starring in many 50's sci-fi classics like 'It came from Outer Space')help round out the cast.

Modern audiences may be turned off by Best's performance and role, however. Truth be told, Alex is a 'Yes massa' stereotype with little redeeming qualities, and is the butt of several truly offensive jokes which ARE race-based(there's a joke about Lawrence threatening to paint him white and even, wait for it; a fried chicken joke), so one can't dismiss his role as one that had no racial malice in it that a white actor could have filled easily. The role isn't helped by the fact that Lawrence thinks very little of him and bosses him constantly. Still, at least Alex is portrayed as no more incompetent or cowardly than Lawrence is, and Best still manages to make the role quite funny, and easily manages to hold his own with the rest of the cast. He even gets to save Lawrence & Mary at the end, basically making him the hero.

For a comedy, the film also has an undeniably spooky atmosphere in the scenes at the castle. There's even a legitimately suspenseful scene with a zombie, that succeeds in raising more shivers than most serious horror films at the time were doing. The scenes of horror and humor are expertly balanced, such as when Mary runs from the zombie and gets her dress stuck; it's both tense AND funny, the shock and slapstick as she tries to pull it out makes it amusing, but each unsuccessful pulling brings her closer to to death as the zombie advances. Most modern horror films could learn from this, especially 'parodies' like 'Scream'.

Other highlights include a scene where Mary impersonates a look-alike ancestor, a truly eerie scene with a real ghost, and a surprising twist-ending which leads to one of the most hilariously random villain deaths of all time. It's all great fun, don't miss it.~

William Castle; famous for his shock gimmicks and bizarre plots, is a director I always liked even if I didn't revere him, his films were always accessible and fun. As of late however, he's starting to become a favorite of mine. I can't say I've ever seen a truly bad film from him, even though he usually gets lumped in with Ed Wood & Coleman Francis. His films were meant to be fun, with their crazy promotional gimmicks and animated opening credits, he clearly intended his films to not be taken seriously, but in a good way. Most say the element of humor was unintentional because he was a lousy director whose films came off as camp, and that he would fail at comedy as much as horror if he had tried. Well, I just saw this film on it's entirety on Youtube, and not only is it an overt comedy, but it's a hoot from start to finish.

In the distant past in New England, a greedy but handsome sailor decided to get rich quick by marrying Felicity; the lonely horse-faced daughter of a wealthy shipping magnate, but fell in love instead with the pretty maid, Jenny. Felicity killed the maid, and then the sailor with a meat cleaver before the sailor finished her off with a knife right before bleeding to death, now the trio's ghosts haunt the local mansion.

In (then)present times the Powell family moves in to the manor for a vacation. Led by paranoid, chronic-back pain suffering father Ben(Sid Caesar), whining son Steve(Barry Gordon) and nagging mother Kate(Vera Miles). This bickering, dysfunctional clan is a hoot to watch, with everyone showing off reasons both to like and dislike them, so that we don't come to find them all annoying and hope they get killed off. The dialog exchanges are great and laugh-out-loud funny rather than dated. The characters are so well-developed that this feels like a Halloween special for a long-running sitcom in it's prime, and that's always a plus. You can just imagine all the crazy adventures this family has had before and after this film.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the house is going to be haunted, and thankfully rather than setting up some Scooby Doo fake-ghost subplot, the film makes the Ghost's presence clear from the beginning. It admittedly falls into formula; you know how it goes, Outsider sees ghosts, gets blamed for their mischief and nobody believes him. It's an old formula, but it's delivered with a nice hint of freshness considering that the ghosts are given personality without speaking, the ghosts of the Sailor & the Maid keep making out, and Felicity keeps throwing things at them which leads to furniture getting smashed. And apparently the ghost couple isn't getting along too well either, as they fight amongst themselves even when Felicity is gone. Poor Steve gets blamed for all this, and it's hilarious how his parents seem to explain it all way as typical teenage behavior even though if he really was doing all this stuff he would have to be dangerously psychotic, but they just keep threatening to deduct from his allowance. One of the best parts comes when the ghosts sink his rich(he's a toilet bowl baron...yeah), paranoid Uncle George's yacht and Steve's only reaction is to say 'You can take it from my allowance'.

The film has several highlights thereafter, from a diving expedition gone wrong, a male bartender named Mother, a bizarre series of circumstances that leads Kate to believe Ben is cheating on her, a great cameo from John Astin(Gomez from the 'Addams Family')as a psychologist hired by Uncle George to find out if Steve is gay(after he sees him buying lots of perfume and makeup for Felicity to appease her evil spirit) who quickly comes to wonder if he's going mad himself. Not all of the jokes work, but they all manage to keep a (pardon the pun) spirit of fun.

Risqué fun too. For a film from the '60's, there's a good deal of swearing, underage drinking, sex, adultery and homophobia. Yet it's all done with a sense of innocence, only the murders in the prologue would cause the film to get more than a PG today.

The performances are all good, too. Sid Caesar is the most experienced of the lot, and gives a typically fine performance. Barry Gordon manages to make Steve believably obnoxious and brash but still likable. Vera Miles shows great range in the role of Kate, compare her role here to her role in 'Psycho'. But it's Jill Townsend in a triple role as Jenny the Maid/Steve's psychic girlfriend Priscilla/her librarian sister Carol who steals the show. John McGiver is also great as the boisterous, Archie Bunker-like Uncle George. A fun twist-ending is also in store. The music is good too.

A great little gem that I can already tell is going to be one of my new favorites, I highly recommend this obscure film. I also wonder if this was an influence on Burton's 'Beetlejuice'. The plots are very similar; Seaside New England manor is haunted by two lovers, dysfunctional family arrives and havoc ensues. If the film was remade, I can totally see the supernatural-obsessed Priscilla portrayed as a goth like Lydia from 'Beetlejuice'. I also notice that the 'Topper' film series from the 40's influenced both films greatly, yet, I enjoyed 'Spirit' more than either of them. Y' Know, sometimes I get the feeling that "A' cinema isn't all it's cracked up to be...

For lovers of humorous horror films and screwball comedies, I can't recommend this enough.~

If you want to enjoy a film which fills out all criteria for the MST3k treatment, but which still doesn't deserve such a heinous fate, there is nothing better for a rainy night's entertainment than the 1944 Poverty Row anti-classic 'The Monster Maker'.

It's cheap, silly, dreadfully Un-PC and I may have seen a picture of it the last time I looked up the word 'derivative'. But it's a joy to watch and has never worn out it's welcome.

The film boasts a set-up right out of Freund's 'Mad Love'(1935): A mad surgeon who frequently attends a stage-performance falls madly in love with a woman, begins stalking her and sending her gifts constantly, but she soon is forced into his clutches by a medical ailment befalling a loved one and the Doctor turns him into a monster of sorts. However, whereas in most Poverty Row films they simply dumbed down events they would derive from other, better films, here they make things even more twisted and unpleasant than the original!

While the film has nothing as fantastic as 'Mad Love's transplanted hand and impersonation of a resuscitated dead man, it has a truly seedy and unpleasant feel. Here, the Doctor, who calls himself 'Markoff'(played by J. Carrol Naish, giving a performance obviously patterned after Peter Lorre as Dr. Gogol in 'Mad Love' but just as enjoyably perverse)is a genuinely twisted individual with no redeeming qualities, he lusts after the daughter of a pianist named Lawrence because she resembles his dead wife(See 'The Mummy' 1932), but this is not a touching or sentimental tragic romance that was not meant to be, no, it turns out his 'wife' was his employer's wife, who he murdered to win her over, she refused, so he disfigured her with Acromegaly so no man would ever want her, so she killed herself and he then impersonated his employer(see 'Maniac' 1934) thereon, making him not a true mad scientist, just a madman who knows how to spread diseases, so you can't even admire him for his scientific genius like you can other evil scientist villains. He is covered up for by his female aide who secretly loves him who is also a mad scientist(see 'The Devil Doll'1936) but whose love he does not return. This is one sick individual.

And it gets worse, after 'Markoff' goes too far in his advances, the girl's father(the always reliable Ralph Morgan)goes to see him, and is knocked out and injected with Acromegaly. This causes him to become disfigured(He looks very much like deformed character actor Rondo Hatton, who probably modeled for this) gradually. He spends his days hidden in his room with a locked door, having his dinner brought to him secretly(see 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde', yes, the book and not any of the film adaptations), he still takes joy in playing the piano, though, until he is intruded upon and his hideous face is glimpsed while playing(see 'The Phantom of the Opera') and eventually, Lawrence is forced to bargain with 'Markoff' in return for curing his disfigurement(see 'The Raven' 1935; for both the disfiguring blackmail plot and daughter angle). 'Markoff' also tries to kill his assistant with a gorilla he sets loose(see 'Murders in the Rue Morgue').

I could go on, but I think I've made it clear how much of a cornucopia of stolen ideas this film is. But what's also amazing, is how much the film may itself have inspired others. The scenes of Lawrence hiding his face and having his meals brought to him secretly were imitated in 1958's 'The Fly' and the EC comic's story 'RX Death', the 'secretly being injected with Acromegaly' scenes obviously inspired a similar sequence in 'Tarantula', and the 1987 film 'Phantom of Death' also features a pianist who acquires a slowly disfiguring disease. So for a film as derivative as it is, 'Monster Maker' also gives as much as it receives.

What's also disturbing is that, ignoring the silly trappings like the Gorilla, the accelerated effectiveness of the Acromegaly and the complex back story for 'Markoff', this is all disturbingly plausible. A man deliberately infecting people with debilitating diseases could easily happen, and in fact, since Lawrence poses no threat to anyone at all, one sees him not as a 'Monster', but as what he would be in the real world; A dying man going through hell at the hands of a malicious madman posing as a doctor who mocks him with hope for a cure. And keep in mind that this was advertised as a horror film with promotional art implying Lawrence was the villain and on a rampage, even though he's a good guy with a disease that infects hundreds of people in the real world. That's sick, and worse if you imagine them actually casting Rondo Hatton in the role.

Pretty heady stuff for a Poverty Row film that barely lasts an hour, and more disturbing than most of what Universal was producing at the time. Good acting also helps. Naish is brilliant as the slimy surgeon, probably one of the most irredeemably evil characters in 40's horror films. Morgan elicits pity for Lawrence very easily, as he loses everything he has that makes him happy one by one. The rest of the cast is good too, no standouts, but everyone seems natural and talk like real people(well, mostly).

No classic, not even up there with other Poverty Row horror films like the disturbing 'Bluebeard'(1944) or the dreamlike 'Strangler of the Swamp'(1946) but definite proof that Poverty Row could make seedy and tasteless horror films as well as anyone else at the time.~

When I recently took my trip to Romania for Halloween, I noticed a lot of weird things, nothing of the supernatural sort but odd. One that stuck in my mind was the distraught face of a woman who missed a local tour bus as it was j u s t taking off. I understand that feeling well, and what stuck in my mind is how fast the woman ran but still missed. Perhaps had she not carried so much luggage she would have made it.

1970's 'The Mark of the Devil' is like that, it reaches far but just misses. One of the many sleazy witch-burning films that sprang up in the wake of Michael Reeves's swansong 'The Witchfinder General', 'Mark' surprisingly has lot going for it than most of the other rip-offs. It's certainly not the classic that a few have made it out to be, but it's also not as shamelessly bad as some reviewers have said(it IS pretty shameless though, with one of the worst musical scores of all time).

In 16th century Austria a busty tavern wench named Vanessa(Olivera Katarina)resists the advances of disgusting wench--I mean witch hunter Albino(Reggie Nalder)and summarily finds herself accused of witchcraft. Thankfully one of the witch hunters, Christian(Udo Kier, who really puts the pretty in pretty boy)has some compassion for her, and unlike Albino actually genuinely believes in what he is doing and is not in it for the profit, but it complicates matters that he DOES suspect her of witchcraft. This causes an obviously budding romance between them to develop much more slowly, and much more realistically than in other films. Things are further complicated when renowned witch-hunter Count Cumberland(Herbert Lom)arrives in town after hearing allegations of Albino's corruption. Will he be our young couples Saviour? Or will he be even worse?

At first, the distant but apparently kindly Cumberland seems as far from Vincent Price's Matthew Hopkins as you can get. He lets several people go free and it's clear that Christian respects him and sees him as a father figure, and the feeling is mutual. We get the feeling that Cumberland is just a misguided but noble man and that he can eventually be swayed to see the light just as Christian was and that he will emerge as the hero of the piece.

That is until it becomes clear that Cumberland is bat sh*t insane and even more dangerous than Albino at his worst. Our young couple is screwed.

Herbert Lom gives what is possibly his greatest performance as Cumberland. This apparently kindly but pigheaded man's gradual revelation as a completely irredeemable and evil monster is genuinely horrifying. It may be one of the best portrayals of understated evil ever portrayed on the screen. Even the hardened murderer and rapist Albino cannot compare to Cumberland's madness. He recognizes Cumberland for what he is and is soon snuffed out. He may be a rapist, murderer and all-around sleaze bag, but at least he admits it to himself. Nalder is a sickening joy to watch in his scenes with Lom.

Udo Kier is a bit stiff as Christian, but his gradual transformation from a deluded but honest man to a freedom fighter as he realizes his mentor is mad is excellent. The fact that his years of friendship means nothing to Cumberland, as well as his futile attempts at redemption as he realizes that he is just as responsible for the executions as anyone else is brilliantly portrayed. It's a harrowing portrait of a man forced to compromise his beliefs as everything he knows comes crashing down. It's a compelling contrast to 'Witchfinder' where the film's likable, level-headed hero Marshall; starts out as a noble freedom fighter and gradually compromises his morals until he becomes every bit as bad as his nemesis and no longer can relate to his friends and loved ones. Here, the hero starts out identifying with the villain before compromising his BAD morals and reforming, but whereas in 'Witchfinder' our hero lives to become corrupted, here he dies to reform(he's not named 'Christ' for nothing). Olivera Katarina is also great as Vanessa. In some ways she too is similar to Marshall, her blind quest for vengeance against Cumberland is what causes the death of her lover, until she too has a led a mad 'witchhunt' which has mostly harmed the innocent and destroyed any chance at happiness she had.

So what keeps 'Mark' from becoming a classic? Well, the film has plenty of problems, from an unbearable, unfitting, awful musical score that will cause you to want to harm small animals and children, to awful dialog, to cinematography which ranges from laughably amateurish to Oscar-worthy(sometimes in the same scene!)but what ultimately kills it is it's attitude. The film is attempting to be a sensitive, intelligent historical epic but feels more like a sleazy exploitation film(probably because it IS a sleazy exploitation film). The T & A shots are gratuitous, there are several lame attempts at humor and the films marketing campaign made it clear that the film's primary objective was shocking people, as the film was rated 'V for Violence' by the filmmakers, and marketed with 'Free barf bags!!', making it clear the gore scenes were meant to be the centerpiece. So much for art.(Did I mention that the score sucked too?)

With better direction, a more mature approach and a better score this could have been a genuine classic. But it JUST misses. Still, compared to the other 'Witchfinder' rip-offs, it certainly could have been worse.~

In both of their glowing reviews of this 1958 Hammer ground-breaker, Dennis Giford and Eric B. Olson cited how ironic it was that audiences once said Christopher Lee could not measure up to Bela Lugosi as Dracula, but that when Frank Langella took up the cape audiences said he could never measure up to Christopher Lee. This is a classic example of how the pupil will surpass the master, but will end up repeating his mistakes that will be noticed when a 'New Man' comes around, even if the man is initially mocked, and so the cycle continues. I'm not saying that the following versions of 'Dracula' surpassed the originals(in fact, neither were the originals unless you want to overlook a little silent masterpiece called 'Nosferatu')but I think it's time that a 'New Man' proposes a re-evaluation.

I am that man. And I come to challenge this long-standing contender to the throne. Word is that this version surpasses the 1931 version in every respect, the other word is that no, nothing can beat the original. I challenge both viewpoints.

I think it goes without saying that Terence Fisher was a better director than Tod Browning, and that technically speaking; 'Horror of Dracula'(as it is most commonly known)is a superior film. However, one can argue that the 1931 version is better because of it's importance, so let's leave things like technical proficiency and historical importance aside and weigh these films where they REALLY matter; in terms of acting, pacing and entertainment value.

The consensus is that the Browning version starts off good then becomes dull aside from some supporting performances after the initial Transylvania sequences, while the Fisher version is great from beginning to end with no weaknesses aside from budgetary constraints. Want the truth? Both have the same pacing issues. Both films start off with a bang in the scenes at the castle(this version never leaves Transylvania and takes place in a neighboring village that's apparently just a few hours ride, almost all reviews say it moves to London), but lose momentum after wards. Almost all of Fisher's version after the opening is comprised of TALKING, and since it's a longer version and more 'modern' film, it shows. The difference is that while Browning's version undeniably has a let-down of an ending, Fisher's ends with a bang. So while the thrilling parts of Fisher's version are superior, both films have much of the same drawing-room boredom and lengthy explanations of things anyone with a brain could have figured out themselves.

The other issue is the acting. Most say that Lugosi's performance is the only good one in browning's film, although some(though still not enough IMHO)credit occasionally goes to Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye. Truth is, Lugosi's performance hasn't aged well and Sloan & Frye dominate the proceedings. Despite being in the hands of more capable actors, Fisher's version actually has LESS chops in the acting department. Christopher Lee exudes a raw savagery and sexuality as Drac, but really, the performance gives him so little to do that any stuntman, or even another good actor in the film could have done. It's just like Lugosi's; Iconic, but not great by any means. The really great performance is Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, he's not nearly as faithful as Sloan to the book, but he dominates the entire film and sure as hell is much more glamorous and active, less a professor and more a prototype for vampire slaying superheroes like Blade and the Belmont clan. Michael Gough is much better as Arthur Holmwood(the Harker character)than David Manners, but it's mostly a thankless part when it had real potential to show a character who is a non-believer become a believer. All of the other performances are bland as can be except for a hilarious cameo by Miles Malleson as a talkative coffin-maker. So the films are narrowly matched in acting terms; an iconic but uninteresting role, some fun supporting bits but only one standout.

So the truth is, both films are more or less equals in the acting and pacing department. But which is more entertaining? Well, Fisher's version. The good scenes hit harder than Browning's does. And as dull as the talkative scenes are, a good chunk of the talking is by Peter Cushing, and he's one of those actors who is so good you'd watch him read the phone book. The incredible James Bernard score also helps, and many shots of orange leaves and cloudy night skies help build a nice Halloween atmosphere.

It's also interesting how in the Browning version, Renfield takes on Harker's role in the early scenes but Harker remains the same. Here, Harker makes the journey, but becomes a vampire like Renfield, but is mercifully killed early on, instead Mina takes on the Renfieldian role and Arthur Holmwood is the hero. An Interesting commentary on the role reversal. I also like how just as many of the scares come from Van Helsing as Dracula. When Van Helsing's hand pops up out of nowhere to scald Lucy with a crucifix it's a much more frightening moment than anything the Count does. In fact, the two most gory and violent scenes also stem from Van Helsing. Perhaps something could have been made of this, but sadly nothing was(probably religious reasons).

In short, Fisher's version is a better made, better looking and more entertaining film than Browning's, and this all earns it one more star. Otherwise, they are very evenly matched, with the gulfs in quality present, but not nearly as big as they are made out to be. Good film, but as far as it's reputation suggests? As Van Helsing tells Arthur 'That's a common fallacy'.~

OK, time to cut to the chase. In prelude to my coming trip to 'The Land beyond the Hills'(Romania for you less poetically inclined)I have been reviewing genre films set there while carefully skirting those that feature it's most (in)famous (fictional)resident. The list of films set in Romania without Dracula was surprisingly extensive(and there are still several I haven't seen)and also surprisingly good. But now it's time to review film's featuring his excellency the Count, and where better to start off than with the version that is the most firmly implanted in the public's consciousness?

In my now infamous review of the 1931 James Whale 'Frankenstein'(which still garnishes hate-mail on a weekly basis from enraged Branagh fans just as effectively as the original version I posted on my old account back in 2002 did)I emphasized just what a polarizing film it can be. In contrast, Tod Browning's less-highly regarded Dracula isn't so much a film with multiple opinions regarding it so much as it is a film whose reviewers are invariably split into two camps: 1)Those who regard it as an important but unwatchable curio and 2)Those who love it unconditionally whose only complaints(if any) are that it's pacing slows down after the early scenes in Romania.

But films, as with life, are too complex to be summed up that easily. So the truth is that while it has a number of strengths and weaknesses, they aren't nearly as strong OR weak as they are made out. The consensus is that the film goes to hell as soon as it leaves Transylvania; and while it's true that nothing else in the film quite measures up to those scenes in becoming iconic, the film actually has several of it's most effective sequences right after wards: The scenes of the 'Vesta' being found with the entire crew dead except a raving Renfield still provides a real jolt, the scenes of Dracula seducing and then coming upon Lucy are still creepy enough to make you occasionally open an eye after you've gone to bed as well, but only if the atmosphere is JUST right.

While it is true that a lack of a musical score mars the film, it also manages to give several scenes an eerie feel that makes it seem as if time itself has stopped to allow the Count to do his deadly handiwork. Everything feels dead, with only Dracula himself moving about. They don't call midnight(when Dracula apparently strikes)the 'Dead of Night' for nothing. The oft-criticized scenes where things are kept off camera actually work FOR the film rather than against it, and likely are sparing us some scenes that would otherwise be embarrassing. There's no denying that 'Dracula' is slow and dull, and that this pacing technique(not helped by static camera-work) fails more often than it succeeds; but compared to some other glacially-paced horrors of this era that I've had the misfortune to witness, it's nothing to gripe about.

The acting is quite different from most people's reviews too. The consensus is that Lugosi is the only competent actor on board and everyone else stinks. The truth is, in fact, the opposite. Lugosi has an undeniable screen-presence, the most hypnotic eyes I have ever seen in a human being who was not a woman, and he created a character that will be remembered when the dust of my bones is gone; but the truth is that he's so hammy he's embarrassing, and his delivery("We'll be lee--avink, to-MORRRRROW--eve-enink")is the subject of too many parodies too count that it was probably old-hat to mock it before the year was out. This is no slam on Lugosi, I've sat through too many bad films just to see him in minor roles for me NOT to be a fan, but he's done better than this, even in comedies like 'Abbott & Costello meet Frankenstein'.

The unfairly reviled supporting cast is actually quite good all things considered. Herbert Bunston gives a credible, if one-dimensional portrayal of Dr. Seward. Frances Dade is very natural as Lucy but sadly has too little screen time to develop the character. Helen Chandler is incredibly dull as Mina and deserves most of the barbs she gets, BUT; she does have one great moment where she attempts to bite Jonathan Harker(David Manners, who IS every bit as bad as critics have said)with this evil little gleam in her eye. It could be made into a shirt featuring the 7 deadly sins and 'Lust' would apply perfectly to it. Still, it would have been better if her role was reversed with Lucy's. Most of the film is carried by Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing. He seems to be just an old man, but his sheer stoicism and drive is astonishing. He may not be a quasi-superhero like Peter Cushing or Hugh Jackman, but you really believe in everything he says. He may seem unassuming, but rarely has Dracula had such a worthy foe.

But the real standout is Dwight Frye as Renfield. His transformation from an unassuming everyman hero, to mad slave, to fiend, to martyr is absolutely incredible. He's both charming and likable in his naiveté in the early scenes, horrifyingly deranged when he goes mad(his laugh is the scariest thing about the film), hilariously funny(he provides more real comedy than any of the comedy relief maids and guards)and ultimately, a very tragic character. One could argue that he is the true hero of the film. His death at Dracula's hands is genuinely heartbreaking. The fact that Frye was never nominated for something shows just how meaningless industry awards really are.

So no, 'Dracula' is not a masterpiece, nor is it an overrated misfire only important for historic reasons with only one good performance. It still remains essential viewing for every horror fan worth his salt and should be seen at least once by any self-respecting film fan.

Just try not to expect a classic in league with 'Frankenstein'.~

For my marathon of Non-Dracula Transylvania-based films I recently experienced(that's the only real way to describe it)Polanski's 'The Fearless Vampire Killers'. A great film to be sure, but not a very successful one in the comedy department, which is a shame since it's a huge problem in an otherwise fine film.

It may count as cheating since I've been a fan of *this* film since adolescence, but even after all these years, I knew I would encounter no such problem in this Mel Brooks classic.

'Young Frankenstein' has the distinction of being one of those few comedies which can be just as funny for those who have never seen the source material that's being spoofed(No problem for me as I was a fan of the Universal horrors since I was even younger and had read the book even earlier), and that still offers plenty of insight for those who have. And as unpromising as it sounds to make a comedic send up of Universal's horrors, which had displayed their ability to laugh at themselves as early as 1932; it ironically emerges as the very model of how to do a successful parody, and even more amazingly, it also offers some surprising insight into the themes of the Frankenstein legend itself, or at least; much more than Kenneth Branagh's overrated 'faithful' adaption ever did.

The plot is basically a comedic remake of Rowland V. Lee's 'Son of Frankenstein'(1939). The set-up is virtually the same: A descendant of the original Doctor(Gene Wilder)returns to his family castle where he is ostracized by suspicious villagers led by a one-armed inspector(Kenneth Mars) and is coerced into taking up his ancestor's mantle by an unhinged former associate. The difference is that the protagonist is the grandson of the original monster-maker, the Ygor character(Marty Feldman, whose character actually is more closely patterned after Dwight Frye as Fritz & Karl than he is Bela Lugosi as Ygor) is benevolent and rather it is a sinister housekeeper(Cloris Leachman) who influences the protagonist, it also involves the creation of a new monster(Peter Boyle, giving a comedic take on the monster that is worlds beyond Clancy Brown's in 'The Bride') rather than the reviving of the original one. This doesn't stop Brooks from managing to work in references to the original from 1931 and the 1935 sequel. In less skilled hands this could have been disastrous, but thankfully Brooks was hip to the fact that 1935's 'Bride of Frankenstein' was already a horror-comedy, and he wisely didn't attempt to poke fun at things already meant to be funny. Instead he does his best to IMPROVE them. It's this approach that shows that Brooks is smarter than your average satirical filmmaker, and it's what separates him(well, besides actually being talented) from the myriad of other 'satirists' who would have either attempted to point out 'flaws' the original filmmakers were clearly aware of(Mst3k), lifted scenes verbatim(Wayans Bros.)or made up random unfunny jokes that had nothing to do with what was being spoofed(Friedberg & Seltzer).

What's also remarkable is that, if one overlooks some small continuity issues(which the original Universals were JAM-PACKED with)such as names and locations(It's because this film takes place in 'Transylvania' that I am reviewing it for this marathon), as well as the comedic tone; this could actually be seen as a follow-up to the first 3 Universal Frankenstein films. Just imagine Gene Wilder's character as an adult version of Donny Dunagan from 'Son of Frankenstein' with a changed name(He mentions being embarrassed by his lineage and this leads to a running gag where he insists his name is pronounced 'Fronkensteen', making him not a self-hating Jew, but a self-hating mad scientist...who's also a Jew)to escape publicity and it works. They even have the same curly hair and Americanized personality. This suggest Brooks was aiming not at a mean-spirited comedic attack on decades old films, but at a loving homage/sequel to them instead. I can respect that.

I could ramble on all day at how well it does justice to the original films and even the novel(For example; lots of people mention how when the Monster says 'You are my creator but I am your master' to Victor in the book how the Monster is in some ways a twisted reflection of Victor in that he exceeds him in all levels, proving more cunning, more sympathetic, more powerful and even has longer 'lustrous black hair' and how he actually succeeds in 'nailing' Elizabeth' by killing her long before Victor ever has sex with her; suggesting that the Monster, through a symbolic rape, is even better in bed than his creator! In 'Young Frankenstein' this subtext becomes overt: Here, the Monster DOES 'rape' Elizabeth, and she falls in love with him because of his 'Enormous schwanstucker' and deserts the doctor, leaving him to marry a busty servant girl(Terri Garr) he was sleeping with anyway)but, I think I'll rap up by saying that this film is as perfect as a parody can get, good atmospheric music, great production values and Oscar-worthy performances by all.

Still, as much as I like experiencing 'local color' in foreign countries, and as much as I enjoyed Kenneth Mars's character, I hope that the Romanian police don't have accents THAT thick when I visit.~

Well, since I'm reviewing films set in Romania(in preparation for my trip) that do not feature Dracula it was inevitable I would wind up reviewing this infamous Roman Polanski-directed horror-comedy, but with Polanski in the news as of late I felt I may as well cut to the chase, plus it would be nice to review something intentionally funny for a change. Granted, Polanski has made scarier films than this('The Tenant')and funnier ones(I shamelessly admit I've always had a soft-spot for 'Pirates'), and truth be told, the film itself is something of a mixed bag and certainly doesn't deserve Ken Hanke's description as 'Polanski's greatest film', heck, as a parody of Hammer films, I'd say that the 'Family Matters' Halloween special with Urkel as a vampire hunter was more successful than this film! But it's definitely something no fan of either Polanski or genre films should avoid, regardless of your personal feelings about Polanski.

The plot is fairly simple stuff; two vampire hunters named Abronsius(Jack MacGowran)& Alfred(Polanski himself) investigate kidnappings in a snowbound Transylvanian village(Abaraham Van Helsing & Simon Belmont must have been on vacation) and then decide to infiltrate the castle of the sinister Count Von Krolock(Ferdy Mayne)after a village girl(Sharon Tate, looking so lovely you almost feel like crying knowing what would happen to her in real life)is kidnapped by him. Being that this is a comedy, it goes without saying that our two heroes are a few transfusions short of a blood vessel(I'm going to kill myself for that joke), and after ending up in the castle and losing their weapons 'hilarity' ensues.

Truth be told, as typically excellent as this work is from a younger Polanski, he pretty much fails at creating an effective comedy so much as he succeeds at creating a light-hearted horror film. The jokes fall as flat as the characters do when they trip over coffins, and much of the "Senile old professor who has lost his mind but rambles on anyway" humor that comprises Abronsius's shtick(besides getting frozen, stuck and berating Alfred) is obviously too subtle for MacGowran to handle. That said, the film still manages to be quite amusing, with three laugh-out-loud hilarious sequences, such as when a Jewish vampire is confronted with a cross(That's where my heading quote for this review comes from), a later sequence where Alfred drops his weapons bag and it rolls down hill and keeps rolling for several minutes till it's out of frame(Matt Groening clearly was inspired by this gag for a 'Simpsons' episode where Homer falls down a gorge in a similar manner). Then there's the scene where Alfred almost falls victim to Krolock's gay son Herbert(Ian Quarrier). It may be a very homophobic sequence, but it's funny as hell, so much so that one wishes Quarrier was given an expanded role(He may well have had one, the film is supposedly extensively cut).

Polanski has shown himself to be a talented actor as well as director, but he falls flat in this, he's just too distant to come off as the goofy nebbish his character was intended to be(Roger Corman regulars Jonathan Haze or Dick Miller would have been better). As Abronsius; MacGowran clearly isn't suited to 'dialogue humor', but he's excellent when it comes to physical comedy, ranging from subtle body language(watch him cut up his food)to outrageous slapstick. He would have made an excellent silent comedian. Sharon Tate has little to do but look pretty, but she does that well. Alfie Bass is great as Shagal, a lecherous innkeeper turned vampire. It's clear that he was patterned after 'Groper' from Reeve's 'The She Beast' that I reviewed a few days ago. Ferdy Mayne gives an excellent performance as Krolock, he is genuinely menacing, but also, in his supreme confidence and surface politeness; quite a likable villain, certainly much more compelling than the heroes. His performance is good enough that it could carry a serious horror film. Ian Quarrier, as I said, steals the show in his small role. Clearly, Alucard from the Castlevania games(notably 'Symphony of the Night')was modeled after him appearance-wise.

If certainly not Polanski's best film, I must say that it is definitely one of his best-looking films. The sets and cinematography are breathtaking. I sure hope Transylvania is this scenic when I visit. Also for a comedy, the film has a genuinely eerie atmosphere. The creepy chanting music that plays when evil is lurking about is certainly more effective than the bombastic scores of Hammer films. The many scenes of silence help give the film a creepy, surreal feel. Perhaps had this film been made in the 'dialogueless but not silent' style of Dreyer's 'Vampyr' it would have worked better, both as horror and as comedy. The highlight of the scares is a 'vampire ball' where even the slapstick scenes cannot kill the ominous vibe of seeing walking corpses dancing elegantly, the breeze blowing in from the ocean as I watched this from my back porch certainly enhanced the mood. It's one of the most disturbing parodies of aristocracy I have ever seen. The ending is also surprisingly downbeat. The influence of 1961's 'Blood & Roses' and Hammer's 'Kiss of the Vampire' can clearly be felt. The relationship of Alfred & Abronsius seems to have been patterned after that of Hans & Baron Frankenstein from 'Evil of Frankenstein'(1964).

I may not have enjoyed this as much as the other films I've reviewed this month, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it. Don't miss it, You will find yourself transfixed by the snowy atmosphere and faux elegance.~

Hammer's 'Brides of Dracula' is a film fraught with irony. In the very first scene, we see what is apparently a corpse that tuns out to be a log, then we meet a handsome and debonair man who is in fact a fiendish vampire who clearly had several skeletons in his closet even before becoming a vampire, it is reflected in how the character we are expected to consider the villain at first is in fact the most harmless, it is reflected in how a woman who wishes to be the vampire's bride ends up becoming his bride in the worst way possible. Most ironically of all, it is also reflected in how this is probably the best vampire film Hammer ever made, and despite the title; Dracula is nowhere to be seen, but that doesn't stop this film from becoming a first rate chiller.

While traveling through the Transylvanian countryside to her new job; a young french student-teacher named Marianne(Yvonne Monlaur)'s coach is stolen after a highwayman bribes the driver, and she is stood up by the villagers, but finds temporary refuge in the castle of the mysterious Baroness Meinster(Martita Hunt)and her creepy maid Greta(Freda Jackson). It becomes clear that the Baroness is not quite sane, and apparently madness runs in the family as she keeps her purportedly insane son locked up in another room and chained. Marianne spots him from the balcony across the court yard, and visits him; finding him to be a handsome and sophisticated man; Baron Meinster(David Peel; who looks like he's in his late teens, very similar to Robert Pattinson of 'Twilight', in fact, but was apparently in his mid 40's!)who has been kept prisoner so his mother could inherit the land. In a suspenseful scene, she steals the key that keeps him chained, only to discover after releasing him that she's made the biggest mistake of her life. It's Dr. Van Helsing(Peter Cushing)to the rescue!

The plot is extremely simple, so there's no use going into detail, but what makes the film stand out is it's vividness. The film really captures the feel of the era it's set in, from clothing, beliefs, prejudices and superstitions all feel real enough that it becomes genuinely involving. Great performances by the entire cast helps too. Cushing, it goes without saying, is incredible. You see him as the kind man Van Helsing is, but also brief flashes of a man as ruthless and conniving as any of his enemies. He has an excellent scene where he cures himself of a vampire bite with a branding iron and holy water that looks very convincing(and hence cringe inducing; you actually hear flesh sizzle)and where we feel his jubilation as the wound heals. Yvonne Monlaur is great as Marianne, her character may be very naive, but one feels this is not because of misogyny on the writer's part, but genuine characterization, she manages to come off as a compassionate, if easily deluded woman, but only because of inexperience, everything she does is because she feels it is right. Martita Hunt is sympathetic as the Baroness, torn between guilt and motherly love, yet one can't help but feel, and this is supported by a monologue by both her and Greta, that it is her fault that the Baron turned out the way he did, many years before he became a vampire. It gives an icky, incestuous atmosphere to the proceedings: Hammer, Tennessee Williams-style!(It's like we never left the' Old Dark house With Crazy Families' theme of a few weeks ago!). David Peel is amazing as the Baron; he seems so cultured and dashing with his impeccable manners and rich, James Mason-like voice. It's a shame he did very little work before or after this film. Freda Jackson is genuinely creepy as Greta; her laugh is guaranteed to give you shivers. Victor Brooks & Fred Johnson have moving bit-parts as a grieving father and a befuddled priest. Miles Malleson(as a stupid doctor)& Henry Oscar(as a tyrannical headmaster)provide comedy relief that is genuinely funny('I'm no tenant of yours, you young jackass!").

There are several genuinely disturbing scenes as well, such as a truly nightmarish sequence where Van Helsing finds Greta bidding a vampiress to rise from her grave while cackling madly; seeing the hand emerge and grasp while sinister organ music plays enhances the atmosphere, it frightens even the seasoned vampire hunter. Then there's a scene where Marianne's friend Gina(who had earlier spoken wistfully about how she admired the Baron)rises as a vampire and zeroes in on Marianne, it has a lesbian vibe which would be imitated much more, with much less class. It puts the purported 'lesbian' scenes in 'Dracula's Daughter'(1936) to shame in it's implications. This creepiness makes the film much easier to take seriously than most vampire films, and makes the ending even more amazing; love it or hate it, it's one of the most unique ways to kill a vampire I've ever seen.

The only reason it doesn't deserve a full 10? Gaping, gaping plot holes and continuity issues and a story which can be summed up simply as 'Chick releases vampire, then doctor shows up, saves everyone'. With that in mind, this may just be the best triumph of style over substance I've ever seen. And with it's bizarre sexual subtext and conservative message(Mothers shouldn't let kids get involved with the wrong crowd, they may then corrupt others and seduce decent women); I think this is where director Terrence Fisher found his voice and that this is his first masterpiece, if not that, then of his early films, it's certainly the most re-watchable.~

For my second film in my review of films set in Transylvania, I felt that after reviewing the(somewhat rightfully)obscure 'She Beast' that in order not to alienate anyone(Kidding, alienating people is my hobby, offending is my lifeblood) that I would review a more traditional story set in Transylvania, one that everybody knows and loves:

It's about a young Englishman who is summoned to a foreboding castle in Eastern Europe where he is welcomed by an outwardly charming and polite host who is actually a fiendish ghoul who seeks to make others share the same fate as himself and soon endangers our hero's love interest, only faith in Jeebus and early 19th century science can save the day!!

The film I'm talking about is 1961's 'Mr. Sardonicus'.

What? You thought I was talking about Dracula? Pbbbttt.

Bram Stoker's tried and true story wishes it was as wild as this. The term 'Ghoul' is merely metaphorical, and actually is somewhat harshly self-imposed by the film's titular character(Guy Rolfe), and while he himself can be a nasty piece of work at times, he's actually a rather tragic and sympathetic victim of circumstance rather than a genuine villain like Dracula. I also have to admit I'm sort-of cheating by including this film in my marathon since it's not set in Transylvania, but rather a fictitious country called Gorslava; but the connection is clear enough for me to include it(I like to imagine that Gorslava is located somewhere between the Hollywood version of Transylvania bordering Vasaria, located west of Karlstaad, East of Latveria and located South of Pottsylvania, and that most of the fish is imported from Innsmouth), and I can review whatever the hell I want.

Seems Mr. S has the stifling social problem of having a hideously disfigured face(Why else does he wear a mask?); more specifically, his face is contorted into hideous grin that would make both Gwynplaine and the Joker cringe(How he got his mug is ingeniously explained in a flashback sequence that's so eerie I won't spoil it). The flashback scene where his face is revealed by a swinging light in a dark room is incredibly creepy despite some amazingly fake makeup; it may be my favorite scene where a disfigured face is revealed in a horror film ever. Mr. S. wants the film's protagonist; a doctor, to cure him. At first it simply seems that Sardonicus is more unhinged and bitter than anything, but it soon becomes clear that Sardonicus doesn't intend simply to refuse to pay the doctor's bills if he fails, oh no, he intends to PUNISH him, and as we've seen from the way Mr. S has his one-eyed assistant Krull(former comedian Oscar Homolka)torture young girls with leeches and knives, as well as the not-so-subtle implication that Mr. S was himself responsible for Krull's missing eye, it's more than likely that the Doc's punishment won't just be being blackballed in the medical union.....

'Mr. Sardonicus' was Castle's only period-piece; say what you will about his film-making skills and derivativeness, but the man certainly set himself apart from Hammer & AIP; who kept grinding out nothing but period pieces, this was a departure for Castle, but it's handled amazingly well in spite of some cheap sets. The acting is great, Guy Rolfe is alternately regal, courteous, charming, other times truly frightening and psychotic, and ultimately; very sympathetic, even in scenes where he threatens to mutilate the heroine's face(Lifted directly by Chris Nolan for 'The Dark Knight') and abuses his underlings; I still wanted to him have a happy ending, or maybe he could have met the similarly-masked Christine from the french horror classic 'Les Yeux Sans Visage'(1960). Rolfe effectively uses body language to make up for spending almost the entire role in a mask. The romantic leads are much less interesting, but at least they aren't annoying. Oscar Homolka steals the show as Krull; in fact, he may be my favorite henchman after Dwight Frye as Renfield. The foggy atmosphere is excellent. What finally happens to Good 'ol Mr. S is both simultaneously sad, horrifying, and pants crappingly hilarious. I'm not saying any more.

John Waters once said he would rather sit on William Castle's lap than Santa Claus's, and I imagine that when he first saw this film that he felt he couldn't have gotten a better Christmas present. And I wouldn't blame him, this is probably Castle's best film next to 'Homicidal' and 'House on Haunted Hill'.

This is one horror film that'll leave a smile on your face....I just hope that unlike it's titular character that you can get it off, I better, or I'll have to cancel my trip to Romania to stock up on some leeches and knives.~

It's the most wonderful time of the year.

A chance to break with traditions, The year of good fellowship and high spirits, of cheer and the chance to regain a sense of magic that we feel we have lost since childhood in our jaded adult lives, to engage in activities that would be frowned on at any other time.

Of course I'm talking about Halloween.

It is Ocotber 1st, after all. What you thought I was talking about Jeebus-mas? Nope, October is the magic month for me. It is an especially good time this year because this year, come the 17th, I depart for Romania on a little vacation I've been planning for a year. I'm not going because I believe in the supernatural, but it's a heck of an excuse to make up for missing the office Halloween party by saying you've been taking pictures of Dracula's castle.

And while most normal IMDb reviewers would review a horror movie in honor of this month, me, since I review horror movies all the time, I thought I'd get in the mood for my trip by watching films set in Romania; so of course, I review the first horror movie set in Dracula country I can think of....

'The She-Beast', a truly awful stain on the career of everyone involved about a woman who gets possessed by a leprous hag after falling into a lake in a car accident after the witch was almost fired into a lake by a catapult years ago.

What? You thought I was going to review a vampire movie or something like anyone else would when reviewing horror films set in Transylvania? Hey, I said in the beginning of my second sentence that it 'tis the season of breaking with tradition.

It's poorly shot, the direction is(largely)uninspired, the acting ranges from large servings of ham to unflavored tofu, the story is ridiculous, and it's awfulness gives plenty of assholes's a quasi-justification(in their opinion) for dismissing the talented young director Michael Reeves as a hack who wouldn't have been famous had he not made 'Witchfinder General' and died so young.

So why do I love this piece of sheer awfulness? Simple, it's hilarious. I really hate how young people go around mocking any older film they can get their mitts on by calling it 'So bad it's good', but occasionally they are right; and 'So bad it's good' is an apt description for a film of this caliber if I've ever heard one.

For one thing, the film has the distinction of actually being a comedy, so at least we can rest assured the filmmakers were hip to it's awfulness. It certainly isn't very funny in the spots it was supposed to be, but one thing it isn't is boring, the pace is very brisk, even if some scenes go on a bit too long, there are even a few good moments of suspense here and there, which justifies sitting through it. It even has a few genuinely atmospheric moments and scenes of brutal violence and thrilling chase sequences that typify the other films in Reeve's(admittedly short)career and would likely have been his trademark. John Karlsen also gives a decent performance as Count VON Helsing, a descendant of VAN Helsing from 'Dracula'(So I guess there is a vampire connection after all.)and top-billed Barbara Steele does what she can in her little screen time.

The Hag(the awesomely named 'Vardella')is laughably unconvincing but a fairly cool design even if her face bears more than a passing resemblance to a turd. The presence of a decaying zombie hag, fast pacing, weird cut-to sequences and slapstick humor(Including a sight gag with a Hammer & Sickle that must be seen to be believed) make me wonder if the film was an influence on Sam Raimi's 'Evil Dead' trilogy in some way. It also has an evil rapist communist innkeeper named Groper(I kid you not) played by Gravis Mushnick himself; Mel Welles.

It's not a masterpiece, not a minor classic, not a hidden gem, not even really much of a cult movie either, But where else are you gonna see turd-faced Hags, witch catapults, ridiculously overlong chase sequences and Communist innkeeper perverts named Groper?

They don't make 'em like this anymore....unless they're very, very drunk.~

They say there's nothing like your first time. But then you discover that that first time wasn't quite the first. Your first job? Yeah, we all want to say our first job was our summer job as a temp for some major corporation, but we forget the lame little job we had flipping burgers as a teenager, then there's your first kiss; yeah, nailing that Co-Ed was great, but then there's that ugly girlfriend you had in high school, and in some particularly sad cases of some unloved fellas I've met(Mostly virgins who still live with their parents, think the Holocaust didn't happen and complain about how 'South Park' keeps kids from playing outside during the day even though that show only comes on at night and kids don't watch it)their first kiss was basically with their mom(eeeewwww)since they never had any other kisses after that except of the Hershey variety. We do this because we don't want to admit how imperfect we are and how we had to struggle.

'The Old Dark House'(1932) is like that. When discussing films featuring mad families in dilapidated houses, this film and Paul Leni's masterpiece 'The Cat & the Canary'(1927) are the ones that film historians often like to call the first time. But sadly, those two films are only two in a long line of horror comedies featuring mad families that make the Manson's seem wholesome in comparison who inhabit run down shacks, castles and manors. However, as with our preoccupation for exaggerating our first time, film historians often call these two films the first simply because they are so good and there's a long history of dismal similar films that came earlier. Misplaced historical significance aside, 'Cat' and this film still helped to renovate and refine the clichés to such an extent that even if these films were not the first, they sure SEEMED to be.

And it's no wonder those clichés seemed so new considering that this film was directed by James Whale. Once 'The Ace of Universal', then dismissed as a hack, then extolled as a genius after his death, Whale is a very controversial and underrated director even today for several reasons, not the least of which being that he was one of the first openly gay directors in Hollywood, which makes him a hero by todays standards for taking such a risk. Whale had made several excellent films like the original 'Waterloo Bridge'(superior to the more well-known remake), 'Journey's End' and 'Frankenstein'. Still, it is my opinion that he found his true calling working on this morbid little comedy. The eccentric characters, bizarre humor and inflammatory scenes(Yeah, I know there were plenty in 'Frankenstein', but not of the sexual nature they are here)on hand here would all be Whale staples in all his subsequent films, particularly the horror films he is most well-known for.

The plot is simple: A bickering honeymooning couple and their cynical war hero friend Tom Penderell(Melvyn Douglas)are caught in an almost torrential(and very convincing looking)rainstorm while cruising through the hills of Wales. They are forced to take shelter in the manor of the eccentric Femm family.

Did I say eccentric? That doesn't begin to describe these people.

Brother Horace(Ernest 'Have a cigar, it's my only weakness' Thesiger)is an eccentric, nasty, apparently atheistic, effeminate man who seems to condescend people just by looking at them, with his few efforts at coming off as friendly making him more menacing, but he's a saint compared to his screeching, half-deaf, religious fanatic sister Rebbecca; who is so paranoid about the evils of sex she forbids the visitors from having beds!!(the delivery of the line 'NO BEDS!!!!' is priceless), and as with all fanatics, seems to be hiding some perversions of her own('That's some nice stuff' she says as she gropes the film's half-dressed heroine). Then there's the intimidating, growling butler Morgan(Boris Karloff, top-billed despite a minimal role), and 100+ year old patriarch Sir Roderick(played unconvincingly by a woman, who thankfully is still really old looking at least) and finally there's happy, playful little Saul: The family pyromaniac kept in an attic who gets loose when Morgan gets drunk.

It's all hilariously creepy, and weak spots like an annoying bit part from Charles Laughton and a clichéd romantic subplot don't slow anything down. It's not so much a horror film so much as a comedic melodrama with Gothic overtones; but the influence this film would have on all ODH films that followed is clear. From the maniac in the attic, to the stranded travelers, to the seemingly cultured snob(Guy Rolfe's character in 'Dolls'(1987) is clearly a tribute to Horace)to the dessicated family patriarch(A character archetype most notably re-used as Grandpa from 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'.)it all came from here.

That said, ODH has many weaknesses. Several scenes drag on too long, and the ending happens so fast it's almost anti-climatic. The film's status as a lost film for so many years has also grossly inflated it's reputation. In fact, while I have said I feel the film is where Whale found his voice for his future films, it still is very much experimental, and hence; Whale's weakest film of his Four horror films. Still, when 'The Old Dark House' is your weakest film, you certainly have nothing to complain about!!!

Enjoy, horror fans. It may not have started it all, but it certainly defined it all. There's also a 1963 remake by William Castle, which is nowhere near as good as this film, but very funny in it's own way and somewhat endearing, with a good mystery plot, I would review it, but I have no access to a copy as of now.~

If one chooses to go by the Law of Diminishing Returns, one finds it can be applied to almost anything, and Film Studios banking on the same themes are no exception. The film studios in question are the four British 'Horror Houses': Hammer, Amicus, Tigon and Tyburn. And at first, the law plays itself out almost perfectly. Hammer was the first and most innovative with it's(for the time)abundant cleavage and(for the time)graphic gore, as well as introducing the world to Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Oliver Reed and Ingrid Pitt, Amicus came second and made plenty of enjoyable, non-pretentious horror films that played out like carnival spook houses and at one point were upping Hammer in overall quality of product, then there was Tigon; which no sane human being could disagree produced mostly crap; yet amazingly managed to squeeze out the AMAZING 'Witchfinder General'(1968) by the talented and tragic Michael Reeves; a film many consider to be one of the 5 or 10 finest horror films ever made and superior to anything it's rivals put out, and I wouldn't entirely disagree. Then we come to Tyburn studios. Logic dictates that this would be the worst studio of the four, but all in all, especially considering it only made 3 films, Meh, it's output wasn't bad or good, just....

Meh.

'Persecution'(1973) was dull, and 'Legend of the Werewolf'(1974) was a fun potboiler, but nothing I'd soberly give more than a 6.9.(Though I should admit that I DID like it more than Hammer's 'Curse of the Werewolf') So in other words, Tyburn was to Anglo-Horror what Skywald was to horror comics; not bad, but nothing worth getting excited about. BUT WAIT!! I left out Tyburn's most famous(?) film; 'The Ghoul'. This sluggishly-paced ODHWWFM(Old Dark House With Warped Family Members)entry may not be a GOOD film, per Se, but it's certainly the most stylish film to come out of Tyburn. It's also notable as one of the most bleakly depressing films I have ever seen. But hey, it'll at least be worth including for my 'Family Un-friendly' series of reviews.

It starts out quite well as a young woman we will later learn is named Daphne(Veronica Carlson) creeps through a mansion with a candle to strange screams and gurgling noises, luxurious architecture and flickering shadows build suspense, establishing a good-looking film at least(Surprise, surprise, the director is our old friend Freddie Francis), she gets closer and the cries grow louder! Louder! She turns to find a hanging young man foaming from his mouth!!!

Sounds like a great beginning, huh? Pity nothing in the film matches up to it, as it all turns out to be a prank that doesn't even faze our heroine. Daphne, an oddly assertive type for the era this film is taking place gets in a race with her friends, determined to win(this takes up a good 15 minutes of screen time, I kid you not)she gets lost in what is absolutely THE FOGGIEST moor I have ever seen. The car breaks down near a cliff, and Daphne searches for help. After being warned, and then almost raped by a creepy handyman(A younger John Hurt) near a mansion, Daphne meets the mysterious owner of the mansion, Dr. Lawrence(Peter Cushing)and his Indian maid, Ayah. After several tedious scenes where we learn Lawrence lost his wife and son in India(including some very racist dialog), well, nothing happens. And then Daphne gets murdered. After some drama between the Handyman and Ayah, Daphne's friends search for her and all get killed off(I do have to mention an absolutely incredible murder scene involving a hatchet to the face that is the high point of the film)before Lawrence kills the killer(The titular 'ghoul')before shooting himself.

Peter Cushing had an almost masochistic tendency after his wife's death to play grieving widowers, and he clearly wasn't in a very good state of mental health, his performance is mostly routine, but eventually Cushing had a breakdown and his fit was recorded. The film's stolen bag of tricks from 'Psycho' and 'The Reptile'doesn't help save long sequences of tedium.

That said, Francis does an excellent job creating an atmosphere of nihilism and despair. The mansion exists almost like a house dropped into hell with the fog seeming to separate it from the world. All attempts at escape fail, all characters are somewhat unlikeable and austere and the film as a whole is just unpleasant. Too bad there's no thematic content for it to serve.

It's also frustrating that we never learn the origins of this 'Ghoul'. He's supposedly Lawrence's son, but how he came to be a ghoul is never explained, only a vague mention of a 'maharajah' is made. And if he is under a curse, why does he visibly change from the handsome man from the pictures into a different looking one who isn't visibly inhuman except for scars? And why the scars? He isn't a zombie type of ghoul. Why not have him just be a normal, but disheveled version of the same actor from the photograph if you're not going to make him look like a monster at all? And why does he wear Hindu garb? Was he garbed by the maharajah? And if so, why does he continue to wear them? Wouldn't Lawrence make SOME effort to cure him, at the very least, change his clothing? Why does he keep Ayah around? She's obviously evil, but doesn't seem to be controlling him. And what does the handyman's RAF background have to do with anything? It all makes no sense and is never explained or resolved.

I have no problems with using my imagination in films where things are left unexplained, in fact, in Francis's other 'Family' film, the wonderful 'Mumsy, Nanny Sonny & Girly', I liked that approach. But in films like that, those unexplained details were TANTALIZING, here they are FRUSTRATING, and that makes a world of difference.

For completists only.~

After reviewing 'The Whip & The Body' & 'House of Long Shadows', and because I've already covered the ultimate 'Family' horror film('Texas Chainsaw Massacre')and my 'Pink Flamingos' review was inevitable anyway, I decided to go a bit more esoteric and review this obscure film from director Freddie Francis(which has been sitting on my shelf for ages unwatched) as a sort of marathon of films featuring murderous, twisted families. I've always considered Francis one of the most underrated horror directors, and I always speculated that the reason for his detractor's venom, besides his infamous distaste for the genre; was because his films were often very accessible to mainstream audiences and mostly(Key word being mostly, 'The Ghoul', which I will also review for this 'Family Un-Friendly' marathon; is one of the bleakest bits of celluloid I have ever seen)meant to be 'fun films' like a carnival spook-house, and as his Amicus anthology films showed, he had a wry sense of humor. 'Mumsy, Nanny, Sonny & Girly' is fun, it is humorous, and it is wry; but it is anything but 'acessible'.

The film follows the exploits of an unnamed aristocratic family in '60's London who are led by an aging, but kindly(so far...)mother(Mumsy), a doting nanny(Do I have to explain here?) and two happy, life-loving siblings who love to skip around, harass zoo animals and the gruff attendant(a cameo by Michael Ripper; the British Dick Miller) and search for new friends among the disenfranchised(Sonny & Girly). These people sure are not like the Addams Family or The Munsters, or even TCM's Sawyer clan. There are no hulking butlers, vampirish femme fatales or dark clothing here, no abusive patriarchs or glaring portraits of great-Uncle Hugo either; All smile, speak in sappily cloying voices and compliment each other and giggle.

This would all seem perfectly ideal, if not for the fact that Sonny & Girly are in their early twenties and we never see Mumsy or Nanny, just hear their voices. And this is only just the first sign of something being not quite right. Francis does an excellent job building tension in these slowly paced early scenes, as we get a creeping sense of uneasiness. It all works amazingly well until we find out the truth: Sonny & Girly love to torment their 'friends', but not the way children normally do; after all, these are both adults here. No, they love to torment them, but if the 'friend' does not fully cooperate, then they die, and move on to new 'friends'. And after disposing of a homeless vet, the 'dears'(as Mumsy calls them)blackmail a drunken, middle-aged socialite after he accidentally kills his girlfriend on a slide into being their new 'friend' and bringing them pleasure...or else, and soon, Mumsy(An attractive middle-aged woman) finds new ways of using our protagonist to bring her pleasure as well, if you get what I mean, and soon, spinsterly Nanny finds herself wanting some of that pleasure as well...

Didn't I say this family was nothing like The Munsters, Addams or Sawyers? I was right, those families were well-adjusted compared to this brood. And it only gets worse when Girly interprets a rape by our protagonist(I hesitate to use the word 'hero', as not only is rape a horrible act whoever the victim is, but it steadily becomes apparent that he identifies with the family more than he lets on, which leads to a genuinely disturbing climax)as an act of love.

Francis does a great job weaving this twisted tale, the cinematography(his greatest strength)isn't as up to par as usual, but he more than makes up for it with his directorial flourishes, changing the film from a Not-quite-right day-in-the-life piece, to a 'Kind Hearts & Coronets'-style black comedy, to a genuinely disturbing and unpleasant drama. He also elicits great performances by the entire cast, particularly Vanessa Howard as Girly, and manages to make us experience every feeling of the protagonist, even though he is a character we don't particularly come to like, we still care about him.

The film is also a remarkable study of gender politics; for example, the entire film is driven by strong-willed, and deranged women, and all the male figures are weak. Even the homicidal, conniving Sonny is ultimately a pawn done away with as easily as his victims, our protagonist, on the other hand; the closest thing to a heroic, ideal male figure that the film has, is not only driven to the clutches of Girly by trying to escape his nagging, controlling girlfriend, but is controlled by her even after death as the guilt of his killing of her and fear of exposure is what keeps him at bay. Even when he becomes a bone of contention between the 3 females, he still remains a captive. The implications of the ending; as he gives in to his captivity at the hands of his two beautiful jailers even though he has the perfect opportunity to escape, is truly disturbing, he will never be free of nagging, bitchy, women, and now, ensnared, has given up all hope and decides to enjoy it. It is the myth of the succubus in a non-supernatural form, and quite possibly, given that there is no backstory to explain any of this, a supernatural explanation could reasonably be inferred. This makes this film either one of the most sexist films ever made, or one of the most intelligent films about warped sexuality ever made.

This debate is probably what will continue to fuel the cult following this obscure film increasingly enjoys.~

In my take on the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' I noted that for all the accolades the film has received for predating and introducing what are now standard elements in the slasher genre(or what a certain portly paragon of film criticism calls 'Dead teenager movies'); that it is often overlooked just how much of a final statement(and subversion) of the 'Old Dark house with a homicidally funny family' genre it is. That's a statement I'm willing to stand by, but TCM was by no means the last modern horror film to re-use that tried-and-true concept, and though it was the best, it certainly wasn't the only good one.

'House of the Long Shadows' is a nice tribute to the 'Old Dark House' genre, as well as a refreshing breeze during the era of the slasher. A sarcastic writer(Desi Arnaz Jr.) who hates Gothic novels makes a bet with his publisher(Richard Todd)to write a novel that makes use of the Gothic settings and purple prose that he so despises, and it has to be completed in 2 days time. So our hero takes off to an abandoned manor in Wales. After a frightening encounter at a train station in the pouring rain(which feels like the beginning of a giallo film), he arrives at the manor, only to find that the supposedly deserted mansion is very much inhabited("For a place deserted for 40 years, this house is more active than Time's Square!").

Then a cliché storm sets in while the real storm outside rages.

It's all here: A madman locked up for decades, a creepy developer, bickering family members with unusual habits, 'Ten little Indians'-inspired murders, a contrived romance, flat tires, visitors who kill each other, if you've seen it in an Old Dark house film, it's in here somewhere. The script is taken from the oft-filmed 'Seven Keys to Baldpate', but still manages to work in elements from various other works, such as several Lovecraft & Bloch stories, several William Castle films(notably the underrated 1963 version of 'The Old Dark House') and even the TV. movie 'Bad Ronald'.

This cliché storm needs an umbrella.

It's all by-the-numbers and all the family members are as one-dimensional as can be, defined by speech patterns or clothing and various broadly played traits, but when the family is played by John Carradine, Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, who could complain? This is like the "Magnificent Seven" of horror. All of these old pros appear to be having a good time, as for the other actors; Arnaz makes us really relate to his irritability and longing for peace and quiet, and unknown Julie Peasgood is good as his love interest, she's definitely unusual looking, but a welcome break from the talentless cheerleader types seen in most '80's horror films.

As cliché as it all is, the film manages to be compelling enough to stick around to the end. And everything ends in a triple twist-ending that works on one-hand, and is infuriating on the other. For one, it explains the ridiculous level of coincidence away, but the next twist cancels it out, then cancels it out AGAIN for a happy ending. It would be much better if the last 5 minutes had been cut. Still, this film is definitely worth-seeing. With much to enjoy on repeat viewings. Recommended.~

They say that the most timeless cinema is that of the heart, and here, Italian horror maestro Mario Bava; a director famed for the elements of Gothic romance seen in his work; has crafted one of the world's most strange and terrifying love stories.

Yes, for that is what this film, so often called a horror film is at it's core: A love story.

But that does not mean for a second that the 'love' it conveys is not a terrifying one. In fact, it may be the most disturbingly poignant of all of Bava's films, as even today it recounts a lifestyle that puts to shame anything that can be accomplished in a giallo film in sending a chill down one's spine, mostly because, it happens every day in real life in some shape or form. Only the era is different.

A film that describes something like that is truly timeless. But that doesn't mean it's touching like other love stories you see in heartbreak magazines, no, it's not touching; but it definitely is heartbreaking.

On an eerie twilight-lit coast somewhere in Italy, estranged aristocrat Kurt Menliff(Christopher Lee) returns to the family castle, where several years earlier, he drove the daughter of the family maid; Tania, to suicide with a dagger. The details are never explicitly explained on how Kurt's treatment drove her to suicide, but they become chillingly clear quite soon. Of course, it's not just the maid who bears a grudge against Kurt, but his entire family, his father has disowned him, his brother Christian despises him and his former betrothed can't wait to dismiss him. However, his father agrees to let him stay, grudgingly.

The Waltons they are not.

However, when away from prying eyes, it turns out that family member Nevenka(Dahlia Lavi, playing pretty much the same type of role you'd expect to see Barbara Steele in)is still very much in love with Kurt, so, alone on the beach, he expresses his gratitude the only way he can: He savagely attacks her and starts beating her senseless with a whip!!!!! This would be disturbing enough, except for the fact that, and this becomes clear quicker than you'd think; Nevenka LOVES it. And as Kurt says 'You've always loved violence', it becomes clear this is something Nevenka has had a fetish for for a long time and not just tolerance for an abusive man she thinks she can change; this is how she gets off, and Nevenka continues to fantasize about Kurt day and night.

Even after he turns up dead with the same dagger Tania killed herself with jammed in his throat.

Kurt's beatings were an addiction she can't live without, what will she do now that he's dead? This is where the film's horror element comes into play: What if Kurt isn't dead? And if he is, who stabbed him? Everyone in the household is a suspect. And things begin to get even more complicated when more and more members of the household turn up dead. Is it Kurt? Tania's ghost? As Christian investigates, the answers begin to grow more and more disturbing.

'The Whip & The Body' is on the whole, a rather grim affair, with the truly sordid subject matter contrasted with the beautiful coastal setting and fairy tale castle. The fact that a truly beautiful romantic tune(later re-used in several Bava films)plays during Nevenka's fantasies makes for a morbid bit of humor. The film will also likely bore many viewers expecting a giallo-type of film(as I've seen this referred to as a giallo or proto-slasher in some circles since it involves a hidden killer using a knife) with it's long passages of silence and talkiness(not to mention that Christian is the blandest hero in a Bava film I've ever seen). Still, typical top-notch direction from Bava, the usual gorgeous cinematography and use of color, along with a moving performance by Lavi and a brief, but unforgettable turn by Lee as Kurt(dubbed in some scenes and not in others) make this more than worth your time.

But what gives the film it's lasting power is the disturbing fact that there are men like Kurt, and many women in positions like Nevenka(willingly or unwillingly)in real life who suffer and inflict suffering daily, many of whom cannot even get out of the web of abuse they are in if they have the chance, and some of whom cling to it. And knowing this goes on is more horrifying than anything in any of Bava's more straightforward horror films.

Truly ahead of it's time and certainly not for everyone, 'Whip' is a great exploration of many of Bava's recurring themes like the destruction of a family, deceptive appearances(Christopher Lee has never been more handsome), obsession, and ultimately, what Bava called his greatest fear: That of someone alone in a room confronting the darkest aspects of themselves. It may not scare you, it may not even grab your attention, but this film is one of the most haunting pieces of celluloid you will ever see.

It's a strange mix of 'Psycho', 'Wuthering Heights' and the relationship between Kurt & Nevenka feels like a prequel to 'The Innocents'. All in all, it's worth seeing.

Enjoy, if you can.~