The Gorgon (1964) Review

Director Terence Fisher redeemed himself after the fiasco of The Phantom of the Opera with this gothic romance featuring a predatory woman with looks that kill. Featuring Hammer Films lurid use of Technicolor, it chooses to bring chills rather than scares compared to prior releases by the studio. Tragic love, severe calcification, and an ensemble cast combine to deliver the goods in this mostly forgotten movie.

Having bombed spectacularly with a remake of The Phantom of the Opera two years before, Terence Fisher was on the outs with Hammer Films. Fortunately for him and for horror fans, he was given another chance with a new property to direct. Stepping away from remaking old classic monster movies, Hammer took a risk by reviving a monster from Greek myth as the star villain. While the results looked silly even by the standards of the time, the rest of the movie almost made up for it.

Like many a Hammer intro, a matte painting of a castle on a hill opens the movie while serving as a backdrop for the title credits and a short crawl defining the setting. It is a strangely comforting indication that we’ll be getting one of their typical stories set in the 1800s filled with lavish sets, lovely women, and fiendish villainy.

Well, once the scroll finishes the story goes straight for the middle part, at least.

The Phantom of the Opera (1962) Review

When Hammer Films was on a roll remaking classic horror stories the idea of revisiting a masked man lurking in an opera house was inevitable. What they never imagined was that the surefire hit would be anything but. This film bombed so spectacularly that it nearly ended the director’s career. Uneven and draggy, the new Phantom failed to terrify audiences despite some redeeming qualities to the production.

Imagine having Cary Grant playing one of the most famous movie villains of all time. Imagine that the movie would be made by Hammer Films, a studio having massive success releasing color remakes of black and white classic horror flicks. Imagine the box office receipts!

That’s the thinking that started The Phantom of the Opera remake into fast development. What was finally unveiled to the public not only lacked the superstar actor, but also the frights of Gaston Leroux’s novel. There is some confusion as to whether Grant may have been set to star as either the titular villain or the heroic lead, however it really doesn’t matter since he wouldn’t have been able to save this rather bloodless movie.

The Brides of Dracula (1960) Review

This sequel was the obligatory follow up to Hammer Films monster of a hit Horror of Dracula. Beset by production problems from the very beginning, what was put out certainly wasn’t what the public expected. Dripping more atmosphere than blood, the unusually warm and character driven story focused more on the heroic acts of Doctor Van Helsing than the villainy of the undead.

Most people remember Hammer for their vampire films, especially those starring Christopher Lee as Dracula. He isn’t in this one due to personal fears of being typecast (supremely ironic given what happened later), however this movie is one of the better entries in the genre even if the title is false advertising. Yeah, the character Dracula isn’t in it either.

Stephen King’s IT (1990) Review

A strong cast competes against shaky material in this ground breaking television adaptation. Based on the famous horror novelist’s decades spanning story about a group of friends battling a mysterious entity in a small town. When murders resembling those from thirty years before begin, the group must reassemble to face what appears to be a killer clown. However, nothing is what it appears to be… But I  do promise a cameo by Godzilla.

Even a miniseries isn’t enough to cram in everything from a Stephen King novel and his 1985 novel IT manages to be even more daunting thanks to excessive metaphysical noodling contained within. Still, the story had the benefit of a young group of adolescents like King’s Stand By Me along with the striking visual of a clown for the villain. So it is no surprise that ABC television network got the rights to adapt the tome for a big event. Put together with great care by director Tommy Lee Wallace, the show was a hit featuring some memorable images.

But was IT any good?

Part 1 starts off the whole affair off with ominous music accompanying pages from a photo album showing seven kids from the late 1950s or early ‘60s before shifting to the current time. Well, “current” being the late ‘80s (1990 to be specific) which of course is almost a quarter of a century ago now. Inadvertently a double period piece for modern viewers, IT does show IT’s age. There will be both pompadours and big hair for you to decide which is the more frightening.

The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) Review

Known for its revival of the old horror franchises it was odd that only one stab was made at the werewolf subgenre by Hammer Films. Starring a novice actor named Oliver Reed and loosely based on a lurid bestselling novel of the 1930’s, it was something of a gamble. Fortunately for audiences, what they got was a portrayal of the warring sides of the human psyche and what I view as the best werewolf movie ever made.

Director Terence Fisher (Horror of Dracula, The Curse of Frankenstein) was unquestionably Hammer’s go to guy when it came to directing reinventions of Universal’s old monster films. Adept at handling action, moody tension, and able to get serious performances out his actors, Fisher once again was called on when it was time to bring back the werewolf to the silver screen.

Adapted from a novel, Werewolf in Paris, the movie takes huge liberties with the source material and all for the better. The biggest change is in setting, which is moved to late 18th Century Spain. This is made very clear by the bold lettering that was considered so stylish at the time. After seeing how that screen capture turned out, I couldn’t resist using it. In fact, it’s the only reason for it to be in the review.

Time to get more serious and write about the story. But I still am amused by the screenshot.

The Mummy (1959) Review

The final Halloween movie review for 2012 limps online swathed in dirty bandages with Hammer Studios’ version of The Mummy. When an ancient Egyptian tomb is unearthed by English archeologists the consequences turn out to be very grave for the trespassers. Good writing, excellent acting, beautiful sets, and the full use of Technicolor are all present in this intelligent story of forbidden love lasting beyond death.

Having struck cinema gold with their new and full color takes on Dracula and Frankenstein, Hammer Studios decided to revamp another of Universal Pictures monsters. The same team that made the previous hits was kept together for a third outing. Seeing Terence Fisher directing with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee headlining the cast, movie goers knew they would be in for a treat.

The year is 1895 and the location is a remote valley in Egypt. Of course it is actually a well appointed soundstage since Hammer didn’t have the kind of budget for filming on location. Still it manages to give a good impression of back breaking labor in the desert heat. There is only one reason to show this and that is to foreshadow something valuable being found. In this case, a blue scarab seal elicits a great deal of excitement from an Englishman who promptly runs it into a tent to show it off.

The Legend of Hell House (1973) Review

In the history of cinema haunted house movies are a dime a dozen, but this one stands out due to its sober tone and character development. While written by an American, it maintains a very stiff upper lip while following a four person research team looking into the possibility of life after death. To do that, they must visit a mansion that killed most of a previous attempt twenty years before. Welcome to Hell House, where death, mystery, and eerie events take back seat to something far more frightening – sex.

The 1970s were a period of transition in films with a lot of experimentation taking place. In some ways, the decade in filmmaking was a hangover from the changes that took place in the late ‘60s. That was when the old studio model fell apart and directors began to push the bounds of what had been considered acceptable in the name of art. Horror films were not immune to this and the genre started to go toward shock and gore, but not quite to the extremes that culminated in the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street movies of the ‘80s. So there was yet room for thoughtfully creepy movies and The Legend of Hell House is one of the better examples of that approach.

I have to say, haunted house movies are near the bottom of my list of films to watch. They have never appealed to me, perhaps because I have lived in old farm houses most of my life. Odd sounds and creaks are part of the personality of aged wooden structures, so you get very used to them. So it was with some surprise that this movie gave me the creeps when I was a teenager. In fact, it is the only one that ever has since I hit double digits in age. Puzzled by this and feeling nostalgic, I purchased the DVD last month to figure out why.

The opening is a throwback to bygone years, featuring a statement by a Tom Corbett claiming to be a psychic consultant to royals in Europe. A little research revealed that he was a co-author of a book called The Dreamer’s Dictionary, so he really existed. It helps to remember that the 1970s pop culture saw the birth of the New Age movement as people turned away from organized religion and naval gazing began to dominate Western thought.

So this little placard instantly added bona fides to the movie and was a clever move by the filmmakers to set the mood. Cold and stark, it suggests what you were about to see might be real. Back in the early days of the Web, I found info that it was based on a real incident and there really was a “Hell House.” Of course that was not true and you shouldn’t trust what you read on the Internet, but it is a fact that it was adapted from a Richard Matheson novel by that name.

Dracula (1931 Spanish Version) Review

Filmed simultaneously as the famous English language version, the Spanish Dracula is now regarded as being technically superior. Using the same shooting script and sets, but with a different director and cast, it offers a fascinating contrast in approaches. While the English version got all the fame, this is the better movie by far.

 

As the talkies took over the movie industry, demand for native language films grew in Mexico, Central, and South America. This was a sizeable market and filming Spanish language versions alongside the English version was one way to capitalize on the opportunity with dubbing being the other. People wanted to hear their native language and, better yet, see people speaking it on screen.

Universal Pictures decided to film a Spanish version of Dracula at the same time as Tod Browning’s production. Paul Kohner, the former successor to Carl Laemmle who was shoved out of his position running Universal to make room for Junior, was assigned to produce it using the same script and sets. He hired George Melford to direct and the two decided they would one up the other production in every way they could.

During the day, Browning’s version filmed on the sets and by night Melford’s used them. Even the same chalk marks for positions on set were used by the actors. Since the same shooting script was used, I will refer you to my earlier review of Dracula for the plot points. Instead, the focus will be on the differences between the films and why I believe this version to be superior.

First off, the babe factor is a big reason. Yes, that is sexist, but it is also accurate. Even the girl wearing glasses is very attractive and, more importantly, gets more of a chance to act. All the actors benefit from the better direction and pacing of this version, but the women really got a better deal. Perhaps Browning wasn’t good with handling actresses.

Take the bookworm above. In the English version, she is only briefly seen and heard. But here her role is expanded, first by having her comically fall on Renfield (Pablo Alvarez Rubio) repeatedly in the bouncing coach and then by increasing her dialogue. Note that he is not as effete as Dwight Frye’s interpretation and does not seem to mind this happening. She is also shown taking something of an interest in him and later gets a little scene for herself.

Dracula (1931) Review

What better way to celebrate Halloween than with the most famous blood sucker of them all? Supernatural horror films gained acceptance and big box office in America when Bela Legosi donned the cape of Count Dracula. Beset by production problems and an unknown actor in the main part, it was an amazing achievement in its time. Has this horror classic withstood the test of time?

When Carl Laemmle, Jr. was put in charge of Universal Pictures by his father, one of the first things he did was put into motion his plans to revamp the horror movie genre for talkies. Since Dracula was already a very successful Broadway and touring play, it was the ideal subject for introducing the supernatural into horror movies. Prior to it, horror was consisted of the psychological or deformed humans types, with nothing “spooky” allowed. It was thought that American audiences would reject such silliness.

I think we all know how that theory panned out.

Hiring the famous director of Lon Chaney’s incredibly popular silent films, Tod Browning, would insure success because it would be easy to get Chaney to play the part. But “The Man of 10oo Faces” died of lung cancer in 1930 and the studio looked at a lot of actors for the part. Oddly, the star of the smash Broadway play, Bela Legosi, was not considered for the part. In fact, he had to make a desperate concession on salary to get the role he was already famous for and this was only after everyone else passed on it.

Please park your modern day sensibilities and travel back to the more innocent era of the Great Depression to witness a movie that shocked and thrilled the American public.

Frankenstein (1931) Review

Halloween fun goes Universal with a review of James Whale’s subversive masterpiece that frightened audiences and packed the theaters. Return with me to a more innocent time when gore did not exist in movies, television was a science fiction idea, and scared kids still hid behind movie theater seats. Warning: This will be a monster of a review!

1931 was the year that made horror movies popular and proved they could compete for the pennies of Depression era movie goers. Early in the year, Dracula had come out and caused a sensation with its gothic atmosphere featuring an exotic supernatural villain. Known as a B movie studio, Universal Pictures finally had their chance to move up to the big leagues and they had to strike while the iron was hot.

So another adaptation of a classic horror novel was the logical next step. Having bought the rights to Peggy Webling’s stage play interpretation of Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, the studio moved ahead at full steam.

The movie begins with a quaint rarity: a warning to the audience. Delivered by Edward Van Sloan, the actor portraying Doctor Waldman, it was added after a test screening in California shocked its audience. In this exceptionally jaded era of lost innocence, the concept of people actually have to be warned about content is alien. But this was a more civilized time and not only were children sheltered, many adults were.

So please watch this movie with that in mind.

The opening credits set an uneasy and creepy mood, with strange and unholy eyes being the focus behind the letters presented on screen. To modern eyes, it looks psychedelic, but it would have been nightmarish—even delirious to the eyes of the time.

Horror of Dracula (1958) Review

It is Hammer time which means another horror movie review to celebrate Halloween. This time the most famous vampire of them all gets the British treatment in glorious Technicolor! Blood is sucked, victims are seduced, and a battle of wits between good and evil is enjoined.

After the monster success of The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer Films decided they needed follow it up with another horror movie. The obvious choice was to remake Dracula using the same formula of action, serious acting, pretty ingénues, gothic sets, and shooting in color. Bringing back the same director and stars would guarantee success. But did it work out as hoped?

Read on to see why I consider Christopher Lee’s Dracula the best portrayal by any actor and Peter Cushing’s heroic Van Helsing the definitive version.

After a long opening credits sequence, the camera zooms in on a crypt placard with the infamous name of Dracula on it. Bright red paint is spattered on it for shock effect and that particular bit is more amusing than frightening. But to audiences back then, it probably worked, since it was a far less jaded time. For us older folks, this kind of in your face “scary” mood setter brings forth feelings of nostalgia. At least it did for me.

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) Review

To celebrate Halloween season, Hammer Time begins with a review of the horror film that made the movie studio famous world wide. Plagued by last minute changes to the story and makeup, Hammer’s interpretation of Mary Shelley’s famous novel still chills and thrills over fifty years later. But do not think it a shallow experience, for there is a real story in there too.

In the late 1950’s, British film studio Hammer Films decided to revive the old Universal monsters for another go around. Known mostly for their Quatermass adaptations, the studio focused on remaking Frankenstein. But Universal got wind of the plan and that forced rewrites to the script to avoid a lawsuit. The planned makeup had to change too. Sounds a bit messy, doesn’t it?

Thankfully, a good director, a competent script, and standout acting by Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee combined to produce a true classic in the horror genre. Not to mention the movie was a killer at the box office, partially due to it being in color – a change made due to Universal’s threats.

That ability to use color is pressed into service right away with a nice matte composition featuring a lone rider on his horse. Right away the appropriate gothic mood is set and further expanded upon, for it is a dank and dreary prison that the rider has arrived at. The priest (Alex Gallier) has come to the prison at the behest of Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing), a possibly insane inmate with a curious story to tell before he is executed.