SANTA CLAUS (1959)

MERRY CHRISTMAS from Cinema of the Fantastic. I've been digging through Santa's jolly gift bag of steaming shit and I've pulled out this trashy 1959 Mexican classic. Boy, what a pleasure this was to sit through.......

The plot of this ridiculous film concerns Santa Claus in space spying on children through his telescope in an inappropriate manner whilst trying to stop a devil named Pitch from implanting "evil" ideas in children's heads. Yes. The bulk of the film is built around these themes. We're treated to about 10 minutes of children from around the world singing and building toys for Santa in a presumably slave-laboured workshop. In between, there is more singing. And in several different languages. Santa's  reindeer are robots who make like Vampires should the sun fall on them. The reindeer look terrible, even for 1959 standards and to add insult to injury, they laugh. A little girl's father searches for work during the EARLY HOURS OF CHRISTMAS MORNING. The worst part? A narrator telling us exactly what we are seeing as we see it. It's like going out to a movie and having someone talk through the whole damn thing. Who wrote this piece of shit? I could film a few friends smoking joints and drinking in my garage and come out with a better film than this. I get it. It's a movie with B-production values and it's supposed to be so bad that one can enjoy it. Sadly this feeling was lost on me as I was more annoyed than entertained. And to think this film ACTUALLY won an award upon release for "best international family film".  I'd hate to see the competition.

On the plus side, some of the model sets are quite charming and the film has that B-appeal. At the very least, it is a unique film. It does contain the Christmas feel quite well, much more so than say, FRED CLAUS. But I wish that was saying much.
                                                       

SANTA CLAUS AND PITCH, THE DEMON

During the 60's and 70's, the film enjoyed quite a run on TV, becoming a Christmas classic during that period. It was shown every year. Eventually, B-movie fanatics got word of it's existence and it's become a classic for the same reason ROBOT MONSTER or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE did. Would I reccomend the film? Yes, but only if you are high. Otherwise it's somewhat of a feat to sit through this Sci-Fi Santa film. Many will disagree but when it comes to bad Santa movies with charm, SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS beats this one out by far. Any serious movie fan however should watch this and note it as a comparison to bad films. ONE AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

VAMPYR (1932)

Sometimes, films do not seem to make much sense. They are at least decidedly metaphorical, cryptic and more often than not carry deep hidden meaning. I won't even pretend that I understand the entire concept of this film though. I don't think anyone is meant to fully understand........ Except for possibly director Carl Theodore Dreyer......

VAMPYR has a clear storyline, contrary to what many might say. The story obviously concerns a sick girl living near an old Inn in the villiage of Courtempierre. She is slowly being drained by a Vampire. Alan Grey, a student of the occult, comes to the rescue. This much is clear. The story follows a natural course. What is not clear however remains the insertion of several debatably irrelevant scenes througout the film, quite random in some areas. So it must be assumed that on some level, there is a hidden message, or theme perhaps. All we know is that the randomness that is this film must, or at least probably should, have some meaning.

Put it simply, Vampyr is about an occult student, Allen Gray, whom upon arriving at a bizarre old Inn in Courtempierre, France,  begins seeing strange things. What follows may seem like nonsense to some. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Grey comes upon a young woman dying slowly from what the audience will know, a Vampire draining her. Allen Grey must confront and destroy the vampire, which he does.

VAMPYR is known mostly for it's foggy atmosphere and a dream sequence. Both of which make the film seem like a dream. It's almost as if the film were one of Dreyer's dreams. There notoriously was something wrong with the camera lens during filming, making the footage appear foggy and Dreyer liked this. It only adds to the dreamlike atmosphere.

There is little point attempting to discuss Vampyr and it's implied horror, but it remains a film that must be mentioned, an overlooked film. I cannot do the film justice by review, it's just not one of those films. However, I can reccomend it to ANYONE. There is literally nothing else like it. FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE GORGON (1964)

Over the past little while, I've become quite a Hammer Hound. Seeing a Hammer Film can be, in many ways, like seeing an updated Universal film, though thankfully without the intrusion of CGI. Now, I've still barely scraped the surface with the Hammer films I have seen but this has to be one of my favourites thus far......

The Gorgon is a Hammer film yes but not in the more traditionally known sense. For example, Hammer is mostly known for it's Dracula and Frankenstein pictures. This little horror tale however, has it's roots not in 1800's literature but in Greek mythology. Yes, a film about a Medusa. Or to be more accurate, about the spirit of a Medusa posessing the body of a young, beautiful woman in the German countryside. It's done with typical Hammer attention to period detail which is always nice and the atmosphere generated from the location shooting and that 60's Hammer picture quality is quite incredible. As well done as Hammer's Dracula films may be, this one contains far more cinematic appeal, for me anyways......

The Gorgon may not be for everyone however, as it's fairly slow paced and probably not for the more sophisticated remake-veteran audiences of today. I can't say a whole lot about it other than that I reccomend it, especially to one being new to Hammer. FOUR STARS OUT OF FIVE.

DRACULA, PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972)

What a ridiculous title for a ridiculous movie. The most random review yet...... The Spanish 1972 classic, Dracula Contra Frankenstein, or in English, Dracula Vs Frankenstein. Call it what you want, either way it's still a piece of shit.

What can one really expect from a film with this title? And how could Dracula be Frankenstein's prisoner? In this case the good doctor's prisoner. There are a few moments of curious semi-brilliance such as the suffering howl the monster lets out when he is first ressurected and the atmosphere and mood created by "veteran director" (and I use that term loosely) Jess Franco. Interesting how such a carefully constructed aura of atmosphere can exist in such a lousy film. I actually can't really say much about the film. It's somewhat of an incoherent mess, but I'll try.

So Dr. Seward travels to Transylvania in order to destroy Dracula (played with the same semi-retarded stare by Howard Vernon) which he does, however Dracula is ressurected by Dr. Frankenstein and then commanded to do his bidding. Throw in the recently ressurected monster, a Werewolf out of nowhere with ten minutes to go and seductive "Vampire Vixens" all causing chaos of their own throughout the countryside. Regardless of it's shittiness, it's a film heavy on the Gothic atmosphere and so points must be awarded here. Other than that, there's not much, at least not much that can't be laughed at. Give it a go. You have no choice. TWO STARS OUT OF FIVE.                                                                                                                       

DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW (1981)

Cinema of the Fantastic is pleased to present our first made-for-TV film (and perhaps the last for a while), DARK NIGHT OF THE SCARECROW. This explains why there is no theatrical poster here and I've had to resort to the awesome (and extremely rare) VHS cover. 

                                                Nothing short of a perfect VHS cover

A group of hateful rednecks stalks down a mentally challenged 36-year old (Bubba) under the assumption he murdered a little girl. They find him hiding within the clothes of a Scarecrow. After an intense moment, he is murdered firing squad style, his body hanging from the Scarecrow mast even in death. These men end up getting off totally free after trial. However, someone or something begins picking them off one by one, and there is no short list of suspects....

Dark Night of the Scarecrow impresses all the more because it is after all, a made for TV film. Vincent Price, who disliked modern horror films stated "it was mar-vel-ous!" Somewhat of an overstatement yet the fact it ended up a good horror themed TV movie perhaps inflated the film's reputation (how many great TV horror films are there?). Still, the film was rare for years and only recently released on DVD, sparking excitement and enthusiasm for it. The grainy picture somehow translates well with the film and it isn't too predictable. The atmosphere doesn't feel quite the same as most horror films but it's spooky enough and enhanced by convincing performances throughout. It even contains one genuinely creepy scene though I won't spoil it.

                                       A horrified Bubba hiding inside a Scarecrow


Is Dark Night of the Scarecrow a classic? In the realm of TV movies, perhaps. I spent $20 to buy it on DVD and I can easily watch this once or twice a year before I die. It apparently can be watched on Youtube if you don't feel like forking over cash, so I'd reccomend it. It's not amazing but it's something that is unique and not as cliche as you'd expect. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.



      

SAW 3D (2010)

So I went out to the theatre last night, and guess what I saw? Yeah, Saw 3D or Saw 7. Regardless it promises to be the final chapter in the long-running movie series and one can only hope so. How is Saw 3D a film of the fantastic? Just go with it.

This time around, Jigsaw finds a man pretending to have survived the Jigsaw killer. He gives motivational speeches to fellow and far worse off survivors. He must be punished. And boy is he ever. Is there a point in discussing what happens? Trap after trap, we get to see a neck cave in, eyes gouged, a man hanged, and woman broiled to death. Oh and the scene with the skinheads early on offers quite a grossout for the gore hounds.

So Saw 7 or Saw 3D is not the worst movie I've ever seen, but then only one film can hold that title. The film is periodically entertaining and it's over-the-top silliness only helps it at the point it's reached. I get it. The SAW films are here only because fans want gore and to hear Jigsaw say "I want to play a game!" Every October they demand Jigsaw by selling out theatres and giving each installment, at the very least, a strong opening weekend at the box office. Now, Saw 3D promises to be the final chapter in the Saw series, but is it really? Remember Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter? How about Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare? Remember how Micheal Myers was most assuredly dead at the conclusion of Halloween 2? Basically, these franchises survived their own promised finish. They outlasted their own demise. Saw 3D is left far more open than any of these films and to boot, has a decent enough box office total to woo executives into pinching our pockets to ensure Jigsaw lives for another movie. We'll be seeing a new Saw film probably in October 2011 and if not, it won't be more than a few years before we are again subjected to this mediocre series of films. TWO STARS OUT OF FIVE.

PIRANHA (1978)

The 1978 Roger Corman classic (?)..... Well it's more of a classic than any of the JAWS sequels at the very least....... It's a B-movie, nothing too special but certainly nothing that disappoints. It promises and delivers it's low budget carnage in an appealing way and in the last 32 years has become a cult-classic followed by many loyal B-fans.

Very Recently, a film titled Piranha 3D was released, sparking a new curiosity for water-themed monster films. So is how I came to buy Piranha (1978), the original Roger Corman semi-classic. It's another film that plays into mistrust of the establishment, with the military unleashing hundreds of hungry genetically altered piranhas into a small town's rivers and streams. Apparently they were meant for Vietnam but the war ended too soon for the process to be completed. Now this biological weapon is free to wreak havoc.

Up for lunch are several including a group of child campers, many of whom perish. That might seem harsh to some people but at least a movie like Piranha has the balls to make this happen. In fact plenty end up dead, more than enough to satisfy gorehounds. Some of the acting is poor, the Piranhas are cheap, but they work and tough critics might (as given the subject material) find much to nitpick with but compared to many other recent sea monster films (Lake Placid, Deep Blue Sea, Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus or even any of the Jaws sequels), this stands up farily well in entertainment value. Not much to say, just enjoy! THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE THING (FROM ANOTHER WORLD) (1951)

A Sci-Fi film so lengendary, it was shown in HALLOWEEN (1978)..... 

I am not a huge fan of 50's Sci-fi/B films. Perhaps I have not seen enough of them. However, one I am quite fond of, is THE THING (FROM ANOTHER WORLD) (1951). I first saw it on the space channel more than a decade ago and didn't think too much of it. Found it not long ago for only six bucks so I figured I'd need to see it again. The result? Better. I've yet to see the remake.

THE THING is not quite the classic many people talk of. It has it's moments and when it was first released, it was considered terrifying. It has since lost much of it's power but a first time viewer may jump once or twice. Regardless of how effective or not it is today, it remains a decent film, light years ahead of many of it's contemporaries. The scene of events is located near the north pole, and is most appropriatley remote with no help available. One of the problems is that there are too many people at the Arctic military research facility that it seems to diminish the threat posed by The Thing (James Arness). Other than that, there isn't much to complain about. If you're looking to get into 50's Sci/Fi films, this is a great one to start off with. Watch it in the winter with tea and toast. It's a classic, just not as much so as most critics would have you believe. Obviously it was classic enough to be aired on the TV set in Halloween (1978) and then remade by John Carpenter. THREE AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

HALLOWEEN (1978)

What finer way to end Halloween night than with a review of the 1978 John Carpenter classic, Halloween. Though it wasn't responsible for quite all the rules of the standard slasher, it did set into motion numerous rip-offs and imitations, one of which especially went on to be successful and even went on to gross more money as a franchise than Halloween. This is however probably the best of the "standard" slasher films and is a perfect addition to Cinema of the Fantastic, even if it's within the bounds of reality.

Halloween starts off in amazing fashion. Piano music with a flaimng Jack-O-Lantern. It actually is one of the most effective moments of the film for me. The first scene of Micheal Myers killing his sister works too. My favourite scene involves the display of free range mental patients in the sanitarium courtyard, followed by Micheal Myers escape. The film revolves around Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) who, along with her friends is stalked by a psychopath who murdered his sister fifteen years ago. The story follows the usual slasher course yet is much lighter than what we're used to in regards to cliches.

We already know too much about the familiar story. What seperates Halloween is that Myers seems to go after babysitters. Halloween is consistently ranked above it's slasher counterparts and for many reasons, a good one being: It's a slasher film you never sigh with. It has several intense and effective moments. It doesn't allow too many false alarms either, and the few there are take place early on. The Myers family home fits in nicely as a creepy abandoned house.

                                                     GERMAN RELEASE POSTER

Halloween spawned seven sequels and a remake with has to date spawned one sequel (A third is planned in 3D) but none have come close to matching Halloween's sheer intensity. Halloween 3 would have nothing to do with Myers at all. But that's another story. Watch this one, but avoid the sequels at all cost. FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)

There are plenty of great horror titles. This one stands above them all........

It's strange how James Whale didn't want to make a sequel to Frankenstein, but when he realized how subversive he could make it, he jumped at the opportunity. Little did even he know, what he would create.

MY FAVOURITE AMONG MANY POSTER DESIGNS

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN opens in a most approproate manner. A mountain top castle on a stormy night wherein we find Lord Byron, Percy Shelly and Mary Shelly. She explains that her "Frankenstein" story was not over. She will tell them the rest.

The story picks up at the end of Frankenstein, at the site of the burning mill. But of course, the monster still lives! As does Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive). He is taken home only to be payed a visit by the sinister Doctor Pretorias (Ernest Thesiger) who claims to have created life of his own. His "life" contains of small humans in jars, a king, queen, Devil, figure skater, and priest (interestingly, Japanese censors objected to this scene because it made a king look like a fool). Pretorias also wants Henry to create a mate for the monster, and have them breed to create a new race (critics insist suggestion of necrophillia).

The Monster is on the run from the village until he encounters a blind man, the only person to react towards him without fear. This man teaches the Monster to talk (Karloff was against the idea of speech for the Monster), smoke and drink. It isn't long before John Carradine comes along to spoil the party and in the process, burning down the blind hermit's cottage. Frustrated the Monster seeks salvation. Inside a cyrpt, he finds a drunk, laughing Pretorias, seemingly wining and dining the corpses. The two of them make plans and see eye to eye on creating the female monster. However Frankenstein does not want to do this.....

Henry's bride Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson) is kidnapped in a forced effort towards building the bride. Her "birth" takes place in the same tower of the original. A heart is stolen by Pretorias's low-grade assistant, Karl (Dwight Frye in a Fritz-like role) to complete the Bride in "the mother of all lab scenes". The Bride is finished only to be completley repulsed by the very sight of the Monster. Realizing he'll never have a chance in this world, he pulls a lever which ignites an explosion, destroying the lab tower....

FRENCH POSTER ART

Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Elsa Lanchester, Ernest Thesiger, Valerie Hobson, Una O'Connor, Dwight Frye turn out to be the perfect cast for a horror film. And look, there's John Carradine in a cameo as a hunter. Karloff adds depth and sympathy to his role whilst Clive comes off as more sympathetic as well. Lanchester has two brief roles, one as Mary Shelly and the other as the titular Bride. Her brief performances remain hard to forget. Ernest Thesiger knew how to play the role of mad scientist better than anyone and played it with homosexually sinister campy relish. Hobson I suppose is convincing and is likable here, unlike her role in 1935's WEREWOLF OF LONDON. Una O'Connor is as loud and annoying as she was in THE  INVISIBLE MAN despite less screen and scream time. Dwight Frye is again cast in the role of deranged, lowly assistant. He would eventually despise begin cast only as "idiots, half-wits and lunatics". But he manages his usual convincing job.

                                                           ITALIAN POSTER ART


The sexual content in Bride of Frankenstein is rather strong. Specifically from a homosexual standpoint. This begins with Pretorias insisting and shoving Elizabeth out of the marital bed chamber and his desire to create life with Frankenstein and without female participation. He gives us subtle hints that he may too, be into necrophilia. It's interesting to note how women are pushed aside in the film and the only successful relationship in the film is between the Monster and the hermit, both male. The Monster himself seemingly see's no difference between relationships with both sexes. Some of Whale's personal friends insist he never meant for any homosexual interpretations, but regardless if he did or not, it's up for discussion. In addition, Ernest Thesiger, who played Pretorias was an open homosexual as well as Whale and Colin Clive MAY have been bisexual. I've heard Elsa Lanchester was a bisexual as well but I cannot confirm it.

The storyline line of Bride seems a lot closer to the Fantasy genre than horror. Yet it remains a product of both. The film contains the same complex atmosphere of the original and as a bonus is much livlier as a film/story. Once again the sets are extraordinary. Each one is a pleasure to gaze at. The final setpiece created a cliche of it's own, or at least brought the cliche to a wider audience: (it was used in The Magician (1927) and the Black Cat (1934) ) That is the exploding clifftop watchtower/laboratory. Some of the acting is quite campy, over the top, but the general atmosphere created is indescribable. It really feels like a dream, a hard feat for a film to achieve. The score by Franz Waxman really puts you in the mood and enhances the fantastic feel. In fact, it may fall under the fantasy genre more than the horror genre. Many feel Frankenstein is the superior effort but I must disagree here. The perfect Halloween film, I can not reccomend it enough. FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933)

1933 Gave way to 2 films with groundbreaking special effects. This is one of them....

                                                          ORIGINAL POSTER ART

 Jack Griffin (Claude Rains)  rents a room at the Lion's Head Inn and Pub. His purpose is to work in seclusion and find away to make himself not invisible anymore! But the folks at the Inn continue to disturb him, to the point that he assaults the landlord and knocks him down a flight of stairs and sets off his insanity. He goes on a rampage and forces his cowardly friend Kemp, to assist him in his evil deeds. Kemp however betrays him and is killed.....

The Invisible Man seems like a comedy film at first, but by the end becomes deadly serious. Note Dwight Frye and John Carradine in cameos. Interesting that Gloria Stuart was in this and would eventually be nominated for an Oscar.... 64 years later! It's amazing too how Claude Rains (unseen till the last reel) managed to be so maniacally convincing using only his voice!

The Invisible Man has a cold, frosty atmosphere and is a good horror/sci Fi to watch in the winter months. Even though it's short on the great sets in comparison to it's studio counterparts, it remains one of the best from the Universal horror cycle and is often overlooked when one speaks of the Universal horror films. Like many films of it's time, it's a great tea/stormy night flick as well. Seeing the Lion's Head Pub always makes me wish I could order a burger and fries as well. The special effects are superb and absolutely groundbreaking in 1933. I wonder how a remake would fare..... CGI?


                                             
                                       
                                          JACK GRIFFIN ENTERS THE LION'S HEAD INN.


Despite near-Universal love for the film, H.G Wells disliked it as it did not do his book justice. However Jack Griffin has the unmistakeable characteristics of megalomaniacs of the time (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin) and in this way offers 1930's contemporary commentary. Another James Whale film. One wishes he could have been at the helm of more Universal horror projects. This film was followed by two true sequels and two lame comedy spin-offs. FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968)

As one of the first reviews of NOTLD said: "For sadists only". Seems as though this has become a ridiculous statement to say the least, what with all the fans of the flesh-eating zombie film sub-genre which began with this groundbreaking classic.

                                                         ORIGINAL POSTER ART

                                 
 Johnny and Barbara are out for a Sunday drive 300 miles into the Pennsylvania countryside  to do nothing more than lay a wreath upon their father's gravestone. However, while in the cemetary, Barbara is attacked by a tall emotionless man. Johnny comes to her rescue only to be killed a moment later. Knowing she alone can not fend off her attacker, she runs. She escapes her pursuer but ends up trapped in a house. There is not really anywhere to go. Soon, our hero Ben arrives and goes to work on securing the house. The living dead begin to gather outside, awaiting another meal. As Ben begins boarding up the house, a few people rush out of the basement, one of which is Cooper, an overbearing stubborn know-it-all. He INSISTS that they cower in the basement. Ben however realizes the basement is even more of a trap and insists he is staying upstairs where they have a TV and radio and in case of a zombie breakthrough, a path of escape. This little argument sets off the mutual mistrust several characters have for one another. Can they settle their differences and work together? Or will they become a midnight snack for the hordes of the living Dead waiting just outside?

Night of the Living Dead plays out as a psychological study of human behavour when faced with a life or death situation just as much as it plays off as a horror film. In the end, it is the inability of the living to work together that spells their ultimate demise. Critics will say NOTLD is filled with social metaphors but I don't think so. It is interesting to note how there is little effort by the filmmakers to explain the zombie outbreak. We hear it may have to do with radiation from a probe sent to Venus, but wisely is not mentioned again.

                BILL HINZMAN, EASILY ONE OF CINEMA'S MOST ICONIC ZOMBIES.

An often overlooked aspect of what makes NOTLD a great film, are the news reports. Some how I feel if a zombie outbreak were to actually happen, this is exactly the way it would be reported. Never since NOTLD has any horror film captured such a genuine feeling of news reports.

Duane Jones deserves mention as one of the first leading black men in a film. He plays Ben in the film and would rank with my "top movie heroes". Cooper can be considered as much a villian as any zombie shown in the film, perhaps more.

NOTLD was orignally copyrighted under a different title. Therefore the film is now in the public domain and can be purchased in many different lousy editions. The only high quality version is the Millenium Edition with a Red DVD case. In the late 90's, fifteen minutes of new footage was shot and "perfectly blends" into the film whilst also adding nothing but a hokey subplot no one cares about. The new footage sticks out like a sore thumb. Bill Hinzman reprises his role as the first zombie in this new footage - even though he is almost 30 years older! Watch the original edition. While it starts off a little slow (once Barbara reaches the house anyway) it picks up and moves at a most appropriate pace. It's the original flesh-eating zombie film and remains the best. Followed by Dawn of the Dead, and then by a series of inferior semi-sequels (Day, Land), remakes (NOTLD has been remade twice, with mixed results), and new spins/retellings (Diary). FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE WOLFMAN (1941)

The original Universal classic.......

I remember buying this film about a decade ago. I hadn't seen it in years and remembered nothing. Nothing will ever allow me to forget that great night, when I first saw (and comprehended) The Wolfman.

The original and beautiful poster art.

     Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney jr.) returns to his father's (Claude Rains) castle in Wales after being away for 18 years. But after a jolly fifteen minutes, he finds himself in trouble. Having asked Gwen Conliffe (Evelyn Ankers) out to have her fortune told, an uncomfortable Gwen is accompanied by friend Jenny Williams. Jenny has her fortune told by the gypsy Bela (Lugosi himself) but when he sees a pentegram in Jenny's hand he tells her to go. He ends up being a werewolf and murders Jenny only to be struck down by Talbot himself, but not before biting him!

There is unrest in the village over the killings. Most people suspect Talbot. After explaining what happened to Maleva the gypsy (Maria Ouspenskaya) he finds out that he too, will become a werewolf whenever the moon is full. That night he undergoes his first transformation and kills a gravedigger. Soon he sees the pentegram in Gwen's hand, and knowing she will be his next victim, he must flee!

There is quite a lot of subtle plotline in the Wolfman. It is never really elaborated on, but the Talbot family is hinted at being corrupt and thus able to do as they please. Sir John Talbot (Rains) is severley pompous regarding his family's history and seems to value family prestige above all else. Wisely, it is not discussed in any great detail.

Despite great chemistry, and their appearance together in several Universal horror films, lon Chaney and Evelyn Ankers did not get along. At all. She called him "the mad ghoul" and he would call her "shankers". A funny little sidenote for a hardcore fan who must know everything as myself. Even stranger than the good onscreen/bad offscreen relationship was the fact Talbot fought a bear in this movie! The scene was deleted and probably for the good of the film.

The opening credits set the atmospheric tone.

The Wolfman is an hour and ten minutes of eye candy. Set after set after set of gorgeous atmosphere keeps the viewer inside the world of the film. There is no shortage of fog either which should please the atmosphere hounds such as myself. One might go as far as to say it's one of the most atmospheric films of all time. I know I would. Talbot Castle, the forest, the graveyard, the town, everything is impressive down to the last detail. The Werewolf legend is presented very well and the plot moves along at perfect pace for a film of this type. The greatest Werewolf film of all time. FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

HOUSE (1986)

I just reviewed the sequel..... Now it's time for the original 1986 classic.

Doesn't this poster just totally do it's job?

As a young child, I loved horror films. However, few were really available to me. HOUSE was one of the first I ever saw and it has made a lasting impression on my life. Even if it's a horror-comedy.

HOUSE follows the story of Roger Cobb (William Katt), a writer who moves into his recently deceased Aunt's house where he spent a good deal of his childhood. His reasoning: A mix of Nostalgia and need for inspiration. Roger must kill the Great Marlin hanging from his wall when it comes to life and begins flapping. While babysitting, the kid he is looking after is kidnapped by gruesome-smiled demons of some sort. Tools begin to animate and attempt to kill him. There's some sort of monster in his closet (literally) as well. All while dealing with divorce and a lost son. The House is the key to finding his son however....

House has some genuinely creepy moments but I really don't want to spoil them here. That's also too bad because there's a lot I'd like to say. If it were a more prestigious and well-known movie, I would.

                                         One of Roger Cobb's unwelcome house guests....

Many reviewers note the Vietnam flashback scenes as being cheesy and stupid, but it took courage to mix that in with a horror film and I don't mind them at all. I think one needs to see HOUSE at an early age to really love it. The movie borrows remixed clips of music from Friday the 13th movies (as does it's sequel) and was directed by Steve Miner (heavily involved in the early Jason outings). The House set is awesome, even if the House isn't quite as well styled or creepy as in the sequel. George Wendt has a small role that doesn't work out too well.

When it's all said and done House is a pleasing film that unashamedly ends in a freeze-frame. Though it's tongue-in-cheek style horror, it never sets us into the "anything can happen" world the sequel so foolishly used. While the sequel is laughably bad, House is laughably good and belongs in every horror collection. Look for the OOP 2 pack DVD containing House 1&2 with really cool lobby cards. THREE AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE CREATURE WALKS AMONG US (1956)

The Sequels keep on coming.....

Classic 50's B movie artwork

Is this the first Sci-Fi film CotF has touched? Some may say Frankenstein was, but that 1931 gem is clearly horror. This will be our first Sci-Fi title and has received that distinct honour by complete accident. I actually finished the review before adding this headline paragraph in.

 The Creature Walks Among Us is the final film in THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON series, and the film does feel like an experiment. It's about converting the Creature so he might be able to live on land as humans can. All of this of course, eventually goes terribly wrong in cliche fashion. The Creature escapes and wreaks havoc. This only happens toward the ending of the film as most of this movie seems to be about science.

The underwater photography is beautiful. I truly feel the best scenes, though light on action, take place under the water. The rest of the movie is farily cold and sterile. The inclusion of an unhappy marriage subplot does nothing to help. It serves only to push an already short running time.

Italian Poster Art

You know, B-Movies from the 50's have never caught on with me the way other cinematic periods/genres have, but the Creature and his Black Lagoon series really takes the cake over it's 50's rivals. Sure people praise "THE THING" (1951) as if it's one of the greatest things (hahaha) ever made, but really it's about as good as the Black Lagoon series. All the 50's movies are pretty close in quality though I've yet still many to see. This final film had it's flaws, but I really enjoyed it and I can only only reccomend it to someone who has yet to venture into the Black Lagoon. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE MUMMY'S GHOST (1944)

Our first Mummy feature is.......

THE MUMMY'S GHOST

The Mummy's Ghost is the fourth film to feature a Mummy, and the third chapter in the Kharis saga. It is also the second time Lon Chaney Jr. played the role of Kharis. We open with George Zucco, who plays what seems like a parkinsons patient, instructing a young and impressionable John Carradine to head for America and help make murder with Kharis the Mummy (luring him with drugs, well tana leaves), who still haunts Mapleton, MA despite being burnt to a crisp at the conclusion of the previous entry (The Mummy's Tomb). No attempt is made to explain the Mummy's return. Apparently, Kharis just, still lives, even if only for the all mighty dollar......

Not long after Carradine, we meet the Mummy who seems to have begun a new rampage even before the arrival of Carradine. His main target: A girl of Egyptian Heritage! Some people are killed, the Mummy shuffles around, overacting abound, various close-ups of newspaper headlines, Carradine wants the girl for himself etc, etc......

Cliche after cliche lace the film but somehow don't destroy it. As unscary as this might be today it can still be appreciated for a couple reasons. It has an unmatched (for the time) creepy ending (not spoiling it) and as usual, like a good Universal Horror film should, we have some sets. Even if they aren't the best, they're here. The inclusion of a little dog is a little annoying and adds nothing to the film.

So consistency never seemed like too much for the makers of this picture. Even less for the makers of it's sequel (The Mummy's Curse). But we'll get to that. The Mummy's Ghost is a little dull, not much effort really went into the writing and plot and I still wonder why the priests of Arkham keep Kharis in America while they constantly preach of how he must "guard Annanka's tomb until the end of time" (her tomb is in Egypt). So yeah, it doesn't make too much sense and it's generally a connect-the-dots type film in relation to the Mummy films of the time. But if you're a big fan of Universal Horror films, you'll be able to find a soft spot for it. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945)

House of Dracula, the last stand of the Universal Monsters. Too bad it wasn't more impressive....

Too bad it was nothing more than a silly monster mash.......

Yes, it may be entitled House of Dracula, but the film belongs to Dr. Edelman, a medical doctor whom is sought by the Wolfman and Dracula himself for potential cures. It should be called HOUSE OF EDELMAN. Trust me, I know.

Dracula (John Carradine) seeks  Edelman's female assistant but is at Edelman's under the guise of seeking a cure to his unholy curse. The Wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr) seeks a cure as well. After learning he'll have to wait a few nights for the cure, Lawrence Talbot (The Wolfman) does what any of us would do: Be completley unreasonable and attempt suicide. This is contrived so that we may find the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange in a thankless role). Eventually he is cured and some real cheesy terrible lines are delivered in the process. For once, the Wolfman does not get any kills in a film. Listening to his plight is as usual, unitentionally funny. The Frankenstein Monster is breifly introduced and he only stumbles around the lab for sixty seconds at the climax.

Dracula eventually shows his true colours to Edelman but it is near dawn and he must retreat to his coffin. Edelman exposes him to the sunlight, forever ending his curse. However Edelman's blood has become infected by Dracula's. This causes him to murder people, and wouldn't you know, he gets more kills than anyone else in the film. Even a police officer, before he is shot by Talbot.

The female hunchback is unique and may be the first ever on film. Lionel Atwill is again, the chief of police. The film has it's share of impressive sets which help generate the mood. One only wishes it was better written. Monster Mash films can be done well. Just check out HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN for proof.

This is the seventh film the Frankenstein monster appeared in. The third for Dracula and the fourth for the Wolfman. This monster mash ends up becoming one of the most disappointing films of all time. Sure, it's not too bad, it's a fun watch, but it's just not what it's supposed to be. Somehow it's not what was promised to me. The film is really the last serious attempt at a horror film by the Classic Universal Studios and it's so disappointing to end the film with A) Dracula dead halfway in, B)The Wolfman cured and ready to live his life and C) Frankenstein's monster coming alive for only a moment and then dying in a burning lab where stock footage from Ghost of Frankenstein was used. For the FINAL film, it really let's us monster fans down. This film is everything HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN isn't. It's still fun but is nothing more than a nostalgic, guilty pleasure. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

HOUSE 2 (1987)

Another Sequel. But sequels are fun, aren't they?

A lousy movie, but a great poster!

To put it quite frankly, HOUSE 2 makes no logical sense. It's amazing to ponder what may have been going through the minds of the filmmakers. House 2 is most technically a terrible film, with flaws abound. It's so strange how I remember loving this film as a child, only to realize how lousy a film it is all these years later. I had my dad rent this several times from the video store. Wow, the pain he must of gone through enduring House 2 all those times.....

So the story essentially follows Jesse, who in search of a mystical Crystal Skull, ends up digging up his great-great-grandfather, who of course has the skull. Even though his great-great-grandfather has been dead for over seventy years, he has kept alive from the powers of the skull. Throughout the film, they repeatedly lose the skull and must reobtain from a caveman, dinosaurs, Aztec warriors and finally, Grand Dad's old cowboy rival, whom Jesse must defeat in a shootout. After blowing the rival's head off, he is asked by his grand dad: "Did ya blow his head off?". It's ridiculous lines like that which help make the film all the more stupidly entertaining. The film takes a while to get going, but once it does, don't expect too much. Certainly not anything that makes sense....

The House itself is a gateway to another dimension, as in the original. However, it's a gateway to several dimension's and this allows the writers to bring in some cute caterpillar who barks like a puppy. It's just one example from a completley absurd script. The absurdity reaches new heights when they all sit down to dinner, the caterpillar appearing with a bib. On a more creative note, Stop-motion animation is used in a few scenes and that's just cool for a movie as late as 1987 to feature the technique so prominantly. The House set itself is gourgeous so there are some positive things to say about the film.

House 2 is not nearly as nice as the original, and it never attains the creepy nightmare atmosphere of the 1986 classic. However I have a soft spot for it. The movie is pointless, ridiculous, absurd, retarded, badly written, it follows no logic. Anything can and will happen. It's a movie that I can only laugh all the way through. It's hard to believe they stuck with this abysmal material. And guess what? It's still better than the Haunting remake. A SPECIAL KIND OF TWO AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)

Yet another Hammer production.................

Christopher Lee's first turn as the count can, in some ways be compared to the 1931 Universal film. Most notably because in several areas, the film is quite dull. However it seems to be praised more highly than the 1931 film. I can't figure out exactly why. The movie really picks up towards the ending where it gains many of it's marks. It's a little bit better than all the other Hammer Dracula films I've seen, even if it is far lighter in tone (especially when compared to the ultra-violent Scars of Dracula).

As usual, atmosphere is a key element in the film, and there is no shortage of that. It's another movie that delivers the goods in the right area. Lee as Dracula, has more to say and do in this film than in any of the other Hammer films, which is of course a bonus. Peter Cushing is a determined Van Helsing, just as good as Edward Van Sloan's original. I think it may be the first film to show Dracula having vampiric female brides at his Transylvanian retreat.

The film was originally just called Dracula in the UK, but was retitled HORROR OF DRACULA for the U.S release. When first released the film caused quite a stir with British critics but is relatively tame by today's standards. Anyway, if you want to see more good Dracula movies, you could do a lot worse, like Dracula 2000. So give this one a go. It was worth the $7 for me. THREE AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING (2006)

Here we go with the remakes and prequels. I hope this does not become a trend.....

So this is obviously a prequel to the TCM remake, and it's not quite as bad as you think. The movie begins with the birth of Tom, or Leatherface rather. The first ten minutes are good enough for a passable horror film. Not great but I can't complain given the film's contemporaries. But Leatherface? Screw him. It's his father Sheriff Hoyt (R. Lee Emery, you know from Full Metal Jacket?) who steals the show, has some great one liners laced throughout the film and has a more convincing menace behind him. He's a great character to watch and really helps elevate this film above some of the other shit of this day. The basic scenes of actual horror aren't too bad and it has it's share of memorable scenes, usually involving torture. Sheriff Hewitt loves to torture. And he hates hippies and draft dodgers. This makes for some interesting motivational torture toward the teens. But with remakes/prequels, you get your nuggets of shit as well.

Why oh why are we subjected to a romantic subplot? The Vietnam subplot AT LEAST is contrived to give Sheriff Hoyt his reason for kidnapping and killing these teenagers but when I watch a horror movie, I don't want to see two people in bed or in a swimming pool, talking about how many kids they're going to have. This sin is all prevalent in horror films today and was even more of an issue for me in the "remake".

The characters, and often the Hewitt family themselves, make reasonless decisions, any decisions in order to contrive the violence the screen demands. Decisions like cutting their uncle's legs off (because he was shot?). It all comes off as average, laughable entertainment at best. It has some good kills anyway. I'd give the film a lower rating if it weren't for the fact that it's noticeably better than A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010), TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003) and HALLOWEEN 2 (2009). For once, a prequel is better than an original. Or remake as it were.... The ending though is totally unforgiving and leaves us left to wonder, what was the point? TWO STARS OUT OF FIVE.

DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968)

It seems as though Vincent Price week is out, and Hammer week is in at CotF, and as I've seen very few Hammer films, I'm determined to see more. This particular film was one I had planned on buying..... Until I found someone had uploaded the whole thing to Youtube, and even though I would have been much happier and more comfortable in my room, I still got a kick out of this one......

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave is the fourth Dracula film in the Hammer timeline. The story focuses on a young atheist Paul. He is criticized for his views by his girlfriend's family, and the film has a religious undertone to it. Anyways, Dracula holds dominion over the local Priest who does his bidding. No one would ever suspect him. The storyline is familiar (to put it nicely) enough when Dracula obviously wants Paul's love interest for his own use and eventually Paul must confront him and inevitably emerge victorious.

Most of the movie is just backstory for what the viewer really wants. It takes a while to really get going after the film-opening kill. The biggest disappointment is the elusive Christopher Lee who's scenes are far too limited, and we get even less dialogue from him (guess Hammer was trying to save a few bucks, or Pounds rather). He gives a powerful, screen dominating performance, but hasn't much to work with. The movie does however clearly show he is a woman-beater. Even still the violence is few and far between which might leave some horror hounds disappointed. No matter, when it comes down to it, you can easily kill an hour and a half with this one and come out with a positive attitude.
                                               
                                                   
Once again, the item that helps elevate yet another horror film: The sets. In particular the brilliant, beautiful rooftop sets. They are to die for. The atmosphere has the trademarks we expect, so again we have a film that contains the bare essentials that more often than not make up for other flaws. Another positive note to retain is that the character's seem a little more intelligent and logical than usual, and the film is not nearly as contrived as it could be. Other than that there really isn't too much to say about this film. It's about as good as Scars of Dracula, if not maybe a little better and though it comes up short in some departments, it's generally an ok film I could watch once every October until I croak. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

SCARS OF DRACULA (1970)

   Scars of Dracula is Hammer's sixth Dracula film (and the only one I've seen to this point) and chronologically, it makes no damn sense. The beginning depicts a ressurection scene despite the intention for the film to start a whole new series. When it comes down to it, I impose some bias towards the film. It has a spooky castle, thick fog, cheap looking bats and paranoid villagers. Other than that, not much. Mike Mayo said it best with: "Travelers find increasingly silly reasons to visit Dracula's Castle". Perhaps it's not a technically true statement about the characters themselves but it is perhaps more reflective in the writing. The film is a contrived one that still manages to please and really, when one hears the title "SCARS OF DRACULA", it's safe to assume they're not expecting a masterpiece. So we get what we pay for.

The film has a very disturbing beginning. Villagers, finally having enough of their neighbor Count Dracula and his tendency to kill women in the village, decide to take matters into their own hands. They burn his castle, destroying much of what he holds dear. Upon the villagers return, they are horrified to find every last woman in the village dead. This is depressingly effective.

Enter Paul, who in a funny scene, ditches the mayor's naked daughter to attend a Birthday party for his brother Simon's fiance Sarah. The mayor's daughter, displeased, tells her father she was attacked by him. He is suddenly on the run and when police discover him at the party, he must flee. Guess where he ends up.....

This inevitably leads Simon and Sarah in search of Paul and their quest eventually leads them to Dracula's Castle. From here on, the movie picks up quite a bit. The final scene where Dracula dies is unforgettable.

                                                   

Dracula's human slave Klove is quite amazingly pathetic to watch as he clings to a picture of Sarah. One can only imagine what goes on with the picture behind closed doors.... He gives the best performace of the picture and must rank among horrors greatest lowly assistants.

Christopher Lee of course, plays Dracula and he's simply a maniac. The supporting actors are ok, but none are really too notable. When all is said and done SCARS OF DRACULA is a fun, if flawed, picture to watch and as we usually say here, the atmosphere is thick and helps us overlook the flaws (such as the constantly mobile crack in the glass frame of Sarah's picture). So if you're like me, and you've seen the Universal Horror films a thousand times, you might want to check out this one. It's like a Universal only in colour, more bloody, violent, and with the occasional female bare ass. Seeing this around the time of watching so many other British horror films of the period has led me to believe that the British were just less uptight of an audience. They seem to throw more contraversial themes and scenes into their movies during the late 60's period. Pop in Scars of Dracula. You could do worse, like DRACULA 2000. But thats another story. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE EVIL DEAD (1981)

Of all the horror films released during the 1980's, none has generated a cult following the way Evil Dead has. Sure Freddy, Jason and Micheal each had a long running film series but not a single one of their films reach THE EVIL DEAD in cult status. Originally made for $375,000 (slighlty more than F13), the film had trouble finding a distributor until a European company bought the rights and released it theatrically. It went on to take in some $2.4 million. Not bad for a low budget B-quickie.

Our story concerns Ash (Bruce Campbell) and his friends whom we find driving through the Tennessee mountains to one of the most deliberately creepy cottages I've seen. From here, the film doesn't waste any time getting right down to business. Ash finds what turns out to be "The Book of the Dead" in the basement and also a tape recorder. He and his friends listen to the last thing recorded, which unfortunatley happens to be some sort of a calling to the dead, waking them up and starting the nightmare for everyone.

Over the next hour we get, a woman being raped by a tree, an ankle stabbing (with a pencil), chicks turning into outrageously hideous and annoying demons and a whole lot of blood and make-up effects. The make-up of THE EVIL DEAD is very well done, and the foggy atmosphere outside the cottage just can't be bought. These are the two strongest traits of the movie. Gore fans will not be disappointed either. The film is truly creepy at moments but never gets too scary I find. I suppose the more religious you are, the more you will find to be scared at with this film.

If anything is weak, it's some of the terrible dialogue over the first half hour not to mention mediocre acting. The Evil Dead has achieved such a high degree of cult status and it's almost unfair that it has. Is The Evil Dead good? Why of course, but it is highly overrated. I would not even place it on my top ten 80's horror list. I still don't understand why this movie has such a strong following while superior efforts such as FRIGHT NIGHT don't. I must commend the film for it's lack of false alarms (only one) which were cliche at the time and would have been easy to give into, if not only to pump up the running time. So, I do like EVIL DEAD, I just don't love it the way my 80s loving comrades do. It is quite a campy flick, maybe just a little bit too much for me. Followed by a soon-to-be-reviewed sequel. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.