Sunday, October 31, 2010

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.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

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.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

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.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

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.

Monday, October 25, 2010

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.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

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.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

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.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

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.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

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.

Monday, October 18, 2010

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.

DAY OF THE DEAD (1985)

      DAY OF THE DEAD has become the first zombie film to be featured here. What an honour.

Day of the Dead is the final chapter (or would be) of Romero's dead trilogy. I last saw this years ago, and I wasn't very impressed. I knew seeing it from a more mature standpoint might change my mind, and it did, a little. I just watched this for the first time in many years and it's far better than I remember it. It can not however compare with the earlier efforts of George A Romero. It is however, far better than anything (with the possible exception of the NOTLD remake) George has since given us.

Night of the Living Dead had a relentless style to it. Dawn gave the world a feeling of hoplessness and dread like few other movies have done. Day gives us a cold, sterile environment where people have lost their minds five years after the Zombie outbreak. Day expands on the "end of the world" feeling Dawn generated, but in an indescribeabley depressing way.

The main conflict in the film is between Scientist and Soilder. The zombies are but a sidenote here. The military was ordered (when there still was law) to facilitate the scientific experiments in an underground missile silo. After losing many men, crazed Captain Rhodes (quite an interesting villain) has finally had enough of providing the scientists with protection and zombie specimens. He demands "results" soon or he will put an end to their experiments. Clearly the military doesn't like where the experiments are going.
They are to "domesticate" and "control" the living dead through teaching them. The military see's no purpose for this and eventually "cancels" this program.

The attempt to domesticate the living dead is interesting, but it goes too far. George could have done so much more with what he had. If anyone found this film creepy in any way, the domestication scenes certainly don't help. Sure Dawn of the Dead had it's satire, but it was so cleverly used, but Dawn can wait, this is a Day review.


Captain Rhodes eventually loses it completley and goes on a bloodthirsty rampage before meeting his inevitable demise. He actually gets more kills than any one zombie. One only wishes he had more screen time.


Surely by now you can see where the story is headed. I just have one little (or large) complaint about this film. Why are trained professionals in the military, so unstrategic when the zombies finally do overrun the silo? They are all taken down in such a contrived fashion and clearly they would have had a contingency plan in case their base ever was overrun. The zombie makeup is nothing to complain about and much detail was put into it, far more so than it's Romero predecessors. Some critics complained about an emphasis on gore in this film but really the gore, however much there may be, is limited to a few scenes. Clearly Romero used his best ideas over the first two dead films, but this one is definately worth a look. I'm glad I revisited it and it's a far better effort than I remembered. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

CREEPSHOW 2 (1987)


Why Creepshow 2 before the original? Why the hell not? It's actually because I just watched it so bear with me. I remember in the early 90's when my dad got this on VHS. Nostalgia is so sweet......

So to start off, Creepshow 2 is sort of a rip-off. It contains just three stories compared to the original's five. While it's technically a disappointment in this way, it does not take any of this surprisingly fresh sequel's merit away. The cartoon interludes feature a maniacally fucked up child, waiting for his newest issue of Creepshow, and an unnamed Cryptkeeper-like figure who tells the stories.

Our first story, OLD CHIEF WOODENHEAD, concerns an elderly couple living their days away in Dead River, a town "finally living up to it's name". The couple are killed off by a gang of thugs, A retarded slob, a rich kid, and a young native American who's obsession with his long hair is just comical. Upon their death, the couple's wooden Indian statue comes to life, and systematically knocks off the young thugs. It's entertaining and a good start to an 80's movie.

The second and best story, THE RAFT, features a group of stoned and horny teens on a cruise ride to the beach. There they discover what looks like an oil slick, floating around the small lake. This "slick" is just a blob like creature, swallowing victims to become ever larger. This second tale is tense compared to the other two and is quite a step above in creepy atmosphere. Without a doubt the best segment of the film.

Our final story, THE HITCHHIKER, opens in a sleazy apartment where we meet a young woman paying for sex depsite the ring on her finger. Her guilt leads her to hit a man. When she rushes from the scene her feelings of guilt intensify (obviously). Watch out for a Stephen King cameo at this point. The Hitchhiker follows this woman wherever she drives in a very repetitive story. All in all, it's ok but easily the weakest and yet most humourous of the three stories. The ending is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

I found myself laughing quite a bit with Creepshow 2. Especially when "THE CREEP" begins throwing issues of his magazine all over the road whilst his delivery van is in motion, traveling further and further away as the credits roll. But that's the point. It's a fun movie that any fan of horror can easily have a soft spot for. I am one of them. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE BLACK CAT (1934)



        Edgar G Ulmer's "THE BLACK CAT" is in many ways, a slow film. A film of mostly dialogue. There is virtually no action until the climax, and I wouldn't have it any other way. The film is a showcase for both Karloff and Lugosi and is essentially a metaphor for their rival careers. The film features many scenes of the two arguing, in deep discussion or brooding around Karloff's Bauhaus-style home. Sounds a little boring, uneventful I know. It's anything but. The Black Cat is a superior film to even Lugosi's Dracula and ranks among the best of all Universal horror.

We open the film with a young couple, Joan and Peter Allison who are onboard a train in Eastern Europe (Hungary I believe). Their isolated train compartment is soon entered by Dr. Werdegast (Lugosi) who is traveling in the same area and on his way to "see an old friend". In most contrived fashion (it was the 30's), Peter and Joan join Weredegast for his journey to Herr Poelzig's (Karloff) gothic home (see below), which features some of Cinema's greatest scenery.
Poelzig's eerie gothic home

Dr. Werdegast's mission is to confront Herr Poelzig for stealing his wife, daughter and betraying 10,000 men to the Russians in the first world war. As long as we see a Karloff/Lugosi confrontation, I'll take any back story.

Herr Poelzig, as we come to learn, heads the black mass and reads Satanic manuscripts before he retires for the evening. He keeps embalmed corpses around his home which to some might suggest necrophillia. Poelzig reveals Werdegast's wife is dead and he keeps her on display. He shows Werdegast who loses all emotional control.

But Poelzig has sinister plans. First of which is to sacrifice Joan Allison as he performs the last rites of lucifer. His Satanic Church is quite a nice setpiece. The entire film we know how badly Karloff and Lugosi want to kill each other. It's all a wait to the end and along the way, only a retard Avatar fan could be dissapointed. It is Film Nori-ish and Poelzig's castle/home is a treat to any fan of cinematic architecture.

To clarify, this story has NOTHING to do with Edgar Allen Poe. The Black Cat in the title refers to Lugosi's "all consuming horror of cats", having nothing to do with Poe's shocker. Even more shocking was how this movie, with all it's satanic content, made it past the censors in 1934! This film along with the Raven, are hugely responsible the creation of the film rating code. Sadly, for one to buy it on DVD, it must be purchased along with 4 other titles (3 of which are good) on the BELA LUGOSI collection. The $35 price tag is more than worth it for 30's treats. FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

THE OBLONG BOX (1969)

Yet Another Vincent Price Film......


To sum it up, a very bizare, unusual film. Julian (Vincent Price) keeps his severley scarred brother Edward, locked in his room, isolating him from the world. Edward plans to escape, fakes his death.... But when Julian wants to display an unmutilated corpse to the public, his henchmen must find another body.... To make matters worse, Sir Edward ends up being buried alive, only to escape and meet up with  a twisted body-snatching Christopher Lee.

The plot complicates itself slightly early on, but once the film establishes itself, it shifts into pure horror. One can also call it a period piece and despite Vincent Price's screen time being more limited than other films he was top-billed in, there is more than enough to take our minds off of that. Christopher Lee is a menace as usual, and the other more minor actors give the film a nice touch.

The Oblong Box is another 1960's British horror film that doesn't cut back on violence. There is nudity, scenes of prostitution (shocking for 69) and a red cloaked man senselessly cutting up a woman. So it's fair to say the film doesn't hold back. It moves along at a good pace and keeps the viewer in until, (I feel) a little bit of a letdown at the end. Somewhat creepy though. THREE AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

Friday, October 8, 2010

WITCHFINDER GENERAL (THE CONQUEROR WORM) (1968)


It's obvious that Vincent Price mode is in full gear at this point. Such is the time to present one of his best......
One expects Witchfinder General (also called the Conqueror Worm) to be quite a decent flick but one is very surprised to find out just how good it is. Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his henchman take advantage of a lawless England, plunged into civil war. He is paid to find witches, force confessions out of them by whatever means and then finally, execute them in most inhumane ways. His main henchman enjoys cutting chained up women and lives only to "do the lords work" by torturing these suspected witches.

Of course there are other subplots, but this is what we watch the movie for. The women screaming as they await hanging or crucifixion are quite effective and disturbing. Price is almost always a dark, evil character but perhaps nowhere more so than in Witchfinder General. It's almost shocking to note the level of blood, violence and nudity - almost groundbreaking in 1968. Very few pictures had been made in like fashion at this time.
                                             

If anything, there is not much meaning behind this picture. It is most certainly cinema of the horrific and 42 years later it still packs a punch. Like many CotF reviews lately, there is not to much to say without just giving everything away. Let's just say, if you love Vinny Price films, you cannot go wrong with this Witchhunt epic. Definately a must-see. FOUR AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

CHILDREN OF THE CORN (1984)

                                                             
Children of the Corn has a poster that totally sells the movie. The movie however fails to sell anything, not least of which the notion of a theocratic totalitarian society of children. This is easily the worst film CotF has touched thus far. It may be the worst for some time to come.

The film starts off with a clever, somewhat disturbing idea featuring kids mudering a cafe full of adults in the tiny town of Gatlan, NE. Somehow, the scene doesn't feel as though it was executed properly, but no matter as this is one of the few scenes the film has going for it. After this bloodbath, we flash forward 3 years.....

Enter Linda Hamilton and some guy from the 80's, a Seattle couple driving across the country for whatever reason. They smash an already dead kid with their car. Stunned, the 80's dude searches frantically for something, though we're never sure what. It is here that the creepiest sequence of the movie, turns out to be A DREAM. Yes, the most effective moment in this film doesn't really happen. Which makes me wonder how Linda Hamilton can so casually fall asleep within minutes of witnessing her boyfriend/husband/whateverthefuckheis, hit a small child with his car. This example is followed by false alarms GALORE. Trademark of a horror film short on ideas.

So eventually LH and CO., arrive in Gatlan, encounter a gang of kids bent on sacrificing them, save a couple of kids and during this we have to put up with the annoying voice of the child leader, Issac. His main assistant, (this douchebag kid who looks like the red haried mullet kid from T2) is the main antagonist and there is a rift between this character and Issac (ideaology differences) which brings me to another point. This (fuck it, I'm looking his name up) Malachai murders the lone adult with which the children do trade (they need his precious fuel) for no other reason than to create an overlong scene of suspense and up the body count for the gore hungry teens. A very serious flaw, I feel.

All in all, Children of the Corn is nothing that merits any in-depth review and any further talk of this inteligence insulting waste of $800,000 that somehow spawned six sequels, would just be trashtalk. One can only imagine how bad the sequels are. ONE AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

Monday, October 4, 2010

TOWER OF LONDON (1962)

                                             
 It feels a little odd that this "remake" would make it to CotF before the 1939 original, but it just so happens I'm in Price mode at the moment. Watching this movie again only made it a little better..... Do you have the courage to spend 83 minutes in THE TOWER OF LONDON? Don't worry, it's actually only 80 minutes.....

                                               
                                                      
Vincent Price, Sinister as ever, assays the role of  the bloodthirsty Richard III, a man who's path to king includes murder, even of his own family and blood. Price makes the kills, the tortures and the arrests all too often throughout the film, so there is plenty of carnage in that regard that helps to keep things interesting whenever the pace slows down. The film might technically be refferred to as a costume drama, with the horror (or fantastic) elements kept to a minimum. This is an accurate statement, but as with the original film, the actors and style relate so closely with many other period films, that Tower of London becomes associated with them. It is horror by proxy perhaps.... The torture scenes are pretty good, and they seem a lot fresher seeing as this was the early 60's.....


The horrific elements come into play as the ghosts of Price's victims, never allowing his conscience any peace or rest. His guilty mind manufactures scenes of madness throughout the film and as it drags on, Price becomes all the more unreasonable as a character. He is quite fun, as usual, to watch in this film. His right hand man Ratcliffe (played by Micheal Pate) is more than happy to perform Price's dirty work in the TOWER OF LONDON. No one is safe from their desires. Joan Freeman (who would later costar in Friday the 13th: the Final Chapter) makes an appearance. She is an observer to a key torture scene....

The story is ok. It's the sets that add much merit to the film. Not many were used and the film was low budget but the money was well spent. Roger Corman intended to direct the film in colour, but this was turned down by studio heads who wanted a B&W picture. Further arguments arose when, to save money, the studio decided to showcase stock footage (substituting for the final battle) from the 1939 original Tower of London, thus Basil Rathbone can be seen. It amazes me how cheap they went yet still made a decent picture. Overall Tower of London is nothing special, but it's sets, and Price definately merit the film a watch. Available on a two-disc DVD set (from MGM's Midnite Movies line) with THE HAUNTED PALACE (1963). Buy now. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE (1979)

I am hoping to review as many films as possible this month as October is most appropriate for the Cinema of the Fantastic. This greatest of months continues with.....
NOSFERATU, yes the remake.......


I've bashed more than my fair share of remakes over my life, and most of them deserved it. Rarely does a remake have the power and energy of the original. Werner Herzog's Nosferatu The Vampyre (or in Germany, Phantom Der Nacht) is one of those rare remakes that one can argue is as good as the original. The film expands the dark mood of the silent original and feels far more unsettling whilst the vampire here is more sympathetic than Orlok in the original. One might argue that in this case a certain sense of horror is lost, but in spite of a more sympathetic vampire, this French-German co production remains a dark, brooding Gothic tale of horror. Filmed on location as the original was, it is almost impossible not to compare the two films......

To meet the demands of foreign distributors, Herzog filmed the movie in a German and an English version. It's obvious in some scenes in the English version, that the actors did not have a full grip on the English language. This means the German version is superior as the acting is far more natural though still very quiet and calm in a way I've never seen any other film accomplish.

The calmness I refer to is nowhere more evident than in the scene with joyous townspeople celebrating whatever time they have left to live. They've all contracted the plague and are dining and dancing in the streets in what may be Cinema's best "End of the World" setting. Though it may only be one town, the impending doom is conveyed in brilliant apocolyptic fashion. Even better than how the original does it. Despite the fact these people know they are soon to die, they have already come to accept it.

The ending is similar, yet the final result is quite different with young Johnathan Harker becoming a new Nosferatu and presumably riding off to spread the plague throughout Europe. The story itself is too familiar and obvious and needs not be discussed here with any serious detail. We all know the basic story of Dracula by now, even if every incarnation changes something around.....

The musical score is to die for. Nosferatu has one of the few scores that actually manages to be creepy. It may rank among the best of all horror scores, not much of a surprise. It goes quite well with every scene, especially the more ominous touches. The music makes one feel as if they are being stalked.....

The actors are mixed. Roland Topor is nothing less than insane as Renfield. Klaus Kinski gives Max Schreck a run for his money with a fantastic performance. Isabelle Adjani is enthusiastic enough. Bruno Ganz (who went on to play Hitler) seems a little flat in many scenes and is quite often not a convincing actor, much like his 1922 counterpart. His scene eating with the Gypsies is quite memorable, as is his first encounter with Kinski. It is Kinski of course who steals any scene he is in. His first meeting with Adjani (as she sits looking at a mirror,  she watches the door open but can only see a reflection of a shadow moving closer towards her) is unforgettable to say the least. The supporting actors are no names who expertly show us why they never got too far in the acting world.

The film was popular upon first release but was lesser known for many years afterward. It sold only 1,000,000 tickets in Germany but has since become an acclaimed classic and has added Kinski to a list of the greatest screen vampires. The film moves at an alarmingly slow pace, but note the finer touches. The thick gothic atmosphere that prevails throughout is virtually never interupted, a mood that is quite difficult for any film to sustain. Nosferatu pulls it off and in the end, it's arguably better than Murnau's. Twilight fans, this one ain't for you..... FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.