Cinema Of The Fantastic

WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935)

2011-10-26T06:12:00.000-04:00

20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH (1957)

2011-10-25T02:27:00.003-04:00

In the 1950s, Sci-Fi was all the rage and Ray Harryhausen was the king of special effects, thanks to his work in stop-motion. One such film is 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH, a very mixed film.

The plot isn't too different from several others of it's period. Rocket crashes off the coast of Rome before drifting egg from Venus makes it way to the shore, is found by a kid, and soon hatches. Only problem is, the beast inside, tends to grow fast. Quite fast actually. So fast that by the end of the movie, Rome is under attack.

One thing that annoys me about this movie is how dull the humans are. You actually care about and sympathize with the Venusian creature more than any person present. People say and do things that are unlikely and some of the dialogue is just atrocious. After a man dies, his friend, who we can assume had a close relationship with the deceased, is told by his romantic interest: "Better get some sleep", only seconds removed from the actual moment of death. By the end, you'll be rooting for the monster to kill off every cliche cardboard character on the screen, and he almost succeeds.

Stop-Motion always has fascinated me, but I find Harryhausen's work here to be particularly impressive for the B&W films he worked on. He did a fine job in THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, but I think he's even better here. Only in a few instances toward the end does the Stop-Motion lose it's illusion.

This film, is really nothing special. It's a Stop-motion entertainer, with cardboard characters we've seen many times before save for the slightly sympathetic monster from Venus who destroys half of Rome. But I can't hate on it. Given the accepted conventions of 50s Sci-fi, I can tolerate this one and it's just entertaining enough to rise above some of it's drive-in counterparts. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939)

2011-10-10T16:17:00.003-04:00

Where BRIDE leaves off, SON begins..... Sort of.

Son of Frankenstein is the third film in the popular early horror series. It is also by far the longest, with a runtime of nearly 100 minutes. Gone are the Bride, the Good Doctor, his wife Elizabeth and the annoying Una O'Connor. Replacing them are Wolf, the titular relative of Henry Frankenstein, his wife and son but most importantly, the new characters of Igor and inspector Krogh are introduced.

As Wolf Fankenstein returns home to claim his heritage, he is hated by the locals for the events of the first two films. The only citizen who gets acquanited with him is Krogh, who classically tells Wolf of how the monster tore off one of his arms as a child (an an off screen event, as that did not happen in the first two films).

While prowling around his father's old laboratory, he meets Ygor (Bela Lugosi in his most acclaimed role), a sinister hunchback type who has been concealing the original monster for some time, and is now using it to get revenge on those who sent him to a botched hanging. Wolf wants to right the wrongs of the past, and Ygor wants to exploit the situation.........

Son Of Frankenstein is in a way, like the first two films, simply because it doesn't feel like those films at all. Frankenstein and the sequel Bride were both such unique movies and vastly different in tone from one another. This one falls somewhere in between yet remains unique all it's own. There are some lines with attempt to deliver humour, reminiscent of BRIDE, while the murder scenes are treated rather grimly, much like the original. While the first films shared a certain set style, it is treated differently here. Everything seems like an overstatement, more chaotic, although this does help the general feeling of the fairy tale world in which it takes place. Visually, it is a treat for those who appreciate the classic horror set design. Artwork of the highest rate.

Should I bother praising Lugosi? It's the one thing everyone mentions about this film, just how good he was. Krogh is a supporting fan favourite, while Basil Rathbone has just enough insanity to pull off the part, almost as good as Colin Clive was. Boris Karloff's role, is reduced though. So much so that it's pointless to compare his presence to that of the first two installments. He simply isn't in it enough. The angry villagers are as appropriately prejudiced and as easy to provoke as ever.

SON wasn't always my favourite in the series, in fact, in never was, and still isn't. But it might be the one that I have seen the least, and certainly is the one I remember the least. Having said that, it has literally got better with each viewing and the most recent watch was no exception. It is a first rate Universal Chiller, at least compared with most of what Universal would release in the 40s. On a really good day, this movie might ALMOST contend for a spot in my top 200, and I can guarantee I'll be watching this one again next October. FOUR STARS OUT OF FIVE

GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

2011-10-09T14:22:00.001-04:00

Boris Karloff had decided he would not play the Monster a fourth time. Correctly, he predicted that the Monster would become the butt of bad jokes and would be parodied over and over. It was time for a new man to step in the giant's shoes. Who more perfect than Lon Chaney Jr at the time, hot off from filming the Wolfman?

Ghost begins in the village of Frankenstein, who's residents beleive the village cursed by the evil and murders of its past. They demand that the remains of castle Frankenstein be razed to the ground. Local weirdo Igor (Lugosi), still inhabits the castle, and as it is being destroyed, discovers the monster, alive, and, well enough. He takes the Monster to Visaria to blackmail the younger of Frankenstein's sons into fully reviving the Monster, and mayhem ensues.

One of the problems with this movie, is the attempt to treat much of the material as comedy and it doesn't pay off. Lon Chaney Jr doesnèt bring much to the role of the Monster however, and this is noticable throughout the picture. The classic universal trappings are all here though, foggy graveyard, fantastic sets and angry villagers. As far as the classic films go, its a lesser effort, but still worth it. Bela Lugosi is again, fantastic as Igor while some of Universals stock cast are here: Evelyn Ankers, Cedric Hardwicke, Ralph Belamy and Lionel Atwill even. Good for a cold and wet night, see this one. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 5: A NEW BEGINNING (1985)

2011-08-31T20:51:00.006-04:00

There was the FINAL CHAPTER, then there was this.....

Just as Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter was released, there was talk of sequel. Already laying waste to the title of the franchises fourth film giving it one of the most ridiculous names of any movie. They had to do it. Paramount was spending peanuts on these movies and making millions in return. It didn't make any sense to stop making them now. Although no Friday film would see as much cash as Final Chapter again, they were all still highly profitable. And so, Director Danny Steinman was called out from doing porn to make this movie (and boy does it show).

It seems as though Part 5 deliberately attempted to outdo the fourth. The violence is upped a little while the nudity is almost groundbreaking for a slasher film. Some unique kills help make this one more interesting: A road flare in the mouth, an outhouse impaling, garden shears through the eyes, those are the most noteworthy demises. Even the cast is different. Sharing in the heavy use of coke on the set was a diverse group of actors. We have most of victims being halfway house inmates, but we get a few paramedics and even a couple of really random greasers in the woods. Let's not forget that weird "In His Eyes" trance music. One of the most amusing things about Part 5, is the unique and very random cast of cannon fodder, at least 20 are killed. Never was it more clear what these movies were for. Teenagers paid their $4 to see blood and boobs and thats what this movie delivers....

It's not as though a film as this needs much critical analysis. Teenagers get killed. Thats it. But Part 5 is unique among all F13 films. A sleazy atmosphere pervades this film. Virtually all characters are corrupt in some way or another, whether that is through drug use or leading some sort of double life, Part 5 is light on redeeming characters. Interestingly, it is the only film in the series in which coke is used on screen, at least until Part 8 rolled around.... I wonder if that caused contraversy upon release?

BIG SPOILER PARAGRAPH: Now there is one big reason why virtually all F13 diehards hate this film. No Jason. Yes, Roy Burns, a paramedic, is the killer. Well, it didn't ruin it for me so I have little idea what others are tallking about. Big deal that Roy is the killer. In a way, it only makes this sleazy film, even more sleazy. Friday the 13th Part 5 is about an hour and a half of rampaging hormones, sexually active teens who reside at a halfway house banging, drug use, large breasts and murders galore. Could you really ask for more? It's an 80s slasher film, go with it! THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE

FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER (1984)

2011-08-16T04:11:00.001-04:00

Back in the 90s, my mind was just seeking to be warped. I had always gazed over the selection of Jason films at various video stores, but as a kid, I had only seen the sixth. And that was cut up far worse than any of Jason's victims, thanks to FOX. Anyway, finally in May 2001, my time had come. Searching through the schedule on my dad's new digital TV, I found that TMN was airing Friday the 13th's part 4-6! This would truly be a night to remember, a night I can always look back on. A night that will be impossible to forget.

Plot: Kids go to Crystal Lake and get murdered one by one. Last girl Trish, and this time, little brother Corey Feldman, manage to outdo the film's running time. But this one has something else to it: CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT! Yes, the teens served up for slaughter are much more interesting than the characters in Part 3. Much of this is due to Crispin Glover of Back To The Future fame, who brings his own back of tricks on set and is the victim in one of my favourite F13 deaths. We have Sarah, a girl debating with herself whether or not to lose the big V, Rob, a camper out to avenge the death of his sister (Sandra, from Part 2), and a couple of British twins!

This movie outdoes all other entries in terms of nudity (until part 5 anyway), which, somehow, makes 80s slasher films even better. Several pairs of tits, and plenty of bare ass. In terms of kills, it has some of my faves. Who can forget the corkscrew? Or the hacksaw in the hospital? Rob's almost terrifying scream "he's killing me!" as trish cowers on the stairs? How about Jason's demise? Easily my favourite of the series. I would go on about how this is the beginning of a significant character, Tommy Jarvis, but I believe his character is more important in the next two films.

Curiously, director Joseph Zito wanted the camera, and thus the film, to linger over the dead Jason at the beginning, in order for the audience to root for him to come back to life. Interesting concept, but I doubt it worked. Jason had not yet become the cultural icon he is today.

It's hard to review these movies without sounding like a broken record, which is why I take the unique (or so at least I feel) elements from the film to combine for my post. But with more nudity, interesting characters, memorable kills, and Ted White as the best JASON ever, part 4 is, if not technically the best, at least the most enjoyable film of the franchise for me. I couldn't get tired of it. 80s exploitation slasher at it's finest. FOUR STARS OUT OF FIVE.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 (1982)

2011-06-20T02:46:00.005-04:00

Summer of slashers continues at CotF. Back in the beloved 80s, the slasher film enjoyed it's best days. In the earlier part of the decade, there had been a rebirth of 3D in the cinema. We were "treated" to the likes of Jaws 3D, Amityville 3D (which I haven't seen) and one in particular that I have seen many, many times: Friday the 13th Part 3D, as it was originally called. By no means a masterpiece of the genre, Part 3 can take solace in being one of the best horror films to be in 3D. The film has for sure, one of my favourite posters of all time, and how could one not like it? Friday the 13th IS an 80s franchise. The first two were released in the 80s, but they had a 70s-80s transitory feel to them, though they ultimatley come out 80s. Regardless, when one views part 3, they will see the 80s more than in the previous two films. Of course, the 80s was not yet in full swing and was still establishing itself as a decade, much like the young slasher film was establishing it's rules. Somewhere between Part 2 and 3, the rules were truly set. Smoking pot, having sex, being mean in any way, these things bought you a ticket to being viciously murdered.

Part 3 commits a sin that early Friday films were notorious for: Showing the end of the previous movie. Somehow, given that these films were meant to be viewed just once, I forgive it. The opening credits begin, in tacky 3D and with creepy disco music, something that today is just funny. The film opens around a convenience store, where Jason is hiding after the murders of part 2. Here, the movie is really slow in getting started as it takes Jason forever to murder the husband and wife owners. Finally they are murdered and we meet a new group of teens. Up for slaughter, among others, is Shelly the nerd, his room mate Andy, the room mate's pregnant girlfriend, Debbie (this caused controversy back in 82) and a spoof of Tommy Chong. We even get to see a gang of bikers offed at one point. With the Chong character on board, It quickly becomes obvious that marijuana plays a more prominent role in this third film than in the previous two. Rarely does a scene go by with this character not smoking a joint.

Obligatory "final girl" Chris Higgins takes them all up to her cottage, "Higgins Haven" where she meets her boyfriend Rick, a character who is reserved to handle the film's worst dialogue. He succeeds. Obviously, the kids are all knocked off one by one and the J man even acquires his trademark hockey mask in the process. While her friends are being stabbed, speared in the eye or stomach, electrocuted, or having a knife shoved through their throat, Chris tells Rick of an earlier time when she was attacked and possibly raped, in one of the creepiest scenes in cinematic history, or at least in the 80s. Too bad it is a flashback sequence. Or maybe too good. Rick is killed of course, and the final chase scene lives up to expectations. Tense, relentless and full of energy, it's all over too quickly. Jason is dead and Chris is the only survivor. After a horrifying dream sequence, we see Chris has gone mental. Completley, in her most convincing piece of acting throughout the flick. A total nervous wreck.

The quality of film in part 3 is poor, probably due to the 3D process. The main fault I have with this otherwise perfect slasher entry is that the pre-murder pacing scenes are somewhat drawn out. It often takes Jason too long to murder these little bastards. It's not annoying to the point we'll see in some other films, but is noticabley longer than in 1 and 2. The film contains a few pointless and dull scenes that only beef up the running time. An alternate ending was filmed in which Jason decapitates Chris and emerges victorious, but that is now considered lost footage. What I would give to see that.

I haven't nearly as much to say about this chapter as I do about the next two, 3 just doesn't have as much fun trivia behind it as the others. Virtually everything in this movie is a step down from 1 and 2 and for that, it is worse than it's predecessors, but still better than Avatar. Richard Brooker fills the bill as Jason, and at the end of the day thats what we want. So, to this movie I rate: THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE

FINAL EXAM (1981)

2011-06-14T20:57:00.003-04:00

Recently, I was reading the new Horrorhound magazine, the issue going with the theme of celebrating 1981, a year where one too many horror films were released. I noticed one in particular called Final Exam. The poster spoke right to me. I had to see this movie. I knew buying it was out of the question as it was obscure and I as a true horror fan had never even heard of it. A little bit of research confirmed that. Released on VHS in the late 80s and once more on DVD, a DVD that is thankfully out of print.

Yes, very thankfully out of print. This movie is among the worst I have seen. Worst of the 80s slasher films. This film is so bad, it never even pretends to be good. The acting is non-existant, the plot seems lacking, even for a slasher film and the dialogue is atrocious. Strictly a Z-grade horror movie. Whats worse is that much of the movie is personal drama, the story expecting us to become involved at some level, even though the acting is so terrible that no one possibly could. And this goes on for the first half of the film, if not more. There is a sub-plot of college rivalry, an old legend about a girl who killed herself because she was refused entry into a snob fraternity. The male lead seems to be romantically after the female lead, even though he sounds and behaves as though he is a homosexual stereotype of the era. A couple of jocks perform idiotic stunts throughout, finally they are killed and shoved into lockers. Very creative. A couple of somewhat clever moments at the end of the film, and by clever I mean creepy, are ruined because the killer looks like some sort of robotic, emo Anton Chigurh. A killer, who's identity and motivation are not even discussed and ultimately never revealed. Wow. What a sign of a bad movie. It doesn't even attempt to explain it's purpose as a film. A couple of idiots must have got together with $50 and thrown this piece of shit together. This movie is bad on every level. The most interesting scene is when the main chick is using a vending machine to buy Pepsi, and thats because I was looking to see how the cans looked back in 1981. Now, I am a movie lover. I watch my films in one sitting. Very rarely do I allow them to be interupted for any significant amount of time. This was impossible to finish in one go. It was that bad. It took several days. I love the poster but the movie is garbage. Enough said. ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE

FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009)

2011-06-13T18:03:00.003-04:00

Most remakes I find are incredibly difficult to develop expectations for. Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House on Haunted Hill or the Haunting, all did much to develop a prejudice inside me. A prejudice against remakes. It continues to this day. One remake however, I refused to be prejudice towards. Perhaps, in the very back of my mind, I was. But I couldn't focus on that. For once, I was going to go out on a limb and assume a remake had some merit. At the very least, I was giving it a chance. I have long been a fan of the slasher subgenre, and despite the depths to which the genre had previously sank, nothing could turn me away from seeing a new one, even if I had known it would be lousy. My love for slashers, and particularly, the Friday the 13th saga would sway me into a theatre to attend a screening of Friday the 13th, the remake. As mentioned, I had SOME expectations. I was disapointed. However, after more than two years, I could barely remember the film, and after re-discovering my love affair with the F13 franchise, I wanted to see it again, compare it. Finally, I bought the damn thing. For $2.37 at a soon-to-be-closed Blockbuster (RIP). Soon after, I watched it, carefully keeping in mind, what I want, what I expect, and what I would deem acceptable to attempt in a new age Friday the 13th flick. This is my review.

I am "The Fan" of the original movies. I cannot help but compare the 80s to the new age.

The film begins with a bunch of kids going to Crystal Lake. Check. To find marijuana planted in the woods. Good enough. They are all killed rather quickly and we're only 23 mins in! Enter, another group of kids arriving at the lake, prime for butchering. One of them, is a rich jek named Trent, who owns the cottage. But more on him later. Some other guy named Clay is coming around looking for his sister who disappeared. After Trent acts like a dick, he leaves while the lead girl Jenna follows along to help him look. We meet a whole group of kids pretty fast and they are all a collection of stereotypes, none are likable, minus our two leads who spend most of the movie searching for Whitney (Clay's sister). They all die. Whitney is found to be held captive, (yes) by Jason, she is rescued, though the main girl Jenna, dies, in somewhat of a surprise end.

There are some things I liked. The first shot of Jason is creepy enough. Very effective. Some of the kills are inventive. Plenty of hot girls in the cast.

There is more I didn't like. In the 80s films, most characters, in one way or another, are likable. Not here. You'll be begging for them to die. Trent for example, is a jerk throughout the whole movie. A total asshole. He gets to have sex with the hottest chick and you know he enjoys himself. You also know you want him dead. And die he does but not soon enough. All I can think of are the memorable characters from the 80s portrayed by the lkes of Crispin Glover, Corey Feldman, John Furey, and so much more. None of these people are very memorable. None are likable. The kids will not entertain you the way they did in the good old 80s.You want them dead.

I thought it was rather bold that in they did this first movie with Jason as the killer. Not mommie dearest. Automatically, that makes this film a reboot rather than a remake. And that is risky. Rather than build up Jason as a legend/myth over several installments, as they did back in the 80s, they attempt it all in the first few minutes, and it just doesnt work the same. Jason himself, is swifter, but that seems foreign to me. He was always more patient back in the 80s......

The movie was "praised" for it's creative kills, but few are all that creative, and it becomes clear that this movie is just set up for overlong kill sequences. The most contrived situations are set up to seperate characters, allowing them to be murdered. This "reboot" is better than other reboots or remakes for the most part, and its not a horrible film. But it doesn't feel like a Friday the 13th film. Jason Voorhees was an 80s icon. There was a way of making those types of movies back then and it doesn't translate well with the way they are doing it today. Slasher films are ordinarily beefed up in running time, the emphasis put on gore and how many seconds a death scene can last. They tried to do something different with a slasher film, but thats the one formula in ALL movies that you don't fuck with. Slasher is a standard formula with slightly different results. These movies are supposed to be roller coaster rides. The fact that Jason would imprison ANYONE (even if they look like mommy) completley betrays Jason as a character. Sure they may be building a new one, but that excuse does not suffice. Jason has an underground network of tunnels and paths and somehow I just can't accept that either. It just ain't Jason. But you know what? Jason didn't have it as bad as Leatherface or Freddy when it came to remakes. TWO STARS OUT OF FIVE

TERROR TRAIN (1980)

2011-06-10T04:01:00.000-04:00

The summer of slashers continues at Cinema of the Fantastic. I've decided to review exclusively slasher films this summer and will review a few inbetween my Friday the 13th capsules.

Throughout horror's history, the term "SCREAM QUEEN" or "SCREAM SIREN" has often been used to describe an actress who has appeared in several important horror films. Jamie Lee Curtis was one such actress, and inbetween the classic HALLOWEEN and the not-so-classic PROM NIGHT, she lent her talent to a fairly well-known, though not as mainstream horror flick called TERROR TRAIN. She made herself the queen of slasher flicks in my opinion. While TERROR TRAIN is not quite HALLOWEEN, it is a notable slasher flick and is essential viewing for the horror hound. Even if it's not too great. It's one that has yet to be remade, but one wonders how long it will be before that changes.

The film begins with a bunch of college kids playing a gruesome practical joke on a total misfit, who goes insane and is locked away in a mental institute. Fast forward three years to a group of college graduates celebrating the begining of a costume party train trip. One has a Groucho Marx mask of all things. He is the first to be dispatched. And slowly, others follow. The main target being those kids who played that horrible prank a few years back. Much of the film is just kids dancing and personal drama and I lost interest several times throughout. However, I gained some of that interest back, over and over again even though the film moved very slowly. Finally, comes the ending. The payoff. TERROR TRAIN is ultimately saved by it's finale. It's fast, intense, nail-biting slasher action, just what I was begging for the whole movie. It's hard to say much without giving away the ending, but it's easy to call the killer once you're watching. I reccomend it for even the occasional horror fan, it's certainly better than the garbage being churned out these days. THREE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 (1981)

2011-06-09T23:46:00.000-04:00

"Jasons a legend Ginny, a legend". And so he has become. The year is 2011. This summer marks 10 years since I became heavily interested in the Friday the 13th films and in order to mark this anniversary, I will, and must, review ALL 8 films. Thats right, I said 8. Never mind that New Line drivel. I'm talking the original eight Paramount films which built the legacy of Jason Voorhees, a masked killer that no 80s rival could keep up with in terms of movies made. Last September, I reviewed the original slasher classic Friday the 13th, so one is done and seven to go. We begin this great summer (and end a long CotF hiatus) with a great movie! I shall attempt to review the remaining Friday films at a slow pace, so I can write them throughout the length of the summer. That just feels more right to me rather than rush them out all within a week or two.

Friday 2, almost picks up where the first left off. Alice Hardy the heroine of the original, is dispatched by an unknown spectre after finding a head in her fridge. Fast forward through an awesome opening credits and five years, and another group of counselors in training is getting set for their journey to Crystal Lake. Not the original campsite, but perilously close. The camp director is Paul Holt, a likable lead for a film. He is frustrated when girlfriend Ginny arrives late but no matter. By night time he is telling his subordinates the legend of Jason Voorhees around a creepy campfire. Everyone is safe, for tonight. It is not until the second night when the carnage truly begins. We are treated to a slashed throat or two, a machete in the face, double-impaling during sex and so forth. As with the first review, we all know the familiar formula with these films. As in the original, the begining of the thunderstorm is superbly shot and creates a perfect atmosphere that $200 million worth of CGI effects usually fails to buy. Of great note is the end sequence, with final girl Ginny, in an epic Jason chase, perhaps the most epic in a slasher film. The final chase is well done and is somewhat nerve racking.

One case of this review, is just how unique this film is from other slasher films. In 1981, the formula of the slasher film was still finding it's groove. Rules had been set somewhat, but nothing was yet concrete. Part 2 certainly is an exception to many films of it's kind. For one, the most annoying character, LIVES! Yes. Ginny, the most intelligent girl to ever fight Jason Voorhees, has implied sex towards the begining of the film! No lie. Ginny and Paul Holt have amazing chemistry that you wouldn't expect in a slasher film. No seriously, they work well with one another. These examples perhaps seem trivial, pointless to mention, but given the context and the generally accepted rules of slasher flicks, I believe it merits mention. The film is also unique among the Jason outings in that it is the only film where our hero is without his hockey mask (Unless you count the dream at the end of part one, I don't, it's a dream). Regardless, it is a fact of the 80s that this film stands out for a few simple, if not immediatley noticeable reasons. It's hard to believe 30 years have gone by since this slasher epic.

There are a few "different" things about this picture as well. After an early possible half-tribute to Psycho, we see that Jason makes a phone call. We see Jason's "house", and I use that term loosely. We even see him cower from a chainsaw (this is before he was undead). A clever shot of a dog walking up to Jason early in the film switches right away to hot dogs being barbecued, always getting a slight scoff out of me. One thing I always notice is the improvement of the dialogue over the first film. It feels more natural. MOST of the actors are better and they should be, considering Paramount tripled the budget from the first. I love this movie.

Recently, I've taken notice of Roger Ebert's hate campaign against these films when they were new. I have much to say about this, but I would prefer to talk about it in a recap, at summer's end. It's not perfect, it has it's faults, oh believe me, but it is best to think of this film as an automatic reactionary piece, made to generate a few bucks and scares rather than to contribute to modern art. These movies were made to be seen once. Paramount had no idea they could milk this cash cow as much as they have and continue to do, along with New Line and Platinum Dunes with the sub-par remake and the obvious sequels to come. Part 2 was a commercial success with $21 million, but it's receipts were still barely half of the original. Thank the Lord they continued to make them. Part 2 MIGHT be my favourite Friday, but parts one and four offer steady competition. So there it is, my first true review in a long time. If you're getting into summer vacation slasher mode, why not pop this fucker in your VCR, DVD, or perhaps even Blu Ray player? FOUR STARS OUT OF FIVE.

ORIGINAL, LOST POSTER

SANTA CLAUS (1959)

2010-12-15T20:45:00.004-05:00

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)

2010-12-12T23:01:00.004-05:00

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)

2010-11-27T01:49:00.003-05:00

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)

2010-11-26T18:07:00.002-05:00

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)

2010-11-25T00:09:00.003-05:00

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)

2010-11-24T15:08:00.003-05:00

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)

2010-11-16T00:37:00.004-05:00

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)

2010-10-31T23:08:00.007-04:00

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)

2010-10-31T22:45:00.003-04:00

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)

2010-10-31T00:54:00.006-04:00

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)

2010-10-30T01:22:00.007-04:00

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)

2010-10-28T09:08:00.004-04:00

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)

2010-10-26T03:38:00.002-04:00

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)

2010-10-26T00:11:00.008-04:00

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)

2010-10-25T05:40:00.005-04:00

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)

2010-10-24T22:41:00.001-04:00

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)

2010-10-24T18:55:00.002-04:00

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)

2010-10-23T20:14:00.006-04:00

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)

2010-10-20T22:53:00.001-04:00

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)

2010-10-20T03:09:00.003-04:00

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)

2010-10-19T03:00:00.001-04:00

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)

2010-10-18T22:04:00.002-04:00

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)

2010-10-18T14:01:00.002-04:00

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)

2010-10-18T00:12:00.000-04:00

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.

CREEPSHOW 2 (1987)

2010-10-17T23:21:00.001-04:00

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)

2010-10-17T13:33:00.003-04:00

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)

2010-10-17T02:00:00.001-04:00

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.

WITCHFINDER GENERAL (THE CONQUEROR WORM) (1968)

2010-10-08T08:55:00.002-04:00

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.

CHILDREN OF THE CORN (1984)

2010-10-07T15:47:00.002-04:00

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.

TOWER OF LONDON (1962)

2010-10-04T07:02:00.003-04:00

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.

NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE (1979)

2010-10-03T05:35:00.006-04:00

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.

THE HAUNTED PALACE (1963)

2010-10-02T22:26:00.003-04:00

We open the beautiful month of October most appropriately with Roger Corman's THE HAUNTED PALACE, one of many films the director had done that have loosely adapted stories of Edgar Allen Poe, yet this film, was based off an H.P Lovecraft short story, THE CASE OF CHARLES DEXTER WARD. Corman had continued to produce cost effective Poe adaptations for American International Pictures but had decided to "break the cycle" with a Lovecraft inspired film.

The film begins on a most stormy night in an unspecified time period, but obviously one where witchcraft was still heavily at practice. Joseph Curwin (Vincent Price) is a Warlock who's been harrassing the residents of Arkham, MA for some time now. On this night his castle is attacked in oh so familiar fashion and he is burned against a tree....

Flash forward 110 years when Charles Dexter Ward (also VP) enters Arkham to lay sight on his inheritance: The Palace of his Warlock Great Grandfather. The insane townspeople warn him to leave, but the Palace has a hypnotic effect on him which keeps him there. His body slips in and out of control of the warlock's spirit for the first hour, while Warlock assistant (and Caretaker) Simon (a very drunken Lon Chaney Jr.) is assigned the task of keeping Ward on the premesis long enough for Curwin to gain full control. Eventually he does gain full control and things completley go out of control......

The villagers in this film look like they spend every night at the bar talking about the Curse of Joseph Curwin. They seriously look as though they've devoted their lives to the study of this one subject. Having said that they are convincing enough. Elisha Cook Jr plays a convincing paranoid drunk as per usual. Lon Chaney was obviously drunk during filming. Price provides his usual level of malevolence. The story and plot are average at best but the film's other elements elevate it above many of it's contemporaries (specifically Corman's other Poe films).

Two things that aren't average, Atmosphere, Sets and between them, the film has much eye candy in this regard. Arkham is a spooky little town, the Palace on the edge of the cliff is unsettling enough. It's particularly the town of Arkham that lends the film so much effect and the superstitious post-colonial setting feels unique for a film of it's themes. I can only name one other New England setting withcraft film off the top of my head, and it doesn't merit mention on this blog. Yet anyway.....

Obviously the powerful categories of atmosphere and sets can make up for other smaller deficiencies and the film ranks as one of Roger Corman's finest. There's not too much I can really say about this film as it's a little thin in the area of plot and it isn't particularly well written either. I'm just calling any attention to an hour and a half of cinematic eye candy. The film finishes with an eerie Poe quote by Price. THREE AND A HALF STARS OUT OF FIVE.

NOSFERATU (1922)

2010-09-24T03:31:00.002-04:00

Nosferatu, that name alone can chill the blood. Does it not sound like the call of a deathbird? Nosferatu is probably one of the luckiest films of all time. All copies were ordered destroyed after F.W Murnau failed to acquire filming rights for Dracula. He had changed the story just enough to seperate it from Stoker's story. Florence Stoker, his widow, noticed more than enough similarity as far as she was concerned. If this bitch (and I use the word passionately) was successful in her bid to wipe this film out, the world would have lost a great piece of art. Thanks to bootleggers and maybe film collectors, the movie did survive and can now be found in most DVD bargain bins often in varying degree's of quality. There seem to be three versions (63, 83, and 93 minutes) but if I had to reccomend one, I'd pick up the KINO ON VIDEO version which contains an extra disc with the film using it's original German intertitles, among other things. It contains a most fascinating documentary entitled "The Language of Shadows" which links Nosferatu to the occult even more than it already has been. Nosferatu is one of the better classic films that used on-location shots rather than sets, but the authentic scenes throughout the film surely enhance it, especially the scenes in and around Count Orlok's castle. Now some may say location shooting disqualifies the film as a true German Expressionist piece. I disagree. The use of shadow is far too heavy in this film to not count it as German Expressionist.

Count Orlok was the first and best screen vampire. He has easily retained his title 88 years later. He was played by Max Schreck, who's name in German means terror (not a publicity campaign). Interestingly enough, this name was used for a business man villain in the 1992 masterpiece, BATMAN RETURNS. Schreck was chosen for the vampire due to his "ugliness" and was indeed a strange man who enjoyed long walks through dark forests. Shreck acted in several films, but will be remembered primarily for this.

As with my F13 review, a summary of such a familiar story is rather pointless. There are only a couple of key moments I desire to mention. When Knock (Harker, or Hutter's boss) Reads the letter from Orlok stating his wish to purchase a home in Wisborg, we can see an unrecognizable language. We are never told what exactly this says, but it is obviously a Demonic or occult language and seeing it written down is very creepy, I find. Perhaps more so that it's never explained.... The scene of Orlok traveling by sea is very creepy and desolate, almost a sign of utter hopelessness. This hopeless feeling is greatly expanded after Orlok brings his rats (and the plague) to Wisborg. The scene of a man drawing crosses in chalk on doors throughout the town truly captures desolation in a way no other vampire film did, until Nosferatu was remade in 1979 by Herzog (We'll get to that, don't you worry...).

Perhaps it's the fact Nosferatu was a location film that elevates it's level of terror well above it's contemporaries. Still to this day the film can chill, while others of the period, though amazing in their own right, have lost the power to scare. But if there is any criticism to be made of Nosferatu, we can place the blame on Gustav Von Wagenheim (Harker, Hutter) who's overacting (even for the silent period) gets in the way of true terror in many cases. Orlok and Knock are the only characters who are utterly convincing throughout and many of the film's best scenes involve them. Still Wagenheim is a fun character to watch, even if his acting is often far too over the top. I'm simply pointing out what has become a dated flaw. This "flaw" does not impede my love for this film in any way.

Albin Grau, who produced the film, was an enthusiastic occultist who published numerous materials dedicated to his Occult beliefs. He claimed that during WW1, as a German soilder somewhere in eastern Europe, to have heard of real life vampires. He was shown a document claiming an exhumed body was found to have sharp teeth protruding from the mouth and no signs of decomposition. The lord's prayer was read over it, whereupon it groaned and died. A sidenote, but something I had to share with readers.....

Perhaps Nosferatu has lost much of it's original impact. I've still watched it countless times and it is probably the greatest of all Silent Films. However, I tend to look at the film from an artistic approach (as I do many of the period). It is also a film that creates a mood of dread, utter hoplessness and thus presents an "end of the world" feeling of doom, something that no other period piece has accomplished, in my mind. There are many subtle sexual themes that critics try to point out, but I hold my belief that if Murnau was sending us any message, it probably had more to do with Occultism (Prana film, who made this their first and only film, desired to make occult pictures). Murnau was lost from us at far too young an age. I don't believe I've seen any other of his films, but seeing Nosferatu leaves me screaming for more. FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE.

FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980)

2010-09-13T00:54:00.001-04:00

Let it be known this review was chosen for now because it is fresh in my mind. I'd love to give all the F13 movies the COTF treatment eventually so this will get that ball rolling. There is so much I can say about this film, so I'll try to point out what is important and also about how this technically mediocre film is held in such high regard among the horror community. Technically of course, doesn't always apply. The fact that I'd watch this any time rather than the Oscar-winning Shakespeare In Love says something about what this film means.

By now we know the story. Kids go to camp, smoke up, have sex, wander off by themselves and generally make other stupid decisions that permit their demise. Some people will cite Psycho or Black Christmas and sometimes Halloween as the film that established the slasher genre. While they all predate Friday the 13th, it is easy to forget what this film established: The rules of the slasher film. Have sex? You die. Light up that dube? Don't even think about it. Wander off to do whatever unaccompanied? You're so fucking dead. F13 presented this pattern perhaps more clearly than any predecessor.

To give a general summary of what happens in this film, is rather pointless. The slasher movie has it's clear, distinct promises. Usually a bloody knife on the poster let's us know exactly what we're in for. What I can summarize is the creativity of the kills (for the most part) and the subtle touch of all ominous music following the killer, not allowing the false alarms any music. Many slasher movies are guilty of building up the fake scares, giving them music, usually a sign of desperation for the writer. Here we have a few but wisely, there is no music. I suppose ominous music played during Crazy Ralph's visit scene, but only to suggest he MIGHT be the killer. Speaking of him, he is the Slasher genre's first soothsayer, the original prophet of doom. RIP Walt Gorney.

The film made about 70 times what it cost to make. With a profit like that, Paramount had an idea: Franchise. Jason's brief appearance at the end was meant as nothing more than a joke to the writers, but he was easily capable of taking up his mother's hobby for the endless sequels. Thank god for that. It remains the highest grossing F13 film, taking in overall number of tickets sold. Nobody thought this was ever possible, not least of which Betsy Palmer, who played Pamela Voorhees. Palmer, needed a new car. She read the script and said "what a piece of shit! No one will see this thing, it will come, it will go...." so she accepted the role, unafraid it would ruin her friendly public image. F13 is easily what she will most be remembered for, and she has since embraced her contribution to the franchise. Siskel and Ebert famously spent an entire show trashing the film and urging angry parents to write letters to Betsy Palmer, detailing their disgust. Sadly, I don't think Ebert has revisited these movies yet, but he should.

Almost no one will say this is the best film of the franchise. Personally after watching these films many times over the last decade, I am still unsure. But it contends. Getting into the F13 movies almost changed my life in a way. Around the time I did, I became exposed to the horror genre more and more. One thing led to another, and continues to this day. The film has a 70's feel no matter what they say but these early 80's slasher films have a distinct charm to them, almost unexplainable. The sequel has the same feel. The film established the campground as a normal hacking site and has that atmosphere that no amount of money can buy. Greatly flawed, technically not spectacular, somehow it's what we want in a film. It just appeals to so many people on so many levels and I'll never forget the joy of being a worry-free 13 year old spending the summer of 2001 enjoying this and it's sequels. Imperative to see at a young age. FOUR STARS OUT OF FIVE.

MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1932)

2010-09-12T05:23:00.002-04:00

I've yet to see another incarnation of Edgar Allen Poe's famous tale, and I'm in no rush to. I'm perfectly content with this first 1932 version. Having said that, the film contains plenty of flaws which I'll point out. The film has mostly to do with Dr. Mirakle (Bela Lugosi in yet another crazy wide-eyed role) a scientist who's life has been devoted to one twisted idea: To fuse the blood of man with that of an ape. He seeks only to accomplish this task in order to prove human kinship with the ape. This "scientist" makes his way "trapping the pennies of fools" with a circus show that in his perverted world he calls science.

During a performance, a young spectator by the name of Camille catches the attention of Mirakle's sideshow pet ape: Erik. She comes for a close up view with her boyfriend Pierre, whom Erik attempts to kill out of jealousy. Mirakle knows Erik loves Camille and sends his servant to follow her home.

Mirakle's spare time usually consists of kidnapping women, following women, injecting ape blood into women and so forth. He sends Camille a new hat, which worries Pierre as he knows something is up with Mirakle. We can all sense where this is going. Camille is kidnapped...... Pierre comes to the rescue..... Mirakle gets what he deserves......Erik kills and possibly(?) rapes Camille's poor mother..... You fill in the blanks.

Highly contraversial when first released, when viewed now it is hard to take the storyline seriously. It has become tried and cliche and the number of examples is just enormous. The reason I truly appreciate this film: The sets. MITRM is in many ways, another art film. It's 1845 Paris design is unforgettable. From the beautiful painted sky to the Caligari-ish building scenes, this film is filled with eye candy. I cannot emphasize enough how good the sets are and this is the film's area of strengh.

As I implied, the story is perhaps a little lacking and cliche but it can still entertain you. No one can talk to an ape and make it convincing the way Bela Lugosi can and he delivers the goods. Erik the ape is shown in close up scenes as a real ape, and in other scenes as a guy in an ape suit. The comic relief throughout the film pointlessly beefs up what is already a short running time (the credits roll an hour in) in what could have replaced by Mirakle or Erik beefing up their kill counts. The only big complaint I have about this film is an ever so obtrusive singing scene halfway in, something I feel helps to date the film.

This is one of the more overlooked of the fantastic Universal Horror films but remains one to be seen by all, even if only once. From a technical standpoint, the film evens itself out through bad writing and fantastic art but it's the latter reason for which I enjoy it, not to mention Lugosi's hammy acting and the general atmosphere created by Universal horror films throughout this period. This is a film for which I impose my bias, my love of the style and what is associated with it. A DIFFERENT KIND OF FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE

PSYCHO (1960)

2010-08-21T01:40:00.005-04:00

When a film has had books written soley to discuss and analyze it's subjects and themes, one feels a little unsure of what to say about this film. It's probably fair to say Psycho has been over-analyzed as a film, as many are, but the subtle touches remain.

The film opens in Phoenix, AZ on a warm December morning. The opening overview of the city is apparently designed to make you feel as though you're being watched. Suddenly we're in a hotel room where we find Marion Crane and her lover Sam Loomis (A name we'd hear again) finishing fornication. Marion is tired of life and see's no concrete future with Sam. At the same time he is paying alimony to an ex-wife whilst still paying his deceased father's debts. They just don't have enough money to break away from their unhappy lives.

That is until she is entrusted to deposit $40,000 cash by her boss. Suddenly she has a solution to her and Sam's problems. She flees the city. The change of scenery from big city to open rural area is deliberate, designed to make the viewer feel less secure. Suddenly Marion seems more vulnerable than ever as well. The music that plays as she makes her journey to the Bates Motel is mindtwisting and extremely tense. On her journey we see Marion lie her way through two situations and we watch her do so in clumsy fashion. Her guilt is obvious as is the fact she has no idea what she's gotten herself into. This allows us to feel sympathy for her.

Enter the Bates Motel. Anthony Perkins was the only big name actor chosen for this film by Hitchcock and the choice proves invaluable. The dinner conversation scene with Norman Bates and Marion Crane is superb, from design to dialogue and of course acting. Norman explains his life to Marion, and it's easy to feel akward while listening to him. Marion realizes how Norman's life is essentially a trap, one that he's gotten used to. She understands now not to become trapped and decides to return to Phoenix the next morning and straighten things out. The scene, after having the film build tension brilliantly, lowers it right away. This is apparently done to enhance the impending shock to the audience. Marion enters the shower, cleansing herself, seemingly reborn as the fresh clean water pours over her. She is a new person. Then she is attacked and killed brutally.

This first half of Psycho is an introduction to the rest of the film, however this intro is more important than what remains after Marion's death. Psycho is in many respects, an art film. Art house film if you will. The Citizen Kane of horror films. It's reputation is built on it's opening. The second half, though still grand, doesn't pack the same punch as the first. Psycho's most memorable scenes are early on. Still there are some interesting moments that merit mention.

As Norman covers up for "Mother" and pushes Marion's car into a swamp, we watch it slowly sink. Suddenly it stops, the car roof still exposed. We feel worried for Norman and the tension in that one brief moment before it continues to sink is higher than the tension in MOST films that have been made. Perhaps it's Norman's plight, his struggle which allows us to sympathize.

The Bates House apparently represents 3 stages of Psychosis or something to that effect, because it has 3 floors. That, I suppose is for the viewer to decide, but personally I think it's just a house.

The toilet being shown may be the first in a mainstream film. It certainly was the first time America got to hear a toilet flush on the big screen however....

It's interesting to consider the number of references to birds throughout the film. The film opens with a bird's eye view in the city of PHOENIX. Our main character Marion CRANE, not to mention all the stuffed birds in Norman's parlour. Was Hitchcock trying to send us a message? Like maybe what his next film was going to be about? Just a theory on my part.

As previously stated, there are many underlying themes of Psycho, far too much for one review to contain. Many of them are only interpreted and completley speculative. It's therefore not important to discuss any of them. This is a review site, not a book after all.

Psycho is truly Cinematic art, perhaps not a true film of the fantastic but more one of brutal reality. A slasher film that comes off as totally believable with no glaring flaws. We can however relate Psycho to what we consider fantastic and this art house film is one I consider essential to review. Few movies can twist one's emotions and security the way Psycho does through it's musical score, and a rare trait, as that combined with the more minor yet brilliant touches to this film places Psycho in it's own company. One of the ten best films ever made and the forerunner of so much carnage to come, Psycho is one of the most inspirational and important works of art this world has ever seen. Five Stars out of Five.

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

2010-08-21T00:41:00.000-04:00

Frankenstein(1931) is a film which has stood the test of time. Far better than most other films of it’s generation, there is probably no film better than this to sit down with, and spend a rainy, thundering evening eating chips and drinking tea. Even a first-time viewer can watch and feel the nostalgia. The old watch tower set is among the most famous towers seen in any movie, and by far the most memorable. Not many people mention it, but I think Colin Clive had the perfect voice for the role of Henry Frankenstein. It's too bad he was taken from us in his youthful thirties (alcohol). Though it seems impossible, the film could have looked quite different with Bela Lugosi to be the first choice to play the monster, but refused due to the uncomfortable makeup and lack of dialogue. That mistake would prove disastrous for his career while giving birth to another. Boris Karloff was given a screen-test, and created the monster that we all remember today. It was this interpretation of the Frankenstein Monster, and this make-up design by Jack Pierce that have inspired the thousands of knock-offs we have all seen. This is the definitive version of Frankenstein. No October will be complete without a viewing of this work of art of a film. The beautiful backrounds and Teutonic sets give the film it’s feel, and for some reason, it all seems part of the nostalgia.

Let's talk about staples:

- Abandoned Watchtower

- Static, decomposing labs

- Hunchbacked assistant

- Angry villagers (An angry torch weilding mob was first seen in Phantom of the Opera (1925), not villagers but angry Parisians)

- Mad, over the top Scientist

How many films of the Fantastic use these ideas? All introduced by Horror's most groundbreaking (but not best) film.

We all know the story, but in case you don’t this is a review. We begin with Edward Van Sloan introducing us to the film, warning us that it may “shock” or even "horrify" us. From there, we see Henry Frankenstein and his hunchback assistant Fritz peering into a graveyard, waiting for a funeral to end, opening up an opportunity to exhume dead bodies for their experiments. The plan to create a man in Henry’s image goes awry when Fritz steals an abnormal, criminal brain, which is of course inserted into the monster. All this, right before Henry Frankenstein is to be married. From there on the film gets more exciting from an action standpoint but I won’t reveal it for the few who have yet to see it. It is somewhat dated by today’s standards, at least as far as acting style and directoral style are concerned but somehow the style of both enhance the film. Colin Clive and Boris Karloff give two great performances, and watch out for Frederick Kerr as the Baron Frankenstein, in a comic relief scene that I believe fits in well. I recommend this back-to-back with it’s surprisingly superior sequel, Bride of Frankenstein. Buy the Frankenstein Legacy collection for around $30. Containing five films all of which are top calibre horror. Then you'll know how it feels to own the god of all DVD sets. 5 STARS OUT OF 5.