WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935)

20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH (1957)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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

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

SANTA CLAUS AND PITCH, THE DEMON

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

VAMPYR (1932)

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

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

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

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

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

THE GORGON (1964)

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

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

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

DRACULA, PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972)

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

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

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