Early AIP sci fi/horror work was inspired by the success of the book The Search for Bridie Murphy (which led to another AIP film, The Undead) although Creature from the Black Lagoon was also surely an influence; ditto Svengali.
Chester Morris is an expert in black magic who has a hold over the beautiful assistant Marla English. At the same time some murders are being committed by a creature from the sea... and it turns out the creature is Marla English in a past life (the theory of evolution holds sway here!)... although she later also might be a 17th century woman as well, which got confusing.
It's a silly sort of movie but I enjoyed seeing all the old time stars in it (producer Alex Gordon loved to cast them) - Morris, Tom Conway as a rich man who goes into business with Morris (a plot not really exploited), Frieda Inescort as his wife and Cathy Downs has his daughter. There's also Aussie Ron Randell as a policeman (though I didn't recognise him at first).
I also found the scenes along the beach at night quite spooky - the early discovery of dead bodies, the later attack sequences - and the creature was fun. There's also the stunning Marla English who looks great in low cut gowns and is very enigmatic and beautiful - she's not much of an actor but she has genuine presence. Lance Fuller is a poor hero but it's nicely shot and I had fun watching it.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Movie review - "Abby" (1974) **
Some of AIP's biggest successes of the early 70s came in the blaxploitation field, including this black rip off of The Exorcist - such a rip off indeed that a court ruled against AIP for copyright infringement. Which does seem a bit harsh considering the girl here (Abby) is not a kid but a grown married woman who is sexually active - meaning that when she gets possessed she can go around seducing a whole bunch of men and masturbate in the shower.
However there are several other undeniable similarities - an opening sequence in the third world where a priest (William Marshall, who has terrific gravitas and speaking voice) is at a digging where evil is unleashed, Abby has a concerned mother, the priest doesn't really appear until the last act when he does the exorcism, a sequence where a barrage of tests are performed on Abby, Abby speaking in the voice of the devil. It's also not terribly feminist with a climax involving two men holding down Abby so another man can exorcise her.
Still its quite competently made - a decent story, with Carol Speed very good in the title role and good support actors (including Juanita Moore and Terry Carter of the original Battlestar Galactica as Abby's husband), some interesting stuff about African religions (if they'd followed this up more the lawsuit mightn't have been successful). There's decent campy exploitation material with Abby getting horny and wrecking havoc (she reminded me of a vampire in these scenes). Austin Stoker is wasted in a support role.
However there are several other undeniable similarities - an opening sequence in the third world where a priest (William Marshall, who has terrific gravitas and speaking voice) is at a digging where evil is unleashed, Abby has a concerned mother, the priest doesn't really appear until the last act when he does the exorcism, a sequence where a barrage of tests are performed on Abby, Abby speaking in the voice of the devil. It's also not terribly feminist with a climax involving two men holding down Abby so another man can exorcise her.
Still its quite competently made - a decent story, with Carol Speed very good in the title role and good support actors (including Juanita Moore and Terry Carter of the original Battlestar Galactica as Abby's husband), some interesting stuff about African religions (if they'd followed this up more the lawsuit mightn't have been successful). There's decent campy exploitation material with Abby getting horny and wrecking havoc (she reminded me of a vampire in these scenes). Austin Stoker is wasted in a support role.
Movie review - "The Beast with a Million Eyes" (1955) *
I long wanted to see this film because it was so important in the history of one of my favourite movie studios, AIP, and part of it was directed by one of my favourite filmmakers, Roger Corman. It's also got one of the all time great movie titles (an idea of James H. Nicholson). But it's a bad movie, poorly made and dull.
The spirit of Tennessee Williams/Arthur Miller seems to have infected the screenwriter so there is a lot of family angst and squabbling out on a farm - an unhappily married couple, mom is jealous of her daughter. This dull drama is interrupted when an alien ship crashes and begins messing with people's minds. There's a mentally slow local handyman, dogs barking, a swim, some voice over from the alien at the beginning that sounds pretentious (which at least has some campy fun), a possessed cow. The monster is unseen but apparently distributors complained so they cut in a really awkward looking monster.
The music score was culled from pre existing public domain music and it feels like it. The acting is bad. The ending is really unconvincing with the alien being defeated by "love" (it feeds on hate and anger) and an eagle that represents good attacking it. I was really disappointed by this; I'd been hanging to see it.
The spirit of Tennessee Williams/Arthur Miller seems to have infected the screenwriter so there is a lot of family angst and squabbling out on a farm - an unhappily married couple, mom is jealous of her daughter. This dull drama is interrupted when an alien ship crashes and begins messing with people's minds. There's a mentally slow local handyman, dogs barking, a swim, some voice over from the alien at the beginning that sounds pretentious (which at least has some campy fun), a possessed cow. The monster is unseen but apparently distributors complained so they cut in a really awkward looking monster.
The music score was culled from pre existing public domain music and it feels like it. The acting is bad. The ending is really unconvincing with the alien being defeated by "love" (it feeds on hate and anger) and an eagle that represents good attacking it. I was really disappointed by this; I'd been hanging to see it.
Book review - "Boris Karloff: More Than a Monster" by Stephen Jacobs
A true tome - a very hefty look and the life and career of Boris Karloff which was highly engrossing. Its incredibly thorough, looking at his family history - the Anglo-Indian connection, mental problems of his mother, scandals involving various family members (a weird Victoria era shooting incident featuring his brother), and his very exotic love life, which involved him being married numerous times (it's not even clear how many... but he definitely cheated on several wives including the one who mothered his only child).
The final picture of Karloff seems to be overwhelmingly positive: a genuinely kind, decent man, who simply loved to act - kept doing it even with one foot in the grave because he adored his profession; who never forgot his early struggles; who was an early supporter of the Screen Actors Guild (at a time when that was politically risk to do) and who helped a theatre in Anchorage for the sheer hell of it; who never put down the genre to whom he owned his fame. He was blessed in many ways - one fat part in a horror classic meant he was never out of work for the rest of his life, and ensured he was a star until the end of his days. However he took advantage of that part in the way that others similarly lucky - notably Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jnr - didn't: he worked hard, didn't get hooked on drugs or alcohol, kept pushing himself (he enjoyed notable stage success with Peter Pan, Arsenic and Old Lace and The Lark), tried all different mediums, never seemed to tire.
Was Karloff a really great actor? Its hard to tell - I can't be objective. He had that great cadaverous look, with sunken eyes and cheeks, and imposing voice and looking like a grave digger; he would bring dignity and humanity to the most horrific roles.
This book has a tonne of pictures and information - it's very heavily reliant on secondary sources but is so thorough its hard to criticise.
The final picture of Karloff seems to be overwhelmingly positive: a genuinely kind, decent man, who simply loved to act - kept doing it even with one foot in the grave because he adored his profession; who never forgot his early struggles; who was an early supporter of the Screen Actors Guild (at a time when that was politically risk to do) and who helped a theatre in Anchorage for the sheer hell of it; who never put down the genre to whom he owned his fame. He was blessed in many ways - one fat part in a horror classic meant he was never out of work for the rest of his life, and ensured he was a star until the end of his days. However he took advantage of that part in the way that others similarly lucky - notably Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jnr - didn't: he worked hard, didn't get hooked on drugs or alcohol, kept pushing himself (he enjoyed notable stage success with Peter Pan, Arsenic and Old Lace and The Lark), tried all different mediums, never seemed to tire.
Was Karloff a really great actor? Its hard to tell - I can't be objective. He had that great cadaverous look, with sunken eyes and cheeks, and imposing voice and looking like a grave digger; he would bring dignity and humanity to the most horrific roles.
This book has a tonne of pictures and information - it's very heavily reliant on secondary sources but is so thorough its hard to criticise.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Movie review - "The Amazing Transparent Man" (1960) *
Edgar Ulmer has a cult reputation and some seriously impressive credits on his CV but the fact remains many of his movies aren't very good such as this effort. A safecracker is busted out of gaol by a mad general who wants a formula to create an invisible army. That's not a bad concept for a film but not enough is done with it. Too often the invisible device looks like an excuse to have cheap special effects.
There's a kindly old scientist who is force to help with the operation, lots of mediocre acting and unexciting action. It does get points for ending with an atomic explosion.
There's a kindly old scientist who is force to help with the operation, lots of mediocre acting and unexciting action. It does get points for ending with an atomic explosion.
Movie review - "Devil's Darkness" (1965) **
Lance Comfort is a direct who inspired sufficient critical enthusiasm for someone to write a whole book about him; I'm not familiar with much of his output but this effort is not terribly impressive. It starts quite well with a Hammer horror-esque prologue set in the past with vampires and gypsies the unfortunately vaults forward to the present day where dull William Baxter (one in an unfortunately long line of over age American stars in 60s British horror films).
Herbert Noel is okay as the leader of the vampires - in his defence he would have been more effective if this had been set in the past. Opportunities for spooky stuff is missed wholesale - it's a very unexciting movie. There are some effective bits - Tracey Reed as a girl who gets sucked in by vampires, a party where two women who seem to be lesbians are having a chat, a cut to a painting of a woman and the woman bleeds. It's not terrible just bland.
Herbert Noel is okay as the leader of the vampires - in his defence he would have been more effective if this had been set in the past. Opportunities for spooky stuff is missed wholesale - it's a very unexciting movie. There are some effective bits - Tracey Reed as a girl who gets sucked in by vampires, a party where two women who seem to be lesbians are having a chat, a cut to a painting of a woman and the woman bleeds. It's not terrible just bland.
Movie review - "Up in the Cellar" (1970) **1/2
Three in the Attic was such a popular success that it's no wonder AIP went for a sequel - well, this isn't really a sequel, since Chris Jones was by that stage probably too expensive (and would soon retire from acting) and also it would have seemed silly to have Paxton Quigley locked up by three more women... so instead they came up with this rip off. Here we have Wes Sten setting out to seduce three women in order to get revenge on the college president (Larry Hagman) who expelled him - Hagman's daughter, wife (Joan Collins) and mistress (Judy Pace).
As in Attic he genuinely falls for one of them (the daughter) who busts him for cheating, leading to mayhem... also as in Attic she forgives him and they go off into the sunset together... unlike Attic the mother comes along Which is kind of hot - they're going to live in a menage a trois (she's the girl's step mother so there's no incest, at least not legally).
However this movie is very different in tone from the earlier one - it's far less sexy and more comic and satirical. Unlike Jones, Sten isn't a genuinely good looking, charming guy but a geeky nerd who is a top level poet that gets duped by student revolutionaries. The sex scenes are played for satirical comedy; Hagman's character sends up some of the right wing politics of the time - there's also pot shots at black power, student revolutionaries, student politics, the middle class (the usual targets of late 60s satire).
The writer-director was Theodore Flicker, best known for The President's Analyst and Barney Miller - and you can feel his satirical stamp. Because of this I'm actually surprised this isn't better known - maybe people felt the central story was too sexist or something.
The acting is very strong - Hagman and Collins were old acting colleagues of Flicker, and both deliver excellent comic performances, very funny. Sten is less impressive - he's like a poor man's Bud Cort. The piece does lack genuine emotional kick which Three in the Attic, for all it's faults, had - there are some nice moments when the girl admits she feels ugly. Structure wise the bit where Sten hooks up with Judy Pace feels tacked on. A curio - patchily brilliant, with some strong acting.
As in Attic he genuinely falls for one of them (the daughter) who busts him for cheating, leading to mayhem... also as in Attic she forgives him and they go off into the sunset together... unlike Attic the mother comes along Which is kind of hot - they're going to live in a menage a trois (she's the girl's step mother so there's no incest, at least not legally).
However this movie is very different in tone from the earlier one - it's far less sexy and more comic and satirical. Unlike Jones, Sten isn't a genuinely good looking, charming guy but a geeky nerd who is a top level poet that gets duped by student revolutionaries. The sex scenes are played for satirical comedy; Hagman's character sends up some of the right wing politics of the time - there's also pot shots at black power, student revolutionaries, student politics, the middle class (the usual targets of late 60s satire).
The writer-director was Theodore Flicker, best known for The President's Analyst and Barney Miller - and you can feel his satirical stamp. Because of this I'm actually surprised this isn't better known - maybe people felt the central story was too sexist or something.
The acting is very strong - Hagman and Collins were old acting colleagues of Flicker, and both deliver excellent comic performances, very funny. Sten is less impressive - he's like a poor man's Bud Cort. The piece does lack genuine emotional kick which Three in the Attic, for all it's faults, had - there are some nice moments when the girl admits she feels ugly. Structure wise the bit where Sten hooks up with Judy Pace feels tacked on. A curio - patchily brilliant, with some strong acting.
Movie review - "Walk into Hell" (1956) ***
The third collaboration between Chips Rafferty and Lee Robinson was their biggest financial success - mostly due, one can't help thinking, to the location photography of Papua New Guinea: the beautiful rivers, trees and valleys, colourful locals, and genuine sense of "another world". It probably also helped to have a star performer in Chips Rafferty and some French beauty in Francoise Christophe.
Chips plays an Aussie district officer who is about to go on leave when told by the government to cancel and do some work - Reg Lye has discovered oil and the government needs to peg out the area. This instantly marks the film as different from American adventure films set in exotic corners of the globe - the hero is a public servant, working for the government, trying to minimise exploitation; there's no personal stake, such as greed or revenge - he's an honest man trying to do his job. In this respect the film has more in common with British imperial flicks such as Sanders of the River (another film about a public servant who was called back on leave and whinged about it) - and the positive depiction of Australian colonialism presumably ensured its official co operation.
Because Rafferty was too old to romance Christophe, they throw in a love interest - a crocodile hunter who has been dubbed into Australian. Lye provides the comic relief. In actual fact the story could have used a bit more excitement - a traitor on the mission, some sexy love sequences or something. There is a bit of "we shouldn't bring a woman along on this mission" but it feels tired.
There is plenty of colour and its politically and sociologically fascinating. PNG is very much depicted as the third world with Australia running the place with a very paternal hand.
Chips plays an Aussie district officer who is about to go on leave when told by the government to cancel and do some work - Reg Lye has discovered oil and the government needs to peg out the area. This instantly marks the film as different from American adventure films set in exotic corners of the globe - the hero is a public servant, working for the government, trying to minimise exploitation; there's no personal stake, such as greed or revenge - he's an honest man trying to do his job. In this respect the film has more in common with British imperial flicks such as Sanders of the River (another film about a public servant who was called back on leave and whinged about it) - and the positive depiction of Australian colonialism presumably ensured its official co operation.
Because Rafferty was too old to romance Christophe, they throw in a love interest - a crocodile hunter who has been dubbed into Australian. Lye provides the comic relief. In actual fact the story could have used a bit more excitement - a traitor on the mission, some sexy love sequences or something. There is a bit of "we shouldn't bring a woman along on this mission" but it feels tired.
There is plenty of colour and its politically and sociologically fascinating. PNG is very much depicted as the third world with Australia running the place with a very paternal hand.
Movie review - "Three in the Attic" (1968) **1/2
The best known film from AIPs are things like I was a Teenage Werewolf, their 50s sci fi efforts, the Roger Corman Poe pictures, blaxploitation efforts. This sex comedy isn't as famous but it outgrossed all of them, becoming the studio's biggest hit of the sixties. And this must have come down to its concept - a man is locked in an attic by three women who force him to have sex with them.
That section doesn't happen until the last third. Up until then we get a character study of Paxton Quigley, who is the guy - a womaniser on campus. Casting is crucial for this sort of role and AIP were lucky enough to get Christopher Jones, a James Dean type who was a hot item in the 60s, with rising popularity and a lively romantic life (his real life conquests including Susan Strasberg, Susan George, Olivia Hussey and Sharon Tate), and who retired from acting after Ryan's Daughter. Jones is the sort of guy who in real life most men want to punch out - moody, slim, good looking, very attractive to women - but he's got charm, charisma and looks and is perfect for the role. You believe he could score these women.
And they are attractive women too. Yvette Mimieux may have been a little old to play a co-ed by this time but her juvenile quality (which never really left her) suits the part; Judy Pace is a black artist (it's a terrible performance though Pace isn't helped by having to refer to the fact that she's black every second line); Maggie Thrett is a hippy type. It's quite sexy to watch them all get it on, even before the attic marathon love making session, which is meant to make Jones see the error of his ways or something (the film avoids tackling the issue of whether they rape him at all).
The core story is believe it or not a love tale between Jones and Mimieux, the one he really likes. It ends with them getting together (even though she's organised the marathon sex session and is hostile towards him... she tries to understand why he cheated, as if that's hard). You wonder how long Jones will go before he cheats on her again.
This has a lot of period peace charm - some genuinely groovy opening credits and camera work, a catchy theme song "Paxton Quigley's Had the Course" by Chas and Dave, the fashions and performances.
Some of it isn't so crash hot eg Jones getting Thrett to sleep with him by pretending he's "a fag" and commenting that "fags must get so many women". There is some satire at the expense of hippies, students and the 60s sexual revolution - and an ending credit sequence which mocks the elder generation (a cartoon of a sexually frustrated man and his won't-put-out wife coming come after the film and not having sex) - but it's not a comedy, more a straight drama. Still, I'm surprised it's not better remembered.
Movie review - "The Amazing Colossal Man" (1957) **1/2
Charles B Griffith was hired by AIP to work on the script for this but tried to make it a comedy and was booted after one day - while I love Griffith and the resulting script would have been a lot of fun, it was probably the right decision. This sort of story - atomic radiation making something blow up in size - is always best played straight without any winks at the audience or Griffith like craziness.
This feels very similar to The Incredible Shrinking Man in tone and structure - Glenn Langan is touching as the poor bastard who gets caught in an atomic cloud and blows up to a massive size. Director Bert Gordon and his co writer Mark Hanna made the right choice I feel in putting Langan's relationship with fiancee Cathy Downs center stage so the piece always has an emotional element. I felt for Langan's character, a brave bloke who suffers a terrible accident then suffers more - when he goes on his Frankenstein/King Kong-esque rampage the audience's sympathy is firm with him.
The low budget means its really not that much of a rampage - it's through Las Vegas but he doesn't knock over any high buildings and there are few extras. The movie is very cheesy, but it does have heart and was fun.
This feels very similar to The Incredible Shrinking Man in tone and structure - Glenn Langan is touching as the poor bastard who gets caught in an atomic cloud and blows up to a massive size. Director Bert Gordon and his co writer Mark Hanna made the right choice I feel in putting Langan's relationship with fiancee Cathy Downs center stage so the piece always has an emotional element. I felt for Langan's character, a brave bloke who suffers a terrible accident then suffers more - when he goes on his Frankenstein/King Kong-esque rampage the audience's sympathy is firm with him.
The low budget means its really not that much of a rampage - it's through Las Vegas but he doesn't knock over any high buildings and there are few extras. The movie is very cheesy, but it does have heart and was fun.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Movie review - "The Riddle of the Sands" (1979) ***
In the late 70s Rank reactivated its filmmaking division which had been limited to Carry On movies and the odd horror flick; Tony Williams greenlit eight films at a cost of ten million pounds. This slate went on to be criticised for its conservatism, but you can't really blame him - it was a conservative company, and why not make kids films like Wombling Free or Tarka the Otter? (Both had name recognition coming from a TV show and classic book respectively.) And while remaking The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes was going to be critically risky, both had name recognition, Rank had the rights, and in the case of 39 Steps they wanted to try putting in more John Buchan, which hadn't been done on screen to date. Eagle's Wing even at the time was a ludicrous bet - an English art house Western, come on... - and Silver Dream Racer would have seemed too "try hard", with David Essex's pop idol days on the wane. But Bad Timing was a legitimate punt at doing something art house-y... and it was definitely time for a film version of The Riddle of the Sands to be made.
Really a film of this should have been made years ago - preferrably in the 30s or 50s - but Erskine Childers' family wouldn't allow it so filmmakers had to wait until the novel was in the public domain. On the sunny side this has meant it could be shot in gorgeous Panavision, in colour and heavily on location - the movie looks terrific, with its windswept North Sea locations, small coastal towns and sand bars.
Michael York and Simon MacCorkindale are well cast as Carruthers and Davies - but I feel they lack a little something in the charisma department. Really this needed Dirk Bogarde and Kenneth More. The script tries to emphasise some different between them, getting comedy out of stuck up, high maintenance York and free-spirited mucking-around-on-boats MacCorkindale, but it doesn't really work because basically they are both jolly-good-chap types who went to the same school - they needed to have different personas (say Roger Moore and Richard Harris... though I know those two would have been more expensive but I'm sure similar types of actors were out there). If more time had been spent developing these two as characters the film might have been more successful.
Jenny Agutter looks pretty as always but struggles with her German accent and the romantic subplot between her and MacCorkingdale is really undeveloped - why not turn it into a love story? They changed the ending too so that the traitor character (played well by Alan Badel) doesn't kill himself but is killed by the Germans - which gives it some action but also robs the piece of an emotional kick at the end, and still makes the leads passive.
I think the adapters make a mistake not sticking us just with York for the first fifteen-twenty minutes or so, making us identify with him, building up the mystery about MacCorkindale; by cutting away to MacCorkindale too soon and telling his story it robbed us of some drama, and made it unclear who our hero was. (I think John Carter movie made a similar mistake i.e. not sticking with our protagonist for a long time at the beginning.)
The book was loved in part because of its authenticity about boats and navigating through sand banks, which was never going to translate that well to screen, though it looks good. The suspense on land is handled a bit too perfunctorily - this is where the movie could have been really spooky and exciting, but it isn't. Also a lot of the action is repetitive - our two heroes on a boat, or chatting to Germans over dinner. It lacked progression.
Okay this review has turned out more negative than I wanted. I like the movie a lot - it's so beautiful looking and has such integrity; it was clearly a labor of love from those involved, and the novel was treated with the greatest respect. I wish it had done better at the box office; British cinema would have benefited greatly.
Really a film of this should have been made years ago - preferrably in the 30s or 50s - but Erskine Childers' family wouldn't allow it so filmmakers had to wait until the novel was in the public domain. On the sunny side this has meant it could be shot in gorgeous Panavision, in colour and heavily on location - the movie looks terrific, with its windswept North Sea locations, small coastal towns and sand bars.
Michael York and Simon MacCorkindale are well cast as Carruthers and Davies - but I feel they lack a little something in the charisma department. Really this needed Dirk Bogarde and Kenneth More. The script tries to emphasise some different between them, getting comedy out of stuck up, high maintenance York and free-spirited mucking-around-on-boats MacCorkindale, but it doesn't really work because basically they are both jolly-good-chap types who went to the same school - they needed to have different personas (say Roger Moore and Richard Harris... though I know those two would have been more expensive but I'm sure similar types of actors were out there). If more time had been spent developing these two as characters the film might have been more successful.
Jenny Agutter looks pretty as always but struggles with her German accent and the romantic subplot between her and MacCorkingdale is really undeveloped - why not turn it into a love story? They changed the ending too so that the traitor character (played well by Alan Badel) doesn't kill himself but is killed by the Germans - which gives it some action but also robs the piece of an emotional kick at the end, and still makes the leads passive.
I think the adapters make a mistake not sticking us just with York for the first fifteen-twenty minutes or so, making us identify with him, building up the mystery about MacCorkindale; by cutting away to MacCorkindale too soon and telling his story it robbed us of some drama, and made it unclear who our hero was. (I think John Carter movie made a similar mistake i.e. not sticking with our protagonist for a long time at the beginning.)
The book was loved in part because of its authenticity about boats and navigating through sand banks, which was never going to translate that well to screen, though it looks good. The suspense on land is handled a bit too perfunctorily - this is where the movie could have been really spooky and exciting, but it isn't. Also a lot of the action is repetitive - our two heroes on a boat, or chatting to Germans over dinner. It lacked progression.
Okay this review has turned out more negative than I wanted. I like the movie a lot - it's so beautiful looking and has such integrity; it was clearly a labor of love from those involved, and the novel was treated with the greatest respect. I wish it had done better at the box office; British cinema would have benefited greatly.
Movie review - "Walkabout" (1971) ***1/2
I had to study the original novel in high school and remember not liking the film - it was a famous movie because there was a copy of it in the library, allowing students to fast forward to Jenny Agutter's full frontal nudity (ah, the days when it was hard for teenage boys to access images of naked women...) but it departed from the book in many ways - too many for me, with its lack of geographical logic (they drive out into the outback from the city and bang they're in the middle of nowhere), all the cuts to civilisation, the lack of development in the love story between the boy and the girl, the ridiculous sex comedy sequence involving the scientists (including a cleavage plunging Noelene Brown).
But years later I read Louis Nowra's excellent book on the film and his enthusiasm made me revisit it with fresh eyes. It's a movie of remarkable hallucinatory imagery and sensuality - it overwhelms the senses. And it was a lot more enjoyably going in knowing there would be a lot of symbolism and non-linear narrative and that it wasn't going to be a faithful adaptation of the book - it was going to be it's own creation.
A lot about it I still didn't like - the lingering shots of Agutter's nubile body (she was 16 when this was filmed which when I was fifteen was no problem but feels a bit wrong now), that weird sequence involving the scientists, some of the cuts. The desert feels too crowded - there's not much of a sense of danger. And the emotional distance that the two white kids feel throughout the movie I think caused me to feel emotionally distant towards them.
But it's beautifully shot, definitely thought provoking. The cast is superb - Gulpilil was a magnificent find, Luc Roeg is perfect as the matter of fact young boy and Agutter is idea, so beautiful but also with a streak of practical ruthlessness. John Meillion also registers strongly in his role as their suicidal father.
I'm not surprised this wasn't a hit at the box office when it came out but it's held up well and remains fascinating.
But years later I read Louis Nowra's excellent book on the film and his enthusiasm made me revisit it with fresh eyes. It's a movie of remarkable hallucinatory imagery and sensuality - it overwhelms the senses. And it was a lot more enjoyably going in knowing there would be a lot of symbolism and non-linear narrative and that it wasn't going to be a faithful adaptation of the book - it was going to be it's own creation.
A lot about it I still didn't like - the lingering shots of Agutter's nubile body (she was 16 when this was filmed which when I was fifteen was no problem but feels a bit wrong now), that weird sequence involving the scientists, some of the cuts. The desert feels too crowded - there's not much of a sense of danger. And the emotional distance that the two white kids feel throughout the movie I think caused me to feel emotionally distant towards them.
But it's beautifully shot, definitely thought provoking. The cast is superb - Gulpilil was a magnificent find, Luc Roeg is perfect as the matter of fact young boy and Agutter is idea, so beautiful but also with a streak of practical ruthlessness. John Meillion also registers strongly in his role as their suicidal father.
I'm not surprised this wasn't a hit at the box office when it came out but it's held up well and remains fascinating.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Movie review - "Four Sided Triangle" (1953) **1/2
Early sci fi effort from Hammer films, made the same year as Spaceways and a lot more effective - much better made, in part because it has a stronger story. Two boys are in love with the same girl, a childhood friend (years before Pearl Harbour) - the two grow up to become scientists, still in love with the girl, but she prefers one of them... so the other decides to clone her. But then the poor bastard finds out the clone likes his mate too - when they go on honeymoon she tries to kill herself. Instead of trying to find someone new, he decides to wipe the clone's memory, leading to chaos.
Now that's not a bad idea for a science fiction film - indeed, I'm surprised it wasn't used again in the 60s and 70s when the creepy/necrophiliac overtones couldn't have been exploited more. It's very much indebted to Frankenstein, with a bad scientist toying with god and dealing with his tragic creation, climaxing with an operation that involves the monster strapped to a slab and a fire burning down the building. (The first Quatermass owned a debt to that story too.) The big difference here is Frankenstein is schtupping his monster.
It lacks logic - I get why the mad scientist is doing it (for love) but for the girl and his mentor doctor to go along with it pushes credibility. It's stylishly shot and directed.
A big debit is the cast - Stephen Murray is given a choice role as the tormented Bill, a Frankenstein figure, but he's never allowed to cut loose (or was unable to). John Van Eyssen is a damp squib as his friend (meant to be more charismatic but bugger if I could see it). James Hayter irritates as a kindly pipe smoking doctor who seems to encourage the cloning. The most effective performance came from cult favourite Barbara Payton, notorious good time girl whose career was overshadowed by scandal; she's not a great actress but she's pretty and is clearly trying - she seems like a nice person, which is a bit naff to say, but it's true, and actually helps the movie... she's no cliched femme fetale and her clone character is touching in places.
Now that's not a bad idea for a science fiction film - indeed, I'm surprised it wasn't used again in the 60s and 70s when the creepy/necrophiliac overtones couldn't have been exploited more. It's very much indebted to Frankenstein, with a bad scientist toying with god and dealing with his tragic creation, climaxing with an operation that involves the monster strapped to a slab and a fire burning down the building. (The first Quatermass owned a debt to that story too.) The big difference here is Frankenstein is schtupping his monster.
It lacks logic - I get why the mad scientist is doing it (for love) but for the girl and his mentor doctor to go along with it pushes credibility. It's stylishly shot and directed.
A big debit is the cast - Stephen Murray is given a choice role as the tormented Bill, a Frankenstein figure, but he's never allowed to cut loose (or was unable to). John Van Eyssen is a damp squib as his friend (meant to be more charismatic but bugger if I could see it). James Hayter irritates as a kindly pipe smoking doctor who seems to encourage the cloning. The most effective performance came from cult favourite Barbara Payton, notorious good time girl whose career was overshadowed by scandal; she's not a great actress but she's pretty and is clearly trying - she seems like a nice person, which is a bit naff to say, but it's true, and actually helps the movie... she's no cliched femme fetale and her clone character is touching in places.
Movie review - "Flesh and the Spur" (1957) **
In their fledgling days AIP turned out the odd Western - a genre with a ready market that could be made cheaply and where quality wasn't a must. But the market for these was shrinking, there was too much competition from TV and the big studios (who had stars and colour), and the teen audiences were proving more lucrative, so this was the last.
It's from the team of Charles B. Griffith and Mark Hanna, who combined on several efforts. Griffith is one of my favourite screenwriters, but this is pretty routine. Only once or twice does it perk up - an opening where John Agar's brother is revealed to be his identical twin (I thought more was going to happen with this), a climactic action sequence where Marla English is tied to a stake and attacked by ants (this was supposedly added because AIP liked the poster so much of a lady being tied to a stake they requested a scene reflecting it be added to the film).
The story has a bit of that Antony Mann-James Stewart 50s Western vibe with hero John Agar forming a bond with Touch Connors, unaware the latter is the killer of his brother that he's looking for. Agar is bland but Connors gives good work, and English is beautiful as an Indian girl who comes between them. Perfunctory handling - if you're not choosy about your 50s Westerns you might like it, but really it's for Agar and/or Griffith completists only.
It's from the team of Charles B. Griffith and Mark Hanna, who combined on several efforts. Griffith is one of my favourite screenwriters, but this is pretty routine. Only once or twice does it perk up - an opening where John Agar's brother is revealed to be his identical twin (I thought more was going to happen with this), a climactic action sequence where Marla English is tied to a stake and attacked by ants (this was supposedly added because AIP liked the poster so much of a lady being tied to a stake they requested a scene reflecting it be added to the film).
The story has a bit of that Antony Mann-James Stewart 50s Western vibe with hero John Agar forming a bond with Touch Connors, unaware the latter is the killer of his brother that he's looking for. Agar is bland but Connors gives good work, and English is beautiful as an Indian girl who comes between them. Perfunctory handling - if you're not choosy about your 50s Westerns you might like it, but really it's for Agar and/or Griffith completists only.
Movie review - "Bloodsuckers" (1970) ** (aka "Incense of the Damned")
Also known as Incense for the Damned this horror flick was directed by Robert Hartford-Davis, British exploitation maestro from the 60s and 70s. He had a decent budget here, resulting in some location shooting in Greece and a cast that includes Peter Cushing, Edward Woodward, Johnny Sekka and Alex Davion.
However it was a troublesome shoot, apparently running out of money mid production; there is some narration and lots of odd cuts, which normally indicates troubled post production. It shouldn't really have been needed because the story boiled down to its essentials is quite simple: a well-connected Oxford don (played by Patrick Mower, whose dark glowering good looks would have made him a sure fire Gainsborough star had he been born a few decades earlier) goes missing in Greece and his friends (including his fiancee) go to retrieve him.
It turns out Mower has fallen in with some Alister Crowley types, led by Imogen Hassall (a cult figure from British films of this period) as a Greek femme fetale, frequently wearing not much. Even though Mower and Hassall make out a lot and participate in an orgy together, Mower can't sleep with her - he's never slept with her fiance (Madeline Hind). Johnny Sekka is Mower's friend who is quick to claim they don't have a gay relationship but he seems awfully keen on making sure said friend is okay. Davion is a private eye, Edward Woodward has one scene as a nerdy expert, and Macnee a British diplomat.
This is a weird film, with all sorts of stuff in it - Sekka's casting gives it rare racial versatility, Hassall is quite sexy, Mower has charisma, there are some interesting ideas (mocking the pretentious of academia, the concept of psychological vampires) which are not developed, a ham-fisted attempt to introduce some sexual complexity, some really bad stumbling when it comes to exploiting drama, pretty scenery. It's a mess and it shouldn't have been - it's not a professionally made movie. But there was enough to keep my interest for the most part.
However it was a troublesome shoot, apparently running out of money mid production; there is some narration and lots of odd cuts, which normally indicates troubled post production. It shouldn't really have been needed because the story boiled down to its essentials is quite simple: a well-connected Oxford don (played by Patrick Mower, whose dark glowering good looks would have made him a sure fire Gainsborough star had he been born a few decades earlier) goes missing in Greece and his friends (including his fiancee) go to retrieve him.
It turns out Mower has fallen in with some Alister Crowley types, led by Imogen Hassall (a cult figure from British films of this period) as a Greek femme fetale, frequently wearing not much. Even though Mower and Hassall make out a lot and participate in an orgy together, Mower can't sleep with her - he's never slept with her fiance (Madeline Hind). Johnny Sekka is Mower's friend who is quick to claim they don't have a gay relationship but he seems awfully keen on making sure said friend is okay. Davion is a private eye, Edward Woodward has one scene as a nerdy expert, and Macnee a British diplomat.
This is a weird film, with all sorts of stuff in it - Sekka's casting gives it rare racial versatility, Hassall is quite sexy, Mower has charisma, there are some interesting ideas (mocking the pretentious of academia, the concept of psychological vampires) which are not developed, a ham-fisted attempt to introduce some sexual complexity, some really bad stumbling when it comes to exploiting drama, pretty scenery. It's a mess and it shouldn't have been - it's not a professionally made movie. But there was enough to keep my interest for the most part.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Book review - "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" by J.K. Rowling
It took a while for me to get into this - the beginning felt slow, Dobbie was incredibly annoying, and it inevitably lacked the excitement and underdog factor of the first in the series. But it got better as it went along, particularly upping the stakes - students are killed at school, Hermione is petrified - and some of it was genuinely creepy (the snake, the diary, Tom Riddle, the ending).
Book review - "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" by J.K. Rowling
The first in the enormously popular series. What else is there to say? Like a lot of phenomenal successes it succeeds in recycling a lot of old ingredients in a fresh way (Star Wars, The Hunger Games). It's very pro boarding school and coming from a good family; Harry inherits money, a good name, sporting ability, and a place at a school. However he is brave, works hard and is non snobbish. It's written with passion and flair with a neat line in humour and eye of characterisation and action.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Movie review - "The Angry Red Planet" (1959) **
A movie best remembered for it's special effects - CineMagic was meant to revolutionise science fiction, creating drawings-style background, which would have been very expressionistic (and fascinating to watch). It didn't turn out the way the filmmakers intended but the effects are the most interesting thing about this - red filtered scenes on Mars with various creatures attacking astronauts (most notably the rat-spider-thingy, an evocative picture which inspired me to watch this).
The rest of the movie is depressingly conventional - it's about four astronauts who go to Mars in one of those space ships where most of the scenes take place in the one set, the control section... which is big enough for a living room. The four astronauts are stock 50s types: the "heartthrob" captain (Gerard Mohr) with his steel wool hair and displayed-too-often chest, making lecherous remarks to the red headed female (Naura Hayden) who constantly refers to the fact she's a woman and falls in love with him, plus comic relief fat person (Jack Kruschen) and dotty professor (Les Tremayne).
The scenes on the spaceship and on earth are hard going but the special effects do make it interesting.
The rest of the movie is depressingly conventional - it's about four astronauts who go to Mars in one of those space ships where most of the scenes take place in the one set, the control section... which is big enough for a living room. The four astronauts are stock 50s types: the "heartthrob" captain (Gerard Mohr) with his steel wool hair and displayed-too-often chest, making lecherous remarks to the red headed female (Naura Hayden) who constantly refers to the fact she's a woman and falls in love with him, plus comic relief fat person (Jack Kruschen) and dotty professor (Les Tremayne).
The scenes on the spaceship and on earth are hard going but the special effects do make it interesting.
Movie review - "Corridors of Blood" (1960) ***
The Haunted of Strangler was a hit so the same team got together for another exercise in polite British period horror: Boris Karloff, producer Robert Gordon, director Robert Day, a historical background. In this case its the invention of anaesthetic, done by Doctor Boris Karloff. Like many a good mad scientist he starts off idealistic but it's not too long before he's sucking down the ether and hiring body snatchers.
Yes that's right - British horror movies in the 19th century either had to reference Jack the Ripper or Burke and Hare; here it's the latter with Christopher Lee and Francis de Wolff stepping into that role. The two story strands (ether creation and body snatching) don't always merge seemlessly, but it's a handsome movie, with enjoyable production design, stylish photography and confident handling from Day.
In addition to Christopher Lee, who is good value in his villainous role (even getting splashed with acid by Karloff), Hammer fans will enjoy seeing Francis Matthews (once again helping a mad scientist, as he did in The Revenge of Frankenstein) and Adrienne Corri; there's also Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. But the real star is Karloff, turning in a top effort as the tormented scientist, not really evil, getting hooked on drugs. Betta St John plays Karloff's niece who has an affair with Karloff's son (played by Matthews)... which is a bit yuck.
Yes that's right - British horror movies in the 19th century either had to reference Jack the Ripper or Burke and Hare; here it's the latter with Christopher Lee and Francis de Wolff stepping into that role. The two story strands (ether creation and body snatching) don't always merge seemlessly, but it's a handsome movie, with enjoyable production design, stylish photography and confident handling from Day.
In addition to Christopher Lee, who is good value in his villainous role (even getting splashed with acid by Karloff), Hammer fans will enjoy seeing Francis Matthews (once again helping a mad scientist, as he did in The Revenge of Frankenstein) and Adrienne Corri; there's also Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. But the real star is Karloff, turning in a top effort as the tormented scientist, not really evil, getting hooked on drugs. Betta St John plays Karloff's niece who has an affair with Karloff's son (played by Matthews)... which is a bit yuck.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Movie review - "The Final Programme" (1973) **1/2
Remember when Jon Finch was a movie star? It wasn't for long but in the early 1970s he got to play leads for Polanski, Hitchcock and here Robert Fuest, coming off The Abominable Dr Phibes. This was not a box office success, but has developed a cult, as a long of ambitious-but-not-very-well-executed-sci-fi tends to do.
It's based on a novel by Michael Moorcock, which I've never read - he's done a bunch of them about a secret agent/adventurer Jerry Cornelius. The film opens with the funeral of Cornelius' father who was a scientist working on some top secret program. Other scientists want to get their hands on it and enlist Cornelius to help.
That brief synopsis makes the movie sound easier to follow than it actually is : for the most part this is very confusing, and I kept having to refer to websites to get my head around what I was watching. There's a bisexual scientist, some other scientists, Finch's sweeter-than-thou sister and dirtbag brother, and Finch and Runacre combining into a caveman. The look of the film is fascinating - it's slightly futuristic a la Clockwork Orange, with some way out sets and costumes: there's mud wrestling, wacky nightclubs.
Jenny Runacre is a lot of fun as Miss Brunner, Finch is a lot more lively here than in many of his other films, and there's some choice support from the likes of Patrick Magee, Sterling Hayden and Hugh Griffith. And while it's confusion at least it tries to be smart. I found it more interesting than I thought it would be if only because it was so insane. David Puttnam was executive producer and this is completely unlike anything else he ever made.
It's based on a novel by Michael Moorcock, which I've never read - he's done a bunch of them about a secret agent/adventurer Jerry Cornelius. The film opens with the funeral of Cornelius' father who was a scientist working on some top secret program. Other scientists want to get their hands on it and enlist Cornelius to help.
That brief synopsis makes the movie sound easier to follow than it actually is : for the most part this is very confusing, and I kept having to refer to websites to get my head around what I was watching. There's a bisexual scientist, some other scientists, Finch's sweeter-than-thou sister and dirtbag brother, and Finch and Runacre combining into a caveman. The look of the film is fascinating - it's slightly futuristic a la Clockwork Orange, with some way out sets and costumes: there's mud wrestling, wacky nightclubs.
Jenny Runacre is a lot of fun as Miss Brunner, Finch is a lot more lively here than in many of his other films, and there's some choice support from the likes of Patrick Magee, Sterling Hayden and Hugh Griffith. And while it's confusion at least it tries to be smart. I found it more interesting than I thought it would be if only because it was so insane. David Puttnam was executive producer and this is completely unlike anything else he ever made.
Movie review - "Hannie Caulder" (1971) **
Tigon British Film Productions' attempt to move into the big time, with Hollywood talent behind and in front of the camera, and making a Hollywood genre i.e. Western. It didn't really work - Westerns were going out of fashion in the US and I'm not sure audiences really liked Raquel Welch when she was the actual star of a film; they seemed to prefer her as a supporting character or female lead to a male star.
There's a perfectly serviceable plot - she plays a woman of the West who is widowed and raped by a particularly nasty group of bandits and goes looking for revenge. She is tutored by an experienced bounty hunter on how to hold a gun and shoot people, and who is killed towards the end, leaving the girl alone to finished her task. This sort of plot was used by Quentin Tarantino in Kill Bill and Django Unchained (and to a lesser extent Inglorious Basterds) - but in those films you felt the hot blood lust of revenge; you don't here.
Baddies in Westerns from this time were usually loathsome, and to be honest not a lot of fun to be around - they are also hard to tell apart, as played by Ernest Borgnine, Jack Elam and Strother Martin. Robert Culp is good as the bounty hunter; I also enjoyed seeing Christopher Lee as a gunsmith, Diana Dors (very good casting) as a madame, and Stephen Boyd as a mysterious preacher.
Welch isn't bad - she's very pretty but its' not much of a character: there's no mystery, or past, or complexity. I kept wondering why they didn't make her something interesting to start off with - like a school teacher, or retired prostitute, or former church woman... something to show a journey. As it is when we first see her she gets raped, then angry, then shoots people. She doesn't even have much of a relationship with Culp. She's very good looking (some stills were taken of her on set which have become semi famous) but the whole rape thing ruined her sexiness for me.
There were lots of story problems too - a random, unmotivated shoot out with some convenient westerns, the three baddies all played the same character, no real surprises or reversals apart from Culp's death, no sheriff on their trail or family of Welch or variation in deaths.
Maybe Burt Kennedy, who specialised in Westerns that were comic and/or about tortured Randolph Scott, was the wrong person to direct this. Or behind the scenes fighting hurt it. I wish Michael Reeves, who had long wanted to make a Western, and whose The Sorcerers had been produced by Welch's husband (who produced this), had gotten his hands on this - he might have given it the full blooded treatment it needed.
There's a perfectly serviceable plot - she plays a woman of the West who is widowed and raped by a particularly nasty group of bandits and goes looking for revenge. She is tutored by an experienced bounty hunter on how to hold a gun and shoot people, and who is killed towards the end, leaving the girl alone to finished her task. This sort of plot was used by Quentin Tarantino in Kill Bill and Django Unchained (and to a lesser extent Inglorious Basterds) - but in those films you felt the hot blood lust of revenge; you don't here.
Baddies in Westerns from this time were usually loathsome, and to be honest not a lot of fun to be around - they are also hard to tell apart, as played by Ernest Borgnine, Jack Elam and Strother Martin. Robert Culp is good as the bounty hunter; I also enjoyed seeing Christopher Lee as a gunsmith, Diana Dors (very good casting) as a madame, and Stephen Boyd as a mysterious preacher.
Welch isn't bad - she's very pretty but its' not much of a character: there's no mystery, or past, or complexity. I kept wondering why they didn't make her something interesting to start off with - like a school teacher, or retired prostitute, or former church woman... something to show a journey. As it is when we first see her she gets raped, then angry, then shoots people. She doesn't even have much of a relationship with Culp. She's very good looking (some stills were taken of her on set which have become semi famous) but the whole rape thing ruined her sexiness for me.
There were lots of story problems too - a random, unmotivated shoot out with some convenient westerns, the three baddies all played the same character, no real surprises or reversals apart from Culp's death, no sheriff on their trail or family of Welch or variation in deaths.
Maybe Burt Kennedy, who specialised in Westerns that were comic and/or about tortured Randolph Scott, was the wrong person to direct this. Or behind the scenes fighting hurt it. I wish Michael Reeves, who had long wanted to make a Western, and whose The Sorcerers had been produced by Welch's husband (who produced this), had gotten his hands on this - he might have given it the full blooded treatment it needed.
Movie review - "The Creeping Flesh" (1973) **1/2
I think if this had been made in the 1960s it would have been a minor classic: the story isn't bad - a skeleton from New Guinea results in serum that drives people insane - and it's got Peter Cushing and Chris Lee (the former as a mad scientist, the latter running a lunatic asylum), plus stylish direction from Freddie Francis (who I've grown to admire more and more as a director).
But it never quite takes fire. I blame the early 70s washed out colour look and production design and resulting lack of atmosphere, but also the lack of action, sexiness and horror. It's all set up for the creature to go berserk, and for Lee and Cushing to cut loose, but it's all too restrained. It's never well motivated for Cushing to inject his daughter with serum, too much of the last act is set in darkness.
This is frustrating because these sort of movies helped wipe out the period horror movie genre which provided so much work for the British industry in the 70s. And it needn't have because there's a decent amount of imagination and talent on display - for whatever reason though it wasn't harnessed into something strong.
But it never quite takes fire. I blame the early 70s washed out colour look and production design and resulting lack of atmosphere, but also the lack of action, sexiness and horror. It's all set up for the creature to go berserk, and for Lee and Cushing to cut loose, but it's all too restrained. It's never well motivated for Cushing to inject his daughter with serum, too much of the last act is set in darkness.
This is frustrating because these sort of movies helped wipe out the period horror movie genre which provided so much work for the British industry in the 70s. And it needn't have because there's a decent amount of imagination and talent on display - for whatever reason though it wasn't harnessed into something strong.
Movie review - "The Haunted House of Horror" (1970) * (warning: spoiilers)
The writer-director of this, Michael Armstrong, complained about the casting imposed and rewrites done at the behest of AIP, in particular its European head of production Deke Heyward... but would this really have ever been any good? A bunch of teenagers spending the night at a haunted house and one of them turns killer.... that's a long way from Psycho.
I admit Armstrong's original choice of Ian Ogilvy would have been much better than Frankie Avalon who is laughably miscast - not only is he too old, his appearance is far too comic and broad for what is basically a serious film: those clothes, that square helmet hair, that indignation... it all worked yelling on the beach with Annette, but not here. Maybe that's why his part was so cut down. (Apparently AIP offered Armstrong the choice between Avalon and Fabian... I actually think Fabian would have been preferable, he was far less cartoon-y.)
It's also a shame Armstrong couldn't get his wish to cast David Bowie in a support role. Still, the cast isn't bad: future sitcom names Robert O'Sullivan and Robin Stewart, failed star Jill Haworth, former Gainsborough name Dennis Price ... It's just the film isn't very good. There are all sorts of subplots, none of them particularly interesting - various couples are matched up and break up, there is some statement (I think) about youth of the time, a remarkable absence of shock or atmosphere.
It doesn't make any real sense that the group of kids decide not to report the murder, nor does it make sense when they return to the house later. The one genuine shock was when the killer knifes and kills Avalon at the end - just above the groin, which felt painful to watch. There's one or two interesting camera angles and it will have some interest to Frankie Avalon completists.
I admit Armstrong's original choice of Ian Ogilvy would have been much better than Frankie Avalon who is laughably miscast - not only is he too old, his appearance is far too comic and broad for what is basically a serious film: those clothes, that square helmet hair, that indignation... it all worked yelling on the beach with Annette, but not here. Maybe that's why his part was so cut down. (Apparently AIP offered Armstrong the choice between Avalon and Fabian... I actually think Fabian would have been preferable, he was far less cartoon-y.)
It's also a shame Armstrong couldn't get his wish to cast David Bowie in a support role. Still, the cast isn't bad: future sitcom names Robert O'Sullivan and Robin Stewart, failed star Jill Haworth, former Gainsborough name Dennis Price ... It's just the film isn't very good. There are all sorts of subplots, none of them particularly interesting - various couples are matched up and break up, there is some statement (I think) about youth of the time, a remarkable absence of shock or atmosphere.
It doesn't make any real sense that the group of kids decide not to report the murder, nor does it make sense when they return to the house later. The one genuine shock was when the killer knifes and kills Avalon at the end - just above the groin, which felt painful to watch. There's one or two interesting camera angles and it will have some interest to Frankie Avalon completists.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Movie review - "Blood on Satan's Claw" (1970) ***
One of the better British "historical horrors" from this period, financed by Tigon who had money in The Witchfinder General and were no doubt hoping for similar success. The evil here is supernatural though rather than lying in the souls of men - it's literally dug up by farmer Barry Andrews, who was in a Hammer horror film... as was British teen sexpot Linda Hayden, who is very saucy as a kittenish village girl who gets possessed and tries to seduce the local vicar.
Hayden then sets about whipping up the local kids into a frenzy Charles Manson style. There's some hilarious long hair from the reverend and a nobleman, a particularly unsettling rape sequences (not that I've seen too many enjoyable rape sequences but this one is disturbing), Patrick Wymark is a fire and brimstone judge not too far from Matthew Hopkins/Vincent Price in Witchfinder General only here more of a hero than in that movie and Michele Dotrice is excellent as a member of the cult.
This originally began as a three part movie which was converted into a singular narrative; it feels like more of an ensemble piece, and thus has a richer "world" than usual with these sort of movies - although one wished it had a bit more cohesion, especially at the end.
Still, it's interesting, with a real sense of creepiness (the horror and Satanic nature of the cult is underplayed), there's a lot of intelligence going on, I loved the cinematography and music, Linda Hayden's performance has become deservedly iconic.
Hayden then sets about whipping up the local kids into a frenzy Charles Manson style. There's some hilarious long hair from the reverend and a nobleman, a particularly unsettling rape sequences (not that I've seen too many enjoyable rape sequences but this one is disturbing), Patrick Wymark is a fire and brimstone judge not too far from Matthew Hopkins/Vincent Price in Witchfinder General only here more of a hero than in that movie and Michele Dotrice is excellent as a member of the cult.
This originally began as a three part movie which was converted into a singular narrative; it feels like more of an ensemble piece, and thus has a richer "world" than usual with these sort of movies - although one wished it had a bit more cohesion, especially at the end.
Still, it's interesting, with a real sense of creepiness (the horror and Satanic nature of the cult is underplayed), there's a lot of intelligence going on, I loved the cinematography and music, Linda Hayden's performance has become deservedly iconic.
Monday, April 07, 2014
Movie review - "The Mind of Mr Soames" (1970) **
In the late 60s Amicus made a bunch of non horror movies in an attempt to broaden their range but none of them particularly took - this was one of them, and its ironic since the material had the basis for a good horror flick: Terence Stamp is a 30 year old man who has lived in a coma his whole life and is revived.
This sort of material worked a charm in Charly and would later be effective in Awakenings - in both those cases they would have a love story subplot and the doctor was a major character. Here there is no love story (confusing since handsome Stamp is the lead) and the sympathetic doctor character (played by Robert Vaughan) doesn't have much of a character to play.
The basic story also works as horror in Frankenstein - for it's basically the Frankenstein story. They don't go down that route either, though they hint at it. Stamp gets out of his institution, gets in a fight, charms a woman, then winds up in a barn. The filmmakers can't even go in for ironic tragedy at the end - it's all built up for Soames to cop a bullet or someone else to die, but it doesn't happen. An opportunity missed.
This sort of material worked a charm in Charly and would later be effective in Awakenings - in both those cases they would have a love story subplot and the doctor was a major character. Here there is no love story (confusing since handsome Stamp is the lead) and the sympathetic doctor character (played by Robert Vaughan) doesn't have much of a character to play.
The basic story also works as horror in Frankenstein - for it's basically the Frankenstein story. They don't go down that route either, though they hint at it. Stamp gets out of his institution, gets in a fight, charms a woman, then winds up in a barn. The filmmakers can't even go in for ironic tragedy at the end - it's all built up for Soames to cop a bullet or someone else to die, but it doesn't happen. An opportunity missed.
Movie review - "Go Johnny Go" (1959) **1/2
More 50s rock jukebox musical fun with as usual the acts providing the novelty: this one has Chuck Berry (title track, and "Memphis Tennessee"), Jackie Wilson, Eddie Cochran, and Ritchie Valens (looking very short and chunky singing a funky tune).
The lead role is played by a real singer, Jimmy Clanton, who has a nice singing voice and laid back Southern charm. Unfortunately he's got a dud role, playing a selfish brat - an orphan with a chip on his shoulder who wants to be a singing star. Sandy Stewart is his fellow orphan who he romances. The mostly silly plot involves Clanton cutting a record and Alan Freed (everyone's favourite 50s deejay cameo) discovering it and wondering who the singer is. Will they track him down before Clanton robs a jewelry store? What do you think?
Some of the numbers are terrific especially Berry's, and I liked Valens too. And its eerie watching Valens and Cochran knowing both would soon be dead.
The lead role is played by a real singer, Jimmy Clanton, who has a nice singing voice and laid back Southern charm. Unfortunately he's got a dud role, playing a selfish brat - an orphan with a chip on his shoulder who wants to be a singing star. Sandy Stewart is his fellow orphan who he romances. The mostly silly plot involves Clanton cutting a record and Alan Freed (everyone's favourite 50s deejay cameo) discovering it and wondering who the singer is. Will they track him down before Clanton robs a jewelry store? What do you think?
Some of the numbers are terrific especially Berry's, and I liked Valens too. And its eerie watching Valens and Cochran knowing both would soon be dead.
Sunday, April 06, 2014
Movie review - "The Monster Club" (1980) *1/2
Not an Amicus film but very much in their spirit and produced by Milton Subotsky who was one of the two creative powerhouses at Amicus. It's an anthology piece, only three items this time, plus a linking story - and padded out with some ridiculous rock/pop numbers. Seriously they have whole numbers there.
Any idea I had that Roy Ward Baker was a good director went out the window with this movie - he makes a complete hash of three excellent stories from Chetwynd-Hayes, who was understandably upset at the final result. There's no atmosphere, or scares - just lots of dumb jokes and bad make up. All the stories had potential to be scary, thrilling, surprising, all that - they were all ruined.
An excellent cast is wasted: Vincent Price as a vampire, John Carradine as Chetwynd Hayes, James Laurenson as a Shamrock (awful, laughable make up), Simon Ward as a conman trying to get Barbara Kellerman to swindle Laurenson, Stuart Whitman as a film director looking for a location who runs into ghouls, Richard Johnson as a vampire married to Britt Ekland, Donald Pleasance as a vampire hunter, Anthony Steel (looking as handsome and stiff as every) as a film producer.
A real darn shame - they should film more of Chetwynd Hayes' stuff. Just not ruin it.
Any idea I had that Roy Ward Baker was a good director went out the window with this movie - he makes a complete hash of three excellent stories from Chetwynd-Hayes, who was understandably upset at the final result. There's no atmosphere, or scares - just lots of dumb jokes and bad make up. All the stories had potential to be scary, thrilling, surprising, all that - they were all ruined.
An excellent cast is wasted: Vincent Price as a vampire, John Carradine as Chetwynd Hayes, James Laurenson as a Shamrock (awful, laughable make up), Simon Ward as a conman trying to get Barbara Kellerman to swindle Laurenson, Stuart Whitman as a film director looking for a location who runs into ghouls, Richard Johnson as a vampire married to Britt Ekland, Donald Pleasance as a vampire hunter, Anthony Steel (looking as handsome and stiff as every) as a film producer.
A real darn shame - they should film more of Chetwynd Hayes' stuff. Just not ruin it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)