Movie review - "The House That Dripped Blood" (1971) ***

A sort of follow up to The Torture Garden, another Amicus anthology from the stories of Robert Bloch. The linking device to this one is an old haunted house where various wacky shenanigans take place: writer Denholm Elliot gets so into his latest novel he starts thinking one of the characters is alive; Peter Cushing visits a waxworks and is reminded of a lost love; Christopher Lee hires a nanny (Nyree Dawn Porter) who doesn't approve of his harsh treatment of his child; horror star Jon Pertwee finds himself with a real vampire's cloak.

The star value of these Amicus films were increasing steadily: in addition to Elliot, Cushing, Lee and Pertwee, there's also the voluptuous Ingrid Pitt on hand as Pertwee's co-star. It looks handsome and is well directed.

It's a shame the story material isn't that strong. The Elliot episode feels very familiar, and the Cushing one is dull (especially considering waxworks sounds as though it's going to be interesting). Also the linking device - involving a police inspector looking for a missing actor and a real estate agent - is poor, lacking actors with the gravitas of Peter Cushing or Burgess Meredith.

However the Lee segment, with the creepy child actor, is very good, and the Pertwee one a lot of fun - there's some amusing British horror industry in jokes (including Pertwee referring to Dracula - "the Bela Lugosi one not the one with the new chap".)

Peter Duffell directed this. Never heard of him. Did a good job.

Movie review - "The Torture Garden" (1967) *** (warning: spoilers)

After their success with the anthology Dr Terror's House of Horrors, Amicus had a few flops so went back to the well for this entry. It's four stories, plus a sort of epilogue: Michael Bryant (one of those British actors whose face feels vaguely familiar) is attacked by a demonic cat; Beverly Adams is as a starlet who realises that robots are everywhere; Barbara Ewing is tormented by a killer piano; rich Jack Palance meets Edgar Allan Poe die hard Peter Cushing. Linking them is Burgess Meredith as a sideshow carnival operator.

I have really been enjoying these Amicus movies - it looks handsome, is well directed by Freddie Field, with a decent script and strong acting. It does lack a little in star power; you will laugh at the killer piano if you're not in the right mood; the robot actors story would work better if the actors were better and more youthful looking (who cares if old Robert Hutton wants to hang on to his looks?); and the final one with Palance and Cushing was surprisingly dull. Also there's a really silly pointless epilogue with Michael Ripper killing Meredith and then it turning out to all be a trick. Sorry, that's just lame.

But Meredith's hamminess suits his part; it's fun to see Peter Cushing act with Jack Palance; Beverly Adams is pretty and has a decent role; ditto Barbara Ewing.

Movie review - "Scream and Scream Again" (1970) ***1/2

Late 60s experimentalism hit the British horror movie in the big way with this insane, entertaining, thought provoking work. It's got all sorts of plot strands going and takes ages to make sense - a jogger wakes up with his leg amputated; a handsome man runs around seducing women and killing them vampire style; police investigate a serial killer; an unnamed European dictatorship tortures backpackers; Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Vincent Price all star in the one film but neither have a particularly big role; there's a heroic British pathologist and policewoman on the case plus a colourful sergeant.

It's consistently different and interesting - you never really know what's going to happen or why. Alfred Marks is set up as this lively police officer who's in charge of the murder investigation - then with half an hour to go he's shockingly killed by an assassin. Christopher Matthews, as the pathologist, at first seems to be a baddie but turns out to be a regulation hero and gets more screen time than any of the movie's three stars. Michael Gothard is this charming vampire killer who is the subject of a 15 minute chase sequence that involves him being captured, chopping off his own hand and jumping in a vat of acid. Peter Cushing turns up as this top level totalitarian regime officer for one scene.... but is killed a the end of it by Marshall Jones. Christopher Lee is head of British intelligence. Severed limbs keep turning up.

Gordon Hessler directs with energy, and Christopher Wicking's script is consistently entertaining and inventive, if not always logical. It kind of makes sense in the last ten minutes - Price is a mad doctor who chops people's limbs off to create super people. I'm telling you that so you can basically get what's going on.

It's not perfect. But it's different, interesting and smart. It ranks among the best British horror flicks of the early 70s and has a lot more energy and verve than what Hammer was turning out.

Movie review - "The Psychopath" (1966) **1/2

The title is inviting dangerous comparisons with Psycho - and to ramp that up there's the same screenwriter, Robert Bloch, and the same genre, psycho thriller. The similarities don't end there: there's a spooky house, a young man with a mother fixation, a little old lady in a wheelchair, a young heroine, an investigating detective.

To be fair, a lot of the elements are mixed differently - and, as pointed out by Turner Classic Movies, it also rips off Charade. The largest role is the detective, Patrick Wymark - which makes this a more conventional piece, and feel like an episode of a cop show most of the time. Unfortunately since it's better when dealing with the weirdness of the others, such as the old lady who collects dolls and the weird blonde artist who paints racy models.

Margaret Johnston has a fine old hammy time as the little old lady in the wheelchair, John Standing as her son, Judy Huxtable is pretty as a heroine and Wymark effective despite the blandness of his role. The last ten minutes are good, gothic psycho horror; there should have been more of this - lots more shocks and so on. Still, it's not bad.

Movie review - "Doctor Terror's House of Horrors" (1965) ****

Amicus made movies in a couple of different genres - musicals, art house, sci fi, action - but were best known for their horrors, in particular their anthology horror movies of which this was the first. It was a hit and they would go on to make a bunch over the next decade.

It has the benefit of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing in the lead. Cushing is a wacky professor who reads the tarot cards of five different men on a train resulting in five different stories (it's a shame one of them couldn't have been a woman, but there you go...)

The stories are all genuinely different: there's a werewof lurking in the cellar and determined to get payback on the owner of a house; a killer plant that attacks a family home; a jazz musician who messes with some voodoo; a severed hand of an artist that goes after an art critic; a man who realises he's married to a vampire.

It's stylishly directed by Freddie Francis and looks very handsome (Alan Hume is the DOP). The script is also very smart and well written; it's not the most original thing in the world - Day of the Triffids and The Beast with Five Fingers were surely influences - but its original enough. And there's a very satisfactory final twist at the end.

It does lack star power - key roles are played by people who aren't exactly names such as Roy Castle, Neil McCallum and Alan Freeman. However there are appearances by Bernard Lee, Michael Gough and a young Donald Sutherland (as a man who is awfully easy to convince that he should murder his wife because she's a vampire)..

Movie review - "The Vulture' (1967) **

Late 60s British horror film was made with Canadian and American money as well, and feels like a flick made in the 1950s in black and white by the Danzigers. It's got some old American leads - Robert Hutton, Akim Tamiroff and Broderick Crawford  - and an uninspired plot about killings in a small town. Tamiroff at least has character and some spark about him but Hutton is a very dull lead, looking like the lead in some cop show.

The gimmick is the creature that kills is a prehistoric vulture. Because the budget is so low we never get a good look at it and when we do the result is laughable. The handling is mediocre, the acting bland. The one thing that was a bit different was the lead guy made sure he took out time from his schedule to get tickets for him and his wife to go to the ballet - the sheer middle class domesticity of it stayed with me. (This is a movie mostly about middle aged people - no young people in it.) This movie is dumb.

Movie review - "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) ****1/2

It's one of the most visually stunning movies of all time, especially on the big screen - every shot is like a painting, with its beautiful compositions, scenes of endless desert and sunsets, Bedouin warriors charging over dunes, match cuts, horizons, trains being blown up, the waves of the Red Sea lapping at the shores, the large expanse of the British head quarters, the chaos of the Arab Council.

Peter O'Toole is beautiful too with his pink face and blonde hair, as is Omar Sharif (who has one of the great star entrances of all time, trotting across the desert from a distance, shooting someone, then unveiling his face), with their flowing robes and angst.

It's a smart epic, with its cynically pragmatist politicians (Claude Rains, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins), and tormented hero full of contradictions (masochistic, Christ-like, tormented, egoist, self-loathing, brave, a nervous wreck), and nervous breakdowns and machinations. There is some first rate smart dialogue and plenty of points of view. 

Everyone who has a speaking role as a definite role to play: the most showy part of course is Lawrence, but there's also the dry, smart political Claude Rains, the practical let's-do-what-I-can Arab king Guiness, lusty adventurer with his own code of honour Anthony Quinn, devoted follower and closet liberal Omar Sharif, smart soldier Hawkins, stressed out Anthony Quayle, cynical journalist Arthur Kennedy.

The performances match the characterisation - others considered for the lead included Marlon Brando and Albert Finney, but neither would have been as good as O'Toole, who has the flamboyance, intelligence and glint of madness (you could imagine him playing Wingate, for instance). (Alec Guiness would have made a good Lawrence too - possibly less crazy but more ethereal; I would have been interested to see what Dirk Bogarde could have done with it as well).

Sharif is a limited actor - as we would soon find out - but extremely effective. Guiness has this fascinating odd combination of seeming weakness but actual inner strength, and Rains, Hawkins and Quayle offer solid support.

And yet. And yet... 

It's a very long film - and for all the gorgeous images and epic scope it doesn't have to be as long as it is. Much of it feels repetitive - Lawrence bonds with an assistant who is killed three times, feeling guilty each time; Lawrence bonds with an Arab at least six separate times (three assistants, Guiness, Sharif, Quinn); Lawrence looks offended by the British referring to the Arabs as wogs at least twice; Lawrence cracks up several times; Kennedy makes a crack about Lawrence being egotistical several times; Lawrence feels on the outer of his British people several times. It's like there isn't much progression - Lawrence is half mad and wary of British interests from the beginning, and winds up that way at the end, only he's a bit more mad.

A lot of people in Hollywood regard this as the perfect movie, with its combination of action, scope, psychology and history - Spielberg, Peter Guber, etc - but the fact is it isn't. Not really. But I guess if you saw it at a certain age it would have knocked your socks off. And there is certainly much to admire.

Movie review - "The Frozen Dead" (1967) **

A really silly movie that is so dumb you can't help but feel affection for it. Dana Andrews at first seems to be hilariously miscast as a Nazi scientist living in London with some Nazi officers in the basement he's trying to revive... but after a while I got used to him, even if his role would have been better played by Vincent Price or Peter Cushing.

His life is complicated by some nagging Nazis, amputated limbs that are still alive, his niece and her friend... who has her head lopped off and kept alive. This actually is quite upsetting to see - a poor head just sitting there, not having any fun.

It's one of a number of quirks that keep this interesting; others include Andrews, Edward Fox as Andrews' brother (I thought it was a look alike but no it was actually Edward Fox), the head having telepathy with her friend, the sight of Andrews being attacked by severed arms. It's not very well directed, there's not enough plot action - too much poking around in the basemen, and a really dull male lead.

Movie review - "It!" (1967) **

American production company Seven Arts made a number of horror and fantasy movies in Britain in association with Hammer Film Productions, but here is one they without them. They ponied up enough money for a decent name to play the lead - Roddy McDowall, who works for a museum where one of the exhibits is a Golem.

The plot is a little like Bucket of Blood - McDowall uses the creature to climb up the museum ranks to be a curator, and also romance a girl (Jill Haworth). That's not a bad structure, and McDowall had already shown in Lord Love a Duck that he had a neat line in creepy Tony Perkins types who would do anything for love. (In that mode the film throws in a subplot where McDowall looks after the widowed skeleton of his mother in a rocking chair).

But the execution is underwhelming. The goals of getting the job and the woman don't neatly dovetail the way they do in Bucket of Blood - Haworth doesn't care he's curator; indeed, she's more interested in someone else, a dull Canadian called Paul Maxwell. (Although another of this movie's problems is there is no build with that relationship either - one minute they're just together making out).

You wait for McDowall's personality to change through owning the Golem but it doesn't; he starts off weird and a thief and just gets weirder. The Golem itself doesn't have any personality; I think you're meant to - for some reason it lets Haworth live - but it never comes across. The finale involves the Golem running riot and everyone panicking but since we don't see any of it we don't care; then the British army drop a nuclear bomb on McDowall and we're cheated out of a death scene.

So it's part Psycho, part Frankenstein, part Bucket of Blood - but the result is a mess, and a waste of decent production values and McDowall. Jill Haworth does show some side boob.

Movie review - "Theatre of Death" (1967) **1/2

There have been surprisingly few horror movies based on the Grand Guignol theatre in Paris; I would have thought it was a natural setting for some gothic chiller, particularly during the Hammer heyday, with its opportunity for hammy roles, sexy actresses and blood. So it's a same this take on it isn't better.

There are pleasures, including Christopher Lee's barnstorming performance as an egotistical, Svengali-ike manager of the theatre; Lelia Goldoni and Jenny Til are attractive female leads; the recreation of the plays are enjoyable.

I think it was a mistake to set this in the present day - decision made presumably for money but it robs it of atmosphere (Goldoni in particular feels a very modern actress). Despite the relative originality of the theatre setting, the script feels derivative - the bulk of the plot doesn't concern the theatre so much as a vampire serial killer running around; the nominal hero, a police surgeon (Julian Glover), doesn't have much to do with the theatre; there's also a subplot heavily influenced by Svengali; Lee disappears half way through the movie and its the poorer for it.

It looks handsome and is enjoyable, with the deaths neatly spaced throughout, and is one of the better Hammer imitations made in the late 1960s.

Movie review - "Night of the Big Heat" (1967) **

Annoyingly poor British science fiction effort which wastes the talents of Peter Cushing, Chris Lee and director Terence Fisher, as well as a decent central idea. It's set on an island during a heatwave, when aliens decide to attack and kill the local people.

There are a number of story similarities to Island of Terror, which was made by the same people (Cushing, island locale, aliens, scientist heroes, an attack, deux ex machina finale) but this isn't as good. Far too much time is spent on a love triangle between a middle aged pub owner (Patrick Allan), his wife and a trampy woman (Jane Merrow) who arrives to seduce the pub owner. It's a very long story - including a subplot where a local weirdo tries to rape Merrow - almost completely separate to adventures of scientist Christopher Lee fighting the aliens; Cushing's part is an extended cameo.

Merrow is quite sexy and not a bad actor but Allan not very likeable. There is not enough alien stuff, the effects are poor and it's irritating that the humans are saved by convenient rain. It's a shame though as a heatwave is a reasonably novel way to approach an alien invasion film.

TV review - "INXS: Never Tear Us Apart" (2014) ***1/2

Watching this, I kept being reminded of old Hollywood biopics like The Jolson Story or The Glen Miller Story: lots of dialogue along the lines of "I tell you it can't be done", "if this doesn't work out INXS is ruined" "it's madness" "if you want to dream, dream big".

So it's hokey - but the fact is, it happened. INXS did conquer the world, and made me so proud as an Australian, and Michael Hutchence was a charismatic tragic figure and the band were close and made such wonderful music. All that is captured here.

Luke Arnold does very well in a role that would have been a nightmare to cast, although Andy Ryan is better as Andrew Farris. The guy who played Tim Farris was annoying (his performance mostly seemed to consist of a mullet and a grin) but Damon Herriman was first rate. There are fine turns by others in the cast, and there's a lot of fun playing "do they look like the person they are playing".

The first half is great fun, the second half is moving. I wish there had been more scenes like when Farris is working on "Need You Tonight", where is slowed down and was a little less "history as montage" but all in all the success of this isn't hard to fathom.

Movie review - "North by Northwest" (1959) **** (warning: spoilers)

I still get tingles up my spine on hearing Bernard Herrmann's electrifying score and Saul Bass' stunning opening titles design, and other things help this vault the years: Cary Grant at his charming best playing a Don Draper type (so expert at taking on board liquor that when the baddies try to get him so drunk he drives off a cliff he can actually take it); the beauty of Eva Marie Saint (part of me still wishes they have Grace Kelly but I'm used to Saint now); the superb villainy of James Mason and Martin Landau; the masterful sets of the United Nations, Mount Rushmore, etc; the famous crop duster attack; that stupendous house at Mount Rushmore; Leo G. Carroll's lively spy chief.

Ernest Lehmann's screenplay is enormously clever and witty, with some great dialogue (the Grant-Saint sex exchanges are deservedly famous but my favourite is Mason's final line "that's rather unsporting of you, shooting with real bullets"), and tremendous structure: notice how every fifteen minutes or so there's a new big twist (eg Grant's wanted for murder, there is no agent, Saint is in cahoots with Mason, Saint falls in love).

If I'm being nitpicking - and I've seen this movie so often I think I can claim the right - the movie is too long. It clocks at two hours 20 minutes and really at least 20 could have been trimmed by removing repeated dialogue and unnecessary bits. Also the tension is lessened once Grant is caught by the police and we know he's not going to be captured by them. Some of the back projection and effects haven't aged well; some of the camera angles are likely to induce laughter.

But it's funny, witty and sexy and it's great that when Hitchcock finally made a movie for MGM it was such a glamorous, sophisticated one. Louis B Mayer would have approved, if not of all the sex.

Movie review - "Blue Jasmine" (2013) ****

Woody Allen does A Streetcar Named Desire - the lead is a faded beauty who has fallen on hard times (Cate Blanchett) who arrives in a sweltering coastal city (in this case San Francisco) to live with her younger sister (Sally Hawkins) who has taken up with a loudmouth but sexy brute (Bobby Cannavale), who introduces the lead to his amiable but not very good looking friend (Max Casella). We also flash back to the lead's past, including the uncovering of a secret and her marriage to a handsome man - in this case a dashing, very rich crook (Alec Baldwin).

There are other variations on Streetcar - the sister is revealed to have gone out with another brutish guy (Andrew Dice Clay) and has a fling with another man (Louis C K), the lead has another love interest, a charming man who actually offers her the hope of a future (Peter Sarsgaard), as well as a step son.

I still can't get over the improvement in Woody Allen's films in the last decade once he got out of New York City and stopped making movies about men romancing women young enough to be their granddaughter. This does have some scenes in New York as well as Alec Baldwin chasing after some younger tail, but those scenes are in the minority.

The movie is a bit flabby and derivative in places (it also invokes Ingmar Bergman) but is intelligent and powerful, with some superb acting, particularly from Cate Blanchett in a very showy role. She looks beautiful, gets to be regal and funny, is sexually harrassed, seductive and goes barmy. There are pleasures which seem more precious in this day and age of CGI fantasy: gorgeous production values ("poor" Sally Hawkins has a great apartment) and views of San Francisco and the Hamptons, impressive costumes.

Movie review - "Philomena" (2013) **1/2

It's a great thing for movie goers that Judi Dench has become a genuine box office star in her sunset years - for she helped power this character drama to much critical acclaim and healthy public response. It doesn't hurt that Steve Coogan is in it as well, but surely Dench is the X factor.

It's ironic then that Dame Judi is miscast - or I felt, anyway. She gives off far too much gravitas, English sensibleness and intelligence to play a simple minded naive Irish nurse who decides to look for the child she was forced to give up for adoption over fifty years ago. Judi has a go at the accent, gives it her all, has charisma and so on... but she didn't work for me.

It's a film aimed at old people - a lot of the dialogue is repeated and the concerns are for age: the regrets of youth, the delight in shocking the younger generation, a desire to make amends. The Madgelene Sisters make ideal villains, Coogan offers a solid contrast for Judi (though he doesn't really have much of a character to play). I was confused by the opposition to their search provided by the son's sister and former lover - wouldn't they be interested in seeing them reunited?

There is some pretty scenery of Ireland, laughable product placement for hotels, over the top obvious Washington landmark porn, some genuinely sweet scenes (like when Judi recites the plot of one of her dreary novels to Coogan). Take your grandma, she'll love it.

Shirley Temple Top Ten

In honour of the recent death of Ms Shirley Temple Black I thought I'd do my top ten Shirley flicks:
1) Wee Willie Winkie - Shirley is given her greatest director, John Ford, who in turn is given a milieu he knows and loves (a fort outpost... in this case a British Imperial one but still a fort outpost nonetheless) and results in a classic.
2) Heidi - oprhan schmaltz of the highest order
3) The Little Princess - high production values and a solid story make this worth watching.
4) Captain January - another orphan tale but with Guy Kibee, some great villains and the novelty of a lighthouse setting.
5) Stowaway - Shirley Temple in China with strong support via Alice Faye and Robert Young.
6) Bright Eyes - Every Shirley Temple cliche your heart could desire and more: poor mother who is killed, loving bachelor to adopt you, vicious Jane Withers, the "Good Ship Lolly Pop".
7) Little Miss Marker - this helped Shirley become a star; it's not a vehicle for her but she does drive the action and benefits from a strong cast and source material.
8) The Blue Bird - highly flawed, but fascinating and definitely worth watching.
9) The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer  - Shirley's best film as a teenager, giving a lively performance.
10) Fort Apache - not really a Shirley Temple film, she has a small role, but she's still in it and it's a masterpiece nonetheless.

Movie review - "Crescendo" (1970) **

One of the last of the Hammer psycho thrillers, again from a script by Jimmy Sangster who seems keen to recycle many of the elements of his earlier work in this genre, particularly Scream of Fear - there's a young woman protagonist, a mansion in the South of France, a matriarch who is possible crazy, a rich person in a wheelchair, a pool, spooky scenes of the heroine poking around at night. it also rips off Jane Eyre and Rebecca.

Stefanie Powers rarely got to play a lead role but I liked her a lot here; she's very pretty (several bikini swims, thank you very much, plus even a topless scene towards the end) and has an engaging presence. Joss Ackland adds some gravitas and power as the mysterious chauffeur.

However the other three members of the cast are less good. James Olsen is a solid actor, but lacks a little in the leading man looks department, and doesn't have the presence of a say Oliver Reed or even Ronald Lewis. He lacks chemistry with Powers who is far too good looking for him - I didn't buy it for a second she'd go for him. 

Jane Lapotaire isn't nearly sexy enough to play the saucy maid who teases and flirts around Olsen; there were much better looking actresses and actors on display in Hammer films and I'm surprised they couldn't find someone better. (This is harsh and a personal opinion, I know, but I'd be lying if I didn't feel it hurt the movie for me.). 

Finally, Margaretta Scott lacks presence as the mother, in a role that could have used with some aging film starlet. Stronger casting for these three roles would have made this so, so much more interesting.

The direction lets things down, too. Scenes that Seth Holt or Freddie Francis had knocked out of the park in earlier Sangster psycho thrillers - such as Power poking around the house at night following the sounds of music, discovery of a doll with its face smashed in - which should have given jolts, aren't very scary here. And despite being in colour the movie isn't very attractive and lacks atmosphere. 

If I were Powers I'd be really annoyed because it was a lead role for her and the film isn't as good as she is. Jimmy Sangster has less reason to complain since he's re-heating old elements most of the time, but the director could have been much better.

Alan Gibson directed.

Movie review - "The Host" (2006) ***

Decent South Korean monster flick which has stylish handling and enough odd beat touches to make it a winner despite it's flaws. The set up is reminiscent of a 50s radiation movie or 70s John Sayles exploitationer - an American scientist orders his Korean offsider to dump some toxic chemicals in the river, resulting in a killer creature.

The creature is a good one and there are some strong set pieces, such as its initial appearance - no Jaws like teasing here, the thing is up and running around on its legs on dry land. It chomps away at various people, abducting some to have for a snack later - including a little girl, whose family go looking for her.

The family are an interesting bunch, each with a strong characterisation, kind of like Packed to the Rafters: granddad is a crusty old gent who runs a snack food stall, dad is a bit dopey with this weird dyed blonde hair and narcolespy, aunt is a champion archer, uncle is a former student radical turned unemployed drunk. They escape from being held by the authorities to go looking for the little cute on but to be honest aren't very smart heroes: dad grabs another girl's hand and thus indirectly causes his daughter to be abducted; grandad chases after the creature with his gun without counting bullets (dad thinks he's given him one but is wrong); uncle mis-throws a Molotov cocktail; archer auntie goes to use her bow and arrow several times but is always stopped until the end (this is very frustrating); dad is captured by the authorities twice; people attack the creature with no real thought of strategy.

I guess it's okay for the family to do that because they are amateurs but it's surprising that the authorities have so much trouble trying to find the creature, since it hangs around the same bridge most of the time. (There's very little army presence - the authorities seem mainly concerned with containing the virus.)

I enjoyed the satire and digs at American influence on Korea, the materialistic nature of Korean society, the keenness of scientists to lobotomize people. Also the effects and photography are very good and a lot of it is exciting. Occasionally I did feel a bit of a cultural divide watching it, eg when the family start bawling hysterically at the thought their little girl is dead (surely this induced laughs at the cinema?). the insert of comic slapstick (a man in a Hazmat suit who trips over).

It was a bit long and didn't quite all work for me, but was ultimately impressive.

Movie review - "Island of Terror" (1966) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Enjoyable British science fiction horror flick which has a strong central idea that probably deserved better treatment - various experiments are being performed on an isolated island off the coast of Ireland, and after one in particular people start turning up dead with their bones sucked out. Scientists Peter Cushing and Edward Judd (the virile aging hero of many a 60s British science fiction movie) decide to investigate with Judd's rich glamorous girlfriend Carole Gray coming along. They soon discover creatures running rampant killing islanders.

Terence Fisher's direction is always competent and I liked the cast - Cushing is reliable as ever, Gray pretty, and by now I've gotten used to Judd in these movies, strutting around and barking at people as if he's a genuinely charismatic leading man (he isn't, but his conviction that he is, is part of his charm).

It all feels a bit undercooked, though - the movie could have done with more money, to have better effects for the creatures, or more violence so their attacks were scarier. Writing all that made me reconsider - maybe Fisher's direction wasn't so competent after all. But far too often characters would say things like "we're all doomed", "we're surrounded", "we're isolated" - and you never felt it.

Maybe Cushing needed to die part way through or something - he does get his hand chopped off, but basically his role felt as if it repeated the function of Judd's role. Really these parts could have been combined, or else there needed to be more tension or some history between them, or have one of them turn evil or die. Gray's role similarly felt tacked on - she doesn't die either (the closest she comes to is when Judd considers killing her before the creatures make their final attack - nice boyfriend!). She probably should have played a local who falls for Judd - as it is, the islanders' presence isn't really felt. (Judd and Cushing just take over the island and order them around without any authority - this is something that could have caused more drama). It was also annoyed by the limp War of the Worlds finale with our heroes waiting helplessly as the creatures attack, then falling sick.

It's decently plotted and there are some strong scenes, such as when Cushing gets his hand chopped off; I liked the coda and the acting. It was fun I just wish it had been better.

NB This was made almost at the same time as The Project Man which had the same producer and financing - both movies, interesting, the monster appears at the 40 minute mark.

Movie review - "The Projected Man" (1966) **

This took a long time to get going - the first 40 minutes is mostly three scientists in a room talking, occasionally cutting across to the supervisor of the scientist' project whingeing. The actors are competent but lack star power- Bryant Halliday is not up to the standards of a Peter Cushing or Chris Lee.

Then around the 40 minute mark an experiment goes wrong and one of the scientists becomes this half machine monster capable of killing people via electric shocks and the whole movie picked up. It might have been a lot more enjoyable had the leads had some degree of individuality. (For instance I think we're supposed to care that the female scientist picks one of the guy scientists over the other one but there's no real history or emotional connection between any of the characters so you don't notice.)

Mary Peach makes a vague nod to feminism by playing a scientist but her character is mostly passive during the running time. Tracey Crisp is more involved in the second half; she's a secretary who gets randomly involved with the experiment and spends ages running around in underwear.

The make up is impressive and the electrocution deaths work well. The second half of this isn't bad at all but the first half is extremely dull.

Movie review - "The Earth Dies Screaming" (1961) **1/2

This has a not very original idea which even in 1961 had appeared in lots of science fiction films, and is still commonly used even now - a rag tag group of survivors of an alien attack gather in a deserted small town and have to fight off aliens who are capable of reviving humans and taking their form. However it's brought to life with some lively direction courtesy of Hammer master Terence Fisher.

The cast is very old by the standards of these things. Willard Parker looks like a retired businessman but is meant to be this virile American test pilot who gets caught up in the invasion. Virginia Field is at least age appropriate as his love interest; I didn't recognise Field but she looked like an aging Hollywood star stuck in a British science fiction movie.

The aliens reminded me of the Cyborgs in Dr Who; most of the cast are veteran character actors (Dennis Price, Thorley Walters) apart from two young folk. It is decently acted and well directed, with some atmospheric deserted small English towns. I enjoyed this more than I thought I would.

Movie review - "Doctor Blood's Coffin" (1961) **

A modern day redo of the Frankenstein saga lacks spark. Its in colour but the production values aren't up to the Hammer horrors and Kieron Moore is no Peter Cushing; he's a big lunk of an actor, not really ideal for a mad scientist - dull hero yes, God complex no.

He does his experiments mostly in a Cornish tin mine, meaning this takes place a lot outdoors. Moore goes around killing people for his experiments and is loved by Hazel Court, grieving over the death of her former husband... who is revived by Moore.

There are several problems with this: Moore's miscasting in a role that cries out for a scenery chewing staff; it's set in the present day which lots of scenes outside meaning it lacks atmosphere; the creature doesn't get revived until the very end; there's far too much talk and not enough scenes of Moore being crazy. Hazel Court at least adds some class.

Movie review - "The Tell Tale Heart" (1960) **

The Danzigers were a pair of American brothers who churned out an enormous amount of low budget British film and TV in the 50s and 60s. I'd never seen one of their movies before - this is one of the best known due in part to its source material. It is mostly cheap but there are some flourishes - it's set in period, occasionally the lead characters go to a dance where there are a number of extras, there is a street set. But most of the action does consist of a scene in a room with one to three main people.

Poe's short story is probably one of the most adapted short stories of all time and the bits of the movie taken from it are among the more effective: people going mad while a heart is beating. But there's not enough story here for a feature. It's a love triangle where a weird nerd librarian (Laurence Payne) falls for a sexy dame across the road (Adrienne Corri) who actually lusts for the nerd's best friend (Dermot Walsh).

Payne is such a weirdo - he kind of feels up Corri on the first date - is such that Corri seems foolish for sticking around him, even in a man drought, and Walsh seems dim to be his friend. The affair is exposed and leads to  Walsh's murder, but even with that happening the movie feels really padded out.

The trio of leads act well, Corri is beautiful and it occasionally comes alive. But this really feels like it should be a one hour episode of an anthology TV drama or something.

Movie review - "Unearthly Stranger" (1964) **

A British attempt at Cold War paranoia sci fi - the world of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and so on. Noted stage actor John Neville plays a scientist who takes over a top secret project on which his predecessors have died. He gradually finds out that its because aliens are trying to take over the world - indeed they've taken over his wife.

That's not a bad idea for a movie, if hardly original - it was used in Body Snatchers and It Conquered the World... it offers good opportunity for a story infused with creepiness and paranoia, as well as the emotion that comes with seeing a loved one turn out to be an alien.

But this is mainly uninspired in part because you never really care about Neville and his wife; there is little chemistry or heat between them and I never believed she fell in love with him.

 There's also an ugly misogynist strand through this - the wife is an alien, the head alien is a woman, all the other aliens are women, the real hero is bald self righteous middle aged man. Also the script isn't that awesome - Dr Who soon did this sort of stuff a lot better; the stuff about recognising the wife is an alien because she doesn't blink feels silly.

There are some effective moments like when the wife (Gabriella Lucidi) walks through a school and all the kids take off, the performance of the creepy fat security officer, and a few spooky bits.

Movie review - "Circus of Horrors" (1960) **1/2

I saw this on TV as a kid and the memory of it always stayed with me - a combination of its production design, the novelty of its circus setting and bleak atmosphere, I suppose. Watching it years on the production design and colour continue to impress but I was a little disappointed.

Maybe that's unfair, it could just be one of those "not as good as I remembered" situations. But still, I think there's an essential problem with the concept - a mad plastic surgeon (one of your dedicated Frankenstein types, and I suppose Anton Diffring is an okay Peter Cushing substitute) seeks refuge in a circus. Those two don't really go together - circuses aren't great hiding places for plastic surgeons, certainly not like say labs for mad scientists or lunatic asylums.

There's also some unmemorable support cast like the brother and sister associated with the doctor, a dull detective and Hammer starlet Yvonne Monlaur as a bland hot girl. I really wish more screen time had been given to Donald Pleasance, who is typically sparky as the owner of the circus (killed in a fight with a bear!) but Colette Wilde is touching as a victim of Diffring's surgery. There are some interesting deaths such as a woman on a spinning wheel, and lots of attractive women.

Movie review - "Night of the Eagle" (1962) ***1/2

One of a number of co-productions AIP made in England in the 1960s, this benefits from an excellent script by two giants of fantasy writing, Richard Matheson and Charles Beaumont. It's got a neat central idea too - an arrogant academic (Peter Wyngarde, who I don't recall ever seeing in a lead role in a movie before, but who has charisma and reminds me of a younger David Farrar) discovers much of his success is due to the fact that his wife (Janet Blair) is a witch. So it's like Bewitched! only serious.

Films made from Matheson scripts were almost always worth watching (if they didn't tinker with them too much) and this is logical and exciting. The art direction lacks the flair of the Corman-Poe movies Matheson wrote, and I probably would have enjoyed this more had I recognised the cast (who, however, give excellent performances). The finale also might have been better with stronger special effects and I felt several of the subplots could have been developed more - or at least used another beat or something (eg the student who falsely accuses the professor of rape - the actress who played her reminded me of Meg Ryan, incidentally).

The atmosphere is spooky and effective, the depiction of academia as a vicious backbiting world comes across as very realistic (it's real Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? territory), and it's a very solid horror flick that deserves to be better known.

Movie review - "Peeping Tom" (1960) **** (warning: spoilers) (second viewing)

Out of all the movies Michael Powell made without Emeric Pressberger (admittedly there weren't too many of these) this is easily the most highly regarded and remains one of his best known; however it was enormously controversial on release, doing great damage to Powell's career (although the uninspiring response to Honeymoon and The Queen's Guards wouldn't have helped either).

It remains unsettling even now, taking us into the mind of one of cinema's most cuddly serial killers. Carl Boehm is a poor little photographer and camerman whose daddy was mean to him and who seems lonely and needs a cuddle and has a sweet G rated romance with the girl next door Anna Massey. He also likes to attach a knife to his camera and kill women while filming the act.

It's actually a great idea for an exploitation horror flick - giving plenty of opportunities for murder and a choice lead role, plus an exploration of the role of the spectator in horror movies, subjectivity vs objectivity, etc.  Many films are supposed to be ahead of their time - this one definitely is (the screenwriter was Leo Marks).

I can't think of a film or TV series except maybe Dexter and Psycho which went to such pains to make a killer sympathetic: he seems to be a sweet guy, who is capable of controlling his murderous impulses (he doesn't kill Massey or Massey's blind mother), who was abused by his father, he ultimately kills himself as punishment. But yet he still kills a saucy, likeable nude model (Pamela Green, who has some funny lines) and a nice seeming standing (Moira Shearer, who does a silly 60s-ish dance). This is why the movie remains so confronting.

Powell adds some recogniseable auteur touches: imaginative use of colour and camerawork, intense performances, wry comic moments; Powell appears in film footage as Boehm's father; there are also some amusing film in-jokes (eg a penny pinching film executive who seems based on Sir John Davis, a dopey starlet played by a fresh faced and pretty Shirley Ann Field, who is effective).

This isn't perfect by any means - around the two thirds mark the pace seemed to slow, I could have done without the Jewish shrink, and some of the costumes/slang etc appear dated. But it remains fresh and thought provoking in many ways and is worth seeking out.

Movie review - "City of the Dead" (1960) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)

This starts off with a good old fashioned Massachusetts witch burning then jumps forward to the present day when Christopher Lee (alright!) is teaching a course in witchcraft. A blonde student seems to have a crush on him and is determined to study witches further despite the tut-tutting of her boyfriend and brother.

At this stage the movie was a bit iffy - the boyfriend and brother were too know-it-all-sie and the blonde not a very good actress. Then the blonde heads off to a mysterious small town where witches once lived and things improve - not her acting, but the mood of the piece, and there's some strong character actors. Blondie steps into a negligee and then - holy crap - half way through the movie she's killed, just like in Psycho (made at the same time as this movie so not necessarily a rip off). So then, like Psycho her brother and another girl turn up into town looking to investigate what happened to her.

Occasionally this feels like the episode of a TV series and the weak acting of the leads does hurt it. It also, when all's said and done, had a repetitive structure: Part 1 someone investigates, Part 2 someone investigates (Psycho changed point of view giving the second half to Anthony Perkins). But for the most part this was an enjoyable thriller. It was an early effort from the producing team of Rosenberg and Subotsky, making this the first Amicus horror flick.

Movie review - "The Flesh and the Fiends" (1960) ***

The producing team of Baker and Berman had a big success with Jack the Ripper so it's not surprising they raided gory English history again - in this case, the inspirational tale of grave robbers Burke and Hare. They ponied up for a decent cast too: Peter Cushing as the doctor, Donald Pleasance as Hare, Dermot Walsh as a doctor and Billie Whitelaw as a prostitute.

I enjoyed this a lot - the acting is very good, there's an interesting subplot about a medical student who marries a prostitute (both are killed by the body snatchers), the ending is cynical and effective (with Cushing getting away with it), there's some interesting deaths (by vigilantes, by fire, in a pig pen), it feels reasonably historically accurate (by the standards of the day), there's some surprise nudity (I must have seen the "continental" version),  John Gilling's direction is effective.

It is in black and white rather than colour and isn't a classic but is really solid horror. If it had the Hammer stamp on it, it would have been a lot better known.

Movie review - "Jack the Ripper" (1959) **1/2

In his book Adventures in the Screen Trade, William Goldman talks a bit about Joseph E Levine (in the section on A Bridge Too Far), telling a story about how he bought the US rights to this movie, and had a big meeting with exhibitors where he brought out $1 million in cash - literally in cash - and vowed to spend that money on making the hit. Levine later claimed this made him a healthy profit but the movie did not become particularly well known - certainly not in the league of, say, Levine's Hercules.

Still, it's not a bad flick, Hammer-inspired but in black and white, from a script by Jimmy Sangster. The plot is a basic redo of the world's favourite serial killer knocking off loose women in Victorian London - they hold off the big reveal until ten minutes towards the end but pretty much everyone will guess it before then. Among the fresh twists Sangster brings to the story are the fact the Ripper is searching out a particular woman "Mary Clarke", a hunchback who is accused of the attack, and a visiting American detective.

It does lack star power and I wish it had been in colour rather than black and white but there is plenty of action, the Ripper gets squashed by a lift at the end (rather tame), and the handling is reasonably vigorous.

Movie review - "They Live" (1988) ***

I wasn't a big fan of this when I first saw it, but it has it's admirers (including John Carpenter himself, who always seems to speak fondly of it) so was inspired to give it another go. And it held up surprisingly well.

Yes, the philosophy of the movie sounded like the rantings of some stoned guy who volunteers at a community radio station ("it's all about aliens, man, and they want us to conform and consume, man, and not think and buy things, man"); yes, the movie takes a long time to get going, the action could be explained as the delirium of an insane serial killer and the continuity often doesn't make sense (Rowdy Piper walks around with a lot of freedom for someone chased by super informed aliens and the police, no one seems to overhear gunshots going on, alien technology lacks consistent logic, etc.)...

But once the movie gets going it's quite exciting; there are plenty of classic one liners (eg "I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum"); Carpenter's direction has its usual pace and flair; I enjoyed the by play between Piper and Keith David, including their ridiculous fight, and the old school 70s pro revolutionary attitudes (which seem so novel today); Meg Foster has spooky eyes.

The film is admittedly silly at times and does try to be too clever by half - such as having an alien be a film critic who bags the work of John Carpenter - but at least it has something to say, something radical and thought provoking.

TV review - "Orange is the New Black - Season 1" (2013) *****

Stunningly good TV drama which deserves all the praise it gets. Going to gaol at first doesn't seem too bad - its reasonably clean, there are lots of programs, and a cafe, and chapel, and courses and library, etc. But every day, every hour are things that break the soul: rules and regulations, petty Hitler guards, the complex world of prison politics, over sensitive chefs, manic depressives, drug dealing exes.

There is not a bad performance among the incredible cast. The writing does admittedly fall into the trap of over-zinging instead of realism at times, but the zingers are pretty awesome. Grippy on a simple melodramatic level too. Bound to change how you view women in prison.

Book review - "The Films of Victor Mature" (2013) by James McKay

Victor Mature would be one of the least highly regarded stars of Hollywood's golden era - far too many musicals and costume pictures, with that haughty air of self satisfaction and muscular physique. But a closer look at his output reveals a surprising range: swashbucklers, westerns, musicals, Biblical epics, film noir, comedies, war flicks; he worked with filmmakers as capable as Hal Roach, Henry Hathaway, John Ford, Frank Borzage, Albert Broccoli, Neil Simon, and Cecil B de Mille, and featured in several classics, some camp (One Million Years BC) but others legitimate (Kiss of Death, My Darling Clementine) and a large number of "hidden gems".

Mature was also very endearing, extremely self deprecating about his abilities, funny and wry, with a good head on his shoulders: he enjoyed making money and hooking up with women, and was very skilled at both, although all those marriages dented his earnings; he managed to retire on his own terms a wealthy man and enjoyed a long retirement.

He actually deserves a full biography but until that comes along this isn't a bad substitute. McKay is a big Mature fan, and his work is very uncritical, but he at least has done some research and I enjoyed his passion. There is a solid biographical entry at the beginning and the fact that this is a film by film analysis mean some lesser known Mature works like Stella and Gambling House get some attention.

Movie review - "Blood of the Vampire" (1958) **1/2

The success of Curse of Frankenstein and The Horror of Dracula prompted the English producing team of Baker and Berman to hire Jimmy Sangster to write this entertaining knock off, which despite the title has more to do with the former than the latter. It feels very Frankenstein-y, with doctor Vincent Ball - falsely imprisoned for a crime - being rescued from prison by mad doctor Donald Wolfit who puts Ball to use doing mad experiments.

Wolfit looks like a vampire, is very interested in blood and was actually brought back from the dead - but isn't actually a vampire. He has a decent enough presence - he's no Cushing or Lee but can munch on scenery with the best of them. Ball is a handsome hero, whose Australian accent can be ascertained in most scenes. Barbara Shelley has a disappointingly small role as Ball's love who goes looking for him - she mostly appears in the last third. The best performance is from Victor Maddern as a hunchback assistants (these were always turning up in Sangster screenplays).

There is colour, decent production design, a fair bit of blood and body parts. Sometimes the handling could have been more vigorous, particularly at the end - the final fight and escape in the dungeon feels way too stagey. But I enjoyed it a lot and it deserves to be better known.

Movie review - "The Trollenberg Terror" (1958) **1/2

Not a Hammer movie although surely the producers were inspired by The Abominable Snowman - which I didn't think had been that big a hit, but anyway we've got Hammer writer Jimmy Sangster doing the script, a TV show origin (many of Hammers early films were based on TV shows) and Snowman's star Forrest Tucker again hanging around the Alps looking into mysterious goings ons.

I saw this right after Fiend Without a Face and the movies seemed to have a fair bit in common, including it's American star, undeveloped love interest, mad scientist support actor (here played by Warren Mitchell), indistinguishable minor parts, baddie creatures that practice mind control, a climax where the creatures (here aliens from outerspace) attack the goodies in an enclosed location (in this case a cable car) and fight them off.

It doesn't make sense and there are logic holes you could drive a truck through but it's a lot of fun, there's plenty of action (the opening scene has someone fall off a mountain), Janet Munro is effective as a psychic, there is lots of violence (decapitations, hackings) which they get around censor wise by describing them.

Movie review - "Fiend Without a Face" (1958) **1/2

This went out on a double bill with The Haunted Stranger although was made with a different director and cast. It's not as good, but still has a very strong story and is a lot of fun.

Among it's novelties are the fact its set in Manitoba Canada - where a US Air Force base is stationed. They do nuclear testing so the local townsfolk and understandably keen to blame them for a series of mysterious murders being committed in the area. However the actual culprit is a good old mad scientist who (as explained by a very long-seeming expository scene) has created a telekenetic creature that devours spinal chords.

Marshall Thompson plays the hero role - something he really had no business doing, he was a bland actor without much charisma. Though I guess he is well cast as a by-the-book major. The special effects at the end, when the creatures attack the farm house, really aren't up to scratch - although if you go with it, you'll have a good time. (This would be a good movie to remake.)

Movie review - "The Wolf of Wall Street" (2013) ****

In many ways this reminded me of Al Pacino's version of Scarface - it's about an outsider who comes to the promised land, gets a mentor who gives him advice on how to make as much money as possible, and soon becomes filthy rich and determined to live as hedonistic a life as possible. He has a loyal best friend and is taken in by a seductive woman and ultimately it all comes crashing down.

And Al Pacino in the early 80s would have made ideal casting for the lead in this - it's a part that requires a star capable of hammy flamboyance - but Leo di Caprio steps up nicely. His partnership with Martin Scorsese has become one of the most satisfying in cinema history, each collaboration being a little different, always interesting.

Marty seems to be having the time of his life with all the scenes of partying, and stockbrokers yelling, and narrative tricks (actors talking to camera, changing voice overs). This is very much in the spirit of Goodfellas, only with less of a body count and more money. It also feels very Oliver Stone - complete with concentration on men behaving badly, and female roles which mainly consist of nags and/or sex pots.

It was actually written by Terence Winter of Boardwalk Empire fame, and the HBO influence can be felt in a few key, extremely well written long dialogue scenes - such as one between Leo and Matthew McConaughey in a restaurant (I'm confused at my increasing feelings of respect for Mahoganey, few actors can have made such a sharp up turn in terms of quality in their career over a period) and one between Kyle Chandler and Leo on a boat.

Jonah Hill offers sterling support. There's also superb work done by Margot Robbie, who looks sensational, sounds great and holds her own with Leo in some domestic scenes. Actually all the cast is good, really.

Two things stop this from being a really outstanding film. One - it does tend to hit the same beat over and over ("we were crazy", "we were out of control") without really expanding its world view; occasionally there was a glimpse at a more complex world (the sad look on a secretary who agreed to shave her hair off, Leo punching Margot Robbie) but there wasn't enough (no look at any of the victims, for instance - although the victims were mostly victims of their own greed). Second - it was needlessly long; there were several sequences which could have easily been cut and nothing really would have been lost (eg the gay butler sequence, the stuff where they went partying the night before going to Switzerland). Still, a grand old romp.