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 (re-watching)

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.