Man with the Golden Gun

Man with the Golden Gun

Man with the Golden Gun hurts.  That's probably the best way to put it.  Roger Moore's second outing as James Bond isn't awful (though there is a lot that is awful in it), but it should have been so much better.  There is so much potential here.  It could have - no, it should have been one of the great films of the franchise.  But unfortunately, it just doesn't come together.

That fact also makes Man with the Golden Gun a bit hard to review because so much of the film veers from good to bad and then back again (sometimes within the same scene).  This extends even to the plot.  Francisco Scaramanga is the world's greatest assassin, who uses a golden gun as his weapon of choice.  He charges $1 million a shot - which is all he ever needs to get the job done.  And it seems as if he has now set his sites on James Bond, sending a golden bullet to MI6 headquarters as a warning that he is targeting the British super spy.  Now Bond has to find out why before he is assassinated. That's an interesting plot, and not the type of story you ordinarily see in a Bond film.  Unfortunately, there is also a nonsense storyline about Scaramanga's solar powered super laser weapon that he plans to sell off to the highest bidder, a story device that is obviously shoehorned in because the studio wanted the villain's plan to be more grand while also taking advantage of the energy crisis impacting most of the world at that time.  The laser weapon is silly, and doesn't make any sense - Scaramanga is an isolated, refined man who does not like attention.  He prides himself on his secrecy.  So the fact that he is also a mad scientist who has created a laser weapon which he plans to very publicly auction off to the world's countries just doesn't make a lick of sense.

The film wastes a lot of time on this storyline - time that would have been better spent developing one of the major ideas of the film - that Bond and Scaramanga are two sides of the same coin.  A slight nudge in either direction, and you could easily believe that Bond and Scaramanga could be on the same side.  Bond is also the only man Scaramanga respects and perhaps even fears.  And this invigorates him; indeed the thought of competing against Bond is the only thing that breaks Scaramanga out of his quiet, stiff upper class stoicism.  It's a fascinating character dynamic...which sounds a whole lot more interesting in this paragraph than in the movie because the movie doesn't go there.   It certainly HINTS at it, and acknowledges it once with one short dialogue exchange at the end, but it never does anything with it.  Such potential wasted!

Unfortunately, the whole movie plays this way.  You have one of the very worst Bond girls in Britt Ekland's inept Miss Goodnight and one of the most intriguing in Maud Adams' Andrea.  You have some dark encounters (like Bond's separate interrogations of Scaramanga's arms dealer and Andrea) and some bizarre elements (like Scaramanga's flying car and fun-house death trap).  Bond films can be gritty and they can be absurd.  I don't think I've seen one that tries to mix the two like this, forcing the film into two tones that are completely at odds with each other.  So the movie as a whole just never really works.

I know this all sounds bad.  But I have to stress that there is a lot to like here, and it is definitely worth seeing because the elements that work are quite good.  Scaramanga and Bond's cat and mouse game is excellent, Andrea's storyline gives us one of the better twists of the entire franchise, and we even get a random and quite bad karate scene which is obviously in the movie to cash in on the martial arts craze sweeping theaters and doesn't make a lick of sense, but still manages to be entertaining at the same time.  And I of course need to mention the acting of Christopher Lee and Roger Moore, who play off each other really well.  Lee, who was a cousin of Ian Fleming, makes a superb Scaramanga. He is every bit Bond's equal and the fact that he is not James Bond's greatest enemy has nothing to do with Christopher Lee's performance and everything to do with bad storytelling!  

The movie also manages to do one other thing quite well.  Live and Let Die is a better film, but it can't survive the presence of Sheriff J.W. Pepper who drags the entire film down with him.  Well, J.W. Pepper was so inexplicably popular (WHY?!?!?!??!) that they brought him back for Man with the Golden Gun.  He is conveniently vacationing in Thailand and bumps into Bond during a car chase.  And once again he is the worst thing about the movie.  But Man with the Golden Gun pulls off the impossible; it survives his presence.

And that is pretty remarkable.


RANKINGS
It's interesting.  I put this film right up next to Live and Let Die, which is almost its polar opposite.  Live and Let Die, when you think about it, is pretty stupid, but it works for long stretches. Whereas Man with the Golden Gun should be so good, and just continues to let you down throughout the film's runtime.  But the film's potential and its good qualities are too intriguing for me put it too far down on the list.  I'd put it right in the middle, under Live and Let Die and above Diamonds are Forever.

So here are the rankings:

1. Thunderball
2. From Russia With Love
3. Goldfinger
4. Dr. No
5. Live and Let Die
6. Man with the Golden Gun
7. Diamonds are Forever
8. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
9. You Only Live Twice

BEST LINE: 

James Bond: I mean, sir, who would pay a million dollars to have me killed?
M: Jealous husbands!  Outraged chefs!  Humiliated tailors!  The list is endless!

TRIVIA: 
Man with the Golden Gun is important for another reason.  It was the last film co-produced by Harry Saltzman.  Saltzman and Broccoli's relationship had been souring over the course of the production and by the end of it, Saltzman (saddled with mounting debts) was forced to sell his stake in the franchise.  Among the many disagreements between Saltzman and Broccoli was whether or not to include a scene featuring an elephant stampede.  Broccoli and the production staff balked, but Saltzman continued looking into it.  He discovered in his research that elephants require a specific type of shoe for their feet when they are running on hard surfaces.

Months later, while filming in Thailand, Broccoli got a call that his 2,600 pairs of elephant shoes were ready (!!!).  Saltzman apparently ordered them, thinking he'd be able to convince everyone to include the scene.  When that didn't happen, I suppose he forgot to cancel the order.  Broccoli was incensed and refused to pay the shoemaker.  So far as I know, I don't think Eon has paid him back even to this day.


MVP:

I know you expect me to go with Christopher Lee.  And while Lee is terrific actor (and has won my MVP award in the past), he is not in serious contention for the award in Man with the Golden Gun.  Nope, the choice is really easy for this one.  I present you with this YouTube clip.  Be warned, you may want to consider watching this with no sound because the dialogue and corkscrew effect almost ruin what is...The. Greatest. Car. Stunt. Ever.

Yep, no special effects there.  That is a real car with a real driver in the first stunt ever conceived with a computer program.  The stunt team wasn't sure if it was even going to work.  They unbelievably got the stunt right on the first try.  When the director suggested they get a second take, the crew absolutely refused.

Shame about that damn corkscrew sound...still, that stunt gets my MVP!

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

Hound of the Baskervilles

By 1959, Hammer Films was on a high.  Their Frankenstein and Dracula franchises were smash hits and it looked like the little British company could do no wrong.  But the studio was trying to be smart; and think ahead. They knew they wouldn't be able to rely on horror forever, and they began to look into other genres.  They found an obvious answer in the world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes.

This seemed like a no brainer.  The material was a perfect fit for director Terence Young and stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Andre Morell, and Holmes' greatest adventure, The Hound of the Baskervilles, even had a heavy horror element to it, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Hammer to start their foray into detective films with this storyline.

The plot is fairly simple.  Sir Hugo Baskerville has just been killed mysteriously out on the moors near his manor, and the primary suspect is the ghost of a demon hound that has cursed the family for generations.  Sir Hugo's son, Henry (Lee) returns to Baskerville Hall to claim his inheritance, but he doesn't come alone.  The mystery of Sir Hugo's death and the demon hound has piqued the interest of Sherlock Holmes (Cushing) and his partner, Dr. Watson (Morell), and the two arrive in the moors to prevent the same gruesome fate from happening to Sir Henry.

Is The Hound of the Baskervilles as good as Horror of Dracula or other Hammer classics?  No, not really, but it is still a solid film and a good take on the character.  As Hammer rightly believed, this material is perfect for their inhouse cast and crew.  Cushing is a great Holmes, playing up the eccentricity without going overboard, and Morell is a terrific Watson.  Watson has a lot to do in this film as there are great stretches of time where Holmes is nowhere to be found, leaving Watson with the difficult task of protecting Henry himself.  Morell puts in great work, trying to keep one eye on Henry while keeping the other eye open for clues for Holmes.  He's quite the detective himself, even if he isn't as quick as Holmes.  Meanwhile, Lee brings just the right amount of aristocratic authority to his Henry, though I have to admit it is a bit strange seeing him as a good guy.  And Terence Fisher is a great choice of director, creating an eerie sense of atmosphere with beautiful mists and saturated colors.  All in all, this is a solid and entertaining film.

So it is strange to me that The Hound of the Baskervilles was a disappointment at the box office!  While not as good as Hammer's classics, it is still a lot better than a good chunk of the company's catalog, including The Mummy, which came out the same year and was an unqualified success.  I'm just not sure why this movie didn't do well.  The studio thought it was because audiences only wanted monsters, not detectives.  I've also read that audiences still closely connected the role of Holmes with Basil Rathbone, so maybe they were unwilling to accept a new actor in the role, no matter how good he was.  Either way, it is very strange to me.

I think it is time for The Hound of Baskervilles to get a second lease on life!  I want everyone who likes Sherlock Holmes or Hammer Films to go out and rent this movie!  I think you will enjoy it.  It is not a classic by any means, it is still an entertaining film and deserves more attention than it received in 1959.

MVP:
I have to go back to Peter Cushing. I love this guy!  If you want to see how versatile an actor he is, look no further than 1958 and 1959, when he played the Van Helsing, Victor Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, and even the romantic lead in The Mummy.  He is not a flashy actor who calls attention to himself, but each of these performances are remarkably different.  He was a great actor, and I very much enjoyed his take on the iconic detective.  He may not be the best Holmes - he doesn't quite reach the level of Jeremy Brett, Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey, Jr. (I don't care what Holmes purists say, I really like Downey in the role!), but Cushing is still a grand Holmes and certainly the best thing about this movie. An easy MVP, I say!

TRIVIA: 
Hammer was so confident that The Hound of the Baskervilles would be a hit that plans were already being laid to continue the franchise.  Cushing, who loved the role, was especially excited. Alas, when the film underperformed, the franchise was canceled.

BEST LINE:

Holmes: "Now would you mind sorting out a large scale map of Dartmoor, my dear fellow, while I go and find some more tobacco.  This, I think, is a two pipe problem."

The Curse of Frankenstein

The Curse of Frankenstein

A few years ago, I took it upon myself to watch and review a whole slew of Hammer Films, the iconic British studio that revived the classic monsters like Dracula and the Mummy in the late 1950s.  You can see my little writeup on the series here.  To be honest, it was one of the more fun experiments I have done since I started writing reviews.  But I was missing one of the most important pieces of the horror series: the Frankenstein franchise.

The Curse of Frankenstein is one of the most important films in Hammer history.  It was their first real foray into true classic horror and the film was a massive hit worldwide.  The film established the template for what made Hammer movies so appealing - lots of bright colors (especially red), gruesomeness, and sensuality (though very tame by today's standards). With the success of Frankenstein, Hammer launched Mummy and Dracula franchises, also to dizzying heights of box office gold.  The Curse of Frankenstein is now considered a classic.

And so it is very odd to me how underwhelmed I was with this film, especially considering the film featured Hammer's "A" Team (director Terence Fisher, writer Jimmy Sangster and actors Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee), who also collaborated on The Mummy, The Horror of Dracula, and The Gorgon.  The acting is fine, the atmosphere is gothic and chilling, and the dialogue is enjoyable (especially the winner of my best line award, below).  They also made an interesting decision to refocus the film, and the franchise, not on the monster like in earlier adaptations, but on Frankenstein himself, who instead of the misguided and obsessed hero he is in the original novel and in other movies, is actually downright evil.  The majority of the film involves his quest to create new life, no matter who stands in his way.  The monster only shows up briefly in a handful of scenes.  I actually think this is an interesting and bold choice to create a whole franchise based around an evil character, though I think it pays off more in the sequels.

Ultimately, I think getting the film to delve into this new direction is also what causes its biggest problem.  The Curse of Frankenstein wants to show us the descent of Frankenstein from an overly obsessed lover of medicine to a murderous and evil mad scientist.  But that descent makes no sense and comes out of nowhere.  If your film is going to focus on a bad guy as its main subject, you either make him sympathetic or you make him deliciously evil so we can enjoy the ride.  The Curse of Frankenstein sort of tries to do both, and that ends up hurting the movie because Frankenstein comes out as just a humorless and mean douchebag.  They should have just embraced his villainy like they do in The Revenge of Frankenstein. That would have been much more fun.

I also don't like the way women are handled in the film.  While I understand how they want to use Frankenstein's love affair with his maid (Valerie Gaunt) as a central skipping stone to his eventual embrace of evil, the whole subplot just seems out of character and random.  And his wife Elizabeth (Hazel Court) is kind wasted and here for no reason.

I don't want to say the film is all bad.  There is a lot to like.  The acting is good, especially from Robert Urquhart as Frankenstein's partner, Christopher Lee as a monster who seems more confused than murderous, and especially Cushing.  Even though I have problems with the character's presentation, Cushing is as always a pleasure to watch.  I also love the creature design.  The first appearance of the monster is truly staggering.  And I have to give a special shoutout to the super cool shot of Frankenstein working while the creature hangs on a meat hook behind him.  It is one of my favorite shots of any Hammer film ever.


Ah, well.  Maybe my expectations were too high.  The film was such a huge hit and is considered such a classic, that I just felt it should have been more on the ball.  Overall I think it is only okay.  Certainly worth watching, but definitely not the classic I expected.


BEST LINE:
Paul: I thought I'd find you here.

Frankenstein: That was very intelligent of you.  Well, now that you have found me, what do you want?

Paul: You killed the old man, didn't you.  And now you are mutilating his body.

Frankenstein: Mutilating?  I removed his brain.  Mutilating has nothing to do with it.

MVP:
Philip Leakey, the makeup artist who designed the creature makeup.  As soon as the production was announced, Universal immediately threatened to sue if Hammer used anything even closely resembling their now iconic creature design, so Leakey had to start from scratch.  After several failed attempts, Philip Leakey finally completed his terrific design literally the day before filming began.  I personally love what he came up with: patchwork person, with irregular features and a blind eye.  I wish the monster had been featured more, actually!











TRIVIA: 
Though Cushing and Lee had been in two films together already (Moulin Rouge and Hamlet), they never really talked or knew each other.  Inbetween takes on Frankenstein, the two passed the time and relieved the tension from all the gruesomeness around them by exchanging favorite Looney Tunes quotes back and forth.  And that was the beginning of a lifelong friendship. 

The Mummy

The Mummy

The foundation for Hammer Films was laid with three adaptations of classic movie monsters - Horror of Dracula, Curse of Frankenstein, and The Mummy - all directed by Terence Fisher, written by Jimmy Sangster and starring Peter Cushing as our hero and Christopher Lee as the monster.

The Mummy was the final of these three and while it is certainly the best of the Mummy films, it doesn't hold a candle to Horror of Dracula. The setup is simple and the same as most Mummy films. A team of archeologists led by Professor Banning (Felix Aylmer) and his son John (Peter Cushing) unearth the tomb of Ananka, the Egyptian priestess of Karnak. This of course pisses off the mummy that is guarding her tomb (Christopher Lee). The normal hijinks, curses, and murders ensue. What makes the film fun to watch is a committed cast of professionals (there really is not weak link in the acting department) and a Mummy that is genuinely cool looking. Unlike the silly looking bandages of the monsters in the later films, Christopher Lee's wrapping is actually pretty gross. He's muddy and moldy and dangerous.

The good parts of the movie also include the fights between the Mummy and John Banning. They are actually pretty rough for the 1950s and are some of the better fights of the franchise. I also really like the sinewy score by Franz Reizenstein. The main theme is terrific.

So its a pity that the movie just doesn't completely gel together. It really feels a bit sluggish in places, especially when it spends time on the little villagers, who I suppose are meant to be comic relief. Ultimately, they just drag the film down. And after a very effective buildup, the climax is a bit of a letdown. Overall, though, The Mummy is not bad. A bit slow in places, but still entertaining. I would recommend it. Just make sure you see the Dracula movies first!

MVP: Gotta give this one to Christopher Lee. I once foolishly thought that it didn't take talent to be a Mummy in a Mummy film. All you have to do is lumber around and kill people. But as I learned in this franchise's sequels, The Mummy's Shroud and Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, it really isn't so easy to be a Mummy. The monsters in those movies are not scary, at best - and at worst, they are laughable. Christopher Lee shows them how it should be done - he portrays the menace, but also the emotion. He is a conflicted mummy, after all. He cares more about Ananka (and John's wife, Isobel, who happens to look exactly like her) than he does about killing people. Lee makes all this clear with his body language and his eyes alone. It's pretty good stuff. Besides, he also deserves the MVP because of the Trivia below.

TRIVIA: Poor Christopher Lee. The Mummy is supposed to burst through a door during one attack. A grip on the set accidentally bolted the door shut right before filming. Luckily Christopher Lee was strong enough that he broke through the door anyway, but he dislocated his shoulder in the process. And then he threw his back out carrying Yvonne Furneaux through the forest. And then he bashed up his knees and shins on the swamp set because he couldn't see all the pipes and fittings underneath the murky water. And finally - those awesome little explosives that set off when Cushing shoots the Mummy with the shotgun (a super cool effect in the film) were extremely painful and left Lee with burn marks for weeks. All in all, a pretty painful gig...

BEST LINE: John Banning trying goad a potential bad guy into revealing himself:

John: "Karnak was not a very important diety. A third rate god."
Mehmet: "Not to those who believed in him."
John: "Perhaps not. But their standard of intelligence must have been remarkably low."

The Devil's Bride (or The Devil Rides Out)

The Devil's Bride (or The Devil Rides Out)

Reputation-wise, The Devil's Bride (or its original title, The Devil Rides Out) is considered one of the crown jewels of the Hammer Film series. At the recommendation of their top star Christopher Lee, they optioned the rights to the popular Dennis Wheatley novel. Their top director Terence Fisher (Horror of Dracula) was brought on board to helm the project, and acclaimed novelist Richard Matheson (I Am Legend) was hired to write the screenplay. The film is regarded as a classic of the genre. I guess you can call me the party pooper, but I think it is a great idea that unravels as it goes.

The film has an intriguing premise. The Duc de Richeleau (Christopher Lee) and Rex (Leon Greene) are old friends. A third friend had passed away many years before, and Richeleau and Rex had promised to watch over his son Simon (Patrick Mower). Unfortunately, Simon has fallen under the influence of a satanic cult leader named Mocata (Charles Gray). Luckily enough, Richeleau also just happens to be a master of the occult. The movie becomes a battle of wills between the villainous Mocata and Richeleau, with Simon's soul in the middle. Richeleau and Rex also try to save Tanith (Nike Arrighi), another potential young victim who is definitely due to be sacrificed to the devil.

The first half of the movie is pretty good, as Richeleau and Mocata keep interfering with each other's plans. There are actually some genuinely creepy moments, especially when Mocata begins to use his hypnotic influence over the weak-willed Simon and Tanith. The stakes raise, lives are threatened, we have car chases, evil genie demons, a dark and bloody ceremony in the woods, and the momentum builds to an awesome idea for a climax. Hiding out in a country estate with friends Marie (Sarah Lawson) and the skeptical Richard (Paul Eddington), Richeleau draws an magical protective circle on the floor. So long as they stay in the circle, they are safe. But Mocata's dark powers assault them at all sides, trying to either break through the barrier or convince the good guys to come out. This is a fascinating idea and an opportunity for some truly horrific magic coolness. Unfortunately, this set piece never lives up to its potential and as the film barrels to the climax, there are just so many "huh???" moments, that I was continually taken out of the movie.

For example - Spoiler Here - if you live in a house that is about to be attacked by a satanic cult, why would you put yourself in a protective magic circle, but tell your 8-year old daughter to just go upstairs to her room and go to sleep. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. So later in the movie, when they find out that Mocata has kidnapped the girl, should they really have been surprised? I wasn't. The last act of the movie has a lot of moments like this that kind of ruin the rest of the movie for me. And don't even get me started on how the movie talks about the space-time continuum. Yes, The Devil's Bride talks about the space-time continuum.

But when it works, it really is enjoyable. Terence Fisher's direction is dependable as usual, and the acting is all quite good. Christopher Lee and Charles Gray are of course the highlights - two confidant and charismatic men who are great foils for each other. And like I said, there are some genuinely cool moments. I just wish the film didn't fall apart near the end.

Overall, I think this film is worth watching, but I don't understand why it is considered one of Hammer's best. 

MVP: Christopher Lee, for once playing a good guy, is the clear MVP. It's his show from the beginning. He even sells some implausible plot points - the fact that he is a master of the occult is literally just mentioned with a "oh, by the way" slight of hand. But I bought it, because I believed that Christopher Lee believed it. I think that's why Lee and Cushing are considered such icons of the genre. Because even in the most ridiculous circumstances, they seem like they believe it; they seem like they belong in this world. It makes the choice easy: Christopher Lee owns the movie.

TRIVIA: In England, the film was called The Devil Rides Out. But the U.S. distributor was worried that American audiences would think the film was a Western, so they retitled it as The Devil's Bride. It's a pity, because The Devil Rides Out is a way cooler title.

BEST LINE: A rare moment of comedy. Sitting in the magic circle, Richard says: "I think we are behaving like a pack of idiots."
Richeleau: "It begins."
Richard: "What? What begins?"
Richeleau: "Mocata is working on you. Because you are the weakest link."
Richard: "What?"
Richeleau: "Uhhh, from his point of view!"

The Gorgon

The Gorgon

What a bummer. The Gorgon is an entertaining enough movie, but with the talent involved it could have been great. One more script rewrite to iron out some plot holes and to clean up the ending, and maybe a slightly bigger budget to help with the special effects, and this movie would have launched from Interesting to Awesome. With the re-teaming of director Terence Fisher and actors Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (the three who collaborated on Horror of Dracula), I was really hoping for a classic.

The plot is actually almost identical to the Hammer film I just reviewed, The Reptile. There is a mysterious murder in a small town. Relatives of the victim (in this film, the victim's father and brother) come to the town to investigate. The townspeople are suspicious douchebags and attempt to scare the investigators away. There is a creepy doctor (a superb Peter Cushing here) who may know more than he is letting on. And then we have the monster appear in the climax - and just like in The Reptile, the makeup is not that good.

The fact that the plot is familiar isn't necessarily a bad thing. When the formula is done well, who cares if it isn't original? There are large chunks of the movie that are really good. The first half is particularly strong as Professor Heitz (Michael Goodliffe) and his son Paul (Richard Pasco) investigate the murders. The initial Gorgon attacks are all well directed and spooky, with the monster only barely glimpsed in the shadows and through reflections. This is all very effective. The acting is also pretty good along the board. Hammer actresses are not known for their acting ability, but Barbara Shelley turns in a great performance as Carla, the creepy doctor's assistant. Shelley (Dracula: Prince of Darkness) shows once again that she isn't just another pretty face. She is quite good at showing conflicting emotions and is superb at showcasing suppressed dread. The fear is in her eyes, and that's not easy to do.

Unfortunately, once the set-up is established and the movie needs to move forward, things just start to fall apart. Events occur and then nothing comes of it. A medical assistant tries to kill Paul, and that's never brought up again. Characters' motivations become a little too cluttered and contradictory. The climactic fist fight in the haunted castle, while pretty exciting in of itself, doesn't make a lot of sense since both characters are there for the same reason. I'm just glad Christopher Lee shows up in the last reel. His grumpy clear-headedness makes up for everyone else's peculiar behavior.

Overall, this isn't a bad film. Just a missed opportunity. I'm not alone in thinking this. Christopher Lee himself said it was okay, but should have been awesome. And I don't think the comparisons to The Reptile are an accident. John Gilling, who directed The Reptile was one of the scriptwriters on The Gorgon. I have a feeling he went back, fixed a lot of the problems with the storyline, and took a second stab at the tale. And The Reptile is certainly a more consistent movie through and through. But it lacks the star power that The Gorgon has, which is what is frustrating. With Lee and Cushing, this coulda been a classic!!!

MVP: As much as I like Christopher Lee in this movie, he's just not in it enough. He probably has all of ten minutes of screen time. Peter Cushing takes the rest of the film and places it squarely on his shoulders. I know I've given him 3 MVPs already, but I promise they are all deserved! Here, he plays Dr. Namarov, who may or may not be the main villain of the movie. Namarov keeps his private thoughts close to the vest, but he is clearly conflicted between what his heart tells him and what he knows is the right thing to do. If Namarov's final actions in the film don't seem very motivated, it's not Cushing's fault. He sells it completely. Only later, when I think about it, do I go, "hey, wait a second..." Namarov is for the most part a good, strong, meaty character, and Cushing brings everything he has to the role. Well done, sir!

TRIVIA: Though it was suggested to use a wig with real snakes, the producer said no because of time and budget constraints. So instead we get the weird wig with the plastic snakes in the movie. Boo. After watching the movie, the producer realized he had made a big mistake. And Christopher Lee is quoted as saying, "The only problem with The Gorgon is the Gorgon."

BEST LINE: Professor Meister: "Don't use big words, Inspector. They don't suit you."

Dracula has Risen from the Grave

Dracula has Risen from the Grave
I know that by the late 60s and 70s, the Hammer films were on a decline. While Dracula has Risen from the Grave was produced before the fall, the cracks are beginning to show. Trying to keep the franchise vibrant, the producers throw a whole lot of absurdity at the screen. Just listen to the set up of the movie:

Dracula has been dead for a year, trapped underneath the massive ice moat that surrounds his castle. But in a nearby town, the townspeople are still terrified. They even refuse to go to church because the castle's shadow touches the church in the afternoon. So Monsignor Mueller (Rupert Davies) and the town priest (Ewan Hooper) climb up to the castle to purge the site of its evil and seal the entrance with a giant cross. Continuity be damned - the road that led to the castle in the last movie no longer exists and the only way to get there is by climbing up a treacherous mountainside.

And that massive moat I mentioned? It's gone, and has been replaced by a tiny frozen stream at the bottom of the cliff. During the exorcism, there is a great storm and the priest trips and falls on the ice. He cuts his head, and a tiny bit of blood goes through the ice and just happens to fall in the mouth of Dracula's drowned corpse. The vile count of course wakes up and puts the priest under his spell. When he learns that a cross is barring the way to his home, does he ask the priest to just take it down? No! Instead, he concocts some sort of bizarre revenge scheme against the Monsignor.

At this point, I was really worried. I got even more worried when I met our young hero, Paul (Barry Andrews), an atheist graduate student who works part time and shirtless in a bakery. Yes, he likes to bake shirtless. Our hero is in love with the Monsignor's neice, Maria (Veronica Carlson). The stage is set. Dracula and the now-evil priest vs. the atheist Paul and the Monsignor. The movie is gonna stink. 

But then something happens - it doesn't stink. With all the pieces clumsily put into place, the movie suddenly gels together and becomes really entertaining. The acting is all quite good. I knew Christopher Lee and Rupert Davies would be good, but I assumed that the young couple would be a pair of wooden pretty faces. On the contrary, Andrews' Paul is nowhere near as annoying as his shirtless baking introduction hinted at. And Veronica Carlson is quite good as the Count's ultimate target. She is certainly one of the most beautiful Hammer starlets, but she's also one of the better actresses I've seen so far in these films. And Hooper is also quite good as the priest, a good but weak man trapped in the thrall of evil. Dracula has Risen from the Grave also ramps up the sex and gore factor. It is never over-the-top, and is very effective. If anyone had any doubts that Hammer was responsible for the sexual subtext of vampires, they should see this movie. As one virginal victim is "seduced" by Dracula, we got a shot of her hand pushing a teddy bear off the bed. If there was ever a visual metaphor for deflowering/the end of youthful innocence, there you go. It's so bad, it's good! And the violence? The attempted staking in this film is not just the highlight of the movie, but one of the more entertaining moments in the franchise.

 The movie was directed by Freddie Francis, who is better known as a superb cinematographer (he won the Oscar for Glory). He experiments with filters and colors, and really gives the film a unique look over the previous Dracula movies. Sometimes he pushes the experimentation too far, adding a burnt hue to the scenes by the castle which are really just distracting. But for the most part, the film looks superb. I have to be honest, I can see why this film was one of Hammer's biggest hits. Once the adventure starts, it doesn't let up. And the climactic battle is actually one of the more exciting of the series so far. As long as you can get past the silly set-up, Dracula has Risen from the Grave is actually very good - maybe not as good as the first two, but a definite step up from Dracula: Prince of Darkness But even in its fun, you can see the cracks forming. And even if Dracula has Risen from the Grave ends up working, you can see that this is the beginning of the end.

MVP: Back to Christopher Lee, who actually puts in his best performance as the famous Count. The ten years since Horror of Dracula have been good for the character. The extra wrinkles and the gray streaks in his hair all add to his imposing stature. Though his dialogue is hokey (lots of lines like "At last my revenge is complete"), Lee sells every line with menace and rage. He was good in the other films, but he knocks it out of the park here.

TRIVIA: The very first film to ever be rated by the newly formed MPAA.

BEST LINE: A drunk Paul, after drinking some water, "That's better. Ah, that's delicious!" It's more the performance than the line itself. It made me laugh.

Dracula: Prince of Darkness

Dracula: Prince of Darkness

The third movie in Hammer's Dracula franchise, Dracula: Prince of Darkness differed from the previous film in one major way - it actually had Dracula in it!   After Dracula's death in Horror of Dracula, the studio followed vampire hunter Van Helsing's further adventures in the sequel, Brides of Dracula.  But in 1966, they managed to convince Christopher Lee to reprise his role as the evil count and the result was one of the more popular installments in the franchise.

Two English couples are vacationing in the Carpathian Mountains.  Though they are warned by a burly, gun-toting priest named Father Sandor to avoid the creepy castle in the mountains, the couple eventually find themselves at that very spot.  To the characters' credit, they aren't like the stupid victims in other horror movies that impulsively go where we all know they shouldn't.  There are dark forces at work that push them towards the castle.  Their only crime is that they are a bit too trusting of the castle's butler, Klove, once they've arrived.

Before you know it, one of the men is dead, and his fresh blood is used to bring Dracula back to life - in a creative resurrection scene that sees the fearsome count literally rising from the ashes.  The man's wife then becomes the vampire's first victim.  Now the pressure is on the other couple.  Can they escape Castle Dracula?  Can they get to Father Sandor, who also happens to be an experienced vampire killer?

The movie is fun, though not much happens in the first half.  There is a slow build up in suspense.  The creepiness of the first half is enhanced greatly by actress Barbara Shelley, who plays Helen, one of the wives.  Helen wants to leave immediately, but because she's known as the complainer of the group, she's ignored.  But her fear is real and Shelley makes the terror believable.  You really believe that this woman is terrified.  

The second half is when events heat up and spiral to an exciting climax on the castle moat.  Dracula wakes up and begins a short reign of terror.  Christopher Lee owns the part.  He's actually better in this than in the first film, and he achieves this with no dialogue.   That is pretty impressive.  The rest of the cast is solid, except for Suzan Farmer's thankless role as the other wife.  She spends most of the movie saying, "I agree" to everyone.  They literally have nothing for her to do.  Andrew Keir as Father Sandor puts in a good, gruff, tough performance.  While I did miss Peter Cushing's Van Helsing, Father Sandor is an acceptable replacement.  

If there is a problem with the movie, its that the story is kind of slight.  Not much happens, and Dracula's antics get nipped in the bud before he gets a chance to really do anything (it's not ruining anything to say that the good guys win, is it?).  I definitely think its nowhere near as good as Horror nor as inventive as Brides.  But it is still a solid horror film, and a worthy entry to the franchise.

MVP: Christopher Lee, hands down.  He owns the movie.   While he has no dialogue, his imposing stature and attitude just intimidates everyone and dominates the movie.  He really is a terrific prince of darkness.

TRIVIA: So why did Lee have no dialogue?  This was not an artistic choice.  According to Lee, the script was so bad that he refused to speak the lines.  Better to have no dialogue than crappy dialogue.  

BEST LINE: Sandor: "Killed?  No, Dracula cannot be killed.  He's already dead.  Undead.  He can only be destroyed."  I'm not quite sure what that means, but it sure sounds cool.

Brides of Dracula

Brides of Dracula

The first sequel in Hammer Film's Dracula series, The Brides of Dracula is a bit of an odd duck. First of all, Dracula isn't even in the movie and is only referred to once. The film also has all sorts of scripting problems, brought on I suspect by last minute rewrites to beat the censors of the day. The result is a bit of a mess, with a rushed finale and subplots that never get resolved.

But I gotta tell you, it's a really entertaining mess! There are parts that are even more enjoyable than The Horror of Dracula. Now that the writers are no longer constrained by Bram Stoker's original book, they cut loose and go a bit wild. Marianne (the beautiful Yvonne Monlaur) is traveling to an all girls school where she has been hired as a new teacher. When the stagecoach abandons her in a foggy, little Carpathian village, she unwisely accepts an invitation by a local, creepy Baroness (Martita Hunt) to stay in her castle. While there, she is tricked into freeing an imprisoned Baron Meister (David Peel), a dashing vampire who begins to wreak havoc on the villagers. Good thing vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) just happens to be visiting town...

First, the good. Terence Fisher's direction is great. Despite not much happening in the first half of the film, he keeps the pace moving briskly, and I was never bored. The shot selection and moody lighting are much more effective here, as well. The acting along the board is fairly good - especially Martita Hunt as the Baroness, Freda Jackson as Baron Meinster's human servant, Greta, and of course, the super cool Peter Cushing returning as Van Helsing. Cushing was the best thing about The Horror of Dracula, and he is even better here. The writers have fun playing with the vampire mythos, changing the legend as they see fit and cobbling together some really fun and creative ideas, such as the creepy scene with crazy Greta, laying on a fresh grave, gently cooing to the earth, encouraging a new vampire to awaken and rise.

But there is the bad, as well. There is a character in the beginning of the film, set up as a major bad guy, who ensures that Marianne is stranded in the village. And then he disappears. Completely. He's not in the movie any more. No clue who he was or why he was there. Odd. We also have the super rushed ending, including two vampires (the brides of the title, even!) who just kind of stupidly watch everything unfold and then also just vanish from the scene. No idea what happened to them. And then there is the vampire bat that Baron Meinster can turn into. This bat looks like two flapping pieces of cardboard glued to a toupee. I've seen scarier hand puppets. Not even Peter Cushing can make the bat attack scenes work. They are just laughably bad. And of course, the bat transformation raises the big plot hole question - if Meinster could just turn into a bat and fly away, how was he a prisoner to begin with?

And how about Meinster, anyway? The imposing and forceful Christopher Lee is missed. David Peel does just fine when he is the arrogant aristocrat, but as soon as he goes vampiric, he hunches and snarls and overacts and just looks generally silly. I'd laugh in his face if he tried to bite me.

Overall, though, this is a fine film. It may not be as consistent as Horror of Dracula, but there are some parts that are big improvements. Check it out. You may enjoy it.

MVP: Is there any doubt? Heroic, athletic, confidant, but unerringly polite and quintessentially English, Peter Cushing's Van Helsing is the guy I would want at my side if I ever got in a vampire fight. SPOILER ALERT: The big example of his awesomeness this time involves a completely revisionist and absurd way of "curing" a vampire bite by branding himself with a hot rod and splashing the wound with holy water. This is highly questionable, but Cushing sells it and makes it the most memorable part of the movie - to me, this superb scene is the real climax of the film, not the goofy fight that follows it. Look around online and you'll see anyone who has seen this movie raves about the branding scene. SPOILER OVER. Cushing is the man!!!

TRIVIA: Dracula was actually supposed to make a cameo in this movie, appearing at the very end to kill Baron Meinster for being lame. I don't think they could convince Christopher Lee to come back, which is a shame. Because Meinster was kinda lame, and deserved to be punished...

Also, take a look at the windmill fight scene in this movie and then watch the end of Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow again. You'll see a lot of the exact same shots and ideas. Sleepy Hollow was Burton's love letter to Hammer Films. I just thought that was kind of cool.

BEST LINE: "I'm not tenant of yours, you jackass!"

Horror of Dracula

Horror of Dracula

Interview with the Vampire, Twilight, True Blood, and all those other movies that rely on sexy, pouting vampires and plentiful violence owe their existence to this movie, Horror of Dracula, the first Dracula film put out by the famous English movie studio, Hammer Pictures.

Loosely based on Bram Stoker's novel, Horror of Dracula is not necessarily scary any more. I have to admit that it is pretty tame by today's standards. But this doesn't make the movie any less enjoyable.

The most important thing in a Dracula movie is to cast your vampire right. If you get Dracula right, then that will make up for goofiness elsewhere (Gary Oldman in Bram Stoker's Dracula), but if you cast Dracula wrong (looking at you, Frank Langella), then it doesn't matter how prestigious your cast and crew are, the film isn't going to work.

Christopher Lee (Saruman in Lord of the Rings) is a good Dracula, and I can see why he became so iconic in the part. At first, I had my doubts about him. He is a little too civil in the first act and I found myself distracted by his uni-brow (easily the scariest thing in the movie). But once he first makes his appearance as a vampire, his mouth covered in blood, snarling like a wolf, I was hooked. This was a shocking moment in cinema history, and the moment when vampires went from politely deadly to animalistic and primal.

The other important thing Horror of Dracula brings to the table is the sensuality. Dracula is not a frumpy Hungarian (no offense, Bela), but a handsome aristocrat. When he visits the young women in their bedrooms, they want to be bitten. The director Terence Fisher said he wanted to make the vampire's bite like a drug addiction; the victims know it will eventually kill them, but they still want it; they need it. And they will wait in their night gowns, excitedly staring at the door, waiting for Dracula to visit their bedroom. It's all very tame now, with the sensuality coming through nervous and excited glances, but make no mistake - these are the roots that changed vampire lore in cinema, and without Horror of Dracula, there would be no True Blood, The Hunger, or heck, even Bram Stoker's Dracula. This changed everything.

Overall, the movie is quite good, but not the masterpiece some would claim. The pacing is a bit slow in the first half, and there is one ill-timed and unfunny moment of slapstick comedy near the end that befuddles me. And while everyone gives Christopher Lee the credit for the film's success, I found he wasn't in it enough. The secret weapon of the movie is Peter Cushing as Professor van Helsing, doctor and vampire hunter. His Van Helsing is a terrific performance, clipped and efficient. He is a perfect English gentlemen, but doesn't waste time explaining or babbling. He knows what needs to be done, and does it. Van Helsings, from Edward van Sloan to Laurence Olivier to Anthony Hopkins, have either been dotty old men or crazy, dotty old men. Cushing is old enough to have the knowledge, but young enough that he can still chase Dracula down for a good ol' fashioned fist fight. He's pretty awesome.

I can definitely recommend this movie. While its not necessarily scary any more, it is worth seeing because of its place in cinematic history, for its entertaining story, and for the performances by two icons of the genre. 

MVP: SPOILERS-BE WARNED: So why do I like Peter Cushing's Van Helsing so much? Maybe it is because when they finally reveal where Dracula is hiding, he doesn't waste time thinking about it and just flings into action. Maybe it is because when he finds Dracula's coffin, he takes an extra second from the chase to toss a rosary inside (just in case the vampire wins their battle and then tries to return to his resting place). But I think the defining moment for me is when they rescue a little girl from one of the vampires. After chasing the monster away with a cross, Van Helsing doesn't follow immediately. He knows where the vampire is going; there is no rush. Instead he approaches the little girl and asks if she's cold. He wraps his fur coat over her shoulders, applauds her for her bravery and only then does he leave to go kick butt. The way Cushing plays the scene is brilliant, his tenderness in the middle of what should be such a terrifying moment is real and important. His resolve is always to protect first, and then kill second. If some other actor played the scene, I'd scream, "no, you idiot, kill the vampire first and then come back to see if the girl is okay!!!" But not only did I believe Cushing when he did this, he made it clear that this would be the right thing to do. Peter Cushing is the man and easily my favorite Van Helsing.

TRIVIA: While there are all sorts of snorts and snarls, Christopher Lee actually only has 13 lines in this movie, all spoken in the first act.

It's Hammer Time!!

HAMMER HORROR MONTH!

In celebration of Halloween, I am going to focus on the films of the famous Hammer Studios, a British film studio that revived the classic movie monsters to great success in the 1950s.

This is going to be fun for me because I've only seen a few of these films all the way through. I caught them in snippets and I certainly know them by their reputation (both good and bad). But I have always wanted to see them, and thanks to TCM, I will finally be able to! Throughout October, they will be playing several of them on Friday nights.

So what's the big deal about Hammer Films? In the 1950s, while Hollywood was busy attacking audiences with aliens, UFOs, and giant ants, the famous monsters of lore had been reduced to a joke. Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolf Man only appeared in films if they were parodies. Their effectiveness had been played out, or so the conventional wisdom said. Of course, Hollywood was wrong (big surprise).

Starting with the Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer revived the fortunes of these old school baddies and created an incredibly successful series of films for the next two decades. One of the innovations was a no-brainer. Color! Hammer was known for their vivid color palattes - particularly the color red. Blood flows freely in these flicks - to actually see blood on the lips of a vampire after feeding was a HUGE shock in 1958. The Hammer Films also added an element of sexuality to horror - granted, beautiful women have been plagued by monsters since silent films. But to have these women be so overtly va-va-voomy was a Hammer innovation. The sex and the gore are very tame compared to today, even laughably tame, but for the 1950s it was quite risque and contributed to the huge business at the box office.

The other thing Hammer Films gave us were two new horror icons - enter Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. We all know Christopher Lee as the evil wizard Saruman in Lord of the Rings, but he was a huge horror star in the 1950s and 60s, playing druids, warlocks, mummies, Frankenstein's monster and most famously, Count Dracula, a role he played 12 times! We all know Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin, the old commander of the Death Star and the only guy in Star Wars who can boss Darth Vader around. These two appeared in countless Hammer movies and are true icons of the genre.

On the negative side, these movies were pretty cheaply made and you can usually tell. The pacing can be slow and lots of the acting outside of Cushing and Lee can be...well, let's say there are times when they should have focused less on the va va voom and more on the talent. But I have a feeling these problems probably affected the latter flicks more than the earlier ones. I guess we'll find out!!

So this is month is going to be a fun one. I may sneak in a review of something else, particularly if it is a new movie (I am probably going to see The Social Network and will want to review that). But the theme of the month is Hammer. It's Hammer Time!!!!