Night Creatures

 

Though I am generally not a huge fan of horror movies, there is something about Hammer Films that I really dig.  The studio produced a huge slew of horror films in the 1950s and 1960s, many starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.  Many of the films were not great, but they had a goofy gothic charm that I really enjoyed.  I've seen a lot of movies by the studio over the years.   And after watching The Curse of the Werewolf, I had to ask myself whether it would be wise to stop.  Was I now scraping the bottom of the barrel?  Had I already seen all the good movies and was now just torturing myself with the dreck?  

And then I came across Night Creatures, otherwise known as Captain Clegg, which is an odd little film.  It's really a movie that shouldn't work.  And truth be told, it kind of doesn't.  But also, truth be told, I kinda don't care.  Night Creatures is silly fun, and I enjoyed myself! 

In a small village along the coast of England, Captain Collier (Patrick Allen, Dial M for Murder) of the Royal Navy arrives to investigate reports of illegal smuggling and piracy.  He suspects that an infamous pirate named Captain Clegg is responsible.  But Clegg has been dead for years, and the local villagers are too worried about the haunted marshes to be thinking about bootlegging.  You see, there are these phantoms deep in the marshes, glowing skeletons that ride out of the darkness, literally frightening people to death with their sheer presence.  Captain Collier thinks this is all a ridiculous distraction, but it will only be a matter of time before his investigation crosses paths with...the Night Creatures!!  

In the town, we have an assortment of odd characters, including the gentle Reverend Blyss (Peter Cushing, Horror of Dracula), his ward Imogene (Yvonne Romain, The Curse of the Werewolf), coffin maker Jeremiah Mipps (Michael Ripper, The Reptile), innkeeper Mister Rash (Martin Benson, Goldfinger) and Harry Cobtree (Oliver Reed, Gladiator), the son of the local government official.  These characters all take turns "helping" Captain Collier when actually frustrating his efforts.  

I guess this is a SPOILER, but not really since the movie reveals certain facts very early on.  The entire town is in on this bootlegging operation, which is led by the Reverend Blyss.  Their challenge is to somehow try and keep to their schedule while Captain Collier is sniffing around.  

Of course, it would make more sense if the criminals would just stop their activities for a day or two until Collier leaves.  And once you think about that, you start realizing that the most of the plot just breaks down under even a little bit of scrutiny. "Well, how did that happen?" "Why did he do that?" "How is that possible?"   Even the secret of the Night Creatures is a huge disappointment and a fun idea that never lives up to its potential.  On paper, this is probably not a particularly good movie.  

So why did I like it?  I enjoyed the Gothic Hammer atmosphere which is well utilized here.  I thought the concept of an entire town of bootleggers was interesting, and there are some genuinely fun and creative flourishes in their plotting.  But most of all, Night Creatures brings in Hammer's most reliable weapon: the always watchable Peter Cushing, who just elevates everything he is in.  Whether he is in kindly reverend mode or ruthless pirate leader mode, Cushing is just on a different level than the rest of the cast.  

So do I recommend Night Creatures?   Yes, I would.  But take that recommendation with a grain of salt.  It's definitely one of the lesser Hammer Films.  If Hammer isn't your thing, then I would avoid it.  This isn't the movie that will change your mind!  But personally, I really enjoyed it.  

MVP:

My love for Peter Cushing is no secret.  I've liked him since I was a little kid and I realized he was the one guy in the original Star Wars who could boss Darth Vader around.  He elevates Night Creatures, especially when he is allowed to dump his gentle reverend cover and go into ruthless pirate captain mode.  The film is constantly in danger of being overwhelmed by its plot contrivances, and then Peter Cushing shows up and all is forgotten and forgiven.  If that is not an MVP performance, I don't know what is.  

BEST LINE:

Captain Collier: Did you sleep last night? 

Reverend Blyss: Why, exceptionally well.  And you?  Oh no, you were out looking for the phantoms, weren't you?  Of course!  Don't tell me you've only just returned.

Captain Collier: Yes.

Reverend Blyss: Dear me, you must have walked a long way.  Did you have any luck?

Captain Collier: Yes and no.

Reverend Blyss: That's comprehensive, anyway.  

TRIVIA: 

I have two fun bits of trivia here.  As I mentioned, the original title of this movie was Captain Clegg, and in most of the world, that is what most people call the film.  However, in the United States, the film was called Night Creatures.  What happened behind the scenes was this: Hammer had planned on producing an adaptation of the classic horror story I Am Legend.  They were going to call the film Night Creatures.  But the British censors warned the studio that they would never allow the film to be made, so those plans had to be abandoned.  The problem is that Hammer already promised a film called Night Creatures to the U.S. distributors.   So they hastily changed the title of this film and the rest is history. 

I have to be honest.  That bit of trivia also makes me a bit sad.  Can you imagine a Hammer version of I Am Legend with Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee in the lead?  That would have been amazing.  

The second bit of trivia is about the small town where the film was made, Denham.  The red brick house where Reverend Blyss lives was actually the home of legendary producer Alexander Korda (The Third Man) and his wife Merle Oberon (Wuthering Heights).  The house was later owned by Sir John Mills (the father in Swiss Family Robinson).  Years later, Mills' daughter, Hayley Mills from The Parent Trap restored the local windmill, which can also be seen in the film.  

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."

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed!

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed

So after the disaster that was Frankenstein Created Woman, I went into Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed with very small expectations.  But I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.  The movie has some serious problems, but it is ten times better than the previous entry.

Well, it seems Baron Frankenstein is up to his old tricks again.  He finds out that a former colleague, Dr. Richter, is in a nearby insane asylum.  Frankenstein blackmails one of the asylum doctors, Karl (Simon Ward, Three Musketeers) and his fiance, Anna (Veronica Carlson, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave) into helping him release and cure the doctor so they can collaborate on their life creating experiments.  Of course, things never work out as they should...

First, let's talk about what the film does right!  I have to say it looks gorgeous, casting off the cheap and dull look that Frankenstein Created Woman suffered from.  Terence Fisher, the franchise's go-to director (who must have been sleepwalking through the previous entry) is back in fine form, moving the film along at a good clip and playing around with some terrific camera angles.  Fisher's introduction of Baron Frankenstein is easily the character's best entrance in the entire franchise.  I also like how the series finally clarifies its approach to the Frankenstein character.  There is some debate about whether the mad doctor is truly evil or not.  After all, he is just obsessed with furthering medical science!  He's not trying to hurt anyone.  But to me, it all goes back to the question of whether the ends justify the means...and this is why the good Baron will always be a villain to me...and Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed gets that.  Starting from the very first scene, this Baron is a ruthless, vicious man, and Cushing plays him to hilt, bringing all his malicious arrogance to the forefront.  And this is a lot of fun to watch at first, until they push the cruelty too far in the second half of the movie.

What doesn't work is everything related to Karl and Anna.  This is in no way the fault of Ward and Carlson, both of whom are fine performers.  I just felt their characters were extraneous.  I think they just added the young lovers' storyline to attract a wider (and female) audience.  But the gambit fails.  Anything they contributed to the plot could have been done in a different, more economical way.  And once they have outlived their usefulness to the story, they just stick around, weighing the movie down.  With nothing real for the characters to do, the producers just stick them in situations to be abused by Frankenstein and this gets annoying really fast.  This includes a random and uncomfortable rape scene, filmed against the objections of Cushing, Fisher, and Carlson.  The scene makes no sense, is out of character for Frankenstein, and is never mentioned again for the rest of the movie.

Really, this scene is just a good example of what happens in the second half of the film.  The whole enterprise just starts to fall apart.  All the characters start acting in ways contrary to what we have been watching in the first hour, and you just find yourself asking, "well, now why are they doing that?!" every five minutes.  If not for the moving performance of Freddie Jones (Dune) as Dr. Richter during the film's climax, the whole second half of the film would have been a complete disaster.

I was also profoundly disturbed by the unnecessary, undeserved and sadistic treatment of Anna.  It really bothered me.  And it is a shame because there is so much to like in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed - the general look and feel of the film, the performances, the general concept.  I have very mixed feelings about this movie.  I suppose it is worth watching at some point, but don't rush out to see it!

MVP:
Freddie Jones gets my MVP.  Cushing almost wins, especially for his awesome entrance, but they put him through too many uncharacteristic antics in the second half.  But with very small screen time, Freddie Jones makes quite an impact as Dr. Richter.  The scene to watch is when he goes to visit his wife and tries to explain what has happened to him.  It's a moving, heartfelt moment, and probably the best scene in the film.


BEST LINE: 
Upon overhearing an ignorant conversation from gentlemen at the inn's common room:

Frankenstein: I didn't know you were doctors.

Guest: We're not doctors.

Frankenstein: I beg your pardon.  I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Guest: That's damn rude, sir.

Frankenstein: I'm afraid stupidity always brings out the worst in me.

TRIVIA:
So the rape scene was filmed after most of the film was complete because producer Michael Carreras thought audiences would want more violence and sadism.  Terence Fisher, Peter Cushing and Veronica Carlson were all adamantly against the scene, and you can see their discomfort up on the screen.  Because it was filmed and included after the fact, that is why they act like it never happened in the rest of the movie.

Frankenstein Created Woman

Frankenstein Created Woman

Frankenstein Created Woman is a bit of an odd duck, and a divisive one at that.  There are those who champion the film, calling it one of the more inventive and creative films of the Hammer Horror canon.  Martin Scorsese is one of these - while admitting it is not one of the best Hammer movies, he says the film's "implied metaphysic is close to something sublime."  Then there are others who think it is absolute rubbish, and a clear indication that Hammer was on the downward spiral.

I am firmly in the second camp.  Frankenstein Created Woman is just absolutely horrible.  And it is a shame considering the presence of Hammer's "A" Team of director Terence Fisher and actor Peter Cushing.  The plot is also somewhat interesting on paper.  Baron Frankenstein has now mastered the art of creating life.  But something is missing.  His creations keep going crazy and killing people.  He realizes what has been missing is the soul.  He can transfer a creature's brain, but without the soul, what good is it?  That is the metaphysical concept that I think fascinates Scorsese, and it is a good idea.  But the execution is horrible.  And this genuinely intriguing notion becomes such a small part of a film that pretty much plays like a Tales from the Crypt or Twilight Zone episode.

Here is what the film is really about.  This is heavy SPOILER here, so skip the paragraph if you don't want to know.  Hans (Robert Morris, Five Million Years to Earth) is the assistant of Baron Frankenstein and Dr. Hertz (Robert Morley, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed).  Hans is in love with the deformed and disabled innkeeper's daughter, Christina (Playboy playmate Susan Denberg).  But some village meanies are always making fun of her.  And then they kill the innkeeper and Hans is implicated and executed.  Distraught, Christina drowns herself.  Although Dr. Hertz is upset about the whole situation, the always practical Frankenstein senses an opportunity to prove his theory.  He revives Christina (and magically transforms her from ugly duckling to the Playboy playmate teenagers were paying tickets to ogle) and implants Hans' soul into her body.  So will his experiment work?  Or will this monster also go on a murderous, vengeful rampage?   SPOILER over.

But did you notice how I barely mention Frankenstein in this synopsis?  The mad doctor is wasted, vanishing from the film for vast stretches of time while we watch the young lovers frolic.  Even worse, the night of the murder, we are subjected to watching the village meanies act like jerks in the inn's bar for what seems like an eternity before they even get around to killing him.  Literally, this murderous, ponderous evening takes up a good half hour of the short film's runtime.  If they intended to do this in an attempt to ramp up the tension, then they failed miserably, because the villains lack any...I don't know, villainy?  They are just annoying, plain and simple.  And very boring, too.  

There is some good stuff in here. Cushing is reliable, as always, even in limited screen time.  The score by James Bernard is among his best.  And the "soul transfer" theme is genuinely interesting, and they really should have played that up more.  So whose soul is really in Christina's body?  What does that imply for the existence of an afterlife?  If it works, what would Frankenstein even do with this knowledge?  These are interesting questions that the film never thinks about.

All in all, I would steer clear of this movie.  There are those who love it, but I think it is easily one of Hammer's worst.

MVP:

James Bernard was one of the go-to composers for Hammer Films, composing thrilling music for the Dracula franchise, as well as several of their stand-alones.  He outdoes himself here, composing one of his best themes for the doomed lovers.  I can guarantee that if anyone in the audience felt an ounce of sympathy for Hans and Christina, it is because of what James Bernard brought to those scenes.  It's a superb score, and this movie doesn't deserve it!


BEST LINE: During Han's trial:

Inspector: What is your occupation?

Frankenstein: I am a doctor.

Inspector: Of Medicine?

Frankenstein: Medicine, Law and Physics.

Heckler in the crowd: And Witchcraft!

Frankenstein: To the best of my knowledge, doctorates are not given for Witchcraft, but in the event they are, I shall no doubt qualify for one.

TRIVIA:

This film was originally intended as a follow-up to Revenge of Frankenstein back in the late 50s, in order to take advantage of the huge Roger Vadim hit And God Created Woman.  Numerous delays kept pushing it back until 1967.  I'm assuming audiences still got the pun...

The Revenge of Frankenstein

The Revenge of Frankenstein

Now that is more like it!  I was sorely disappointed with The Curse of Frankenstein, the classic British film that ushered in the Golden Age of Hammer Films and revitalized the Gothic Horror film genre.  While I appreciated what the movie was trying to do, I just wasn't wowed by it.

Due to the success of The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer rushed into production on this sequel, with much of the same cast and crew, including star Peter Cushing, director Terence Fisher, and writer Jimmy Sangster.  Usually rushing into a sequel can create problems, but in this case, it must have spurred a flush of creativity, featuring a storyline that I found much more engaging and innovative.

Once again, the focus of the film is on the evil Baron Frankenstein, played with relish by Cushing.  While The Curse of Frankenstein attempted a loose and only sort of successful adaptation of the original novel and also left Frankenstein's character and motivations somewhat confusing, Revenge just embraces the doctor's obsessions.  Posing as Dr. Stein, the Baron now has a thriving medical practice.  He also donates much of his time to a charity hospital, where he cares for the sick and poor.  And by caring for them, I mean he is harvesting their body parts so he can continue his experiments!  He is still obsessed with creating life, and having his abominations recognized by the scientific community, but doesn't understand why a little murder should be such a bad thing.  He is helped in his cause by another doctor, Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews, Dracula: Prince of Darkness) and a hunchback Karl (Michael Gwynn,  Cleopatra).  Also on hand, and perhaps in the way, is the wealthy and kind-hearted Margaret Conrad (Eunice Grayson, Dr. No), who volunteers at the clinic, but is not yet aware of Dr. Stein's hobby.

I really must stop calling Frankenstein "evil."  That isn't necessarily the right word.  Technically, he isn't necessarily evil.  He's just heartless, obsessive, and egotistical. To him, the ends always justify the means - and if that means amputating innocent people's limbs for the sake of what he thinks is science, then so be it!  Actually, I guess that is pretty damn evil!  And Cushing vanishes in the role, creating a memorable and focused take on the Baron.  The other actors are also solid, if not up to Cushing's level.  The script and music are both spot on, and the direction from Fisher is right on target, a clear example of why he was Hammer's most dependable director.

I'll be honest, part of me isn't sure why I enjoyed The Revenge of Frankenstein more than The Curse of Frankenstein.  I suppose part of it is that the writers are now removing iconic characters from their source material and seeing what kind of new adventures they can have.  This leaves a lot of room for stupidity, but if done well, it can be very exciting and full of surprises.  I really enjoyed The Revenge of Frankenstein.  I definitely think everyone should check it out!

BEST LINE:

Janitor: Now take the animals in the jungle.  They don't wash none and yet you never hear of none of them getting sick.  Cause why?  They be good and dirty!

MVP:
Peter Cushing wins, without even the slightest competition.  He just owns the movie.  Aristocratic, cold, and brilliant, Baron Frankenstein is a dominating force of the film.  And Cushing knocks it out of the park.  Here is a minor spoiler moment from early in the film, but a good example of why I like Cushing here.  While attempting to unearth a coffin they need, Frankenstein and Karl come across some grave robbers.  One of them has a heart attack and dies, falling into the dug up grave.  Frankenstein checks to see he is breathing, and shrugs a nonchalant, "oh, well" and then just leaves him the grave without another thought.  This scene was hilarious, not just because the shrug was funny and a cute bit of funny timing, but also because we the audience are now being invited to laugh at, or with, Frankenstein's brand of villainy.  And Cushing just kills it.  He's great.  And he is the movie's clear MVP.

TRIVIA:
In 1958, the Daily Telegraph was so horrified by the film that they suggested the BBFC create a new category for the film, labeled "For Sadists Only."

Now, I have to say, the film's sadistic qualities are really not that bad, at least not by today's standards.  Lots of the gruesomeness is actually sort of cheesy, like the eyeballs that are floating in a fish tank in Frankenstein's lab.  Here's a picture.  Take a look at these suckers.  They are so cheesy, that I completely laughed that whole scene off!



 

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 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."

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!!!!

Hamlet (1948)

Hamlet

As it is perhaps the most acclaimed Shakespeare adaptation of all time, starring the greatest Shakespearean actor of all time in what some would argue is the best play of all time, you would think that Laurence Olivier's Hamlet would be higher on my list of awesome movies. Unfortunately, I found it to be a rather mixed bag.

The main problem is that I just don't like the old style of Shakespeare acting. I find it to be stagy and showy and fake. I just can't believe in the characters because they are too busy prancing across the stage saying, "Look at ME, I am doing SHAKESpeare." I prefer the approach where the language is spoken as if people are actually saying it. So maybe I am not a fair judge for this movie, because I am biased from the start.

I have to give Olivier props, though. He tries to update the play and make it more cinematic and palatable for those who don't understand the poetry. He experiments with extreme camera angles, chiarrascoro lighting, and some genuinely spooky use of fog machines for the Ghost scene. Olivier the director is far more interesting than Olivier the actor. A good example of this can be seen in another Olivier directorial innovation. Instead of having the actors speak their monologues out loud, he has them 'think' the monologues...almost like narration. Unfortunately, it is a good idea gone bad and allows for some spectacular overacting as Oliver's face contorts in exaggerated expressions to match the emotion of his monologue. Sooo cheeeeesssyyyy....

Overall the acting is okay, I guess. Better than I thought considering I don't like this style. Sometimes Olivier is excellent (the confrontation with his mother) and sometimes he is terrible (the silly line reading of "the play's the thing," which comes complete with a ballet twirl). The rest of the cast is mixed. Felix Alymer is well cast as the befuddled (or is he?) royal adviser Polonius, and a young Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars) is quite funny as the foppish Osric. But Basil Sidney is a stiff Claudius and Jean Simmons - an actress I normally quite like a lot - is a terrible, histrionic, overacting Ophelia. And she got an Oscar nomination for this?!

On the other hand, I can objectively see why this won Best Picture in 1948. It may be dated now, but the movie must have seemed innovative at the time - a valiant and successful attempt to make Shakespeare more accessible. This blew the socks off the audiences half a century ago. But it doesn't age well. And it is far from the definitive Shakespearean adaptation that it is made out to be. And I prefer Olivier's non-Shakespearean work. And while I'm at it, I prefer the play Julius Caesar to Hamlet anyway!

SPECIAL NOTE: I feel like I need to make a special comment on the Hamlet-Gertrude relationship in this adaptation. There is a school of thought that thinks there is some sort of incestuous thing going on with Hamlet and his mother. I am in the other school of thought - that this is silly talk. As Freud and psychoanalysis became all the rage at the turn of the century, critics started applying these ideas to the classics. Olivier effectively incorporated this idea into his movie. He has every right to do so; it is interesting to see different interpretations of stories and I support that. But unfortunately the film's success meant that for 50 years this was the only interpretation (it was even part of Mel Gibson's Hamlet in 1990!). Thankfully, Kenneth Branagh ended the run with his 1996 version, but even then some critics were hollering, "hey, where's the incest?! This isn't a faithful adaptation!" Frankly, I think Shakespeare would have been stunned to know that this Freudian malarky had become such a part of his play. It's just not there in the text. I don't buy it...

MVP: Olivier the director makes some interesting choices with the movie. Some of the innovations have lost their impact (such as the monologues as narration), but at the time they must have been stunning. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...

TRIVIA: This was the first non-American film to win the Best Picture Oscar.

OSCARS: Best Picture, Best Actor (Olivier), Costume Design, Best Art Direction.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: for Best Supporting Actress (Simmons; lost to Claire Trevor in Key Largo), Best Director (Olivier; lost to John Huston, Treasure of Sierra Madre), and Best Music (lost to The Red Shoes).

BEST LINE: This is Hamlet and there are too many great lines! Can't do it...