The Curse of the Werewolf

 

When I finished watching The Curse of the Werewolf, my first thoughts were, "Woof!  What a bad movie."  That line just kept popping into my head - and honestly, I didn't even think about it being a pun until a few minutes later.  I promptly rolled my eyes and thought, well, I can't start a review that way.  People will hate me.  And yet, here I am.  

The Curse of the Werewolf?  Woof!  What a bad movie!  

I know there is a lot of love out there for this movie, but I just felt it was a bore and tedious to get through.  I understand that Hammer Films are not striving for Oscars, but there is a Gothic charm to a lot of them, and a lot of creative and exciting reimagining of iconic horror creatures like vampires, mummies and even Frankenstein's monster.  So I'll give The Curse of the Werewolf some props for taking some chances, but the film is full of creative misstep after creative misstep.  It's just bad.  

One fateful day, a poor beggar (Richard Wordworth, Revenge of Frankenstein) visits a local lord's house during his wedding day.  After the local lord (Anthony Dawsen, Dr. No) abuses him for quite some time to entertain the wedding guests, the beggar is imprisoned in the castle dungeons.  There, he is forgotten by almost everyone.  Years pass.  And only the poor, mute servant girl who serves him his food shows him any kindness.  More years pass.  The servant girl grows up into a beautiful young woman played by Yvonne Romain (Night Creatures), and the villainous lord takes notice.  When she refuses his advances, she is also thrown into the dungeon.  The beggar, now mad and feral, inexplicably rapes her and then promptly - and without explanation - dies.  The servant girl escapes the castle and soon gives birth to little Leon - a poor baby whose circumstances of conception were so horrible that he is forever tainted by the... CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF.  

I know that local censors of the day would rant and rave about the shocking sadism in the Hammer Films.  These movies, with their emphasis on blood and eroticism, were shocking for the late 1950s and early 1960s, but I really think these complaints were the silly and overblown grumblings of stodgy old critics.  But with The Curse of the Werewolf, they probably had a point.  The first half of the movie is really full of distasteful and, yes, sadistic material.  They just pushed it a bit too far.  

If this sadism had a point, if it led to anything interesting in the second half, I suppose the film could be forgiven.  But it never does.  Leon (played as an adult by Oliver Reed from Gladiator) struggles with his curse as his adoptive father Alfredo (Clifford Evans, Kiss of the Vampire) tries to help him. And the movie just bounces from one stupid plot point after plot.

Here's one example.  When he is a boy, Leon turns into a werewolf and attacks some local goat herds.  The night watchman shoots at what he thinks is a wolf, and though we don't see Leon get hit, there is some blood on the ground.  Cut to the next scene with Alfredo removing the bullet, not knowing Leon had snuck out (or transformed into a werewolf), and asking in a way that I think is way too casual, hey, do you happen to know how you got shot while you were sleeping last night?  Leon doesn't remember...and that's the end of that.  

Woof!  This movie stinks.  

In fairness, it's not a complete disaster.  The werewolf make-up is pretty good.  I know in some production stills you can find online, it looks a bit dodgy, but in action the makeup is definitely effective, especially when matched by Oliver Reed's committed, snarly performance.  And in general, Oliver Reed and Clifford Evans are both great actors and are always engaging, even when the film is not.  They do the best they can with the material.   I'm just shocked by how bad this material is.  This was made by Hammer's best director, Terence Fisher, who had successfully rebooted the other iconic horror characters for the studio.  So I'm not sure what happened here.  You have a disturbing and sadistic first half and a pretty routine and boring second half.  Save yourself from the curse, and skip this movie!  

MVP: 

I will probably have to go with Clifford Evans.  Oliver Reed is good in the role, but I do feel like they missed an opportunity with his character.  A good boy, stoically trying to suppress his urges, does not play to Reed's strengths.  Though he gives a good performance, Reed is best when you let him dial it up all the way to eleven (which he does get to do in wolf form).  Whereas Evans does a very good job of reigning everything in.  He's a calm and collected doctor who adopts Leon after his mother dies, and once he learns about the curse, he does a great job of telegraphing the horror without going over the top.  He brings more of a weary resolve to the role and is focused on what he should do to save his son, as opposed to overplaying the terror of it all.  Now that I am writing this, I guess that makes Leon's character work.   It makes sense that this man was raised by Alfredo.  They are both kind people not given to huge displays of emotion.   So I suppose from a script and direction standpoint, that works. But it still doesn't play to Reed's strengths, while Evans fits the role perfectly.  Anyways, that's a ramble.  Clifford Evans gets my MVP!    

BEST LINE:

Shepherd 1: I lost three goats last night!

Shepherd 2: I lost two.

Night Watchman: I can't help it if things won't die when I shoot them. 

TRIVIA: 

I have two bits of trivia for you.  First of all, in the original script, the beggar was actually a werewolf, which is even more awful but at least explains why Leon is also a werewolf.  But that was too much for the censors.  They drew the line and the scene had to be rewritten.  

On a more fun note, Oliver Reed liked to drive home in full makeup, just to freak out other commuters on the road!  

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 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 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!"