The Mummy's Shroud

The Mummy's Shroud
Despite the mediocre reviews, I was actually excited about this second sequel to the Hammer Mummy franchise. Filmed in 1967, The Mummy's Shroud was a reunion of sorts between director John Gilling and star Andre Morell, who the previous year had released the thoroughly enjoyable The Plague of the Zombies.

Maybe I jinxed it. In my review of "The Plague of the Zombies," I talked about how much I liked John Gilling's direction and how the mentor characters in Hammer Films are always awesome. Oh, this movie debunked both of those statements before the first reel had ended.

The movie starts off with a flashback of ancient Egypt - in all of its cardboard set glory. Our Egyptians are all clearly white dudes covered in uneven spray tan. The Pharoah is murdered, but before he dies he asks his slave Prem to rescue the prince Kay-to-Bey. Prem swears to protect the boy for all eternity. That's great and all, but this horribly filmed, horribly acted, horribly narrated prologue goes on for almost ten minutes! The film improves somewhat (but barely) when we skip to the early 20th Century, where archeologists have uncovered the tomb of Kay-to-Bey. Of course, it's time for the Mummified Prim to exact some payback!

Our potential victims this time are the unlikable Stanley Preston (John Phillips), a wealthy businessman who wants to hog all the glory and none of the danger; Preston's long-suffering press secretary Longbarrow (Hammer regular Michael Ripper); Preston's son, Paul (David Buck); the psychic archeologist Claire (Maggie Kimberly); photographer Harry (Tim Barrett); and esteemed archeologist Sir Basil (Andre Morell). I thought at least Morell would be good, but he is entirely wasted. He is barely in the movie, and his character doesn't have anything remotely interesting to do or say. After so many cool mentors in Hammer Films, this role was a complete disappointment.

There is so much stupid stuff in this movie. Our cartoon bad guy Hasmid (Roger Delgado) isn't scary, but overacts and spews out gibberish like a cartoon character. The best thing I can say about him is that his spray tan is at least even. The police are inept, insisting on keeping our heroes in exactly the places where they are most vulnerable. Our heroes themselves are either deadly dull or annoying, or both (with one exception).

Is the movie all bad? No, I suppose not. There are some nice, atmospheric moments throughout that reminded me a bit of Gilling's other work. The one actor I quite liked was Preston's put-upon press secretary Longbarrow. As played by Ripper, he is a nice man, a kind man, but weak. He just doesn't have the strength to resist his jerk of a boss. He is really the only character whose fate I cared about. Also, I thought some of the Mummy fights were pretty decent. I especially enjoyed the Harry vs. Mummy fight in his apartment dark room.

But this is all too little. If you love Mummy movies, check this out just so you can say you've seen it. But for everyone else - stay away from The Mummy's Shroud!!

MVP: Harry vs. The Mummy - I know usually I pick a person for the MVP, but I think I have to go with this one scene, where the expedition photographer Harry is assaulted in his dark room. It's a short struggle, but pretty brutal. And Harry puts up a good fight. It's easily the best scene of the movie.

TRIVIA: It is popularly believed that Peter Cushing was the narrator of the stupid opening flashback. There is no record of who the narrator was, but it is most assuredly not Cushing. It doesn't sound anything like him.

BEST LINE: Stanley Preston: "I plan to leave as soon as suitable passage is available." Police Chief: "In that case, I'm afraid you will become a guest of the police department. And in this instance, I should warn you that our prisons are not exactly what you would choose for a holiday."

Plague of the Zombies

The Plague of the Zombies

First off, I have to be clear about something. Zombies, as we know them, did not exist until 1968 when George Romero directed Night of the Living Dead. The flesh-eating, lumbering killers who stalk the streets moaning, "brainnnnssss" just weren't on the scene yet. Instead, zombies were undead, brainless slaves, usually brought to life by voodoo black magic. These are the zombies you see in Hammer's Plague of the Zombies. I just wanted to mention that upfront, so that you won't expect one type of zombie and end up with something entirely different.

But what you do get is one of the better Hammer horror flicks! All the standard Hammer elements are here - both good and bad - but it all comes together beautifully. Even the lead actress Diane Clare's wooden performance doesn't detract but actually enhances the fun (as does young Brook Williams' terrific over-acting). But don't think I am implying that Plague of the Zombies is so bad, it's good. That's not the case. This is a solid film, atmospheric and intriguing, and its flaws are endearing as opposed to annoying.

People are mysteriously dying in a small town in Cornwall. Dr. Peter Thompson (Brook Williams) doesn't know what to do, so he calls his old professor Sir James Forbes (Andre Morell) to help. Traveling with his daughter Sylvia (Diane Clare), Sir James comes to town and finds himself facing off against the voodoo-practicing Squire Clive Hamilton (John Carson), his gang of ruffians, and some zombie slaves.

Some people might complain about the pace of the film. If fast cuts, interwoven with slashing and screaming every five seconds is your type of horror film, then don't watch this movie. You will be bored to tears because most of the movie Sir James is investigating, wandering around the town, asking questions. The chills build slowly, gradually gathering steam until its time for the exciting climax. But there are moments that are genuinely creepy in this film. The first time you see a zombie is quite shocking. (SPOILER ALERT) Sylvia is exploring an old tin mill when she sees the creature standing on the roof, holding the bloody body of one of his victims. He screams and tosses the body at Sylvia like a ragdoll before disappearing. (SPOILER OVER).

The acting is mostly pretty good - with Andre Morell at the top of the heap as Sir James. Going about his investigations with a wry sense of humor, he is just a joy to watch. John Carson as the villainous squire and Hammer regular Michael Ripper as the police sergeant are also quite good. And as I mentioned above, even when the actors aren't good, it actually really is good!

Squire Hamilton is also an interesting villain. He's not all evil, and his motives aren't world domination or anything silly like that. His ultimate goal may seem cheesy to some, but I submit that the idea is sound - the budget just didn't permit the filmmakers to do it right!

Director John Gilling (The Reptile) pushes the filmmaking envelope in some ways, as well. His direction is assured, and he experiments with dream sequences and hand held camera work. The handheld work is especially surprising to see. The shots only half work - cameras were so cumbersome in the 1960s and the shots are really shaky. But the fact that Gilling was experimenting with this in a low budget British horror film is super cool and impressive.

All in all, Plague of the Zombies is a nice Halloween treat. I definitely think you should check it out!

MVP: One element that Hammer Films always handled extremely well was the "mentor" figure. Unlike American films, where the mentor is always killed off (so the young hero can get revenge), you are never quite sure what will happen to Hammer's mentors. Sometimes they die, sometimes they live, sometimes the young lead is killed and its up to the mentor to save the day. And sometimes they even take the lead in the film themselves - which is what Plague of the Zombies does. Continuing in the long line of awesome Hammer mentors, Andre Morell is easily the best thing about this movie. He is incredibly smart, but keeps a wry sense of humor about him the whole time. He isn't winking at the audience, but he is certainly winking at all the bad guys as if he's onto them from the beginning. The scene that seals his MVP award is when he visits Squire Hamilton's house. (MINOR SPOILER) He barges into the house, in an upper class fit, and places his coat, hat and cane on top of a giant stuffed bear; the way he does this without blinking an eye, while he is still ranting, is very funny stuff, but also smart because while he is distracting the Squire's men with his behavior, he himself is carefully observing everything around him. It's nice, subtle work. Morell's performance is a huge reason why Plague is so good. A weaker actor in the role and we would've had a big problem!

BEST LINE: Dr. Franklin, upon learning the identity of one of the victims, in all his overacting glory: "...no...no...NOOOOOO!!!!!"

TRIVIA: Filmed back to back with The Reptile, with all the same sets. And yes, this is very obvious!

Curse of the Mummy's Tomb

Curse of the Mummy's Tomb

The first sequel in Hammer's Mummy series, Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is definitely a mixed bag. Certainly, the basic plot line is almost exactly like the first - an Egyptian tomb is found, the Mummy is brought to life by a bad guy and goes on a rampage, killing those who disturbed his eternal slumber. In this case, our potential victims are American showman Alexander King (Fred Clark), Egyptian government official Hashemi Bey (George Pastell), and archeologists Sir Giles (Jack Gwillim), John Bray (Ronald Howard) and Annette Dubois (Jeanne Roland). Helping our heroes out, while also wooing Annette away from her fiance, is amateur Egyptologist Adam Beauchamp (Terence Morgan).

While the plot isn't the most original, there is a lot of good stuff in here. Alexander King's role is an interesting addition to the Mummy story. Instead of wanting to put the Mummy in a museum, Alexander King wants to tour the artifacts around the world in a tacky Barnum and Bailey-like sideshow attraction - much to the horror of esteemed archeologist Sir Giles and the Egyptian official Hashemi Bey. Such conflicts within the group initially make it unclear who the villains and heroes in the film are - though it is obvious who is the lead bad guy. Even then, the twist of the bad guy's real identity is an interesting angle on the well-known mummy movie curses. I thought it was actually quite creative.

The acting is all quite good (with two notable exceptions) and the cinematography is beautiful. Carreras knows his way around a creepy shot, and the first appearance of the Mummy in the London fog is fantastic. This film had a horribly small budget, and what Carreras does with his sets and camera is surprising, giving the film a more more expensive look.

Unfortunately, the film's flaws are also many, and like several Hammer films, the last 15 minutes are a bit of a mess. The big problem is that our female lead Annette is so thoroughly unlikable. Her character is a bit of a turd, spending most of the movie flirting with Adam and cheating on her fiance. Maybe we are supposed to feel sympathy for Annette and her heart being torn between two men, but if that is the case, actress Jeanne Roland is just not up to the challenge. With all the fun characters the Mummy kills in this movie, I kind of wish he had just gone after her. A bigger problem is the Mummy itself - I was foolish in thinking that you didn't need a real actor in this type of role. But you really do. Christopher Lee brought menace and pathos in the original Mummy, while this lumbering creature just waddles around, a bit like a Penguin, and he has a beer belly. I repeat - this Mummy has a beer belly!

I also think the police are handled really weirdly in this movie. Upon first hearing that a Mummy is running around killing people, they're all just, "oh, okay" as if this were a regular event in turn-of-the-century London. And there is an inexplicable scene near the end where the police set a trap for the Mummy. When the traps goes wrong, they all literally just stand in the room and watch while the creature kills one of the main characters and then walks away. Do they try and stop it? Nope. Is it because they are afraid? Nope. I would have accepted that. I have no idea why they just stand there. And why does the Mummy even leave? If he is supposed to kill all our heroes as part of the curse, why does he just kill one and leave when his other would-be victims are right in front of him? Clearly the police weren't going to stop him. This scene is frustratingly stupid and coming near the end of the film, it helps put a nail in the coffin for a movie that started so well.

Like most Hammer Films, Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is still worth checking out for the good moments, but be prepared to be very disappointed by the second half.

MVP: Jack Gwillim (Clash of the Titans) as the old archeologist Sir Giles. Sir Giles is an interesting character, and given an emotional struggle that is more interesting to me than our leads' romantic issues. As the leader of the expedition, he is blamed by the Egyptian government when the artifacts don't end up in a Museum and become part of the sideshow act instead. He is banned from ever entering Egypt again. For an esteemed scientist who has devoted his life to Egypt, its like his life has been taken away. What's a man to do? Drink heavily, I suppose. You really feel for Sir Giles in this movie, and Gwillim puts in a magnificent performance - the sadness in his eyes, the slump of his shoulders - the line deliveries are a beautiful mixture of depression and shame that he couldn't stop King. It's very good work. It doesn't hurt that Sir Giles gets the best confrontation with the Mummy in the film. Gwillim plays the part right, with a mix of terror and resolve as he whips out a pistol and gets ready to go down fighting. His acting makes up for the fact that the Mummy's pot belly kept making me laugh. It ends up being a pretty good scene - and mostly because of Gwillim.

BEST LINE: Alexander King to an Egyptian belly dancer: "You ever learn to do that in ragtime, we'll make a fortune!"

TRIVIA: Michael Carrera's pseudonym as screenwriter, Henry Younger, was an inside joke since his fellow Hammer writer/producer Anthony Hinds' pseudonym was John Elder.

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."

The Reptile

The Reptile

Considering that The Reptile is the first non-vampire Hammer film I've seen, I wasn't sure what to expect. Interestingly enough, I got more of the same. The Reptile has a lot in common with the vampire movies. It's not terribly original, but is still a solid horror film, mostly due to the efforts of director John Gilling and some good acting.

Charles Spalding has been killed - obviously murdered though the coroner's report reads, "heart failure," and the not so bright townspeople suspect the plague. Charles has left his small house to his brother Harry (Ray Barrett) and Harry's wife Valerie (Jennifer Daniels). Despite the warnings from the friendly neighborhood pub owner Tom Bailey (Michael Ripper) and their creepy neighbor Dr. Franklyn (Noel Willman), the Spaldings decide to move permanently into the little cottage. But then there are more deaths around the town. Can Harry and Valerie solve the mystery of the Reptile before its their turn???

Of course they can. The mystery isn't very hard to figure out. You will know who the Reptile is the second the character arrives on screen. This movie follows a well worn path and there are few surprises in it. But I will admit there are actually a few scares, as well. In the first half of the film especially, there are some surprisingly creepy moments. Director John Gilling makes excellent use of shadows and darkness which create an atmosphere of foreboding even more effectively than in other, better films. There is also an especially good scene involving a sitar performance during a dinner party at Dr. Franklyn's house. The music speeds up, people look at each other uncomfortably and the scene goes bizarrely over-the-top, but is still incredibly effective in creating tension among the guests. This might be the best scene of the movie.

I guess if there is a problem with the film, it is that I was rarely engaged in it. Despite fine acting and solid direction, I found myself intellectually watching it instead of actively being involved in the story. Even during the good scenes, I was thinking, "Huh, that's interesting." instead of "Whoa! That's cool!" I'm not sure if it is the slow, measured pace of the film (which will certainly bother some people used to quicker thrills) or the unoriginality of the storyline, but I just didn't feel involved.

The other problem is the monster itself. I applaud the fact that Hammer tried to use an original creation, but is this really the best they could come up with?








A green mask with crooked teeth and Mr. Potato-Head eyes is not my idea of scary. Thank goodness they don't show this hideously bad looking creation very often!

Ah, well. It's not a bad film, by any means. It's actually a competent, little thriller. But I wouldn't rush out to see it. There are plenty of other Hammers you should watch first. 

MVP: I am going to go with Michael Ripper, a Hammer Films regular. Usually relegated to smaller roles, The Reptile really gives Ripper a good character, Tom Bailey, the local pub owner. In fact, I would say he's the real hero of the film. Though Harry Spalding is the dashing and strong lead, Tom Bailey is the one who actually gets stuff done. Everything that works is his idea - and yet Ripper's performance is humble enough that the audience is tricked into thinking Harry is the hero. Now that is a supporting actor!

TRIVIA: Filmed back to back with Plague of the Zombies, using all the same sets and many of the same actors.

BEST LINE: Mad Peter: "May I please tell you something about myself? It may not be of great interest but might help convince you that what I'm about to say is not a figment of my imagination. May I?"

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!"

The Social Network

The Social Network

When I first heard that they were making a movie about Facebook, I was befuddled. How could this be a good movie? I just couldn't figure out where the story was. I should have had more faith in director David Fincher (Fight Club, Seven) and writer Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing). They not only found a clean way to tell the story of Facebook's founding, they knocked the movie clear out of the park.

The team finds a rather ingenious way to follow Facebook's birth, from its unglamorous origins in a Harvard dorm room through its path to eventually taking over the world. The tale unfolds through various legal testimonies from people who are suing Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg). This includes a trio of Harvard students, Divya (Max Minghella) and the crew-rowing Winklevoss Twins (both played brilliantly by Armie Hammer), who accuse Zuckerberg of stealing the idea for Facebook. Unfortunately, these lawsuits also include Mark's best friend, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), who had originally put up the money to get the site started before being ruthlessly forced out of the company.

On paper, this doesn't sound like the most thrilling movie in the world; it is literally two hours of talking. But in Fincher's able hands, the movie isn't only interesting, it is enthralling. It's fascinating just listening to these techno geniuses talk. I was also surprised by how funny the movie is. Whether it is one of Zuckerberg's vicious attacks or the crazy girlfriend Christy or the Winklevoss' twins, who get some of the movie's funniest lines, the dialogue just crackles with wit. Supposedly the movie is two hours 15 minutes long, but it felt half that length.

A lot of credit has to go to the actors, as well.  Jesse Eisenberg gives his best performance so far as Zuckerberg. He could have taken the easy way out and played him as a total jerk, but he manages to find the humanity beneath the cold and condescending exterior. His Zuckerberg doesn't mean to be bad. He's just socially awkward and sometimes says the wrong thing...well, he always says the wrong thing. But he does care, and he does invent Facebook because he wants to make something cool, and not for any selfish reasons. He just wants to be cool.

Another major player enters the movie about halfway through: Sean Parker, the co-founder of Napster, played by Justin Timberlake. I have to give Timberlake credit. He also could have taken the easy way out and played Parker as an egotistical user. Yet, this Sean Parker is a well-rounded character. Does he want to profit? Definitely. But he also sees in Zuckerberg a kindred spirit and a programming equal, and his enthusiasm is not for the money, but for the coolness of this new creation. In the end, he's in it for the same reason Zuckerberg is. Sure, he's a pompous d-bag, too, but that just makes the character more interesting. His role is in sharp contrast to Eduardo, nicely played by Andrew Garfield, the honest and super nice guy who just doesn't understand the goldmine he has on his hands. It is interesting that ultimately, the nice guy is the one who is bad for the company; the jerks are the ones who know how to stir the ship.

All in all, it's a pretty fascinating film, and easily Fincher's best film since Fight Club. It will almost certainly be nominated for Best Picture. Just because it isn't as flashy as other movies out there doesn't make it any less of an achievement. If anything, it is more of an achievement because this team managed to do the impossible: they took a topic that should have been boring and produced one of the most entertaining movies of the year. 

MVP: Aaron Sorkin, whose screenplay is superb. The structure he gives the film, introducing us to the story little by little through those depositions, is downright brilliant. Without this script, the movie would not have worked. And the dialogue itself is terrific, deftly mixing the drama and the comedy. Kudos to Mr. Sorkin!

TRIVIA: During one of the depositions, someone mentions that Facebook made Zuckerberg "the biggest thing on a campus that included nineteen Nobel laureates, fifteen Pulitzer Prize winners, two future Olympians, and one movie star." One lawyer asks, "Who was the movie star?" and the answer is "Does it matter?" The movie star is, in fact, Natalie Portman, who attended Harvard from 1999 to 2003. She also helped out Sorkin with the script, giving him the inside scoop on Harvard campus life and on the exclusive Harvard clubs.

BEST LINE: Tyler Winklevoss explaining why it would be easy to beat up Zuckerberg: "I'm 6'5", 220 lbs and there are two of me."

UPDATE: Well, clearly I wrote this review before the Oscars...so here is an Oscar update...

OSCARS: Film Editing, Original Score, Best Adapted Screenplay

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Eisenberg), Best Cinematography, Sound Mixing

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!!!!