film    print    sound    leisure    forum
company line »

shopping guide »

contact us »

get reviewed »

get published »

expand yourself »


find it »

Teleport City search allows you to search our entire site as well as our favorite sites about cult films, obscure music, literature, and swank living.


film home | a-b | c-d | e-f | g-h | i-l | m-n | o-q | r-s | t-v | w-z

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter

Release Year: 1974
Country: England
Starring: Horst Janson, Caroline Munro, John Cater, John Carson, Shane Briant, Lois Daine, William Hobbs, Brian Tully, Robert James, Perry Soblosky, Paul Greenwood, Lisa Collings, Ian Hendry.
Writer: Brian Clemens
Director: Brian Clemens
Cinematographer: Ian Wilson
Music: Laurie Johnson
Producer: Brian Clemens
Alternate Titles: Vampire Castle
Availability: Buy it from Amazon


At the end of the day, I have to shrug and surrender to my baser side and say that Michael Carreras probably needed to be kicked in the shin at least once. Possibly more than once, but at least once.

Allow me to explain myself. Michael Carreras was the son of Hammer Studio founder James Carreras, and he used that relationship to finagle himself a more or less permanent fixture in the hierarchy of the studio, until eventually the reigns were passed to him entirely and the whole show collapsed. Now not everything with the name of Michael Carrereas on it was an embarrassing display of nepotism. In fact, there is much about Michael's involvement with his father's studio that is of high merit. He served as producer for most of the studio's best films. As a director, he was a mixed bag, but he did manage to deliver The Lost Continent, one of Hammer's loopiest and most hilariously daft adventure films. And after directing a decidedly pedestrian follow-up to Hammer's smash hit The Mummy, he redeemed himself somewhat by stepping in to finish the job of directing the superb Blood from the Mummy's Tomb when original director Seth Holt passed away. No, there is much about Michael's tenure at Hammer that is worth celebrating. It's just that at some point in the 1970s, he lost his fucking mind.

I think by now, we've covered the demise of Hammer Studio in the 1970s enough times that I don't need to go into much detail here. You should know the drill by now. The Hammer formula, which had been so bold in the early 50s and throughout the 60s, failed to keep pace with changing social values and cinematic trends so that, by the end of the 1960s, their once fierce and rebellious content looked quaint and old-fashioned compared to what everyone else was doing. Studio head Michael Carreras was thus desperate to right a sinking ship and discover some way to keep the studio afloat. On top of that, however, was lumped the general collapse of the British film industry, meaning that Carreras suddenly went from trying to save a sinking ship to trying to save a sinking lifeboat tied to a sinking ship. It is not, obviously, an enviable position in which to have been. But it was not an unwinnable situation, as other studios would prove. The key was to adapt. But it was with the task of adapting that Carerras proved singularly untalented despite -- and likely because of -- all else he'd accomplished.


Horror films had changed dramatically, thanks in large part to the pioneering films of Hammer. With the release of Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, and The Omen, horror showed a marked move toward not just Satanic-themed films, but toward more cynical "evil triumphs" films. While major studios were finally deeming horror a genre worthy of their attention, low budget and independent film makers were turning out stuff like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, far more visceral and completely different than anythng that had come before and certainly muchmore extreme than anything Hammer was willing or even able to produce with the BBFC looming over them. The focus of horror shifted significantly from England tot he United States, and since the United States had always been a major market for Hammer's product, they found it hard to compete with the home team. Things were no different in mainland Europe, where the Italian giallo thrillers were also pushing the envelope far beyond what British censors would allow Hammer to get away with.

The boys from Bray may have pushed the envelope in terms of sex and violence for ten years, but by the time "The End" appeared, good usually triumphed and the creature, either tragic or evil, was vanquished. But these new horror films were happy to let evil win. There was no way Hammer could compete with that, just as there was no way they could compete with a major Hollywood studio taking an interest in horror. Lower budget American horror film, largely produced by American International Pictures and their imitators, surpassed in sex and violence the Hammer product that had helped inspire them so many years before. AIP, in particular, seemed to understand that while there would always be big studio horror films aimed at adults, for horror to survive as a whole, a shift had to be made away from adults and toward teenagers. Teens, since the early days of AIP, had played a central role in the success of the studios films. Post World War II, there was a whole generation of young people who began earning money not to help the family survive, but so they could spend it on the stuff they wanted. Most films, however, were aimed either at adults or children. AIP stepped in and made movies for teenagers, and the results were solid gold.


Hammer, by contrast, had never really targeted teens as an audience. When, toward the end of the studio's lifespan and desperate for some new revenue stream, Hammer finally tried to throw a bone to the younger generation, it was generally pretty feeble and had the feel of old men trying to write in the persona of a younger person about whom they knew next to nothing. Thus you get the goofball but not unappealing mixture of 60s mods and early 70s hippies that show up in Dracula AD 1972. But even disregarding the screwy attempts at seeming young, Hammer wasn't speaking to the kids. Whenever AIP made a movie for teens, they were keen on making sure there were as few adults present as possible.

Those who were, were often ineffectual authority figures, crackpots, or oppressive parents against whom we rooted for the kids to rebel. In the end, it was the younger generation that saved the day, usually in some way that involved a surfing competition or young hot rodders zipping around a small southwestern town in their dune buggies. Hammer, by contrast, could never really divorce itself from authoritative paternal figures. So while Dracula AD 1972 may have been full of hep kids spewing misguided attempts at youth slang, it's stolid old Peter Cushing who sweeps in to clean up the mess and save the day. And as photos have proven and our friend El Santo has said, you can dress Peter Cushing up in a hip hop jacket and baseball cap, but there's still the stuffiest stuffy old man suit in the word beneath it all.


So Michael Carreras was creating a no-win situation for himself. On the one hand, he wanted to find something new and invigorating for the studio to do. On the other hand, his ideas were terrible and all seemed to revolve around comedies about people tripping while going up the steps of a public bus. On the one hand, he said Hammer needed a new direction, something away from horror or more in line with what modern horror had become. On the other hand (Hammer had a lot of hands), at the end of the day, all he could think of was to do the same old, same old, but with more nudity. He wanted to do something different, then he complained when directors tried to do something different. In a word, Michael Carreras was lost.

I don't know what blinded him exactly other than having too many fires to deal with while being too stuck in his old ways, because the remedy he needed was right in front of him. With the tanks of both the Dracula and Frankenstein films very nearly empty, Hammer turned to three other stabs at vampire films in hopes that something might stick and give them a new franchise that would keep the studio hobbling along for at least another year. The most successful of these attempts was the Karnstein trilogy, three films based loosely on Carmilla and notable for being the point at which Hammer finally shrugged and started showing boobs (thanks laregely to the involvement of AIP as a production partner). The trilogy produced two of Hammer's very best horror films (Vampire Lovers and Twins of Evil) and one of their very worst (Lust for a Vampire). The second attempt was Vampire Circus, in which the studio attempted to put a twist on their vampire theme by looking toward the dreamier, more hallucinogenic horror films of continental Europe (specifically France and Italy). It's a very good movie, but it was simply too weird for Hammer, and possibly too weird for most British and American audiences, or so thought Carreras.


The third attempt was a curious combination of the studio's tried and true vampire formula mixed with a dash of the old swashbuckling "pirate movies without pirate ships" Hammer made in the early 60s, combined with something Hammer had never put in any of their previous horror films: a sense of humor. This was Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter, and it remains my very favorite Hammer film and one of my favorite films in general. A pity that Michael Carreras didn't see things the way I did.

While Hammer in the 70s may have been flailing, that doesn't mean they didn't produce a lot of great movies. In fact, it was likely because the studio was in such dire straights that they were willing to try almost anything -- or at least claim that they would try almost anything, sort of like how I'll claim to eat anything at least once, until someone actually calls my bluff and tries to stuff a grub in my mouth. This meant that an influx of new talent emerged from the long shadows of Terence Fisher, Jimmy Sangster, and the rest of the extremely talented but rather aged old guard. Among the men employed by Hammer to try and freshen things up a big was Brian Clemens, best known at the time as one of the integral parts of the hugely popular British television series, The Avengers. In that way, perhaps, Hammer had hired one of the very men who was helping to destroy the studio. The success of The Avengers was unparalleled, and while it may have started out initially as just a television show, by 1967, it was being shot in color and boasting production values that would rival many films. On top of that, the series had the perfect blend of old guard, represented by Patrick MacNee as John Steed with his bowler and suits, and new -- as embodied first by Honor Blackman, but then taken to a whole new level by Diana Rigg as Emma Peel. The scripts hewed to a basic formula, but they were highlighted by smart dialog and witty banter between the two incredibly likable leads. And even Steed, despite looking every bit the British gentleman, had a streak of rebelliousness and irreverence that made him appealing to younger viewers.


Production company ITC was quick to follow the example set by The Avengers, and before anyone knew it, British television was full of action and adventure series that were in color, trotted the globe (or at least parts of England made up to look like the globe), and took far more risks than more expensive, slower to adapt movies. If you were a bright young writer or director looking to do something unusual, you were much better off working on one of the many ITC shows -- first espionage and, in the 70s, bad-ass cop shows. I don't have the data to claim that these high production value shows were the main reason the film industry was hurting, but they certainly made a dent.

When Clemens got the chance to direct a film for Hammer, he went for it (The Avengers having wrapped up by that time). The story he brought with him was very much of The Avengers mode, with a sassier female character than Hammer had ever had before, a script full of wit and dark humor, and perhaps most striking of all, a hero. As Clemens described things, part of the problem he saw with Hammer's Dracula films wasn't so much that they were slaves to convention; it was that Dracula was the hero, or the anti-hero a the very least. Even though you knew he would die at the end, you still went to root for Dracula, because the people lined up as his nominal opponents were so incredibly forgettable and had been since the third film. Gone were the days when you had a hero as charismatic as Peter Cushing to cheer for. Dracula, Prince of Darkness had that gun-toting friar, but since him, who was there to go against Dracula? A seemingly endless parade of trembling clergymen and forgettable young blond guys named Paul. For lack of anything else, audiences began to side with Dracula -- which is a testament to just how boring the heroes were, since Dracula usually had about five minutes of total screentime and spoke like three sentences.


Clemens wanted to change that, to give audiences a vampire movie where the vampires were the bad guys again and where there was a proper hero for whom people could root. For this character, Clemens drew largely upon the swashbuckling heroes of the past, and so was born Kronos, a vampire hunter -- possibly immortal himself -- possessed of a mysterious history, a knowing smirk, and a professor friend who, while older and wiser, is far away from the "knows what's best for you" paternalism of Cushing's Van Helsing. There was something of the counter-culture about both Kronos and his adviser, Professor Hieronymos Grost. Grost's knowledge, after all, is of an arcane and in some cases profane nature, and if Kronos was a captain in some army, it must have been the same army as Oddball from Kelly's Heroes. They seem both to have eschewed the traditional authoritative hierarchy of academia and the military in favor of just cruising around on their own, doing their own thing. This lack of respect for authority extends as well to other circles of the upper class: religious leaders, community leaders, the rich and powerful -- Grost and Kronos seem happiest away from these types, camping out in a barn with a hot servant girl they rescued from being executed.

Clemens further twists the traditional vampire movie formula by proposing a world in which there are as many different types of vampires as there are types of dog, each with its own unique characteristics, powers, and weaknesses. In another nod to the film's appeal to youth over tradition, the vampires against which Kronos finds himself pitted do not drain their victims of blood, but of youth. Likewise, the way in which you kill one vampire might not work on another (a conundrum which results in the film's most devilishly funny scene, in which Kronos and Grost cycle through the entire array of ways they know to kill vampires, until they finally find one that works). In a way, this representation of vampires is a natural outgrowth of the theories on vampirism presented by Cushing's Van Helsing way back in Horror of Dracula and Brides of Dracula. Back then, before Dracula became a Satanic prince of evil and conjured demon, Van Helsing framed the vampire in purely scientific terms. They were a part of our natural world, albeit a part that did not conform to the behavior one expected of creatures who looked like humans. Vampirism was a communicable disease rather than some Satanic curse or the result of corny rituals. Captain Kronos seems to pick this thread up and expand it, creating an entirely new species within which there are many natural variations.


Although I can't say for certain if it was intended as such, it also works as a pointed satirical jab at the vast proliferation of ways in which you could kill and resurrect Dracula that were created out of necessity to facilitate yet another sequel. By the end of things, vampires were being killed by stakes, crucifixes, icy creeks, hawthorn bushes, lightning, windmills...who could keep track? So in the world of Kronos, you never quite know what will kill a vampire. Tradition does not work. Nor do you know exactly what effect its bite will have on you. As I said, I don't think it's an accident that the vampires in this film prey upon the young and drain them of their youth. In the climate of the 1970s, it's the established powerbase exploiting the young, crushing them under the weight of an increasingly creaky traditional society, draining them of their vitality even as the vampires feed upon it for their own energy.

Although other Hammer films had taken swipes at certain established authority figures -- witness, for example, the corrupt men in Taste the Blood of Dracula, or the ineffectual and cowardly priest in Dracula Has Risen from the Grave -- this one the first time since perhaps The Pirates of Blood River that the studio gave audiences an uppity, charismatic, young firebrand willing to buck the system. Hell, Kronos even smokes the occasional 18th century doobie! At last, there was a Hammer movie and a Hammer hero that young people could actually get behind and perhaps even relate to. Someone who was more like one of them rather than like a parent, standing around waiting to disapprove and tell the whippersnappers how to properly do things.

Clemens' movie is different right out of the gate. Just as he was a Hammer outsider, working with a cast comprised largely of newcomers and outsiders, he also went outside the norm in searching for a composer and a style of music to accompany the film. He tapped Laurie Johnson, who had worked previously on The Avengers, among many other projects for film and television, to give the movie a theme that stood in stark contrast to the masterful but overly familiar "Hammer horror sound" created primarily by James Bernard. Bernard's scores were heavy, bombastic, and thunderous. Johnson's theme for Captain Kronos, however, is fast moving and much lighter. It's a combination of a theme from a swashbuckling film with the theme from a horror film, very much a reflection of Grost and Kronos themselves. Where as Bernard's themes stalk and stomp, Johnson's theme here gallops and parries.


Far away from the three piece Harris tweed and pocket watch look of most vampire hunters, Kronos is a mixture of pirate and soldier in appearance, with bushy blond hair and a rapier. Grost, by contrast, is a bespectacled, goateed hunchback, though he's far from grotesque. They are two halves of a whole -- the muscle and charm in Kronos, the brains and wit in Grost. For the lead role, they cast German actor Horst Jansen, and he certainly looks the part. Tall, confident, sexy, and swaggering. Even though they're in the same profession, there's very little of Van Helsing about the man. Kronos looks less likely to have been spending his days steeped in researching of arcane folklore and more likely to be lying on the beach, a tan young woman on one side and his surfboard on the other. What he learns, he learns through experience or via the wise counsel of Grost. Unfortunately, Jasen's limited English results in something of a wooden performance, though for me it never really mars the film, as he's carried by John Cater as Grost, a more than capable actor who is so good and so charming in his role that you don't even notice most of the time that he's a hunchback -- though on occasion I mistook him for Lenin. Luckily, Grost is way more fun to be around and is a lot less likely than Lenin to have you executed for some trifle.

The duo are en route to a town that has been plagued by a series of mysterious attacks on young people who are found after the attack drained of decades and aged to the point of death. Kronos stops to liberate a beautiful young gypsy woman (Caroline Munro, recently featured in the studio's Dracula AD 1972), who has been condemned for something Kronos and Grost find idiotic by men whom Grost and Kronos find equally idiotic. Thankful for her liberation, she swears servitude to the two adventurers, and while neither man seems overly keen on having a slave, neither does any man seem to find much fault in being accompanied everywhere by Caroline Munro in a peasant blouse with a plunging neckline. And later, when she offers herself to Kronos, he does what any man would do, and does not hesitate. A hero who smokes weed and enjoys sex? Where do they come up with this crazy stuff?

Kronos and Grost have been summoned by their old friend, Dr. Marcus (John Carson), who resides in the beleaguered town and knows that his two friends specialize these days in dealing with such peculiarities. Kronos, in particular, has it in for vampires, as both his mother and sister were killed by one. And while the process of draining a victim of youth rather than blood is slightly beyond the pale of a traditional vampire, Grost recognizes that tradition only accounts for a small percentage of what people know or don't know about vampires. Soon the gang is on the case, sword fighting and riddle solving their way to the culprit behind the strange murders.


The overriding philosophy behind this movie seems to be that Hammer horror hadn't been scary for a long time, and it wasn't going to be scary anymore. So why not make one that was exciting? And that's exactly what Clemens did. Captain Kronos moves fast and boasts plenty of action. Jansen may be a bit stiff with his lines, but he looks good in a fight scene, and he gets plenty of them. Clemens' experience with television meant he knew a lot about taking a meager budget and limited sets and making them seem far more lavish and expansive than they actually were. The result is one of the best looking films Hammer made during the period. Clemens made a lot of use of outdoor locations, which when coupled with the tone of the story makes Captain Kronos feel much more epic than the largely soundstage-bound Dracula films. He pulls off an epic feel, or at least a mini-epic feel, in much the same way John Gilling did when directing the "pirate movies without pirate ships" for Hammer a decade earlier.

The supporting cast is top notch. Cater and Carson are old hands, and they deliver the goods as all solid British pros know how to do. Caroline Munro was on the fast track to becoming an icon, and while her role here as the gypsy Clara isn't as iconic as, say, the space bikini in Star Crash, it's still a role that is both energetic and sexy. There's something about the woman that simply transcends everything. They really don't make them like her anymore, do they? While her role here may not be as meaty as the lads', it's still one of the best developed female roles Hammer ever had. There's no doubt as to why she became an icon. She has more charisma than my brain can even process.

If Hammer was looking for something new, a franchise upon which to hang the fortunes of the studio, they had found it. Captain Kronos is just that good. Unfortunately, Carreras was waiting around like one the youth sucking vampires from the movie. In Carreras' own words, he visited the set one day to see how things were going and was aghast at what he saw. Clemens and his crew, Carreras felt, were not handling the material with the proper gravitas. Instead, they were making light of things, having a bit of fun, injecting a wicked sense of humor into a previously humorless genre. Clemens did not, according to Carreras, get it. He didn't understand the proper tone of a Hammer horror film the way the old guys did. In other words, Carreras hired Clemens to give him something fresh and inventive, and then he got pissed off when Clemens gave him just that.


As much as Carrereas' attitude irritates me, and as much as it embodies everything that was wrong with Hammer's attempts to adapt to the changing times, it's hard to lie the failure of Captain Kronos to become a franchise player entirely at the feet of the floundering studio head. Audiences had already lost interest in Hammer. The studio was done for. It would have taken a miracle to save it, and while Captain Kronos is cracking good entertainment, it's not a miracle. Along with audiences, distributors had lost interest in Hammer as well. One of the things that had kept Hammer afloat was their fruitful partnership with American distributors. But those days were over, because Americans were doing Hammer better than Hammer, and under a ratings code that was far more liberal than what the British Board of Film Censors wanted to be. As such, it took almost two years for Captain Kronos to get released, and by that time, the game was over. Hammer had used up the last of its audience good will, and viewers didn't embrace the film despite the fact that the few reviews it received were generally positive.

It's a shame, isn't it? Clemens vision for Captain Kronos as a film series was pretty cool, with Kronos appearing throughout different periods across the centuries, carrying on his battle with the undead and revealing that there was a much longer history behind the man than has hinted at in the first movie. When it was evident that there was no way Hammer was going to make it, and thus there would be no second or third Kronos film, talk shifted to production of a television series. Nothing ever came of that, either, and with the exception of a few appearances in a Hammer comic book, Kronos faded from existence until more recently, when it was rediscovered and people started thinking, "Holy crap, this movie is great!" Now it enjoys a lace in many people's top five Hammer films, making it sort of the On Her Majesty's Secret Service of the vampire movie world.

Which is doubly fitting since that once-maligned entry into the James Bond Franchise was saddled with a stiff leading man and found itself situated in a time when the series was trying to recover from the loss of the iconic Sean Connery (and the rise of social discontent). Like Horst Jansen, George Lazenby was top notch in the action scenes though, and just as Horst had a cool sidekick and a gorgeous gal, Lazenby was carried by a cool ally and the best Bond girl of all time, The Avengers' Diana Rigg.

What's more, it's a shame Hammer couldn't pull out of the collapse. Maybe if Captain Kronos had been a bigger box office hit, and maybe if Michael Carreras had shown a little faith in the film, then Hammer could have made good on that tantalizing poster art for movies they intended to make but never had a chance to get to. Don't tell me you don't want to see Zeppelin vs. Pterodactyls or didn't hope Hammer wold make good on all that cheesecake nudie sci-fi artwork on the poster for When the Earth Cracked Open. Sure, they probably would have ended up less like the insanely awesome movies in my mind and more like one of those "lost world" films from Amicus Studio, but you know what? I loved those "lost world" movies from Amicus, so I would have been pretty psyched to watch something in which cheap looking little models of biplanes and blimps go head to head with wobbly pterodactyls on strings.


But those are exercises in what might have been, and while fun, the fact is there was never a Zeppelin vs. Pterodactyls or a Captain Kronos series. No Kronos fighting vampires down through the ages. What we have instead is a single Captain Kronos that happens to be an incredibly good film. It's really everything I want from my entertainment. Fast paced, witty, irreverent but also a very good entry into the genre with which it is toying. I don't think I'd argue that there aren't flaws for people to find in the film, but if they are there, I'm not really all that concerned with finding them. Had this been the last film Hammer made, it would have been a perfect swan song. Our heroes, riding off beyond the horizon to face down evil. Would we ever see them again? Who knows?

Instead, Hammer ended up with a few more death twitches and even more misguided attempts at finding a new market. Among these were an ill-advised attempt to replace the lost American market with the exploding Hong Kong market by partnering with the Shaw Brothers studios to produce two films: the plodding action caper Shatter starring Stuart Whitman and Shaw Bros superstar Ti Lung, and the entertaining but ridiculous Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires, starring Peter Cushing and Shaw Bros' star David Chiang. Both were attempts to cash in on the rising kungfu craze, and both failed. In the case of Shatter, it was hard to convince audiences that they should stop watching Bruce Lee and Five Fingers of Death and concentrate instead on a movie in which Stuart Whitman wanders around. It was like trying to convince Hong Kong audiences in the 80s to stop watching Jackie Chan and embrace Steven Seagal. Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires featured Cushing as Van Helsing, traipsing around China, but it never really feels like an actual Dracula film -- possibly because venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee finally made good on his boast and refused to appear in the picture, even though Dracula transforms into a Chinese guy in the very beginning of the picture. Instead, it feels like a Shaw Brothers kungfu film into which Peter Cushing wandered by accident. It's pretty fun, in my opinion, but there's no mystery as to why it wasn't the film that salvaged Hammer's reputation.

The end to Hammer horror finally came in 1976, in the form of To the Devil...A Daughter, Hammer's painfully horrible attempt to cash in on the devil worship movie craze that seized us in the 70s. Too bad the film was dreadful -- in my opinion the only completely unwatchable horror film Hammer ever made. It's too bad Kronos wasn't around to put that one down before it sucked so much life out of us. But so it goes, and whatever might have happened doesn't change how much I enjoy Captain Kronos.

I suppose I'm happy to be watching these films after the fact. I've never felt that Hammer films were stodgy or old-fashioned, or that they had dated poorly, but that's probably because I'm watching them from a vantage point removed from the original cycle. If I'd been able to write reviews in the late 60s or early 70s, I probably would have been complaining about the lack of originality, so on and so forth. I love Hammer films. I love the old ones. I love the ones from the 70s. Heck, I even enjoy failures like Curse of the Mummy's Tomb and Lust for a Vampire. In nearly two decades of film production, Hammer made one solitary horror film I can say I hate. That, my friends, is not a bad record, and I guess if I'd been in the shoes of Michael Carreras, I would have been as confused as he was. But then, I'm just a writer and a fan, not the head of a studio. I expect more from him than I would from myself, what with how it was his job and all. I appreciate everything the pioneers did -- Jimmy Sangster, Terence Fisher, James Bernard, John Gilling -- my God but they made some incredible films. And I love the years in which Hammer was trying to figure the strange new world out. I love Twins of Evil, Vampire Circus, Taste the Blood of Dracula, and I don't hate Lust for a Vampire or even Horror of Frankenstein. So flailing or not, misguided or not, with the final credits having rolled on Hammer (I'll believe the persistent "we're back!" press releases and announced productions when I see at least one final product), all I can do is raise a glass of brandy to them (I prefer scotch, but what would Peter Cushing say?) and say, with complete earnestness, "Thank you."



Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 9 Comments


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Vampire Circus

Release Year: 1972
Country: England
Starring: Thorley Walters, Anthony, John Moulder-Brown, Laurence Payne, Richard Owens, Lynne Frederick, Elizabeth Seal, Robin Hunter, Domini Blythe, Robert Tayman, Mary Wimbush, Robin Sachs, Lalla Ward, Skip Martin, David Prowse, Roderick Shaw.
Writer: Judson Kinberg
Director: Robert Young
Cinematographer: Moray Grant
Music: David Whitaker
Producer: Wilbur Stark
Promote It: Digg | del.icio.us


At various points in various reviews, we've discussed the painful demise of Hammer Studios and the Hammer horror film, so rather than rehash it here yet again, I direct you to Taste the Blood of Dracula (the review, I don't mean I'm actually directing you to taste Dracula's blood, should you have any lying about), Dracula AD 1972, and Satanic Rites of Dracula, all of which ramble on and probably repeat the same information about Hammer's inability to sustain itself into the 1970s and in the face of a brutal collapse of the British film industry. I also point out on several occasions that, despite the fact that Hammer was a rudderless ship adrift in a tumultuous sea, many -- in fact, most -- of the horror films they made in the 1970s were of exceptional quality. It's a shame that the worst horror film they ever made, To the Devil...A Daughter was their last, and thus the swan song for a studio that deserved much better.

Dracula films had been, along with Peter Cushing's Frankenstein films, the studio's bread and butter, but Hammer experimented from time to time with non-Dracula vampire films, with varying degrees of success. The first of these, oddly, was the first sequel to the studios smash hit Horror of Dracula. The Brides of Dracula finds Peter Cushing reprising his role as Dr. Van Helsing, but other than a few mentions here and there, Dracula is out of action for this film, and the action instead focuses on a second bloodsucker. Hammer had it in their head that the film series would be about Van Helsing, cruising around Victorian Europe fighting the various vampires Dracula had spawned, or something to that effect -- sort of like the Sons of Hercules, only instead of huge bodybuilders in tunics, it was a skinny British guy in a greatcoat. Hammer's reasoning may have seemed sound at first. Peter Cushing was their biggest star, after all, and venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee was, at the time, just promising horror film newcomer Christopher Lee.


But Hammer sorely underestimated the appeal of promising horror film newcomer Christopher Lee and, more importantly, the desire to actually see Dracula in any film that used the name Dracula in the title. So while Brides of Dracula is a spectacularly entertaining film, wasn't what audiences or distributors were looking for. When Hammer dipped its tow back into the Dracula waters with Dracula, Prince of Darkness, they made sure that Dracula -- played once again by now venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee -- was in the movie. But Hammer still liked to toy with the occasional non-Dracula vampire film, usually with great artistic success. 1963's Kiss of the Vampire is wonderful, for example. But after the release of Dracula, Prince of Darkness, Hammer went into "all Dracula, all the time" mode, and any script for a vampire film had to be a Dracula film, because otherwise, the British public would miss out on another round of venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee complaining about Dracula movies.

Time passed, and many Dracula films came and went. So many, in fact, that eventually Hammer had no idea what to do with the guy. He'd been killed once and for all more times than The Ramones had farewell tours. So in 1970, as the studio was entering its downward spiral years, someone decided to revive the old idea of a Dracula movie without Dracula. This time, however, distributors nipped the temptation in the bud, and Taste the Blood of Dracula has the iconic count crowbarred into the script so he could stand in the shadows and provide a running countdown of the people who had been killed. It's quite a good movie, but Dracula himself is more superfluous than usual, and he was pretty superfluous in most of the films. The count would limp on through a couple more features, including Scars of Dracula (which I like more and more as the years go on) and Dracula AD 1972, before The Satanic Rites of Dracula put the final stake through the heart of the franchise, completing Dracula's transformation from a raging force of nature into a supernatural demon and, ultimately, into a cartoonish spy movie style mad villain. All he lacked was a TV transmitter that allowed him to broadcast taunts directly onto an oval-shaped monitor on the wall of Van Helsing's study.


At the same time the Dracula films were making their grim march to the grave, however, Hammer did succeed in bringing one corpse back from the dead: the idea of a vampire film unrelated to Dracula. This came in the form of The Vampire Lovers, but more specifically, it came in the form of star Ingrid Pitt and the newfound permission to feature nudity in their films. The Vampire Lovers was enough of a success that it spawned two loosely connected sequels -- the weak Lust for a Vampire and the exceptional Twins of Evil. It also opened the doors for a flailing Hammer to try and find some way of mixing the old with the new, of sticking to the tried and true vampire film that had supported them for so many years, but without relying on Dracula. Modern twists on old formulas, if you will. This lead to two of Hammer's very best vampire movies, and had the studio had more time, more money, and more faith in its product, they might have had themselves two new franchises capable of carrying the studio through hard times when madcap On the Bus comedies could not. One of these films was Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter. The other was Vampire Circus.

Both films felt very different from any of Hammer's previous vampire films. Vampire Circus, in particular, is probably one of the weirdest feeling films Hammer ever produced. It's not psychedelic, mind you, but it's like one of those psychedelic themed novelty records made by some old guy still trying to be hip with the kids. Or like Psychedelic Shack by The Temptations. That's a good album, but no one was really going to buy The Temptations as a trippy psychedelic band, especially in 1970. Similarly, Vampire Circus is a really good film, possibly even a great film, but it never quite succeeds in feeling "modern," not when it's up against something like Blacula, for example, or the glut of Satanism movies that were coming out around the same time. Instead, Vampire Circus becomes its own really weird creature, rather unique and unlike any of the vampire films that came before it. In fact, though you could draw a connection to the old Universal House Of... movies because of the inclusion of a traveling gypsy circus, Vampire Circus has more in common with a film like Freaks or The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao than it has with Hammer's previous vampire films.


The best and worst the film has to offer is right at the front, before the credits even role. A simple yet eerie and effective intro finds a local village man and his daughter in the woods. The little girl is tempted away from her father by a woman we know just isn't quite right. The father, upon noticing, shrieks with terror and clamors to rescue his daughter, but it's too late, and she disappears with the woman inside a creepy looking castle. The distraught man then rounds up a posse to carry torches and shake pitchforks at the inhabitant of the castle, a mysterious and threatening character named Count Mitterhouse (TV bit actor Robert Tayman). So far, so good. Everything has been really creepy in the same way the picture on the cover of that first Black Sabbath album is creepy. Yeah, it's just a grainy photo of a weird looking chick in black robes standing in a clump of dead trees with a spooky house behind her, but it's always scared me a little, even today. That woman would have definitely been in league with Mitterhaus, and if she lead you back to her lair with the beckoning of a slender (apparently green) finger, you'd be in for about two minutes of passionate spooky lovemaking and nudity, and then she'd rip your throat open or somehow manage to have gotten you lashed onto a series of hooks that pull off your skin or something like that.

However, what awaits within the walls of the castle is a bit different, and this is where the worst comes into play. Mitterhaus is absolutely ludicrous. He's like a spoof vampire played by a drag queen in a disco musical written, directed, starring, and only seen by the world's most flamboyant drag queens, and then at the end they all agree that the play was good but Mitterhaus was a little too campy for them. When you're too campy for a theater full of drag queens, you are definitely too campy for a Hammer film, especially one that is otherwise so weird and serious. Not that Mitterhaus doesn't have his strong suits as a character. For one, he lives in a cool castle populated by a couple sexy naked orgy women. He has lovely taste is sashes. And the fact that he's kidnapped and lured a little girl into his sleazy lair gives the character an air of scummy, almost pedophiliac menace that really makes him a villain. You could always root for Dracula, even when he was at his worst and whipping Dr. Who with steel switches, but Mitterhaus just gives off a creepy uncle vibe. All this in and of itself is good for the movie, but Tayman's performance is just ridiculous. It's all mincing and eye rolling and silly face making. Even when he's slaughtering his would-be attackers, he's less frightening than he is...well, like a flailing dancer who got lost on his way to a John Waters film. Everything about the character is well written, but it's like having it all and then delivering it in an Easter bunny outfit.

Still, when the worst thing about your film is that your vampire is a little too campy, that's not bad. And when I say it's the worst thing about the film, one has to measure that on a relative scale. Because silly though he may be, it's hardly enough to spoil the film. In a way, I guess it makes Mitterhaus even more formidable. It's like having your ass kicked by Mick Jagger's character from Performance. You keep telling yourself, "This can't be happening! He's much to fey to kick my ass!" But that thought doesn't stop him from doing it.


Eventually, Mitterhaus gets a stake through the heart and makes a face like a disgusted Southern bell who just won second place in the county fair beauty contest. With his dying breath, or whatever it is vampires have, he curses the town, swearing that the children of his killers will die to give him life again. Once again, it's all really well done, easily one of the best vampire film intros ever, but it's hard to take seriously with Mitterhaus camping it up to a degree that even Shatner and Vincent Price would tell him to take it down a notch. But with him in the grave the film can settle down and find its groove.

And that groove, as I've already said, is a mighty quirky one. The story picks up some years later. The town has been quarantined due to an outbreak of plague, and anyone caught attempting to leave the boundaries of the town is shot by unseen soldiers, or whoever is in charge of shooting people who try to escape from plague infected European towns. But other than tat, live seems OK. The elders, most of whom were in on killing Mitterhaus, while away their days figuring out plans to get the quarantine lifted. The village doctor doesn't believe in vampires or that old queen Mitterhaus' curse. Young people are in love. The inn, believe it or not, is not owned by Michael Ripper. In fact, there are very few familiar faces in this town, and no Hammer heavies in front of or behind the camera.


To this blighted town, though no one can explain how they get there, comes the Circus of Night, a small time, fairly creepy affair that employs, among others, a scary dwarf harlequin, an accordion playing mute strongman who will eventually grow up to be Darth Vader (David Prowse),a gypsy matron, a naked bald chick who does sexy tiger dances, a couple of potentially incestuous acrobatic twins who can turn into bats, and a hot young guy who can turn into a panther. Desperate for anything to take their minds off being a quarantined plague town cursed by a campy yet ass-kicking vampire, overlook the peculiarities of the circus and settle down for some good old fashioned family fun.

And man, what a circus it is. I attended a few circuses when I was young, and I remember a guy named Gunter who put his head in a lion's mouth, and then I think a clown shot another clown with a seltzer bottle and they fired someone out of a cannon. That was cool and all, but I kind of wish I went to the circus where a tiger ran out and turned into a naked, chick painted with tiger strips, who then proceeded to do sexy dancing while being "tamed" by a guy before they finally just end up writhing around on the ground and practically doing...you know...it. And people seem to be amused by but not terribly upset by the fact that the people in this circus seem to be able to shapeshift into bats and panthers, or that a dwarf keeps grinning and running around making surprised "O mouth" faces. I guess they chalk it up to gypsy magic. Things aren't as much fun once members of the circus break out the fangs and start preying on the children, usually after corrupting them in some sexual fashion. Each kill brings Mitterhaus a step closer to resurrection.


Vampire Circus benefits from the fact that Hammer was lost at sea, allowing new(er) directors to take a chance in hopes that something, anything, would stick and keep the studio afloat just a bit longer. That coupled with the relaxing of regulations regarding nudity meant that writer Judson Kinberg, in his first of only two career screen credits, could be much more explicit about the sexuality that has always existed in Hammer's vampire fare. When first we meet Mitterhaus, he's cavorting in bed with two naked women. He's a rakehell and hedonist with a bit of the Marquis De Sade about him, and Vampire Circus gets to show more of that than they ever did in the past. He's also a child murderer and has questionable taste in chest-exposing frilly shirts. Hammer's Dracula was a combination of animal rage and desire, driven to do things not because he takes pleasure in them, but because it is his instinct, his thirst.

Mitterhaus, on the other hand, seems to take great pleasure in his lifestyle. He's less animal, more decadent. Similarly, his minions in the circus use explicit sexuality to ensnare and kill their young victims. Emil the Panther seduces the burgomaster's daughter and feeds on her during a series of sexual encounters. The incestuous acro-bats similarly seduce young men and women to take part in funky threesome action. It is not just important that they deliver fresh blood to Mitterhaus; they must also thoroughly corrupt their victims. Their master seems to draw as much power from this as he does from the fresh blood they dribble on his moldy corpse. If only he'd known that by the 1970s, all it too to bring Dracula back to life was a random bat flying into his window and dribbling some blood on his face. Heck, by the final Dracula film, you didn't even need to bring Dracula back to life. He was just there, already in action (as much as "sitting behind a desk" can be action), and Hammer seemed to be saying, "Look, at this point do you even care how Dracula got brought back to life?" By comparison, Mitterhaus has to work pretty hard at it.


Tackling sexual politics has always been tricky for Hammer, and they've always walked the "have your cake and eat it too" thin line of cramming their films with naked sex appeal and heaving bosoms while skirting censorship issues by half-assedly grafting on "but in the end, the pure ones prevailed. Hooray!" final scenes. By their own admission, this was usually to keep uppity vicars and morally outraged censors off their backs while still being able show plenty of half naked women. As a libertine, rakehell, and dandy cad about town, I always roll my eyes when movies see no other outcome but tragedy for anyone evil enough to actually enjoy sex and a spot of hedonism. Victorian horror films usually counter that by expressly showing that it's not the sexuality so much as it is the repression of sexuality that causes things to go sour. But the end result is the same. People who like sex usually die.

But ultimately, what it comes down to is that I am not inclined to worry myself about the sexual politics of Vampire Circus. These movies, like most movies, have to jump through so many hoops to satisfy so many cranky people that eventually, almost all politics, sexual or otherwise, are confused to the point of contradicting themselves, sometimes even in the same scene. I'm much happier to lie back in my reclining throne, slosh about my goblet of wine, and bark, "Send in the naked tiger dance woman!"


On the other hand, I do spend a lot of time thinking about other philosophical question as relates to entertainment. For instance, did every singer for a psychedelic 60s British band have a fling with a vicar's daughter, and are all vicar's daughters hot, blonde free spirits yearning to run naked and free through a field of barley? But then, I'm from the United States. I actually don't even know what a vicar is. What is it, like some sort of a sports car? I did once have a crush on a Methodist minister's daughter, but that doesn't roll off the tongue the way "vicar's daughter" or "son of a preacherman" does.And anyway, it turned out she wasn't a repressed girl yearning to rebel against her strict upbringing by letting me unbutton her blouse. She wanted to teach me about God, and I wanted to fondle her boobs in the choir balcony during church lock-ins. Needless to say, our relationship was as successful as my entire career as a churchgoer.

Anyway, where was I? I've gone and gotten myself all distracted now. Let's move on to the general air of weirdness that's instantly generated by setting a film in or around a traveling circus. In a way it's a cheat, like those movies that film on location on the plains of Africa or the steppes of Mongolia and then expect awards for their sweeping, epic cinematography. The land itself did all the heavy lifting; all you really needed to do was set up the camera and pan around a spell. Similarly, old time traveling circuses are inherently creepy and awkward, just as they are inciting and mysterious. They infuse anything around them with those same characteristics. Vampire Circus definitely benefits from the "old time traveling circus weirdness" vibe that seems ingrained in our very psyches. It still works on me. I'm middle aged and I still dream of going to a parking lot circus and meeting some raven-haired gypsy beauty who will tell my fortune and embroil me in supernatural brushes with death as we fight the dark fate looming on my horizon. Or barring that, I dream of sitting around with carnival strippers and Johnny Eck, drinking whiskey and swapping stories about the rubes.


When I was little, I used to go with my Grandpa Bud to horse shows during the Kentucky State Fair every year. It was a pretty sweet deal for a little kid. You got to set up a campsite in a veritable city of horse stalls, sleep in the stalls (the horses were across the aisle in other stalls), and basically have the run of the fair. And the Kentucky State Fair, at least back then (I haven't been in ages) was huge. There was a flea market back when cool stuff could be found at flea markets instead of on eBay, with all the flea markets now just selling OxyClean and ShamWows. The flea market took up two buildings the size of stadiums, and you could wander through all the weird junk and 4H dioramas for days. But best of all was that no one gave a rat's ass about security, so even as young as I was, I was allowed to wander in and out of every building, through every door, every nook and cranny. I crawled through tiny maintenance access tunnels, wandered around in boiler rooms where hissing pipes seemed to go on for miles, and best of all, was never told to shoo off the midway, even in the middle of the night.

I'd sneak out and wander around, doing my best to avoid the teenagers who were doing the same but apparently had some sort of activity the boys and girls would do together. Not sure what it was. I got to watch people setting up and breaking down rides and attractions, pal around with creepy old men running the bumper cars and moon walk, and best off all, got after-midnight rides on the various disappointing spook house type rides which, despite being disappointing, continue to this day to delight me to a disturbing degree. Somehow, I did all this without ever once being molested or murdered by someone's deformed son they kept locked in the bowels of their haunted house attraction.


At the time, I was high on a number of movies that involved similar settings. I saw Freaks at an early age, and it was right around the time Disney released Something Wicked This Way Comes. he Kentucky State Fair never had any stripper tents or freak show, but it was still pretty awesome running around in the middle of the night, with all those lights still flashing and the occasional hair trigger animatronic gorilla growling at me. Watching Vampire circus is sort of like wandering down a deserted midway int he middle of the night. There's something undeniably spooky about it, but it's also got this hallucinogenic allure. Whether born of myth or reality, circuses always have the air of something else going on, just behind the tent flap. Secret things, a whole other world to which you are not privy and only the select few can see. Ground down by daily humdrum, this world of beautiful gypsy fortune tellers and good natured strongmen, of devious managers and shifty mesmerizers, seems a much better alternative. Ignoring, of course, the backbreaking work and touring schedule, and the fact that if you join the traveling spooky circus, you may thing you are going to romance the gypsy girl or the sexy guy who turns into a panther, but mostly, you're probably just going to be cleaning up chimp shit and taking care of Dracula's corpse, which is in a poorly made display case.

But that doesn't matter, does it? Carnivals, traveling circuses, gypsies -- these things are awesome, pure and simple. And they infuse Vampire Circus with an atmosphere that is unique among Hammer horror films. In this strange world -- almost, but not quite like our own -- everyday items take on a sinister second nature. Most Hammer films aren't scary these days, even f they are still quite good. But a film like Vampire Circus, while not exactly scary, manages still to be very...unsettling, perhaps. This works on a meta level as well. This is a Hammer film. Parts of it are very Hammer-esque. But it's also not quite the same. The location shooting makes it different, for one, and the cinematography is off-kilter. There are no familiar faces. Certainly no Peter Cushing or venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee, but also no Michael Rippers, not even Ralph Bates. I was hard pressed to pick out any recognizable faces other than Anthony Higgins and Thorley Walters, and no one really gets all excited when, "That new Anthony Higgins film opens this week." Not that this a cast of newbies, or that the cast lacks talent. Quite the contrary. Many of the faces are familiar from other movies, other television shows (Lalla Ward undoubtedly being the most recognizable thanks to her role as Romana in Doctor Who), but none of them are really familiar as Hammer stalwarts. It's like walking into work one day and seeing that everyone has been replaced by someone else who does the same job, does it well, and is likable. You get along with them, even enjoy their company, and you certainly respect their work; you just can't help glancing nervously around from time to time and wondering where the hell Michael Ripper went.


Thing is, I don't think this movie would have worked as well if there had been familiar faces in it. After all, Hammer was ostensibly trying to break from the past, and nothing would signify that attempt quite as much as keeping the old guard off camera. If I see Peter Cushing, I know I'm in familiar territory, and I relax and enjoy the ride. But with a cast I don't know, I have no idea what to expect. Who's going to live, who's going to die? Beats me. I just have to sit on the edge of the seat and watch the movie. Keeping the big guns off screen also means that B-teamers and background players get a chance to step forward and strut their stuff, proving why so many Hammer films are so good. Even the people who don't have any lines are good actors. The lack of familiar faces onto which we can latch means that the characters get caught up in the bizarre events surrounding them far more easily. If it was Cushing out there, we'd expect him to say, "My God, man, it can't be! Mitterhaus is dead!" Then he would competently go about exterminating the vampires and saving us all. But Cushing isn't there to protect us, and that uncertainty is palpable.

Of the cast that is present, most are forgettably competent, which is kind of how they need to be for the film to succeed. The film continues Hammer's trend of featuring young protagonists in hopes that would lure kids into the theater. This really started in Taste the Blood of Dracula and Scars of Dracula, and culminated in the groovy hep kids in Dracula AD 1972, though they still needed Peter Cushing to show up, research some books, and make a grim face of determination as he engaged Dracula in their latest final showdown. In Vampire Circus, bot the heroes and the villains skew young. Some adults are on hand, of course, though their primary function is to prove too weak to stand up to these freaky young vampires. Our nominal heroes Dora (Lynne Frederick, who went on to star alongside Peter Sellers in The Prisoner of Zenda) and Anton (John Moulder-Brown, who looks like some of the Pauls from Hammer's last few Dracula films) don't make much of an impression, but they are serviceable enough when surrounded by so much oddness.

This anonymity applies to the crew as well. There's no Anthony Hinds here, no John Gilling or Terence Fisher. Instead we have first-time director Robert Young and first-time (almost only time) writer Judson Kinberg. Bringing in some fresh blood helped Hammer shake the formula up while still allowing it to remain recognizable. Vampire Circus feels much more like a continental horror film, like the dreamy, often illogical horror films of Italy or France where ambiance and imagery is more important than logical procession and and solid plot. This was pretty new territory for Hammer. Hammer horror may have relied on the fantastic, but it often presented it in as scientific and logical a fashion as possible for a horror film. Although Vampire Circus still follows a logical narrative -- things still make sense -- where as French and Italian horror films would not, it still boasts a very dreamy, supernatural state of being. That said, it also differs significantly from continental horror films in that there is a lot more action -- plenty of vampire attacks and wanton point blank assassination of circus animals by drunken villagers. It may be dreamy, but it's rarely ponderous.


Apparently, Young was given more or less free reign by Michael Carreras to do what he wanted, and Young wanted to make the film unusual. He certainly did that, and even though he ran out of time and had to edit around missing scenes he'd not had time to shoot, the film was ultimately one of Hammer's most innovative. Unfortunately, it wasn't one of their most successful. Critics and fans alike seemed confused. After years of complaining that Hammer product was stale and old fashioned, they seemed upset that Vampire Circus wasn't stale and old fashioned. Sometimes you just can't catch a break, can you? Young went on to work steadily in film and television, and in 1997 directed the all time classic...ummm...Blood Monkey. And no, that isn't one of my frequent typos. The movie is not Blood Money, but Blood Monkey. F. Murray Abraham was in it, so you know it was classy.

It's a shame that, as of this writing, Vampire Circus remains missing in action in the United States. In fact, I believe it's missing in action in England as well. It's really one of Hammer's most impressive, quirkiest efforts. I'm afraid that I've gotten lost and dreamy in my review of the movie as well, and at this point I'm making no sense and ought to just wrap it up by saying that regardless of how bad things were for Hammer in the 70s, the movies that came out of it were usually very good and very interesting. I don't know that Vampire circus had the franchise potential Captain Kronos had, but I could have seen a series of films tracing the horrors that follow around a sinister circus of shape-shifting bloodsuckers. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way, and Vampire Circus ended up being a one-time deal. It's a really good one-time deal, though, so if you get the chance to check it out, do it. It's a much better way to have ended Hammer's vampire film cycle than was Satanic Rites of Dracula.

Labels: , ,

posted by Keith at | 3 Comments


Thursday, June 19, 2008

Pirates of Blood River

Release Year: 1962
Country: England
Starring: Kerwin Mathews, Christopher Lee, Andrew Keir, Glenn Corbett, Marla Landi, Michael Ripper, Peter Arne, Oliver Reed, Jack Stewart, Marie Devereux, Desmond Llewelyn.
Writer: Jimmy Sangster
Director: John Gilling
Cinematographer: Arthur Grant
Music: Gary Hughes
Producer: Anthony Nelson Keys
Availability: Buy it from Amazon
Promote It: Digg | del.icio.us


After taking several years off, the 1950s saw the return of the pirate movie, thanks largely to the efforts of Walt Disney. In 1950, Disney produced a colorful, fast-paced, and smartly written adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic adventure tale, Treasure Island. Two non-Disney sequels -- the directly related Long John Silver and the dubiously connected Return to Treasure Island -- followed in 1954, and a TV series came out in 1955. Plus, it seemed like every other episode of "The Wonderful World of Disney" featured either pirates or kids in coonskin caps solving a mystery in a spot called Pirate's Cove. Along similar lines, Disney released a classic version of Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and in 1958, the first of the Sinbad films featuring special effects by Ray Harryhausen showed up. While these last two weren't pirate movies per se, they still had the air of old fashioned high seas adventure and swashbuckling about them.

So someone at England's Hammer Studios, possibly Anthony Nelson Keys or Michael Carreras, walks up to screenwriter Jimmy Sangster and says to him, "Jimmy, old boy, we want to make a pirate film, and we want you to write it." Sangster, fresh off the astounding success of his scripts for Hammer's most famous films -- Horror of Dracula, The Mummy, and Curse of Frankenstein, among others, excitedly agrees. It'll be fun to bring the Hammer style into the realm of swashbuckling pirate movies. Sangster's mind is undoubtedly already formulating a story when Keys and/or Carreras adds, "Only here's the thing: we don't have any money for a boat, so don't write a script that features a pirate ship."


A pirate movie without a pirate ship? Sangster, by his own admission, was somewhat baffled by the whole idea. Of course, pretty much every pirate movie sets a good deal of its action on land. Errol Flynn's Captain Blood spends at least as much time on land as he does standing in heroic poses at the wheel of a ship, yelling "avast" and "me hearties." But he does spend time standing in heroic poses at the wheel of a ship, yelling "avast" and "me hearties." And his films feature plenty of ship-to-ship action, raids, and cannon fire. Ditto the Disney films. Plenty of on-land action, but also plenty of ship-to-ship shenanigans. It's hard to believe that even the tiny budgets within which the average Hammer Studio film had to operate couldn't be stretched in some way to come up with a pirate ship for their pirate movie, since hard to believe that anyone would make a pirate movie without a ship. But no. Sangster's task remained the same: write a pirate movie without a pirate ship.

By 1962, Hammer had become synonymous with horror films, even though the studio's output before the release of the above-mentioned "big three" delved into pretty much every genre, as most studios would. But once Dracula, the Mummy, and Frankenstein were released, it was all about Hammer horror. Any other type of production was pushed to the back burner, both by the studio itself and by the public, who proved in those early days to have a near insatiable appetite for the lurid, colorful style of sex and blood Hammer routinely used to outrage critics and members of the decency police. But the desire remained, however flickering, to make sure Hammer didn't become just a horror factory, and doing a period piece pirate film seemed like a nice fit. They could recycle most of the props and costumes from their other films. And although they weren't horror films, pirates lent themselves to easy adaptation to horror film tropes, what with all the skulls and creeping about and stabbing each other that went on in them. They just couldn't have a boat, although they were afforded a few seconds of stock footage of someone else's boat to show during the credits.


In some ways, perhaps, this rather large restriction ended up helping Sangster, because the end result is a cracking good adventure story in which you barely even notice that the pirates never set foot onto a ship. Onto a raft, yes, but never a ship. I'd expect no less from Sangster, who is, in my opinion,easily one of the best screenwriters who ever entered the business. Unable to fall back on pirate movie standards like the cannon battle and a scene of guys with swords clenched in their teeth swinging from one ship to another, the harried screenwriter delivers instead a landlocked pirate film that, in many ways, plays out like an American western, albeit one with far more men adorned with a variety of colorful silk scarves.

American Kerwin Mathews -- Sinbad in The 7th Voyage of Sinbad -- stars as fiery young Jonathon Standing, the member of a Huguenots settlement on a remote island somewhere that I don't think is ever clearly defined. The Huguenots were basically the early Protestants, frequently at odds with Catholic kings and churches and prone to being persecuted and going to war with dominant Catholics throughout the 1500s, well into the 1600s. The island settlement, then, is one of relative secrecy, and it is lorded over by a council of religious elders who dole out law based on strict Protestant interpretations of the The Bible. This apparently worked well for many years, but by the time Jonathon Standing comes around to make out with buxom Hammer glamour regular Marie Devareaux, the council has become largely corrupt, creating tension throughout the townsfolk, who feel that the elders have given in to petty power obsessions and greed rather than dictating the word of God. Jonathan's own father is the head of the council, but even if some vestige of an honest and noble man still exists within old Jason Standing (Andrew Kier, actually the same age as Kerwin Mathews), he is too weak-willed against the other members of the council for it to matter. In fact, when Jonathan himself violates the rules of the town by comforting the abused wife of one of the council members, Jason condemns the popular young man to hard labor in the colony's prison -- a virtual death sentence, we learn. The conviction of Jonathan only serves to make the crowds angrier, but like most angry crowds, there is much muttering beneath the breath and complaining, but no one is quite ready yet to take up the torches and pitchforks.


In prison, Jonathan fares poorly, as his popularity with hoi polloi makes him a target of the sadistic guards. So it isn't long after his clothes have been reduced to prison regulation tatters that he escapes, leading his captors on a wild chase through the island's swamps before coming face to face with Count Dracula! Well, with venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee, here playing French pirate captain LaRoche and sporting a deformed hand and an eyepatch. LaRoche makes about as nice as a ruthless, cold-hearted pirate can and cuts a deal with Jonathan. In exchange for the Huguenots not telling anyone LaRoche and his crew use the cove as a rest stop, LaRoche will...actually, I sort of forgot what his end of the bargain was.

It doesn't really matter, because as soon as Jonathan leads them toward the settlement, the pirates start killing and making demands about a treasure they claim is hidden within the town. Jonathan knows they are mad, that there is no treasure, but that doesn't stop the motley band of cutthroats from laying siege to the town. The townsfolk rally to their own defense and seem to be holding their own for a while, but their wooden walls were meant to defend against wild animals and jungle critters, not well-armed pirates. LaRoche and his gang soon capture the town, promising to hang people until the elders give up the treasure. It's up to Jonathan and his young friends to wage a guerrilla style war against the occupiers, culminating in a fairly unsurprising revelation about the alleged treasure and the giant statue of the town founder and a fairly exciting duel between Jonathan and LaRoche.


Despite the lack of a pirate ship, Pirates of Blood River has a tremendous amount going for it. Chief among its many assets is the cast, buoyed by a likable Kerwin Mathews and an exceptional venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee, who gets to stretch his acting chops a little more than usual in the role of LaRoche. Lee was a big star by 1962, but two of his biggest roles had been entirely speechless, and one afforded him like three lines and five minutes of screen time. He was known, therefore, far more for the characters he played than he was as venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee the actor. Pirates of Blood River lets him come out from behind the bandages, scar make-up, and fangs and, in their place, wear an eye patch and speak with a French accent. LaRoche is a good character, one that interests viewers because it's obvious that there is much more to the him than we are ever allowed to discover. How did he lose his eye? What happened to his hand? How did he become a pirate? Why is he so haunted and determined?


None of these questions are ever answered, and that allowed LaRoche to be interesting without being over-exposed. We are teased with his mysterious past, but it's never demystified for us. Free from the fetters of playing a creature, venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee seems to really be giving it his all, channeling perhaps Basil Rathbone's backstabbing French pirate from Captain Blood. He also handles the swordplay well. The duel between he and Mathews is excellent, and even though he is tall and lanky and playing a guy with one eye and a gnarled arm, you never really doubt that venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee could whup you if he wanted to.


Propping up the pirate end of things are some of Hammer's most reliable supporting players, including Michael Ripper in a rare non-innkeeper role. Here he is LaRoche's supposed best friend, though it's obvious LaRoche doesn't consider anyone a friend. Ripper really gets to ham it up, speaking with a bombastic uber-pirate style that would make Long John Silver himself proud. Also int he cast of scalawags is a young Oliver Reed, though he's not really around terribly long. The entire crew tears into their roles with joyous abandon, as merry and drunk as they are threatening and violent. On the other side of the fence is another set of villains: the town elders. Just as ruthless, just as greedy, only far more devious about it. Caught in between these two forces are Jonathan and the townspeople who respect him as a voice of reason and proponent of liberty. It's very much a "freaks versus the squares" cultural battle and not unlike what we would see a few years later in Mario Bava's Danger Diabolik: hip young people caught between two opposing yet similar monoliths of status quo society.

For Diabolik, it was a corrupt government and organized crime; for Jonathan, it is a corrupt theocracy and a bunch of pirates. In the end, neither side appeals to our free spirits, and they chose to reject them both. Hammer often found itself in trouble with religious authorities because of the content of their films. They usually weaseled their way out of it at the last second by having Peter Cushing clutch a Bible or something, thus proving that the film was good and moral. In the case of The Pirates of Blood River, despite the absence of a Frankenstein monster, screenwriter Jimmy Sangster really gets to lash out against religious intolerance and hypocrisy. The elders start out kind of jerky, and then you think maybe Jonathan's father will have some sort of a change of heart at some point. But he only gets worse, and he is willing to see every single person in the town butchered rather than give up the treasure about which only he knows. In the end, he gets his just desserts, as does the dastardly LaRoche, leaving Jonathan to start society anew.


Although this was a decidedly non-horror adventure film, there are still horrific elements in the movie, as there would be in other of Hammer's subsequent pirate movies. The opening sequence, in which Jonathan is discovered making out with a married woman, is probably the film's most horrific scene. Pursued through the swamp by vengeful town elders, the poor woman stumbles into the titular Blood River, which happens to be infested with piranhas. As originally filmed, the poor girl screams and thrashes about as blood bubbles up all around her. The piranhas themselves are wonderfully realized by nothing more than having rapidly moving ripples spread out across the water.

Hammer wanted the film to receive a much more family friendly rating, in the spirit of increased returns and inspired no doubt by the exciting but family-friendly Disney pirate films. The scene was eventually cut down to remove the blood, and then restored years later for the film's long-awaited debut on DVD. It's a chilling scene, and director John Gilling plays it wise by letting the imagination do most of the work. The screaming and the blood is graphic enough. He doesn't undercut the power of the moment by cutting to a shot of a rubber piranha. I do regret, however, that they don't cap the scene with a shot of a perfectly intact, bleach white plastic skeleton bobbing to the surface. That's always classy. But I guess Hammer was saving all their skeleton-related pirate hijinks for Night Creatures.

I don't know what other cuts Hammer made to the film that have since been restored. The sword wounds are all pretty bloody. Not Lone Wolf and Cub geyser of blood bloody, but when a guy gets impaled, the sword on which he was impaled comes back all covered in grue. Still, I suppose that's about as family friendly as Hammer was capable of being, and it's family friendly enough for me. i don't come from the school of thought that maintains all children's fare must be bloodless, harmless, and never ever scare the wee ones. I'd much rather take my family to see Pirates of Blood River than a movie where a sass-talking CGI animal learns a skill that helps him win a contest while referencing pop culture.


That does bring us to another of the film's sundry assets: director John Gilling. By all accounts, Gilling was difficult to work with even under the best circumstances. In the case of Pirates of Blood River, it seems he was nearly intolerable. Gilling wasn't meant to be the director originally, but the man they'd assigned to the job had been in a spot of trouble with the American Un-Activities Committee, that embarrassment of a Congressional organization that spent so much time and money trying to ferret out commies and liberals int he motion picture industry. Kerwin Mathews was nervous about working with such a man, fearing that the long arm of stupidity would reach him even in England and ruin his career back home. Not that, by 1962, Mathews had much of a career. But it was enough that the supposedly bankable American was uncomfortable, so the director was replaced by an unenthusiastic John Gilling. As a director, coming into a production for which there is already a script, a cast, a crew, and sets is usually thought to be rather an unenviable situation, and Gilling wasn't shy about letting his displeasure be known. Still, however big a jerk he might have been on set, the end results were usually fantastic. That was certainly the case in 1966, when he directed one of my favorite Hammer horror films, Plague of the Zombies. And it's the case with this film as well. Pirates of Blood River, even without a ship, is a fast-paced, well-made adventure tale. As cranky as Gilling may have been, there's no doubt that he still put himself into making the best possible movie he could.

Released in 1962, it'd be a little disingenuous to claim that the movie was influenced by something like Vietnam, even though there is a definite counter-culture air about the story. More than likely, and as I alluded to earlier, the film was influenced both by previous pirate films and by Westerns. The Huguenot settlement, with it's rough-hewn wooden walls, has the look of a pioneer fort. And the pirates laying siege to it is reminiscent of Western movie Indians doing the same. However, at some point in the film, the roles are reversed, and the pirates become the victims of hit and run warfare waged by Jonathan and his band of fighters who, despite being outmanned and outgunned, use their intimate knowledge of the jungle around them to pick the pirates off a few at a time, leaving the brigands harried, demoralized, and eventually, mutinous. That the pirates are French only supplies another link to the emerging conflict in Vietnam, but as Sangster has never mentioned this in an interview, I think it's more a case of coincidence and hindsight equipping us with the ability to infuse the film with influences and meanings that aren't there. Still, it's kind of fun, and it keeps film studies professors in business and away from actual film work, where they would do untold amounts of damage with their crackpot experimental videos.


So make a pirate movie, they told Jimmy Sangster, one in which the only time the pirates are in the water is when they board a poorly made raft that sinks shortly after being launched. Whatever the challenges may have been, he pulled it off. And Hammer pulled it off. The Pirates of Blood River was well received by audiences, and in true Hammer fashion, that meant they would do their best to milk the popularity for as long as they could. Over the next couple of years, Hammer produced several more pirate films, usually with the same cast. They even sprang for a mock ship for one of the films, and they intended to recycle it for other pirate films until it caught on fire. Captain Clegg, also known as Night Creatures, was released in 1962 as well and continued the Hammer style of making pirate movies set entirely on land. In 1963 came The Scarlet Blade (the only Hammer pirate film that, as of this writing, remains unavailable on DVD). And in 1964, with The Devil Ship Pirates, they finally sprang for that mock-up of a ship, even though that film, like the others, takes place largely on land and sets. But that was about it for Hammer pirate movies. The ship accidentally caught on fire and thus couldn't be reused (though the burning was incorporated into the film). As if that accident signified something more, production of Hammer swashbucklers more or less came to a close with that film as the studio focused itself almost entirely on horror films.

So while it may not have the panache of an Errol Flynn movie or the budget of a Disney live action film,and while it may not have a pirate ship in it, The Pirates of Blood River is still a solid adventure tale, with plenty of action, a dependable cast, and a look that fools you into thinking this is a much higher budget film than it actually is. It's nice to see these old Hammer swashbucklers getting some attention. Now if someone would only get around to releasing the rest of their caveman adventure movies and Moon Zero Two, I'd be a happy lad.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 4 Comments


Monday, March 24, 2008

Night Creatures

Release Year: 1961
Country: England
Starring: Peter Cushing, Yvonne Romain, Patrick Allen, Oliver Reed, Michael Ripper, Martin Benson, David Lodge, Derek Francis, Daphne Anderson, Milton Reid, Jack MacGowran, Sydney Bromley.
Writer: Anthony Hinds, John Temple-Smith
Director: Peter Graham Scott
Cinematographer: Arthur Grant
Music: Don Banks
Producer: John Temple-Smith
Original Title: Captain Clegg
Availability: Buy it from Amazon


Although England's Hammer Studio made a variety of films, the trio of Horror of Dracula, Curse of Frankenstein, and The Mummy solidified the direction of the studio and its identity with the public for the remainder of its life. And not without good reason. In their heyday, and even long after the studio had fallen into disrepair, Hammer showed a panache for producing lavish looking gothic horror that was simply unmatchable. America's AIP came close with Roger Corman's Edgar Allen Poe inspired cycle of films starring Vincent Price, but no one could approach Hammer's consistency and longevity in producing world-class horror. Starting in 1958 and continuing throughout the 60s, and into the studio's final days in the first half of the 1970s, Hammer produced an unbelievable string of incredible horror films -- almost every one of them a hit -- buoyed by the one-two punch of venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee's Dracula films and Peter Cushing's Frankenstein series.

It's understandable that Hammer would focus on the genre that helped define them as a major player on the global film production scene, but even as the monsters and madmen were overrunning the studio, Hammer was still doing its best to make non-horror fare, including some noir-style thrillers, war films, and a series of swashbucklers. Over the years, these films have been largely overshadowed by the horror product, and in fact most have been extremely difficult to get a hold of them, with very few being released on home video, at least here in the United States. Thus, they became all but forgotten, even though they often used the same directors, writers, and stars (specifically Cushing and venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee) as the horror films and were often films worth remembering.


With the bulk of Hammer horror films now released on DVD (with the exception of Twins of Evil and Vampire Circus, both of which remain curiously MIA in the United States), and with these releases bringing in some new fans and revitalizing interest among the older fans, distributors have begun dipping into the vast body of Hammer's non-horror work. Over the past year or two, two volumes of Hammer noir and crime films were released, along with some of the more obscure psychological thrillers. And in early 2008, it was announced that Hammer's collection of swashbuckling pirate movies was finally going to be released. With any luck, the near future will also see the release of Hammer's war films and the remaining caveman adventures (oh When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth, where are you?).

The first of Hammer's pirate films to make it to DVD in the US was Captain Clegg, a curious beast of a film that got released first primarily because it was marketed in the US, at the time of its original release, as a horror film. Appearing under the title Night Creatures, the movie found its way onto a recent double feature release with The Evil of Frankenstein. And while Night Creatures does contain an element of horror, anyone who goes into it looking for scares is going to be confused.

Hammer's dalliance with pirate films began in 1961 with the release of The Pirates of Blood River, starring venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee, 7th Voyage of Sinbad's Kerwin Mathews, and Hammer bit player Michael Ripper in a rare feature role. Hammer's production values were never higher than they were in the first half of the 1960s, where seemingly everything they touched came out looking astounding, and The Pirates of Blood River benefits from Hammer's attention to detail -- not to mention from venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee in one of his best Hammer performances and a chance to see Michael Ripper doing more than playing "the suspicious barkeep."


It also starred young Oliver Reed, for whom 1960-1961 was an exceptionally good year. His first film as the lead -- Curse of the Werewolf -- came out in 1960, and he was charged with the task of supporting the film entirely on his own, in the middle of a Hammer horror frenzy that was defined almost entirely by Cushing and venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee. For Oliver Reed, a totally untested leading man, to be trusted with the lead in Hammer's first color horror film that didn't star Cushing or venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee was both a tremendous opportunity and a huge gamble. It paid off, though, and although Curse of the Werewolf never attained the iconic status of the Dracula and Frankenstein films, it became one of the most respected. From there, Reed was paired with venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee for The Pirates of Blood River, and then, that same year appeared alongside Peter Cushing in Captain Clegg, the second of Hammer's pirate outings. But while The Pirates of Blood River was a somewhat more traditional swashbuckler, Captain Clegg is a crazy mix of pirate, horror, and detective films.

Things start off piratey enough, with the mutilation and stranding of a crew member (big Milton Reid -- one of those actors you know by sight if not by name) for attacking the wife of the captain, a mysterious and ruthless pirate by the name of Clegg. Leaving the dastardly crewman to his fate sans food, water, ears, or tongue, the film then skips ahead a number of years to the remote British town of Dymchurch, which is being visited by no-nonsense British Navy captain Collier (Patrick Allen and his magnificently manly chin -- only Chuck Conners stands a chance against him) who suspects the small hamlet of being an offloading center for liquor smugglers. But Dymchurch hardly seems to be a den of smugglers and rapscallions, populated as it is by jolly coffin makers (Michael Ripper), upstanding squires (Derek Francis), upstanding squire's sons (Oliver Reed), and the benign local parson, Blyss (Peter Cushing). Collier, however, is an experienced hand at flushing out smugglers, so he's hardly taken in by innocent looks alone. However, a number of surprise inspections and raids lead to nothing but property damage and the ruffling of the town Squire's feathers as Collier and his men accuse various townsfolk of ill doings only to come up empty handed every time. At this point, the film resembles a thriller or mystery far more than it does a pirate adventure.


Parson Blyss himself remains cordial with the captain, reminding the townsfolk that the man is just doing his job, but even the kindly parson is offput when he is attacked by one of Collier's crew -- the very man stranded and mutilated by Clegg, it turns out. Collier apparently discovered the man shortly after Clegg abandoned him, as Collier was hot on the trail of the pirate at the time. Since then, they'd kept him on as a crewman for heavy lifting, menial tasks, and amusement, even though the former pirate is prone to getting drunk and attacking people. Collier's pursuit of Clegg, ironically enough, ended in Dymchurch, where the wily pirate was finally captured and hanged, Blyss himself delivering the final rites and convincing the local church to allow Clegg a proper burial in exchange for an apparent change of heart the pirate had while incarcerated. Plus, Blyss just likes to believe int he good of everyone.

Clegg isn't the only dead man causing Collier. Legend has it that the marshes around Dymchurch are haunted by phantoms. In fact, a man was recently killed by them. Collier, ever the enlightened man of reason, sees little reason to believe in the phantoms, and in fact he is highly suspicious of them since the man most recently killed by them happened to be Collier's own man, who had previously tipped the captain off to the smuggling going on in Dymchurch. And it isn't very long before the viewer is clued in to the fact that smuggling is going on, and pretty much the entire town is in on it. Blyss is the brains behind the operation, coffin maker Mipps the operations man, and any daring-do that needs to be performed is handled by the Squire's son and lookout, Harry Cobtree. Using a series of secret compartments and tunnels centering around the church and Mipps' coffin shop, the town regularly runs illegal French wine, even under the very nose of Collier. The phantoms -- glowing skeletal horsemen -- are, naturally, just members of the local smuggling ring, who find the threat of ghostly marsh phantoms to be advantageous to the smuggling profession.

Things start to get complicated for our merry smugglers not just because Collier is so persistent in his investigations, but also because one of their member is lusting after a barmaid, Imogene (Yvonne Romaine), who is in love with Harry Cobtree. In a drunken rage, he attacks the young woman and, when rebuffed, reveals to her than she is actually the daughter of the notorious Captain Clegg, and that furthermore, he is willing to expose the smuggling operation to Collier. Imogene is terrified by the revelation that she is Clegg's daughter, for fear that this knowledge will spoil her in the eyes of young Harry, who should already be forbidden from her on account of their different classes. But Harry is hardly phased by such outdated constraints, and Imogene discovers that he and Blyss already knew she was Clegg's daughter. Blyss, sensing that Collier is close to unraveling their smuggling plot, begins arranging for Harry and Imogene to be wed then escape the town before the net is drawn closed around them. When Harry is wounded while serving as lookout for one of the operations, Collier launches an all-out attack on the smugglers, but Blyss and Mipps are his equal, and a game of cat and mouse ensues that comes to a dramatic end inside Blyss' chapel.

Despite the fact that the revelation at the end of the movie is hardly a surprise, Night Creatures succeeds in being a cracking good yarn that draws its suspense not from the solving of the mystery -- the smugglers are all named very early in the film -- but by developing those people as characters then allowing you to revel in the race and maneuvering against Collier. Captain Clegg was originally meant to be called Dr. Syn, a remake of an earlier film which itself was based on Russell Thorndike's novel, Dr. Syn. But by a strange coincidence, Disney happened to develop an interest in this otherwise forgotten novel and film from the 1930s at the same time as Hammer. Needless to say, Hammer wasn't in a position to challenge Disney, who had already obtained the rights to the Syn title and character. However, Disney was willing to play ball with Hammer, and aside from requiring that they change the name of the title character, Disney was more than happy to allow Hammer to proceed with production.


Disney's version, called The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh but also known as Dr. Syn Alias The Scarecrow, was released in 1963 and featured Patrick McGoohan (of The Prisoner fame, among other things) in the lead role. Being a made of television movie, it was decidedly more family-friendly than Hammer's version, with its horse-mounted ghouls, exhumed bodies, mutilated pirates, and other such trappings. Still, there's very little in Captain Clegg to prevent being a rip-roaring good time for young and old alike, and any foolhardy young lad such as I was would have been delighted by it (remembering, of course, that there was a time when children's films could contain murder, shrieking ghosts, drunks, and Sean Connery punching people in the face).

I've not seen the Disney version, and I won't dismiss it out of hand because Disney has been known to produce some damn fine pirate and adventure entertainment (such as the three Treasure Island films). Although Disney's competing version kept Captain Clegg off the American radar, these days Hammer's version is the one you can find on DVD, while Dr. Syn Alias The Scarecrow has become wickedly hard to track down. It was released on VHS a long time ago and played at some point on the Disney Channel (as bootlegs bearing the channel's logo attest to). I know there has been some word of the old Wonderful World of Disney series -- of which Dr. Syn was a part -- finally finding their way on to DVD, so one can only hope that this little pirate adventure sees the light of day once again.

Night Creature's script by Anthony Hinds (one of Hammer's most reliable producers-turned-screenwriters, having penned Curse of the Werewolf, Kiss of the Vampire, and a number of Frankenstein, Dracula, and Mummy movies) is expertly paced and hues closely to the original film. Even though it never really becomes a swashbuckling adventure (although Peter Cushing does get to swing from a chandelier) or a horror film, Hinds exploits the trappings of both genres to create a thrilling hybrid driven by strong characters and solid British acting. Although Cushing is the star attraction (and rightfully so), most Hammer fans are overly delighted that Michael Ripper gets such a meaty role. Ripper's career is defined by tiny roles, almost always as a cranky innkeeper or barman who refuses to give our hero a room for the night, then makes a horrified face when someone says the name Frankenstein or Dracula. Despite the brevity of each of these roles, Ripper never gave anything that his absolute all. With Night Creatures, he gets a meaty role, and he makes the most of it. In fact, despite Cushing being the headliner, the bulk of the on-screen action is in the hands of Ripper and young Oliver Reed. Neither lets the film down, just as the script doesn't let them down.

It's hard to believe that Reed was so inexperienced an actor. He exhibits an easy charisma and likability that pulls you in and really makes you care about the character. Reed's career was a rocky and uneven one, owing primarily to a fondness for the drink. In the 1960s, Hammer was hungry for someone young to augment the team of Cushing and venerated horror film icon Christopher Lee. Reed seemed to fit the bill perfectly, and indeed after turns in Curse of the Werewolf, The Pirates of Blood River, Captain Clegg, and some of Hammer's psychological thrillers, it seemed like Hammer had a winner on their hands. Good looking, athletic, and possessed of abundant charisma that could be channeled with equal skill into warmth, intensity, and pathos, Reed was a star on the rise. He was even on the short list (which actually seems to have been very long, given the number of people that are always mentioned as having been on it) to replace Sean Connery as James Bond, and the thought of Oliver Reed in On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- well, I liked Lazenby, and I love that movie, but had Reed been allowed to bring that deadly combination of charm and smoldering intensity to the role, I think he would have done then what wasn't really accomplished until Daniel Craig took over the role in Casino Royale.


Unfortunately for Reed, his professional successes were balanced with personal trials. Stormy marriages were one thing, but when Reed was forced to endure endless barrages of questions about his drinking. Such interrogation by TV hosts and reporters often lead to the actor losing his temper, and his reputation for a drunk and a hothead plagued him for years, even when he was still making quality films. Unfortunately for Hammer, Reed never became the pair of shoulders that could carry the studio through tough times, as he was by then on to different opportunities. The task of being Hammer's "next big thing" then fell on the shoulders of Ralph Bates, who certainly had the chops. But by the time Bates was on the Hammer scene, it was too late, and nothing was going to stop Hammer's collapse.

Reed enjoyed success throughout the 60s and into the 70s, but by the 1980s, his star had faded considerably. Reed seemed to take it in stride. Although he continued drinking, he seemed happy to settle down to a relatively quiet life with his wife, at least until 1999 when Ridley Scott came knocking and offered Reed a part in Gladiator. It ended up being one of those rare parts perfectly suited for reviving the career of an old hand who had gone through stormy times and emerged older and wiser, ready to take on the role of elder statesman. Sadly, it was not to be for Reed, and he died of heart failure during the making of the film. Still, it must have felt good to be in the saddle again, and although it is done so posthumously, his role in Gladiator ended up being one of his best.

Of course, none of this praise for Ripper or Reed is meant to sell the rest of the cast short. It's just that, in the case of Peter Cushing, do you really need me to tell you how good he was? It's Peter Cushing, for crying out loud! He was always good. As the resident piece of Hammer glamour (I spell it with a "u" for England), Yvonne Romain doesn't have terribly much to do other than look pretty (which she does with ease -- if not for Caroline Munroe, she might be the prettiest of all Hammer's starlets), but I always found the Hammer beauties to be as able at acting as they were at being eye candy, and when she's given something to do, Romain is as solid as the rest of the cast. She was already experienced with both period adventure films and horror, having appeared in such cult favorites as Circus of Horrors, Curse of the Werewolf (where she co-starred alongside Oliver Reed), episodes of The Saint (which, granted, pretty much every actor in England appeared in at some point), and Patrick McGoohan's espionage series Danger Man.

And let's not leave off poor ol' square-jawed Patrick Allen as Captain Collier. It would have been easy for this film to make us root for the smugglers by making Collier a grade A jerk, but instead, Collier is ever noble, if a bit stiff, and the smugglers are forced to make us like them by force of their own character rather than depending on him as a foil. Collier is nothing other than completely honest and straight-forward, a model officer of the British Navy. And Allen is perfectly cast, not just because he has that incredible jaw and an air of authority. His accomplishments as an actor are too numerous to list, and long with Cushing, he's probably the most experienced of the cast members. He even showed up in the Japanese sci-fi film Gorath!

Director Peter Graham Scott wasn't a Hammer films regular, working primarily in television, but he does an excellent job here with a script that allows him to wander between creepiness (the marsh phantoms, the old windmill and the scarecrow) and adventure. This is really an actor's movie, though, as many Hammer films were, and the chief function of the director in these cases was to know what he was doing and do it without getting in the way -- which is exactly what Scott does. As such, he's not a name a lot of people know, but sometimes the best director for a movie is the one who can make you completely unaware of the director. He does lend the film rather a unique look for Hammer films of the time by shooting on location and outdoors, rather than relying entirely on the Bray Studio sound stages.


I'm looking forward to the release of Hammer's other pirate films, because while this one may be tangential at best to the swashbuckling genre, it still manages to be a superb adventure film with a real "boy's own adventure" feel to it. What with long dead pirates, ghosts in the swamp, scarecrows, secret passages, and smugglers, it could have easily been a Hardy Boys adventure. I feel a bit guilty that I haven't said more about Peter Cushing, but like I said, what more can you say? The man went into everything with total commitment, and Captain Clegg is one of his finest roles. The script plays wonderfully off Cushing's slight appearance. When first we meet him in this film, he looks dainty and frail, and hardly the sort of man who could command a band of smugglers prone to dressing up like skeletons and galloping through the swamps. But when it comes time for him to take charge, the transformation is remarkable, and you absolutely believe him as the leader of men. "Absolutely believing him" is pretty much the very definition of Cushing's film career, as he was remarkably gifted at making whatever was happening, no matter how outlandish, seem absolutely real.

Here, he benefits greatly from Hinds' script, which affords him a degree of complexity and depth very similar to what he enjoyed and challenged audiences with in the Frankenstein movies. He is ostensibly the bad guy, heading up a smuggling ring, killing off informers, and foiling Collier's attempts to do an honest man's work. But if he's a bad guy, Cushing's Blyss is hardly evil, and his scenes with Oliver Reed and Yvonne Rainer allow him to radiate warmth and care. As with the movie itself, Cushing's role here is not among his iconic performances, but it probably should be.

We'll have plenty of chances to talk further about Peter Cushing. It's not every day that you get to say more about Michael Ripper than, "he was excellent as the grumpy bartender." Whether you call it Captain Clegg or Night Creatures is unimportant. By any name, it's top notch adventure all the way around.

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 8 Comments


Thursday, October 11, 2007

Satanic Rites of Dracula

Release Year: 1974
Country: England
Starring: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Coles, Joanna Lumley, William Franklyn, Freddie Jones, Richard Vernon, Barbara Yu Ling, Patrick Barr, Richard Mathews.
Writer: Don Houghton
Director: Alan Gibson
Cinematographer: Brian Probyn
Music: John Cacavas
Producer: Roy Skeggs
Availability: Buy it from Amazon
Promote It: Digg | del.icio.us


What a long, strange trip it's been for Hammer Studio's lord of the undead, the prince of darkness, the king of vampires, Count Dracula. When first we met him back in 1958, he was a snarling beast, a barely contained force of nature that ripped into his prey with lusty abandon and was explained by his arch-nemesis Dr. Van Helsing in purely rational, scientific terms. Dracula, and vampirism in general (as expounded upon by Van Helsing in Brides of Dracula), was nothing more than a disease, like any other disease, and what we regarded as "supernatural" was really nothing more than an explainable part of the rational world that humanity had simply not yet learned how to explain. As Hammer's Dracula series progressed, however, Van Helsing faded from the picture and was replaced by a procession of forgettable guys named Paul, usually in league with some sort of religious authority figure. In Dracula, Prince of Darkness, we have a monsignor who seems to have some degree of faith in faith's ability to defeat Dracula, but he's far more reliant on his trusty bolt-action rifle than he is on the Lord Almighty. With the next film after that, however, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, Van Helsing's assertion that Dracula could be defeated by reason and science was beginning to fade. Dracula Has Risen from the Grave is a transitional film, one in which an atheist who would seem to share Van Helsing's belief that vampirism is a virus and not a function of the supernatural, begins to doubt his faith in science just as he begins to doubt his doubt of Christianity. When Dracula is felled by a bolt of lightning, we are left to wonder: is this science -- a metal lightning rod, an explainable weather phenomenon -- or an act of God -- lightning strikes being the most common weather-related act of God, after the rain of frogs.

After that film, however, there is no doubt as to Dracula's nature. In Taste the Blood of Dracula, he is recast as a satanic demon, summoned by black mass rituals. This trend of "religionizing" Dracula continued in Dracula AD 1972 despite the return of a Van Helsing to the scene. Where as the Lawrence Van Helsing of Horror of Dracula and Brides of Dracula regarded vampirism as a scientific issue, his descendant Lorimar Van Helsing sees it as a mystical issue of the occult, like witchcraft or devil worship. Dracula is once again summoned by occult rituals (not to mention Caroline Munro's half-clothed writhing), and where you might think that placing the Victorian vampire in a modern setting alongside a modern Van Helsing, would prove an opportunity to revive the concept of Dracula as scientific problem and biological oddity, it never really happens. I think there is one token utterance of, "Vampires? But surely you must be joking, man! This is the 20th century!" but that is quickly dismissed as everyone from Van Helsing to the police are quick to accept the supernatural and rattle on endlessly about the occult. At this point, Dracula is less a vampire and more a full-fledged demon, perhaps even the embodiment of Satan himself.


One would assume, then, that with a title like The Satanic Rites of Dracula, the sequel would follow in the footsteps of turning Dracula into a religious anti-icon. But then, honestly, what more can be done to make him Lucifer incarnate than having him summoned by rituals and pentagrams and strange runes? Are they going to make him don a silky red Danskin and gad about with a pitchfork? Dracula AD 1972 was already a rehash of Taste the Blood of Dracula, and while Hammer's Dracula films have never shied away from rehash, it seemed like the evolution of the count was complete. What was left to do? The correct answer is, "Nothing." Just don't make another Dracula film. Make Christopher Lee happy, and just lower the curtain on the series. It had a good run. A few missteps here and there, sure, but all in all, Hammer's Dracula films were a pretty solid lot, even at their worst. Dracula AD 1972 had been a somewhat desperate attempt to modernize the franchise, and it was met with mixed reactions, at best. So just let the sleeping corpse lie, this time. Christopher Lee was already printing up his leaflets to be dropped from a plane over London, explaining to any who found them that he was never going to play Dracula again, ever. Save the guy some effort, people said, and maybe he'll start talking about something else besides how everyone just talks to him about Dracula, instead of mentioning some of his other classic work, like Circus of Fear. Come on -- Chris Lee and Klaus Kinski? That's a power duo, my friends.

But Hammer had nowhere else to go. They couldn't get new stars or new franchises launched. The entire British film industry was in a tailspin, and Hammer was even worse off than most. Not knowing what else to do, they commissioned Dracula AD 1972 writer Don Houghton and director Alan Gibson to make yet another Dracula movie, causing Christopher Lee's eyes to turn blood red as he launched into a furious string of interviews about how awful the Dracula movies were and he sure as hell wouldn't...look, seriously. By this point, you know how this ends, right?


So with "nowhere" no longer being a viable answer to the question of where Dracula goes from AD 1972, what would Houghton do? Could they serve up the same old, same old one more time and get away with it? Unlikely. In fact, it was unlikely they could get away with anything they served up. Dracula was DOA at the box office no matter what they did. This last movie was just going to be a post-mortem nervous twitch. So what the hell? Why not bring the whole thing to its oddly logical extreme, the only place left for Dracula to go? And so, despite the occult title meant no doubt to cash in on the sudden popularity of devil worshiper films (working titles for the film included Dracula and his Vampire Brides and Dracula is Dead and Well and Living in London), Satanic Rites of Dracula takes the persistently undead vampire from satanic bogeyman and propels him into the realm of the James Bond villain or, perhaps more appropriately given the quality of the final film and the return of Christopher Lee to the role of Dracula, Fu Manchu. No longer is Dracula a savage beast. No longer is he a biological mutation. No longer is he a ghoul lurking in the overgrown corners of shadowy gothic buildings. No longer is he a demon. With Satanic Rites of Dracula, he becomes a super-villain, complete with a secret lair, henchmen, kidnapped scientists, and dreams of global conquest. That the film really does contain satanic rites is superficial.

This movie begins, like Dracula A.D. 1972, with the action already in progress. A determined Professor Lorrimer Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, once again) chases the murderous vampire Count Dracula into a swanky London nightclub jammed wall to wall with zoned-out teens dancing to some nondescript psych-funk like you were wont to find in films from the 1970s that couldn't afford to license songs from established artists. In an attempt to blend in with the youthful revelers and shake his pursuer, Dracula dons a big, bulbous pair of sunglasses and a paisley print cap. Finding himself hemmed in by the revelers, Van Helsing discovers that the only possibility he has of making his way across the dance floor to Dracula is by dancing his way across. And so we get the now immortal scene of Peter Cushing, still dressed more or less like a guy from the Victorian era even though this is the 1970s, doing the Watusi across the crowded nightclub, while dazed ravers look on in admiration and even begin mimicking Cushing's spastic moves.


OK, maybe not, That is not a scene from The Satanic Rites of Dracula. It's actually from a different movie, called Dracula Goes Mad in Chelsea, but since prints of that movie are almost impossible to find, we won't speak any more about it (even Christopher Lee himself has admitted to be unable to find a copy on any format for his personal library). However, given the unintentional camp value of Hammer's Dracula A.D. 1972, one could half expect that, when Hammer announced a sequel film also set in the 1970s, we would get scenes as corny as Dracula in mod sunglasses and an exasperated Peter Cushing doing the mashed potato with some cute young chick as he tries to explain the importance of leaving the dance floor to continue his pursuit of his arch-nemesis. When it was further announced that the writing-directing team of Don Houghton and Alan Gibson would be returning for the sequel, such scenes seemed almost inevitable. It was not the case, however, leaving the scenes of Van Helsing cutting the rug and Dracula smoking a bong to appear in the obscure (and by obscure, I mean "entirely made up") Dracula Goes Mad in Chelsea, which some people refer to mistakenly though not inappropriately as Dracula Goes Mod in Chelsea.

No, this film actually begins with a satanic rite, some gratuitous nudity to let us know this is the 1970s, and then an action sequence in which some guy who looks like a cross between Burt Reynolds and Saddam Hussein escapes from a building guarded by bikers with droopy Louis Tiant mustaches and sheepskin vests. They totally look like something out of Marvel's Tomb of Dracula comic book, and in fact much of what happens in this movie seems far more at home in the pages of Tomb of Dracula than it does in a Hammer Dracula movie -- which I guess is the trick. When you keep making Hammer vampire movies, everyone complains about it being just another stodgy old Hammer vampire film. When you switch it up and do something new, everyone complains that it's not enough like a stodgy old Hammer vampire film.

Although my initial assumption was that this escaping guy was some horrific experiment concocted by Dracula (possibly with the help of Frankenstein) to combine the iron will and ruthlessness of Saddam with the down home sex appeal and amusing laugh of Burt Reynolds, thus creating the ultimate world conqueror (sort of like Serpentor, but with a big mustache). It turns out that this guy is actually an undercover agent sent in to investigate the mysterious Pelham House rituals, which seem to include a group of the richest, most powerful men in England. The problem is that the head of the group investigating Pelham House also happens to be one of the guys attending the Pelham House rites, thus making an official investigation impossible. So they call in Inspector Murray from the last film, reprised by Michael Coles. Coles, in turn, hears the agent's crazy ranting about rituals and blood sacrifice and devil cloaks and immediately places a call to Van Helsing, played once again by Peter Cushing, who smokes his cigarettes with more intensity than ever. Cushing sure knew how to smoke a cigarette on screen, but he didn't just smoke a cigarette; he smoked the hell out of a cigarette, with lots of clenching and staring at it in quiet contemplation. I think the biggest problem with Star Wars is that they didn't let Peter Cushing smoke on the Death Star. Honestly, you could make a whole movie of nothing but Peter Cushing smoking cigarettes and flipping through books and peering through a magnifying glass, and I'd probably think it was pretty good since he did those things with such conviction and more gusto than most actors would put into an action scene.


While Van Helsing investigates an old colleague who is among the Pelham House acolytes, Murray and Jessica Van Helsing (being played this movie by Joanna Lumley of New Avengers and Absolutely Fabulous fame) go to investigate Pelham House itself. Van Helsing discovers that his old friend has created a super-plague for someone at Pelham House. Murray discovers that the basement of Pelham House is full of half naked vampire chicks. Jessica screams. And of course, we eventually discover that the shadowy billionaire recluse behind the Pelham House plot is Dracula! It seems that even Dracula is getting tired of being revived and has decided that the only way he can end his existence is to end all life on earth. That way he will have no one feed on, and he won't have to worry about cocky mods or Chinese women summoning back up through goofy rituals. Dracula has used his powers of persuasion to control the aforementioned most powerful men in England, and he intends to use them to spread the plague throughout the world and finally put an end to everything. But despite his Fu Manchu aspirations and new corporate benevolent society, Dracula can't entirely let go of the past. Pelham House is an uncomfortable mix of 70s sci-fi stuff and Victorian frilliness, and he still wants to piss off Van Helsing by turning Jessica into Dracula's vampire bride.

At least Dracula's final solution is a super-virulent strain of bubonic plague. As far as super-villain super-weapons go, that's a pretty good one. Plus, it's a vampire distributing the plague, and not just some bald guy in a fancy jacket, as is usually the case. It's much better than if Dracula had scheduled a meeting with Van Helsing at the office (which does happen, by the way) and unveiled a new super laser that can blow airliners out of the sky! But still, all this plague talk is far, far away from the expected Dracula territory. He surrounds himself with the trappings of previous Dracula hobbies: the vampire brides in the basement, for example, and floral print wallpaper of questionable tastefulness, but his heart hardly seems in it this time. And yeah, he throws the cape on and appears in backlit mist to scare someone, but he doesn't stick with it throughout the movie. Even his plan to irk Van Helsing by marrying Jessica seems more like something he feels like he has to do than something he wants to do. Just another item on his corporate CEO to-do list.


In a way, I suppose this plays in with the plot of the movie, that Dracula is sick of it all, maybe even sicker of it all than audiences watching his movies, and despite Van Helsing's best efforts, people just keep bringing Dracula back. His resurrection in Satanic Rites of Dracula takes place well before the film begins, but one can almost assume that when it happened, Dracula looked at himself and just thought, "Seriously? I mean, seriously?" There are almost as many ways to bring this guy back as there are to kill him in the first place, and Dracula seems positively suicidal this time around, scattering his house with bits of old wood and such. But ultimately, he knows a stake in the heart will probably just kill him for a little while, so all of mankind must be destroyed so the lord of the dead can get some fucking sleep.

Even the final showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula seems suicidal. Dracula is lured into some Hawthorne bushes, which being the thorns that were used to make Christ's crown of thorns, are deadly to a vampire. And Dracula gets caught in the bush basically because Van Helsing stands on the other side and yells, "Hey, come get me!" Surely Dracula knows about the bush. I mean, Van Helsing knows all sorts of ways to kill Dracula, so you'd think that Dracula himself would have researched the subject, although I will admit that every time he dies in a new way, he seems surprised, sort of like, "Are you kidding me? This, too? I can be killed by this, too?" Whatever the case, Dracula plunged headlong into the thorns, which is something most people wouldn't do even if they weren't' prone to turning into a time-lapsed decaying corpse as a result.

Despite the fact that Satanic Rites of Dracula was written and directed by the same crew and has largely the same cast of adults, it bears little resemblance to AD 1972 or any of the previous Dracula films. Not just because of the Fu Manchu plot, but also because it entirely eschews the colorful nature of past films and opts instead for an oppressively bleak atmosphere populated by washed out skies, overcast days, and tired looking men in drab flared suits. Like Dracula, like the audience, everyone just seems worn out. Not that they aren't game for another go-round, mind you. This is a solid British cast, after all, and no one is going to do anything but their best. Cushing is as he always is; Lee is the same; Michael Coles is a welcome familiar face from the last film, someone to whom we can relate, and while Joanna Lumley is fine as Jessica, she really has little to do beyond scream and warn people about vampires too late. So I guess it's not so much a tiredness as it is a...let's say world-weariness. I don't want to read more into the film than there is, but it really does give off a sense of the meta, that the threadbare worn-out nature of the series is reflected in the characters.


As a Dracula film, I can't call it a success. Dracula has always been a supporting player his own movies, but here he's less like Dracula than ever before, taking on instead the role of Howard Hughes meets Blofeld (or, alternately, Blofeld in Diamonds are Forever). As a whacked out sort of spy film, it almost works. It's a bit too boring and far too serious to really capture the spirit of that genre, though. Instead, we have a beast that is neither fish nor foul, and not very good at doing much of anything. There are embers of a good movie here, meaning that I can't entirely dismiss it, but you have to blow on those embers pretty furiously to generate any sort of warmth. The initial idea, that of turning Dracula into a tired man whose sole final option is to destroy everything in order to destroy himself, is worth exploring, but where Don Houghton come sup with a great premise, he can't really deliver a great script. It plods along, and there are even more holes and contrivances than usual. I feel like, had this movie been written by someone like Brian Clemens (who wrote Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter, and because of his experience working on The Avengers, would have been more at home with the loopier aspect of Dracula-as-Blofeld), it would have had a much better chance for success. At the very least, had it been a bit less heavy-handed and plodding, it could have gotten by on the quirkiness of the premise, maybe even been something like Scream and Scream Again, a film (featuring Lee and Cushing, no less) that mixes espionage thrills, science fiction, horror, and general weirdness far better than Satanic Rites of Dracula. Instead, Houghton's no-nonsense but not well written script doesn't do the high concept justice.

If there is a highlight to the film, other than Peter Cushing's emphatic smoking of cigarettes, it's the theme song and ensuing score, which have far more life in them than the movie itself. Following the lead of Dracula AD 1972, John Cacavas contributes a theme song that is even cooler and funkier than the last one. It deserves to be played over a scene where Dracula -- still in his cape and black suit, of course -- fights a gang of drug dealers in slow motion a la Superfly. The rest of the score is variations on this theme, and it's pretty good stuff. Cacavas also wrote the score for Horror Express, one of my very favorite horror-meets-scifi films, also starring Cushing and Lee and released around the same time as Satanic Rites of Dracula, which could have really used Telly Savalas in a big Cossack coat swaggering onscreen and punching out those dudes in the sheepskin vests.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about Satanic Rites of Dracula is that it lacks a sense of finality. Given the plot, given Dracula's admittedly effective monologue about wanting to die and watch the whole world burn with him, the final act is sorely lacking. When the end comes, it's pretty much a blase, "Oh, so it's a Hawthorne bush this time then, is it?" It's no different than any of Dracula's other many deaths. I don't expect that Dracula would be allowed to succeed in some way with his mad scheme -- though that sort of cynical conclusion wouldn't have been out of step at all with the current trend in horror films, where the bad guys very often won -- but after all the apocalyptic talk, after the world-weary feeling permeating the film, at the very least what I wanted from the end was something that said, once and for all, it really was over this time. As it stands, Satanic Rites of Dracula ends in a way where Dracula could be getting resurrected yet again a week later, same as always.


For Lee, this really was the end, but it's hard to claim he finally made good on his boasts. More than likely, had Hammer made another Dracula film, he would have shown up, under protest no doubt but present never the less. Instead, Hammer went out of business after allowing Satanic Rites of Dracula in 1974 and To the Devil...A Daughter in 1976 to effectively kill the company off. Like Dracula, they deserved better at the end, but if they'd had better, it probably wouldn't have been the end, so what can you do? Cushing reprised the role of Van Helsing one more time, returning to the Victorian era but this time to China for the completely nonsensical but still fun Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires. That film does feature Dracula, but since he transforms into a Chinese guy at the beginning of the film, and since the film itself doesn't really jibe with the continuity of the previous film, it's not really part of the Dracula series and instead plays out like an alternate universe take, similar to The Evil of Frankenstein. Both Cushing and Lee would go on to make much better horror films than this one, as well as few that were much worse.

It's not a great way to end a series that gave us so many wonderful films. With the relatively poor performance of Dracula AD 1972 at the box office, distributors suddenly weren't interested in Satanic Rites of Dracula. It took years before it found its way to American screens. Where as a Dracula film starring Cushing and Lee would have been a simple sell even a few years earlier, by 1974 it was all over, and the quality of Satanic Rites of Dracula is a perfect example of why. It's too bad the series couldn't muster a better send-off, because while the concept isn't bad and the idea was good, the final execution simply lacked the sophistication, energy, and magic that the film deserved.

Still, I suppose things could have been worse.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 19 Comments


Monday, October 08, 2007

Dracula A.D. 1972

Release Year: 1972
Country: England
Starring: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Stephanie Beacham, Christopher Neame, Caroline Munro, Marhsa Hunt, Michael Coles.
Writer: Don Houghton
Director: Alan Gibson
Cinematographer: Dick Bush
Music: Michael Vickers
Producer: Josephine Douglas
Availability: Buy it from Amazon

Promote It: Digg | del.icio.us

And so we enter the dire straights of Hammer Films in the final throes of a long, drawn-out death much like those experienced by Dracula himself. As has been detailed elsewhere and will be summarized here, by the 1970s, England's Hammer Studios -- the studio that pretty much defined and dominated the horror market through the 50s and 60s -- had fallen on hard times. The old guard had largely retired or died, and the new blood was flailing about, desperately trying to find the direction that would right the once mighty production house. The problem was that everyone felt like they needed to update their image, but no one actually knew how. In retrospect, though they may have seemed painfully antiquated at the time of their release, many of Hammer's releases during the 70s were quite good and often experimental (by Hammer standards, anyway). This movie isn't really one of them, but it's still pretty enjoyable in a completely ludicrous way.

Unfortunately, even Hammer's good films in the 1970s simply weren't in step with contemporary trends in horror films. No one wanted to see a gothic horror anymore, not in this new era of slasher movies and stuff where devil worshipers listlessly chant about Satan and then hassle Warren Oates and Hot Lips Houlihan.


Hammer tried to launch several new properties that were variations on their old themes, and several of these showed considerable promise. Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter was a spectacular horror-adventure film that mixed classic Hammer atmosphere with a more playful, swashbuckling tone. Although Twins of Evil is best remembered for the prominent assets of its two Playboy Playmate co-stars, underneath the cheesecake nudity is another very good film. And Vampire Circus was one of Hammer's most experimental vampire films, integrating a hallucinogenic, dreamlike state into Hammer's formerly all-business approach. But these films either didn't perform well at the box office, or studio executives didn't have any faith in them. In the end, Hammer decided to return to the same-old, same-old, and audiences got new Dracula, Frankenstein, and mummy movies.

With each of these, Hammer tried something different. The mummy movie, 1971's Blood from the Mummy's Tomb, was adapted from a Bram Stoker novel and deals with a mummy's curse but contains no actual mummies. 1974's Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell was roundly lambasted for its ridiculous monster make-up (a hairy caveman design featuring a face mask where the lips don't move when the actor talks), but if one can get past that, it's an exceptionally well thought-out final entry for the series, completing Baron Frankenstein's journey from slightly cold man of science on the verge of a miraculous breakthrough to completely disconnected butcher engaged in pointless, crude retreads of his old experiments.

And then there was Dracula. Hammer's Dracula series started out with a promising entry, 1970's Taste the Blood of Dracula. The original idea behind that movie had been to, as with Brides of Dracula so many years before, make movie in which Dracula is an ever-present force and invoked name but not an actual on-screen character. Distributors balked at the idea of a Dracula-free Dracula movie, especially when there was no name star onto which they could hook their wagon as an alternate. Brides may not have featured Christopher Lee as Dracula, but at least it had Peter Cushing reprising his role as Van Helsing. Taste the Blood, on the other hand, revolves around young Ralph Bates, an actor Hammer had hopes of turning into their next big thing, though it never really happened. And so Hammer somehow convinced Christopher Lee to sign on yet again for one absolutely final appearance as the count. The result is a great entry in the Dracula series, and sensing that there was still some gas left in the tank, Hammer decided to give it another go. Scars of Dracula is a pretty bad movie, a major step backward after a good movie, showcasing Hammer filmmaking at its most profit driven, but it also stands out as the only film where Dracula is a major character, with lots of screentime and lines. It was enough to do the trick at the box office, and so to the well once again -- but this time, Dracula was gonna get funky!


In 1970, American International Pictures -- a studio that built a franchise of horror films based loosely on the writing of Edgar Allen Poe by copying Hammer's gothic horror films -- released a movie called Count Yorga, Vampire. It was an attempt by AIP to transfer the feel of their gothic Poe films into a modern setting, and a vampire -- given its longevity provided it can stay away from Peter Cushing -- was the perfect creature for the experiment. You could still deck his pad out in all sorts of frilly Victorian hoo ha, but you had a reasonable explanation for why he was still hanging around in 1970, listening to his old Edison Cylindrical Phonograph device and complaining about how modern music was crappy and modern fashion was ridiculous. Count Yorga also had the good sense to turn poke subtle fun at the idea of this out-of-touch Victorian style character dropped wholesale and unchanged into what was then modern time, as if the intervening hundred years or so hadn't caused the vampire to change in the slightest. But what do I know. I'm writing this review win 2007, and I'm listening to the same music I listened to in 1987. What's another eighty years?

Yorga, no doubt with some help from Hammer's early 70s vampire output, sparked a bit of a vampire revival that really came to a boil in 1972. Marvel Comics released their outlandishly ridiculous but imminently enjoyable Tomb of Dracula comic book, in which modern-day descendants of Van Helsing, Jonathan Harker, and Dracula himself team up to battle a revived Count who would explain his entire life history every time he got a word bubble to himself. Only Doctor Strange showcased the potential to ramble on and spew as much purple prose. The comic book was a whirlwind of bell bottoms, tweed blazers, and jumpers, not to mention vampire hunter Blade's bizarre combo of lab goggles, a raincoat, and some swashbuckler boots. When they updated him for the movies, it's a shame they didn't keep the original outfit and afro. And if Dracula's flowery long-windedness, punctuated as it often was by the phrase, "Foolish humans!" and "I, Dracula..." was a little much to swallow, wait until you get a load of Blade running around calling the count a jive turkey and "baby."


In the same year, AIP released Blacula, a blaxploitation twist on the Count Yorga theme which, despite the jokey title, turned out to be a remarkably good and thoughtful film that managed to deliver vampire thrills and make comments on race relations, ghettos, and drug abuse without it coming across as overly heavy-handed. Plus the character of Mamuwalde (Blacula, to you) was an exceptionally complex villain/hero inhabited by a great actor in William Marshall. Once again, a movie got to play with the idea of a Victorian era character revived in the modern era -- with plenty of light jokes about fashion. Lucky for the vampires, the early 70s were such a jumbled mish-mash of outrageous fashion trends that even a guy running around in a vest and opera cape didn't really stand out, though he could often be mistaken for a pimp.

In a classic example of "student becomes the master" flip-flopping, Hammer looked to AIP for inspiration and released their own "vampire in modern times" movie in 1972. The idea was hatched that Hammer, too, should make a modern day vampire tale, one that would easily lend itself to integrating modern settings with classic the Hammer gothic trappings. And since Hammer already had Count Dracula hanging around in the shadows, he was the most obvious choice. Of course, there remained one problem: Christopher Lee was absolutely, positively, entirely unwilling to do another Dracula movie for Hammer, not when he was having so much fun making high quality films for Jess Franco, like Eugenie... the Story of Her Journey Into Perversion, all those Fu Manchu films, and...oh hey! What do you know! Jess Franco's Dracula.

I doubt anyone at Hammer was actually worried that they wouldn't be able to get Lee to reprise his role as Dracula. After all, he announced after every single Dracula movie that they were awful and he'd never make another one in a million years. And then a few years later, there he is again, donning the cape and red contact lenses for another go round which, upon completion of principal photography, he would run to the press and complain about, announcing that he would never do another shitty Dracula film again. Blah, blah, blah, Chris. And you know what? He still complains about it. Dude, no one thinks you're Dracula anymore. The only people who bring it up are a few cult movie fans and you. Everyone else thinks your Saruman or whatever the hell your name was in those awful Star Wars films. I've theorized in past reviews of Hammer Dracula films and Lee's whining that the entire thing was a ruse devised by Hammer and Lee to drum up controversy and business. After all, if your star is out there bad-mouthing his own film and saying stuff like, "Well, the last one may have been gory and tasteless, but this one is so much worse that I can't stand it!" is going to do wonders for getting folks interested in seeing the movie.


The other option is that Christopher Lee is just pompous and annoying. And I say that as a guy who enjoys Christopher Lee's work. But while I may love many of the films in which he's been in, there's no denying that his filmography has considerably more "worst film ever made" candidates and parts in it than anyone short of Michael Caine. But, like Caine, Lee gets the British Actor's Golden Pass -- that coveted ticket that allows a British actor to emerge unscathed from a career of mostly utter garbage and still have people think they are incredible. I mean, Tom Cruise has one flop, and his career is pronounced over. But Michael Caine? He gets to be in Jaws IV, Blame it on Rio, Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, and The Swarm, and he comes through like he's coated in Teflon. Similarly, while Christopher Lee was busy bitching about the lack of class in his Dracula movies, he found time to make The Torture Chamber of Dr. Sadism, The Castle of Fu Manchu, Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf, To the Devil...A Daughter, and Chuck Norris' An Eye for an Eye, yet he remains one of the most revered actors of our time. Not even Vincent Price, who was far more talented and made just as many great films (and just as many crummy ones) commands the respect that Lee gets.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it. What I'm saying is, Chris -- shut the hell up about Dracula. You made a lot of really awful films to go with your good ones, so quit picking on Dracula, the character that made your career. You should be more like Michael Caine. He shows up, does his job, and then moves on without running to the press to bitch about the last job he had or how everyone only things of Carter or Harry Palmer or ol' Peachy or whoever Michael Caine is typecast as. I think he's actually typecast as Michael Caine. All of Christopher Lee's complaining, still going on to this day, coupled with the fact that no matter what he said, he always went back and did another Dracula film, means that, if this wasn't a clever marketing ploy by Hammer and Lee, then Lee is just sort of a...you know. If I ever meet him, I'm going to call him Dracula non-stop.

Great. You know, among my goals when I started Teleport City, I never counted "talk shit about Christopher Lee" to be among them.


So whatever the case, after swearing he'd never do another one, Christopher Lee was never the less coaxed back into the series, perhaps because of the promise that, for the first time since 1958's Horror of Dracula, he and Cushing would be teamed up as Dracula and Van Helsing. Also, I'm sure they threw some money at him, and a couple rare editions of Shakespeare books or whatever the hell Christopher Lee likes more than making Dracula movies.

There are, of course, sundry other problems facing Dracula A.D. 1972, but we shall address each of those as we come to them in the course or this article.

The pre-credit opening sees us joining the finale of a film that was never made, but looks like it was pretty good. Dracula (Lee) and Van Helsing (Cushing) are locked in mortal combat atop a carriage that is careening out of control across London's Hyde Park. Remember that Cushing and Lee hadn't been paired together as Van Helsing and Dracula since the very first film back in the late 1950s, so seeing them together again should have been a big deal, at least bigger than a pre-credit sequence that feels like, "We now join our regularly scheduled vampire fight already in progress." But we'll let that slide, because it really is a fantastic opening, and one that can fool you into thinking Hammer's Dracula is back with a vengeance. After both Dracula and Van Helsing keep over dead, a mysterious third man rides up and scoops some of Dracula's ashes into a little glass vial and takes Drac's signet ring. Then, at Van Helsing's funeral, the guy dumps some of Dracula's ashes into a little hole in some far-off corner of the graveyard, and plunges the stake that killed Dracula into the ground. The combination of seeing Van Helsing and Dracula together again after so many years and the high-energy action of the scene is really fun, and like I said, perhaps they should have just made this movie instead. Given that Taste the Blood of Dracula sees the Count transported for the first time to London, a movie in which Van Helsing and the ace bloodsucker tangle with one another one last time on Hammer's home turf would have been a movie to get excited about.

And I guess technically, that is what Dracula A.D. 1972 is, in a weird, convoluted way. After Van Helsing dispatches Dracula and keels over dead himself, we get the funky Dracula A.D. 1972 theme song by Michael Vickers. And here is where Hammer lost a good many of the remaining traditionalists that were hobbling on their walkers out to the theaters, no doubt trailing their colostomy bags behind them, to see Hammer productions. Up until this point, every Hammer Dracula theme song had been written by James Bernard, the man who defined the Hammer score the same way Hammer itself defined the gothic horror film. Bernard's scores were bombastic and powerful, with the conductor explaining that in every song you could hear the syllables of the movie's title (and it's true). But with Dracula A.D. 1972, Hammer was trying to create an amalgamation of their past glory with something new. With Lee and Cushing serving as the links to the past, Bernard's theme writing services were not tapped. Instead, Michael Vickers turns in an attempt to blend classic Hammer horror music with a more modern film theme sound, something more along the lines of Lalo Schifren or Roy Budd. The dramatic shift from the thoroughly old-fashioned Hammer opening to this theme song full of horns and wah-wah guitars jarred many people, though they are lucky I didn't make the movie because I would have accompanied this completely bad-ass theme song with shots of Christopher Lee -- wearing a black flared-leg suit and platform shoes (and his cape, of course) high steppin' down the street with a magic cane, using it to turn fat women thin and bring dead people back to life in front of grieving relatives. That's right, people. You should be thankful Hammer's movie is what it is, because if I had my way, it would have been...well, it would have been Petey Wheatstraw, the Devil's Son-in-Law, but with Dracula. Which just makes me think that we really should have had a movie where Dracula is revived, hisses out his token line, "Who dares disturb the sanctity of Dracula?" only to have Rudy Ray Moore step in with a Thompson machine gun and say, "Dolemite, mother fucker!"


After our funky theme song, the action jumps a hundred years to the groovy, mod setting of London in the swingin' sixties. Except, you know, it's 1972 and all. A bunch of groovy young mop tops are skulking about London, holding "freak outs" and the most tame "horribly out of control" parties I've ever seen -- and I've been to some really tame parties. Leading this merry band of pranksters is one Johnny Alucard, trotting out the Alucard "puzzle" for the millionth time. We get it! Who, by this time, doesn't get the Alucard thing? Imagine if Frankenstein had tried that instead of just cleverly calling himself Dr. Frank or Dr. Stein whilst incognito. Actually, I guess Nietsneknarf isn't any worse than many actual German words.

Johnny happens to be the owner of Dracula's ring and some of his ashes, passed on we assume from his nefarious ancestor from the beginning of the film. And one of his friends happens to be the grand-daughter of the latest Dr. Van Helsing. And if you think they're all going to end up in an abandoned churchyard summoning up Dracula, then you don't really earn yourself a prize. Actually, Johnny Alucard is less a reincarnation of Dracula than he is a cheap knock-off of Malcom McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. In fact, many of the sets and situations in this movie feel cribbed from Kubrick's film, which is only fitting, I suppose, considering the outfits Malcom McDowell wore in A Clockwork Orange.

So OK, now my movie has a jive walkin' Christopher Lee as Dracula (with a magic cane, remember...and a big floppy pimp hat) battling Dolemite and trying to possess Alex from A Clockwork Orange. Seriously, why does no one ever give me development deals? How does Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave get funding, but my Dracula/Dolemite/Malcom McDowell movie languishes in limbo, alongside my ideas for Cobra-Shark vs. Croco-lion and Great White Squid, a movie about Wings Hauser fighting a genetically engineered giant squid that has great white sharks for tentacles.

Somewhere, my friends who bother to read this site are going, "Oh God, is he on about the Croco-Lion thing again?"

Johnny (Christopher Neame) convinces the gang that what would really be fun would be to hold a black mass. Having nothing better to do, the gang agrees, in some cases reluctantly so. It is at this point we learn that one of the groovy gang is Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham), great grand-daughter of Lawrence Van Helsing, slayer of Dracula, and current grand-daughter of Professor Van Helsing -- played by Peter Cushing, because in movies no one thinks it's weird when you look 100% identical to one of your distant relatives. Genetics tells me that I should look less and less like my relatives the further removed from them I get, but in movies, people are always the spitting image of some great grandfather or third aunt or whatever, and no one ever thinks that is weird. Hell, the mummy built his entire career of resurrections on randomly stumbling across women who looked exactly like their ancestor from thousand of years ago.

No surprises here when Johnny summons up Dracula during their black mass ritual -- which takes place in a desanctified church that happens to be the same place Lawrence Van Helsing and Dracula were buried. You'd think that, given that the current Professor Van Helsing has a portrait of his grandfather in his study, collected all the man's books, and remains himself an expert on the occult, that he would know where his idol and close relative was buried. But whatever. All that's important is Dracula is back and he's going to...well, he's going to hang around the church and send Johnny out to kidnap Jessica Van Helsing, because Dracula knows how to hold a grudge. Meanwhile, as members of the gang disappear -- including the lovely Caroline Munro (Captain Kronos, Starcrash) and the equally lovely Marsha Hunt (you may recall her hairy werewolf boobs from Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf, also starring Dracula) -- the police become increasingly convinced by Van Helsing's tendency to blame the murders on a vampire.

There are a few things people tend to harp on when criticizing this film. The first, most obvious, and dumbest argument is that the film is dated. I think I may have said before that "it looks dated" is one of my most hated complaints about any movie. It's cheap, ignorant, and shallow, and it has no merit as an observation. That a film is a reflection of the time in which it was made hardly strikes me as anything inherently negative, and I utterly detest whenever someone trots out that hoary old cliche and expects us to have any respect for their opinion. Oh, so Dracula AD 1972 contains slang and crazy fashion. Big deal. I look at those things as assets more than as detriments. So if your complaint is that the movie is dated looking, well we may still be friends, but I'm certainly going to regard your opinion on any film from here on out with a tremendous degree of suspicion.

The second most common complaint is that Dracula is hardly in the movie at all, and when he is, he does nothing. I can understand this complaint a little bit more, but honestly, if at this point in the series, you are mad that Dracula isn't on screen and doesn't do very much when he is, then you haven't watched any of the previous films in the series, except perhaps Scars of Dracula, which is the only film where he has anything approaching substantial screentime or more than two lines. Not to say that it isn't disappointing. One can't help but want scenes of Dracula cutting lose in modern London, even if those scenes don't involve him dancing down the street with a magic cane or fighting machine0gun toting kungfu pimps. Still, it would have been nice if he did a little something more than stand around in the desanctified church. Dracula's confinement to the church is representative of Hammer's difficulty with updating their image. They want to figure out a way to enter the modern era, but in the end, they imprison their title character in a Victorian set and don't ever figure out exactly how to bring him out.


Previous Dacula films have always relied on the rest of the cast, with Dracula looming in the background as everyone's motivating factor. Unfortunately for Dracula AD 1972, it's a pretty weak supporting cast, comprised primarily of inexperienced young actors who aren't bad but don't really contribute much that is memorable. They spend most of their time either sitting around being bored, or sitting around talking about how they are concerned, then most of them head off to a party and are never heard from again. Stephanie Beacham as Jessica Van Helsing obviously has a more substantial role, but only if you consider substantial to be screaming, then being put into a trance. As the menacing Johnny Alucard, Christopher Neame is all right -- equal parts spooky and pathetic -- but he's basically playing Malcom McDowell, as I said. Dracula AD 1972 is more or less a remake of Taste the Blood of Dracula, complete with the bored circle dabbling in the black arts, the mysterious outsider spurring them on and summoning Dracula, the vial of Dracula remains, the kidnapped woman, and so on. But Ralph Bates was a much more charismatic actor, and Taste the Blood of Dracula had a much more compelling cast of older character actors to propel it forward in between scenes of Dracula showing that he can count to four or five. Dracula AD 1972 lacks that, and although the young cast is perfectly acceptable, the characters they inhabit just aren't interesting. Plus the jackass who wears the monk's cowl around the whole time was intensely annoying and yet escaped death. Shame on you, Dracula! Shame on you for not killing the odious comic relief.

Caroline Munro has a small but memorable part as one of the gang of youths seduced by Johnny Alucard's ability to mimic what he's seen in A Clockwork Orange, but she would quickly become one of the most beloved cult film actresses of all time. She got her start on the horror scene playing Vincent price's dead wife in the Dr. Phibes films, though I'm not sure lying there dead for every one of your scenes earns you a whole lot other than other parts where you do nothing but lie there. She at least gets to talk, writhe, show off heaving breasts, and get blood dumped all over her in this film. Her career took off shortly thereafter, and she has a much more substantial role in Hammer's superior Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter, as well as major roles in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, At the Earth's Core, the James Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me, and of course the infamous classic Starcrash, featuring what was no doubt her most memorable outfit. She was still working, albeit only occasionally, up until 2006, and if you've seen her lately, in her late fifties, then you know she's still ridiculously gorgeous and awesome. A shame she doesn't have more to do in this film, but even a little Caroline Munro is worth watching.

As the current Van Helsing, it's great to see Peter Cushing back in action, and naturally he goes at the role with absolute conviction. Unfortunately, the character is written as Van Helsing Lite, and most of his scenes are pretty dull. He spends a lot of time tracking down clues to the one thing he already knows. Everyone knows where Dracula's base of operation is, and yet Van Helsing spends half the movie trying to track down clues to the location of Dracula's hide-out, which he already knows! And once again, he decides to go fight Dracula at night, instead of swinging by and staking the bloodsucker when Dracula is asleep in his coffin. Why oh why are vampire hunters always waiting until dark to go fight vampires? I guess a movie where vampire hunters swing by during the day, stake Dracula, then head down to the pub to celebrate wouldn't be as long, but it'd be a nice change of pace. Other than that, Cushing is always Cushing. He comes in and does his job well, or as well as he can with what he's given.

The final common criticism of this movie, then, is that it's not very good, and I guess that's a fair assessment. The script needed more work. You can tell the hip young lingo was written by old men who didn't really know what they were doing. The plot is a bit of a letdown, especially considering that it's the first time Van Helsing and Dracula have been on screen together since the first movie. And despite all that, I really quite like Dracula AD 1972. I like the young cast. I like the awkward attempt at being hip. I like the outlandish counter-culture fashions. I like the attempts at freak-out cinematography. I think the movie is fun regardless of its faults, though I recognize that I may be in the minority here. By no means is this the film to save Hammer, and by no means is it as good as the previous film it rips off, Taste the Blood of Dracula. But it's not an entirely bad effort and has much to recommend in it, at least for me.


Screenwriter Don Houghton didn't have a terribly deep resume at this point in his career, his primary credit at the time of this movie being a stint as a writer for Doctor Who. And in fact, he had very little in the way of a career after Dracula AD 1972. He went on to write The Satanic Rites of Dracula, and two of Hammer's co-productions with Hong Kong's Shaw Brothers studio -- the crummy Shatter and the pretty good if sloppily written Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires, in which Peter Cushing reprised his Van Helsing character one more time, this time on a trip to China to stop Dracula from raising an undead army. Despite the appearance of Dracula in the movie, Christopher Lee did not sign on, possibly because he was to busy making the James Bond film Man with the Golden Gun. Or The Satanic Rites of Dracula. Houghton was in his early forties when he wrote the screenplay for Dracula AD 1972, and while that's not really all that old, it is a little too old to be trying to write hip teen lingo. I'm only thirty-five right now, but I wouldn't consider myself adept at writing slang-heavy dialog based on modern teens. They say...what? Like, "sweet" and "cuckoo,man, real cuckoo" right?

Despite the faults, Dracula AD 1972 managed to turn a profit, which meant that Hammer was going to make another one, even though Christopher Lee swore this was the worst movie ever and he would never play Dracula again. That follow-up, another film set in the 1970s, was The Satanic Rites of Dracula, and if you want to see a genuinely awful film, that is the one you should be watching.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 7 Comments


Saturday, January 15, 2005

Scars of Dracula

Release Year: 1970
Country: England
Starring: Christopher Lee, Patrick Troughton, Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley, Michael Ripper, Michael Gwynn, Christopher Matthews.
Writer: Anthony Hinds
Director: Roy Ward Baker
Cinematographer: Moray Grant
Music: James Bernard
Producer: Aida Young
Availability: Buy it from Amazon
Promote It: Digg | del.icio.us


And we were doing so well! Most movie studios can't sustain the quality of a film series beyond two films -- and quite a few have problems even getting that far. It was no small feat, then, that Hammer managed to produce not one, but two consistently good series. Their Dracula and Frankenstein films set the benchmark for quality horror during the late fifties and throughout the 1960s. And you know, they almost made it to the finish lines with both of them. The Frankenstein series featuring Peter Cushing as the titular mad doctor lasted six films, with only the third film being a misfire - and not a very bad misfire at that. By the time Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell was released, it was clear that the series was at its end, both creatively and financially. Still, it managed to go out with a dash of class, and the final film features the second worst monster in the series (the honor of worst, in my opinion, goes to Kiwi Kingston's shrieking slapdash Karloff wannabe from Evil of Frankenstein) but one of the best stories and finest performances from Cushing. Even if the final film was not a financial success, everyone involved could hold their heads up high and be proud of all six movies.

And then there was the Dracula series starring Christopher Lee.


Like Frankenstein, Dracula started strong and managed to maintain the course for five films. Had they stopped with Taste the Blood of Dracula, it too would have retired a successful and respectable series. It was clear, in fact, by the fourth film that no one had much of an idea left regarding what to do with the character of Dracula. Another film in which a group of travelers end up at Dracula's castle and are preyed upon for the remainder of the film just wouldn't cut it. With Taste the Blood, Hammer tried to go in a different direction and make a movie where Dracula was a presence without being an actual character. American distributors, however, refused to buy a Dracula movie that didn't have Christopher Lee skulking about in an opera cape, and so the Count was forced into the story in a rather awkward fashion that gave him very little to do beyond stand in the shadows and count. And that's not what his title is supposed to mean.

Still, Taste the Blood was quite a good film even if Dracula's physical presence has little to do with the plot. Like I said, had they wrapped it up with this one, everything would have ended on a positive note. But where as the financial failure of Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell sealed its fate as the final film in the Frankenstein series, Dracula had the artistic misfortune of scoring yet another box office hit with Taste the Blood. And so it was that a sixth Dracula film was to be made, regardless of whether or not anyone had anything interesting to put forward.

Scars of Dracula isn't an abominably bad entry into the series (they'd save that for the final two films). It's just completely derivative and pointless, falling back onto the tiresome "doomed souls visiting Castle Dracula" and trying to set itself apart by giving Christopher Lee's vampire count more lines in this one movie than he'd had in all the others combined. They don't fool anyone, though, and while Scars boasts some memorable moments, the gestalt experience is one best forgotten.

We have yet another Paul in this film, as well as another Klove (Patrick Troughton, best known to sci-fi fans as the second Dr. Who, or the hobo Doctor as I call him). I think that's two Kloves to four Pauls, and add them to the three or four Hans's from the Frankenstein movies. Okay, two Kloves is one thing, but what's the deal with Paul? Didn't someone look back and realize they'd named the last three stiffs (you can hardly call any of them heroes) Paul, and thus they should go for a different name this time out, like Steven perhaps, or Beauregard? Well, by the time this series is over, a preponderance of Pauls will be the least of our concerns.


The movie wastes no time in letting us know we're in for a bumpy ride as we go immediately to the lamest Dracula reincarnation yet. Now, if you recall the final film, Dracula was transported to London, then disintegrates in an old church, leaving nothing but his trademark little pile of dust. When this film begins, however, Dracula is lying in his coffin back at Castle Dracula. A floppy giant rubber bat wobbles awkwardly into the room on visible wires and proceeds to drool a little of blood onto Dracula's dust. Voila! The prince of darkness rises again!

Now you know, even ignoring the horrid continuity between this and the previous films (which went to great lengths to connect itself logically to the end of Dracula has Risen from the Grave), there's no way to ignore that the ragged-looking bat prop is one of the single worst special effects in the history of Hammer horror. Someone wanted lots of bats in this movie; the least they could have done is check to see if anyone at Hammer could create them in a remotely believable manner. No hyperbole here - this thing would be embarrassing in a teenage goth's shot-on-video horror short. How it managed to flop and wiggle it's way into an actual professional production is a mystery to me. Maybe if they'd stopped at one bat, things wouldn't be so bad. But we're going to get lots of them, and each one will somehow manage to be more pathetic looking than the last.

Astoundingly, the scene manages to get even worse as Dracula (Christopher Lee, undoubtedly doing the film under protest yet again, as he would so frequently remind people) sits up and the bat begins squeaking at him while Dracula nods his head and listens intently. I expect this sort of thing in a Lassie movie, maybe even in a tender scene shared between Godzilla and Anguilas, but Dracula? "What's that, lad? You say a busty wench is down in the churchyard? Let's go!" I mean, yeah, they stop short of having Dracula jump up, yell "Alakazam!" then shrink down to action-figure size so he can ride the bat around, but I'm sure if it had occurred to them, that would have happened too.

Well, Dracula gets his busty wench kill in for the day, but this angries up the blood of the local peasants, and for once they don't just sit around in the tavern staring ominously at each other. In fact, one almost has hope when Michael Ripper, appearing as "Angry Barkeep" for the nine thousandth time, decides they should round up a good old-fashioned torch-wielding mob and kill Dracula off once and for all for the fifth time. Now, this is all right! A torch-wielding mob of peasants within the first ten minutes of a film? That's something I can live with. Unfortunately, they prove to be the most incompetent torch-wielding mob of peasants in the history of horror films, as they proceed to storm angrily up to Castle Dracula and knock on the door. I mean, they do it firmly and with stern looks on their faces, but if you're going up the mountain to kill a murderous vampire and burn his castle to the ground, stopping to politely knock on the door sort of undercuts your entire message. It gets even worse when, despite the fact that they must be aware that Dracula and/or his hairy servant Klove noticed the huge mob of torch-wielding peasants coming up the road, Michael Ripper knocks again and says, "Open up! I'm quite alone!"

Since Dracula is asleep, I assume this all takes place in the day time, so really, brandishing the torches angrily in the air probably lost some of its effect as well, but when you're the kind of mob that can be stymied in the rage by a butler who refuses to open the door, torches in the day time are the least of your concern, though you should probably be concerned regarding the efficacy of trying to burn down a stone structure.

When they do gain access to the castle (I can't remember if Ripper pulled the old "Okay, I guess I'll leave then," and made fake footsteps like he was walking away so that Klove would let down his guard and open the door), Klove doesn't seem especially upset. He may be a hairy hunchbacked servant, but even he knows that trying to burn down a stone castle with torches may damage a few tapestries, but that's about it. Still, the mob seems to consider it a job well done even though both Klove and Dracula survive. And, umm, the castle is still standing, too. Bravo, gents! Now let's all go down to the tavern for a pint!


When they return from their glorious triumph of getting a few walls slightly sooty (Klove will be scrubbing them for days to get the clean again), they discover that Dracula took the opportunity to send more floppy fake bats down to the town to massacre every last woman and child. This sort of puts a damper on their gaiety for the evening, and one has to wonder how a trio of floppy bats managed to massacre so many people and pull out so many eyeballs.

The story then shifts to another town, where the movie solidifies its place in the pantheon of bad films by featuring a wacky comedy sequence in which the philandering Paul (Christopher Matthews) gets chased around by the angry burgomaster after being caught in bed with the burgomaster's daughter. Thankfully, the film stops short of piping in Benny Hill music, but then maybe this entire painful sequence would have been better if they'd thrown in a little "Yakkity Sax," sped the whole thing up, and allowed Paul to pause for a second to pat an old man on the head. The Scooby-Doo style chase eventually leads to the birthday party of young Sarah (Jenny Hanley), who loves that rascally Paul even though his far nicer, less whorish brother Simon (Dennis Waterman) loves her. Eventually, Paul ends up at Castle Dracula, and yes, we realize we're going to get another one of those "Whatever you do, don't go to the castle" movies where everyone goes to the castle.

And that's just the first third of the film. It doesn't get any better from there despite the fact that Christopher Lee gets so much more screen time than usual. He hisses and seethes and screams and snarls his way through a series of unmemorable lines as he engages in all manner of brutality, including branding Klove with a hot poker, stabbing someone with a sword, impaling people on pointy light fixtures, and going nuts with the whip (once again on Klove). In fact, this is the first Dracula film where you expect the Count is more likely to just haul off and punch someone in the face than flash his mesmerizing red eyes at them and bite them on the neck. He seems to forget for most of the movie that he actually has vampire powers, and instead acts like a schoolyard bully, albeit a schoolyard bully with a tendency to wear a big cape for no discernible reason. This means Scars of Dracula has more gory action in it than any of the previous films, but none of it has much of an impact. Where's the fun of watching Dracula slap Dr. Who around? Okay, maybe that sounds a little fun, but it's really not.

Dracula also stabs a female vampire with a dagger. For some reason, this kills her. At this point, though, I don't even care. I guess if Dracula isn't going to bite people like a normal vampire should, then other vampires can be killed with daggers and so forth. I guess some vampires fear a wooden stake, and others fear a wiggling rubber dagger.

On the hero front, what can you say? This film gives you a milquetoast lead in Simon, and a standard issue cowardly priest (Michael Gwynn, who played the "monster" in the far superior Revenge of Frankenstein). You keep waiting for the priest to rise to the occasion and stop collapsing in his pew aisles and weeping, but that's about all he ever does. The Dracula series had been following an interesting trajectory, starting with Van Helsing's explaining Dracula in purely rational terms as a social disease to an increasingly supernatural demon to be combated not with science and reason, but with faith. Here, however, even that is chucked out the window in favor of having Dracula be nothing more than some asshole who happens to command a fleet of shaky rubber bats.


Simon sort of drifts from one scene to the next until he eventually finds himself standing on the roof with Dracula, about to be killed until a bolt of lightning shows up to do his dirty work for him. Boy oh boy, we're a long way from Van Helsing, aren't we? Patrick Troughton's Klove is every bit as over-the-top as Lee's Dracula, and both of them are more laughable than they are sinister.

I did say that this film had some memorable moments, didn't I? I mean, memorable because they're good, not because they're so unbelievably awful. I guess what I meant to say is there's the one scene worth remembering. One of the most notable sequences from the Bram Stoker novel involves Jonathan Harker observing Count Dracula entering and exiting the tower of Castle Dracula by crawling up and down the wall like a spider. For one reason or another, this scene had never been included in any theatrical version of the story, so scriptwriter Anthony Hinds and director Roy Ward Baker figured now would be as good a time as any. It does show, if nothing else, Dracula has learned the benefits of putting his crypt in an impenetrable tower with no entrance or exit save for the one window way up high that only a guy with spider climbing abilities can get to. It certainly makes more sense than keeping it on the ground floor with an unlocked door, as was his practice in previous films.

Of course, once Christopher Lee went crawling up and down walls, there was no stopping Dracula. Frank Langela did it in hazy slow motion with billowing cape and romantic string music playing. Gary Oldman did it all herky jerky while wearing a big red robe. It just goes to show you that a scene of Dracula scurrying around don the wall may be cool, but it can't save the whole movie.

Even the trademark Hammer look isn't on display here, as cheap budgets make for cheap sets. Fire damage explains away the spartan appearance of Dracula's castle, but that doesn't make it interesting to look at. More than ever, the people who made fun of horror movies with cardboard characters and cardboard sets had plenty of ammo for their attacks.

It can be fun, but you never once forget you're watching a dreadful movie. There's a reason this emerged as the goriest of all Dracula films, and one of the goriest Hammer films, period: they had to cover up the threadbare production with something. Scars of Dracula isn't quite a disaster, but it's everything bad about Hammer films, and everything that critics unjustly accused Hammer films of being - only this time, there was no defending the product. Hammy acting, clumsy comedy, wretched special effects, weak characters - heaving bosoms is about all this one has going for it, and you can get those in any Hammer film, even the good ones. 1970 was simply not a good year for Hammer, with this, the awful Horror of Frankenstein (not part of the actual Frankenstein series, and not starring Peter Cushing), Creatures the World Forgot, and Lust for a Vampire overshadowing the studio's two good films from that year: the wonderful Vampire Lovers and the acceptable Lady Bathory exploitation film, Countess Dracula. Scars of Dracula ends up being a highlight reel for anyone who ever wanted to showcase the lowest common denominator Hammer film. Hinds was a good scriptwriter, and Baker was a more than competent director. So what went wrong? It can only be that, in the end, no one but the accountants gave a damn about making another Dracula movie.

Unfortunately, it didn't stop there. Scars of Dracula once again made money, which meant that, impossible though it may be, yet another Dracula film would inevitably be made. Fans grew hopeful when they heard Peter Cushing was back in the game as Van Helsing. They grew suspicious when they found out Dracula would be visiting the year 1972. Their suspicions, it would turn out, were well founded. Dracula, A.D. 1972 would show everyone who thought Scars of Dracula was the worst Dracula movie Hammer had made that they hadn't seen anything yet.

That's it! I'm transporting Dracula to 1972!

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Monday, December 20, 2004

Evil of Frankenstein

1964, England. Starring Peter Cushing, Sando Eles, Katy Wild, Kiwi Kingston, Peter Woodthorpe, Duncan Lamont, David Hutcheson. Directed by Freddie Francis.

The story to this point: the good doctor of questionable moral standards, one Baron Victor von Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) escaped the guillotine he was facing at the end of the first film, Curse of Frankenstein, only to find himself beaten to death by angry amputees at the end of the second film, Revenge of Frankenstein. Luckily, his apprentice in that film, Hans, turned out to be a most capable student and was able to bring Frankenstein back from the dead, making him, in effect, the first man to successfully pull off Frankenstein's experiment with reanimating corpses.

So there you have the first two Frankenstein films from England's Hammer Studio, two of the company's best films and two of the best horror films ever produced. Well, you can forget all that, because although the third film in the series, Evil of Frankenstein once again stars Cushing in the lead role, and although there is a helper named Hans, just about everything else established up to that point by the previous films is chucked out the window for some inexplicable reason. Perhaps if we step back and look at some of the events that lead up to this film, we can comprehend why it seems such an oddity in the overall Hammer Frankenstein series. Or maybe we won't. Either way, you're getting the story, so you might as well sit back and make yourself comfortable.

When Hammer made Curse of Frankenstein way back in.aww, heck now, when was that? Nineteen hundred and fifty-seven? Fifty-eight? You know, at my age the years all just sort of mix together. Anyway, when Hammer made that film, most folks were still thinking of Frankenstein not as a classic of gothic horror literature penned by Mary Shelley, but as a series of movies produced by Universal and starring Boris Karloff or a parade of actors attempting to look like Boris Karloff. Hammer was determined to remind people of the film's literary origins, and besides, the Karloff monster make-up devised by Jack Pierce had been trademarked, so Hammer had to make certain their monster bore no resemblance to the Universal version. What they came up with in the end was spectacularly frightful, and while Christopher Lee's monster may not be the instantly recognizable global icon that Karloff's is, it is in my opinion the creepier and more nightmarish of the two.

After Revenge of Frankenstein, in which the monster was almost completely human in appearance save for his otherworldly Lyle Lovett hair, Hammer hatched some sort of a deal with Universal that gave them the rights to recreate the famous Karloff make-up. This would seem, thematically, to be incongruous with the progress set forth by the previous film in which we see that Frankenstein has mastered the procedure almost to the point of perfection. There'd be no reason for him to create anything as ungainly as a Karloff-type creature. But still, you can't help but want to take advantage of the chance to use the Universal likeness, so Evil of Frankenstein devised a script in which the baron encounters a previous creation of his frozen in ice. This in itself would have been very easy to work into the timeline of events set down by the first two films. There is a gap between Curse and Revenge into which this creature could have slid nicely without wreaking havoc. Unfortunately, they chose to cast this new creature as the original creature despite looking nothing like the Lee incarnation. In addition, no mention of the death and rebirth of Frankenstein at the end of the second film is ever made, and this particular Hans seems to have none of the skills possessed by the previous Hans. And just to make matters even more confused, a flashback sequence retells the story of the original creature, but with a completely different ending, one in which Frankenstein is merely exiled from the town of Karlstadt rather than sent to the guillotine.

Ultimately, you either have to ignore some of the bits and pieces of plot in this third film, which would then allow you to accept the flashbacks as being to some adventure after Curse but before Revenge, or you have to think of Evil of Frankenstein as a completely self-contained story unrelated to the previous two films, which is irritating in a way. Or you can just not worry about any of this. It's just that when you have two films as good as and as connected to one another as Curse and Revenge -- which picks up exactly where the first film ends - you want the third in the series to fit into the puzzle instead of being some weird anomaly sitting off to the side.

It could be that the chance to use the Universal appearance of the monster meant that Hammer figured they might as well make a little self-contained episode that is more of a salute to the old Universal films than a pure Hammer movie. Thus the revised back story, and thus, for that matter, the entire plot of this film, which feels much more like a throwback to the old Universal Frankenstein sequels than it does an entry into the Hammer canon. If anyone has simply asked someone from Hammer why the film was handled in this manner, I've yet to find the quote. But I'm confident it's out there somewhere.

So there's the behind-the-scenes gibberish. How about the movie itself? Well needless to say, it doesn't measure up to the previous two films, but very few horror films can. As a self-contained "further adventures of Baron Frankenstein," it's acceptable at its best but has so many things wrong with it that didn't plague the other films. We'll come to them in due time, but let's dig into things properly. The film begins on a solid foot with a great body-snatching scene that culminates in Frankenstein being run out of whatever town he settled in this time. Strapped for cash and devoid of equipment, he decides the only course of action is to sneak back to his old home and gather up some of his priceless belongings to sell. Why, exactly, he assumes the manor of a mad scientist who was executed and/or run out of town after creating a monster out of the body parts of corpses and then letting that monster go on a rampage would still be intact is a bit unclear, but I figure he's been inhaling a lot of fumes from all those mysterious beakers full of colored liquids mad scientists are so fond of, that he isn't really thinking straight. Hans, this time played by Sandor Eles -- an actor whose name sounds like a character from one of these movies - thinks that maybe going back home isn't such a good idea, but Frankenstein is confident no one will even remember exactly what he looks like or be that interested in the arrival of two travelers. This seems in stark contrast to the fact that every time he gets caught dabbling in the domain of God, his persecutors all remember everything about his infamous story.

As one would guess, Castle Frankenstein has been looted, and the fact that a local mesmerist keeps mentioning the dreaded Frankenstein by name still doesn't seem to convince Peter Cushing that people will recognize him. Eventually he discovers the local mayor is the proud owner of much of the stolen Frankenstein booty, which leads to the beleaguered doctor fleeing town once again, this time with the help of a beautiful wild deaf mute girl played, fittingly, by Katy Wild. It just so happens that in her cave is the frozen body of Frankenstein's old monster, just waiting to be spirited away for revival. At this point, Frankenstein's ransacked lab is miraculously in working order again, but we can ignore that since we're going to be busy marveling at how monumentally godawful the monster make-up job is.

Look, I'm already being easier on this film than a lot of Hammer fans tend to be. It's not up to the standards of the Frankenstein series, but taken on it's own it isn't really all that bad. But no amount of politeness can change the fact that this is some of the shoddiest make-up work Hammer has ever slapped together. You'd think with the rights to the Karloff look secured, they'd make some effort to make it look like something at least a little bit better than what a high school horror fan might come up with given ten minutes, ten dollars, and no materials other than paper mache, a packet of Quaker Oats, and a Sharpie marker. I mean, this is bad, bad stuff. Far worse than you might even guess if you haven't seen it. It can stand up to neither the Jack Pierce original or the Christopher Lee version Hammer dreamt up for their first Frankenstein film, and if this is the best they could do, then it's a shame they even tried at all. Come on, man! If all those crappy Universal sequels can get the make-up right, then surely Hammer could come up with something passable. This is the sort of garbage that never should have even been allowed into make-up test shots, let alone the finished product.

Saddled as he is with clunky, fake looking make-up, there's not much Kiwi Kingston, the man under the mess, could do even if he had the talent to do it. Both Karloff and Lee proved how much you could do with the character without even having dialogue, and in the previous Hammer entry, Michael Gwynn provided us with a fully human "monster." Kingston and the disaster he has plastered to his face are a major step backward. The make-up allows for almost no facial expressions at all. We can't seen anything but the actors lips and eyes, and Kingston doesn't know what to do with those. The rest of his body language is hampered by bulky clothes and those big metal shoes, so there's nothing worth noting there either. He is a completely unsympathetic creature who generates no emotional attachment whatsoever, and as anyone who knows Frankenstein movies can tell you, that's death for a movie. Even thought he Hammer films concentrate on the man more than the monster, you still have to have a good monster. In one scene where the monster is supposed to tumble through a railing and off a stairway, you can even see Kingston take a few steps back to get a running start before plowing intentionally into the railing like a football linebacker rather than some out of control creature in torment. The best Kingston can do is to stomp about and emit a shrill, irritating shriek that makes you long for the monster's death simply so it'll quit screeching.

He does a lot of that screeching because he was shot in the head, and apparently Frankenstein didn't do as good a job fixing the ol' brain up as he thought he did. When he finally quiets the big lug down, it's only because the monster goes into a coma. Frankenstein and Hans decide to enlist that local mesmerist, himself in trouble with the law, to help reawaken the creature's mind. This whole plot turn feels very similar to the sub par (but not entirely unenjoyable, mind you) Universal sequels that always had the monster getting involved with traveling carnivals and hypnotists and sideshow carnies carting around Dracula's bones. Naturally, the hypnotist Zoltan has his own designs on controlling the creature to extract a little revenge upon the cops who keep hassling him. Are all carnival hypnotists named Zoltan or Zandor? It's almost as chronic a problem as goth girls who call themselves Cassandra, or hippies who name their dog Zoe.

My beef with the whole hypnotist plot isn't that it's kind of corny or "Universal." I don't mind that. My problem is the fact that it causes Hammer to forget what made their first two movies great, and that's Peter Cushing. In both films, Frankenstein is the main character, and the films focus on exploring the complexity of his personality and the mentality that leads him to abandon the concept of morality in favor of relentless pursuit of scientific research. Here, Cushing's doctor takes on more of a supporting role with little more to do than Hans or the wild beggar girl. The focus shifts to Zoltan, played competently by Peter Woodthorpe, who later went on to star with Peter Cushing in The Skull before doing the voice of Gollum in the Ralph Bakshi animated version of The Lord of the Rings, which also featured Hammer stalwart Andre Morrell as Elrond. Saddled with a load like Kingston's unengaging and even downright annoying monster, this plot simple collapses. There's nothing to keep you interested. We know Zoltan will die for his treachery, and well, the creature always dies. There's nothing intense, nothing to pull you in the way there is in exploring Frankenstein himself.

Despite being relegated to supporting player, Cushing performs up to his usual high standards. The most interesting twist on the character allowed to come out in this film is the few glances we see of Frankenstein as a tired man. We know him as driven, undefeatable in his own way, but from time to time we get to see in Evil of Frankenstein a man who simply wants to be left alone. There's no real conflict in him here, though, which keeps him from being as compelling as he has been in the past. In previous films we had to balance his charisma and good intentions with the fact that he was willing to murder or perform unnecessary amputations if it would advance his research. Here, he gets mad about the burgomaster stealing his stuff, but that's about it. That does however lead to one good scene between him and the burgomaster's hysterically screaming wife. Unfortunately, there is nothing urgent in the character. It's almost as if Cushing could tell this film was little more than just a breather between official installments and decided, while he was still going to be the best thing about the movie, he could also afford to take a bit of a breather himself.

The primary reason, undoubtedly, for the shift in the focus of the story is the fact that Jimmy Sangster, who wrote the previous two films, was replaced this time around by Hammer producer-turned-writer Anthony Hinds. There's no real faulting Hinds as a producer. He is, arguably, the man who defined Hammer, and once he left in 1970, the studio began it's sharp downward spiral. As a scriptwriter, he was also quite accomplished, and the studio's best films that weren't penned by Sangster usually bear Hind's name or one of his pseudonyms. Curse of the Werewolf, Kiss of the Vampire, some of the Dracula movies before the wheels fell off that franchise - damn good movies. And while he's written a decent movie here, he hasn't written a decent Hammer Frankenstein movie, if you know what I mean. It's as if he simply missed the point of the series and took it in the wrong direction.

Also replaced with director Terence Fisher, who had helmed the first two films as well as the other films that helped define Hammer, Horror of Dracula and The Mummy (both written, incidentally, by Sangster). Cinematographer Freddie Francis took over with generally good results, though that special something Fisher brought to the table is notable in its absence. Still, Francis manages a number of memorable scenes, his best being the opening scene of body snatching. That the film, as of this writing, remains missing in action on DVD means that I've only been able to see the film on pan and scan VHS, so a full assessment of Francis' accomplishments isn't entirely possible. But I can say that, as was par for the Hammer course, the film looks beautiful. The baron's crumbling castle is gorgeously realized and the air of decay lends thematic gravity to the proceedings.

Supporting players are uniformly good. Katy Wild gives of a strange Bjork vibe, but I guess any Bjork-type vibe is going to be strange. She gives the high quality mute performance that should have been coming from Kiwi Kingston as the monster. Plus she's dangerously beautiful. It's a shame she didn't pop up more often. Her connection to the creature is only explored in a rudimentary fashion, but I reckon it's better than nothing at all. As Hans II, Sandor Eles is fine. There would end up being as many Hanses in these movies as there were Kloves in the Dracula films.

Evil of Frankenstein is a movie that is a bit hard to like if you are a fan of the previous two films. It just doesn't make sense why they decided to conflict so heavily with the established continuity when one or two little changes would have made everything more or less into place. What's done is done, though, and the result is that Evil of Frankenstein enjoys a rather rotten reputation as the worst of the Hammer Frankensteins, which I reckon is technically true. But the other films are all so good - though Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell does boast a monster design every bit as rotten as what's on display here - that you can be the worst of them and still be a decent film.

I don't think Evil of Frankenstein deserves quite as much venom as is sometimes flung its way. It's a misstep, sure, and a disappointing experiment, sort of like one of the doctor's many unsuccessful attempts at breathing life into the dead. But it has good performances from everyone who isn't the monster, a good score, a decent amount of action, the usual brain surgery gore, and a few really wonderful moments. If all bad ideas were this watchable, we'd be better off. So I recommend you take a deep breath, disconnect it from the other films, and enjoy it for what it is: a throwback to the Universal days. As such, it's really rather enjoyable in its own ugly way, and anyone who thinks it's the worst Frankenstein movie Hammer produced obviously never sat through Horror of Frankenstein.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Taste the Blood of Dracula

1970, England, Starring Christopher Lee, Ralph Bates, Geoffrey Keene, Linda Hayden, Michael Ripper, Peter Salas, Ilsa Blair, John Carson, Martin Jarvis. Directed by Peter Sasdy. Available on DVD (Amazon).

Last time we saw the prince of the undead, he was impaled on a cross and turned into that pink sawdust bus drivers sprinkle on the floor when kids throw up. For just about anyone, even the common vampire, that would signal the end, once and for all. But this is Dracula we're talking about, and if Dracula Has Risen from the Grave proved to be a financial success for England's Hammer Studio, then you could bet good money on the fact that they'd find yet another way to bring the Count back from the dead, even if he'd been impaled on a cross and even if series star Christopher Lee was back out on the streets again telling anyone and everyone who would listen that the Dracula movies were awful and he would absolutely, positively, under no circumstances ever play Count Dracula again. Anyone who knows the cycle knows that means that the next film in the cycle, Taste the Blood of Dracula, stars Christopher Lee as the titular count, and that in turns means we'd have to read even more quotes from Lee about how he was practically forced to do this film, but that he'd sure as heck never do another one.

There are two common paths of thought regarding Lee's frequent and increasingly irritating complaints about Hammer's Dracula movies. The first is that, well, Christopher Lee is just whiny and annoying. The second is that he made these statements with the full blessing of Hammer and with every intention, despite what he was saying, of reprising the role so long as the movies proved profitable. Having the star of a film out there talking about how horrible it all is and how he never wants to do another one is a surefire way to get people curious. Certainly Hammer seemed to have suspiciously peculiar luck with convincing Christopher Lee to go back on his bold proclamations. So either Lee is an obnoxious talker who never lives up to his own assertions, or he's just a cog in a clever Hammer marketing ploy, or Hammer has some bundle of pictures or other bunch of material that they use to regularly blackmail Lee.


In fact, Taste the Blood of Dracula was originally scripted by Anthony Hinds on the assumption that Lee would make good on his boasts and refuse to appear. Much like Brides of Dracula before it, Taste the Blood of Dracula was going to employ the threat of Dracula and his disciples without actually featuring the bloodsucker himself. As originally written Taste the Blood was going to be a showcase for Hammer's great young hope, Ralph Bates, the man they hoped would serve as the banner star for a new era of revitalized Hammer output. It seems like a good idea. Christopher Lee was becoming more difficult by the day, and one has to assume that despite the man's marquee value, Hammer would be happy to just move on without him for a spell. And Ralph Bates was certainly an able man around which to structure the faltering studio. Where as Cushing and Lee and the previous generation of Hammer actors had represented an older, more distinguished presence, Bates was young and handsome and would appeal, Hammer hoped, to the younger kids who were fast becoming the bread and butter of the movie industry. Bates was one of the studio's first attempts at a matinee idol (Oliver Reed could probably be considered their first).

As the studio entered the 1970s, they were beginning to feel the weight of a faltering British film industry, a dearth of ideas for new movies that would keep Hammer fresh, and most of all, the feeling that Hammer films were simply outdated and old-fashioned. Behind the scenes, Hammer was rudderless and without any real leadership or idea of where the studio was going. As a result, Hammer's output during the 1970s was notoriously uneven, though several high points managed to rise above the widening pool of substandard Hammer fare. One of the keys to Hammer succeeding in the 1970s involved a serious update of the stodgy and old-fashioned reputation. This meant, among other things, more daring scripts, less naïve looks at life, and above all, some new blood in the acting department that would appeal to existing horror fans as well as those shaggy-haired hippies and burn-outs with their bell bottoms and their Sergeant Pepper albums.

Unfortunately Warner Brothers, who distributed the films in the important US market, wasn't going to buy any of this. They didn't know who Ralph Bates was, and more importantly, they didn't care. If Hammer wanted their Dracula film distributed in the United States, then it damn well better have Dracula in it. American audiences wouldn't put up with a bait and switch, and if Warner couldn't have Christopher Lee in the film, then the film couldn't have distribution in the United States, at least not from Warner Brothers. Hammer scrambled to appease Lee in the same way but for much less money than the producers of the James Bond films begged and bought Sean Connery back into the Bond series (at roughly the same time. Diamonds Are Forever came out in 1971, but given the speed with which Hammer films were made versus the more liberal schedule of a Bond film, it's likely this sort of desperate buying back of established stars was happening at around the same time). With Lee on board again, under protest as he couldn't stop reminding people, a hasty rewrite of the script was in order so that Dracula could actually appear in the film to see who it was that going around tasting his blood.

Taste the Blood begins with a clever intro that signals the film's intention to put more work than usual into the process of reviving Dracula. A merchant traveling via coach with a couple of your standard issue gruff, superstitious villagers is bragging about the rare wares he has acquired during his recent antiquing sojourn through the Carpathian hills. While he may be proud of his knick-knacks, the villagers aren't as impressed, and when the merchant mentions a certain village, they just haul off and kick him out of the coach. Stranded in the woods at night, the merchant begins to hear the standard "stranded in the woods at night" sound effects. Owls, scurrying, and a howl that may or may not be Oliver Reed from Curse of the Werewolf. When a blood-curdling shriek fills the air, the merchant realizes that some seriously foul things are afoot in this cursed forest. By and by he falls off a ledge and comes face to face with the thrilling climax of Dracula Has Risen from the Grave. Once that movie finishes up, the merchant twists up his courage and sneaks down to collect the remaining artifacts, which include, as the title suggests, the blood of Dracula, or at least the powdered "just add water" variety we're used to seeing once Dracula finishes dying.

Some time later, we meet three upstanding citizens of Queen Victoria's England, and as you can guess, all three of them aren't nearly as pious as they pretend. Ring leader William Hargood (Geoffrey Keene, who appeared in Cromwell every James Bond films beginning with The Spy Who Loved Me in 1977 and concluding with The Living Daylights) is the most despicable of the bunch as he beats and berates his daughter for smiling at a boy and engaging in other acts of harlotry while, the very same night, gathering his cronies together for a night of exotic pleasures at the local brothel. Hargood and his fellows form sort of a mini Hellfire Club, though their indulgences in the forbidden pleasures of the world consist almost entirely of going to same brother every month under the guise of "charity work" and then sitting in a room, drinking liquor, and watching foreign women dance naked. I'm not saying that isn't a fine night out on the town, but as far as experiences the taboos from the farthest reaches of the globe go, it's pretty unimaginative, pedestrian stuff.

Hargood seems to realize this, and their boredom with their panty-waist sin leads them to seek out eccentric dandy Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates), who is one of those broke counts who gads about town in the finest high society frippery, scamming free meals from expensive restaurants and mooching off exquisite looking women of loose morals and poor judgment as he twirls his walking stick, doffs his top hat, and snaps his hankie about. In other words, a perfectly fine role model. Courtley is rumored to have dabbled in the black arts of Satanism or voodoo or something sinister, and so the three upstanding gentlemen seek out his company, though they never stop insulting him - which seems to me a poor way to treat the madcap young fop you're asking to initiate you into the next level of debauchery. Courtley sees in the gentlemen the perfect opportunity to get enough money to do something he's always wanted to do: namely, visit that merchant from the pre-credit sequence, buy Dracula's stuff, and mount a ritual to return the count to life. Reason? For the hell of it, it seems, which is as good a reason as any, I suppose.


As one would imagine, the ritual goes awry when Hargood's friends balk at actually guzzling down the thick, foaming blood of Dracula milkshake with which Courtley presents them. The ensuing argument results in Courtley's murder as he thrashes and writhes about after drinking the blood himself. Hargood and Co. high tail it out of the ruined old building in which the fun was taking place, and Courtley, not surprisingly proves to be just the vessel Dracula needs to return from the dead once again to wreak his unholy vengeance upon those who murdered his assistant, which doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense when you remember that Dracula has no idea who Courtley is, and that Courtley's death was necessary for Dracula to return to the land of the living. But what do you want when the script gets rewritten at the last minute?

The remainder of the film sees Dracula (Christopher Lee) gaining control over the sons and daughters of the three men against whom he bears this grudge, so that he can have them murder their own parents, which frees Dracula up to stand nearby in the shadows and count down the number of people against whom he has successfully extracted his revenge. Considering there's only three of them, it's not much of a countdown.

One of the things that sets this film apart from previous Dracula films is that Dracula, like Godzilla, is arguably the hero of the film. Though we still have to see him destroyed in the end, there's little doubt that he's no more vile than the men he's hunting. When he manipulates Hargood's battered daughter Alice (Linda Hayden, Blood on Satan's Claw) into smashing her wretched father's head in with a shovel, one almost feels like cheering, especially since this comes after a grotesque scene in which a drunk and leering Hargood viciously beats his daughter and looks on the verge of flat out raping her. Previous Dracula films have had gray characters - the self-righteous blowhard Monsignor from the last film springs immediately to mind - but those characters always had redeeming qualities. Hargood possesses no such qualities. He is despicable from beginning to end, and the audience has no problem feeling that he got what he deserved. The only thing wrong with his death, as I see it, is that it's the first, leaving the other two far less revolting characters to carry the plot when, if you ask me, Hargood's death should have been the climax of the story. Instead, we get Dracula hunting down the remainder of Hargood's cabal while milquetoast Paul (yet another Paul - nearly as many of these in Dracula films as there are Kloves, or Hans's in the Frankenstein movie) tries to save the soul of his beloved Alice Hargood and, in the process, send Dracula back from whence he came.

Taste the Blood represents a more savage critique of Victorian society than any previous Dracula film. There has always been an undercurrent in the films of the ongoing struggle between enforced morals and repression and the wild animalistic abandon represented by Dracula. But in previous films, the scripts always came down on the side of society, preferring its ordered repression to the lust and passion of Dracula. Here, however, the tables are turned and if Dracula's lifestyle isn't exactly championed, it's at least shown as being no worse than the hypocrisy and deceit of modern society. The point is made in rather a heavy handed fashion, but so it goes. Although a more counter-culture, youth-friendly message about freedom triumphing over repression was nothing new in 1970, Hammer was still a relative neophyte studio when it came to tapping into the anti-authoritarian trends that had defined and all but escaped Hammer during the 1960s. With Taste the Blood, they're attempting to play a bit of catch-up, so one can forgive the ham-handed way in which they deliver the message.

Dracula is, once again, little more than a supporting player, a sort of shadowy puppet master with very little screen time who does precious little more than lurk in the shadows rattling off the body count like the Count from Sesame Street. But then at the same, time, he doesn't have any less screen time or involvement in things than he did in most of the previous films. What Taste the Blood does is the same thing that Horror of Dracula and Prince of Darkness attempted to do, which is to keep Dracula constantly present as a threat, an ominous atmosphere of dread, even when Christopher Lee himself is nowhere to be seen. Only in the finale, which is admittedly half-baked, does Lee get to do his crazed thrashing about, though one has to wonder if the lord of the undead couldn't think of a better way to fight off a weak opponent like Paul than standing on a balcony and throwing garbage at him. It's just one step away from having Dracula swoop down and whack Paul on the head, then flutter up into the rafters to taunt him.

The rest of the cast is spectacular. Paul (Anthony Higgins, Vampire Circus as well as a small part in Raiders of the Lost Ark) is more boring than the previous Paul, but no more boring than any of the other straights we've had on parade. Linda Hayden is one of the most attractive women Hammer ever put on display, and she acquits herself well as the other half of the boring romantic couple. The real strength of the cast lies in everyone else, an impressive assembly of solid character actors that perform above and beyond the call of duty, with Geoffrey Keen and Ralph Bates in the lead. For the couple scenes where he's allowed to spring to life, Christopher Lee is as good as he always is. Michael Ripper, who seems to have appeared in just about every movie Hammer ever made, gets promoted from the role of "suspicious barkeep" to "lackadaisical inspector." It's probably one of the best casts ever assembled for a Dracula film, and although it's common to bemoan the lack of Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, there's really no place for him thematically in this film, where the humans are generally so contemptible. Van Helsing's compassionate authority figure would have stood out like a sore thumb.


Taste the Blood continues to take Dracula further and further away from Van Helsing's theory that Dracula is is a perfectly explainable creature well within and soundly defeated by the powers of human reason. In fact, by Taste the Blood, Dracula is hardly even a vampire any more so much as he is some kind of supernatural demonic force. If ever he was the human made monster, you wouldn't know it at this point. The more secular means of dispatching a vampire -- garlic, running water, so on and so forth -- that were previously employed have, by this movie, been dispatched almost entirely in favor of religious iconography. Although Taste the Blood is as steeped in religious imagery as Dracula has Risen from the Grave, it doesn't have any particular comment to direct toward religion the way that previous film did. Religion is simply a matter of necessity as Dracula has become less the prince of darkness and more the Antichrist himself. Or wait, are those the same? Whatever the case, Taste the Blood again presents us with a monster which, unlike Dracula as we knew him in the first couple of films, exists entirely within a religious -- or sacreligious -- realm where bravery and reason have less to do with destroying him than do faith and Christ.

Despite the weak ending, Taste the Blood is an exceptional entry into Hammer's Dracula oeuvre. Director Peter Sasdy eschews the ultra-vivid palette that characterized the Terence Fisher films and goes for a more subdued hue to the film, something more akin to reality and less stylized. Buildings and street are dark rather than brightly lit, and there is a palpable sense of decay in everything. Even Christopher Lee grudgingly admits that it turned out to be a good film, though to this day he won't stop going on about how corny the title is - and at least on this, one kind of has to agree with him, though I'd pay good money to see something under the same title debut on the Food Network. Being the final Hammer Dracula film, it was nice to see the series go out on such a respectable note.

I'm kidding of course. Taste the Blood would prove successful, and thus there would have to be another Dracula film. We can only wish that Hammer stopped with Taste the Blood, because from here on out it's not so much downhill as it is straight off a cliff and into the abyss.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Thursday, September 16, 2004

Blood from the Mummy's Tomb

Release Year: 1971
Country: England
Starring: Andrew Keir, Valerie Leon, James Villiers, Hugh Burden, George Coulouris, Mark Edwards, Rosalie Crutchley, Aubrey Morris, David Markham, Joan Young.
Writer: Christopher Wicking
Director: Seth Holt and Michael Carreras
Cinematographer: Arthur Grant
Music: Tristram Cary
Producer: Howard Brandy
Availability: Available on DVD from Amazon
.

Someone must have gotten the memo and said, "Jesus, another mummy movie?" After three Hammer mummy movies, which in turn had followed some nine thousand or so Universal mummy movies featuring the vengeful bag o' rags known as Kharsis, the general consensus was that the world pretty much had all the movies it needed in which some expedition disturbs a tomb, gets yelled at by a guy in a fez, and then gets stalked by the mummy looking to avenge the desecration of the tomb. Even in as few as three films, Hammer Studio seemed to be flogging a dead...I don't know...Pharaoh or something.

Though their first film, The Mummy starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee was spectacular, subsequent Hammer mummy movies bore essentially the same plot, and I do mean "bore." Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, the second of Hammer's mummy films, remains missing on DVD as of this writing, and thus can't be fit into the Netflix queue. However, my intention is to eventually (before year's end, anyway) do a round up of all the Hammer horror series films that are missing from Netflix so that I can plug all the holes and have a complete look. This means that just in time for Christmas, or maybe Halloween, you can look for us to bridge the gaps by reviewing Brides of Dracula, Dracula Prince of Darkness, Scars of Dracula, The Mummy's Curse, and The Evil of Frankenstein. And I guess Dracula AD 1972 if I can manage to find a copy. Hammer's third foray into mummy fun, The Mummy's Shroud, we've already discussed.

Which brings us to 1971, and Hammer is in a bad state. There had been a rocky string of films, and it seemed obvious that the studio was losing its way, or had lost its way and was already flailing blindly in the darkness. Despite the dire straights in which Hammer found itself, they managed in the early 1970s to shoot a number of surprisingly good films that saw the company trying to break new ground in much the same way they had decades previous. Two of the three "Karnstein" vampire films -- Vampire Lovers and Twins of Evil are quite good films, even if their middle piece, Lust for a Vampire is somewhere more on the rotten end of things. Vampire Circus was highly enjoyable and unique. Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell wasn't the best in the series by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a serviceable film that would have been greatly improved if only the monster hadn't been so silly looking. And then there was Blood from the Mummy's Tomb.

For their forth Egyptian adventure, someone at Hammer realized that no one wanted to see the same film a fourth time, especially since each subsequent mummy movie had declined considerably in quality. So certain changes were to be made. First and most obvious there was no mummy, at least not the shambling cloth-wrapped mummy one would expect. Second, the script, based on a story by Bram Stoker, did contain a curse, the violation of a tomb, and the deaths of all who entered said tomb, but there was no vengeance for the desecration. In fact, the expedition, it turns, out, was guided there purposely by the entombed princess within. And rather than being set in the usual 1860-1910 range of dates that encompass most of Hammer's gothic horrors, Blood from the Mummy's Tomb sports a modern setting. This was disastrous for the Dracula films, but it worked well for the mummy since there was no real effort to beat people over the head with funky music and bell-bottoms and guys using crazy hepcat lingo. It just meant that someone drove a car and wore a turtleneck sweater. Perhaps the most striking difference between Blood from the Mummy's Tomb and the previous two films was that it was good. Quite good, in fact. Not The Mummy good, but still plenty enjoyable, and a major high water mark for the company's often dismal output during their final decade.

That Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is such a unique and enjoyable film is all the more impressive given the fact that it became known as one of those "cursed" films. It's too bad they'd already used up the "curse" title for the second film. The trouble started with Peter Cushing, who in an attempt to return some degree of prestige to the flagging mummy movies had been cast as one of the archaeologists who finds himself pitted against an ancient Egyptian princess' desire to be reincarnated using the body of his own daughter. With only a day or so of filming under his belt, however, Cushing's wife grew extremely ill and he dropped out of the production to be by her side. She died shortly thereafter, and Cushing was in no mood to be making mummy movies about dead women trying to return from the tomb.

Hammer was more than willing to let their main man grieve, and so he was replaced by Andrew Keir, a fine and distinguished actor who had worked with the company on such productions as Dracula, Prince of Darkness and Viking Women, and was probably best known for playing the title character in Quatermass and the Pit. He'd also worked alongside Cushing in one of the Dr. Who movies, Dalek's Invasion Earth: 2150 AD. So even though losing Cushing was a blow, Keir was a top notch replacement who, if not possessed of as much recognition as Cushing, was still a familiar and well-respected face.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the last tragedy to befall the film. Director Seth Holt, an imaginative director with a unique style, died during filming. He'd been in a state of increasingly poor health attributed largely to his weight and drinking, and it finally caught up with him. He was replaced by Michael Carreras, the son of Hammer founder James Carreras. Michael's directorial role call is not what one might call impressive. Impressively bad, perhaps, although entertaining in spots. But suffice it to say he wasn't exactly the studio's star director unless you're idea of Hammer at their best was Lost Continent and Prehistoric Women. Nepotisim? Perhaps, but I guess they figured with Curse of the Mummy's Tomb under his belt, they might as well call him in and let him direct the bits of Blood from the Mummy's Tomb that remained unfinished upon Holt's death. To Carreras' credit, his work blends seamlessly with Holt's, and there is no obvious point where the two directors' styles diverge.

The story revolves around the ancient Egyptian princess Tara (the indescribably lovely Valerie Leon), who is sort of put to death in a half-assed fashion for being just being kind of all-around wicked. The method of execution seems to be to put some BBQ sauce in her nose, then cut off her hand, the reasoning being that if her body remains incomplete, then she can never rise from the tomb to inflict her evilness on society again. You'd think that rather than just chopping off a hand and throwing it to the jackals, you'd also do the head, maybe a leg. You know, make a thorough job of things.

As it is, not only do they only chop off her hand, that same hand manages to kill a jackal and then go on to summon a sandstorm and rip out the throats of all the murderous priests. This movie will feature a lot of gory blood-gushing neck wounds, by the way. In terms of gore, it's quite extreme for Hammer, which I guess is an odd statement that deserves some quick clarification. In the 1950s and early 1960s Hammer was notorious for pushing the limits of what constituted acceptable onscreen gore. However, the revolution they began eventually passed them by, and by the time of Blood from the Mummy's Tomb, Hammer films seemed quaint and somewhat reserved compared to what was being pulled in other films. Blood from the Mummy's Tomb isn't a gorefest, but the gushing neck wounds are pretty extreme, and the finale of the film features a really juicy stabbing. Blood from the Mummy's Tomb was also one of the first Hammer films (Vampire Lovers, I believe, was the first) to feature nudity even though the earlier films had often been criticized for being too sexual. The nudity here is very quick, a flash of breast and rear, and apparently a body double stood in for Valerie Leon.

Visions of the execution plague young Margaret (also Valerie Leon) thousands of years later. Her father was part of an expedition that unearthed the bizarre tomb of Tara, who stuns the archaeologist by being perfectly preserved and looking no older than the day she was killed. Things get weirder when they discover her corpse and severed hand still bleed, but they're not able to get too freaked out since she also seems to be working some mojo from beyond the grave that puts the archaeologists under her spell. Each of them takes one of her sacred items, and when the items are united on her birthday, her spirit will return to earth and possess Margaret.

Unfortunately, Margaret is already falling under the spell of the ghostly princess - who, need I even mention, looks exactly like Margaret. See, her father gave her this big, ugly, unsightly red ring that allows Tara to dominate the mind of Margaret. The initial indication that Margaret is being possessed comes when she enthuses as to the beauty of the ring - a piece of jewelry so unspeakably ugly that not even Sammy Davis Jr. would wear it. Other characters exalt the aesthetic virtues of the ring as well, until eventually you get the idea that the script is trying desperately to make us believe in the beauty of the ring despite the obvious evidence to the contrary on screen, like how movies about brilliant writers will try to convince you of the writer's brilliance by having everyone state the writer is brilliant, even though excerpts from their writing that appear in the film suggest that the writer is, in fact, of a skill level far below that required even for an author of books whose covers are adorned by illustrations of Fabio dressed as a pirate.

Although most of the members of the expedition resist Tara's demands, that just results in Valerie summoning up ghastly forces to inflict more neck wounds. Don't know what it is with this movie and neck wounds. Every death scene seems to end in a neck wound with blood a-pumping and the person clutching their throat and making the bug-eyed, "I have a neck wound!" dying face.

I don't know what would have been riskier - to make another mummy movie with another mummy seeking more vengeance, or to make a mummy movie in which there is no mummy, and the story is more about possession and ghosts and psychological horror. Whatever the case, Hammer took the more original risk, and it paid off. Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is a slower paced film, as most of the mummy movies were, but because it relied more on mood and psychological tension, the movie never feels as draggy as the previous two films. And if nothing else, watching Valerie Leon stalk around in tight-fitting skimpy nightgowns is more fun than watching more cloth-wrapped lumberers lumbering about.

What makes the film work, aside from it being different than any of the mummy movies that came before it, is the quality of the cast. Chris Wicking's script certainly helps, but it's the commitment of the cast that makes it work. Of course, that's the case for just about all the Hammer films, and more than a few hammy scripts were saved by the fact that the cast commits to it entirely and makes you believe. Blood from the Mummy's Tomb isn't a hammy script, but the fact that the cast is into it makes it even better. It keeps the pace feeling fast during the slower dialogue scenes. Keir was the biggest name in it. Valerie Leon had small parts in a lot of those Carry On films the British seemed to love so much, but this was one of her first starring roles. The rest of the cast is comprised of character actor stalwarts and a few attempts at injecting some new blood into Hammer. Everyone works quite well.

Hammer also handles the modern setting well - certainly better, as I said in the beginning, than in their other attempt to update a series property, Dracula AD 1972. The present-day setting never intrudes on the gothic-style horror. The art direction for the Egyptian scenes is better here than it was in previous films as well, with things looking more authentic and less like brand new props.

I would gamble that the leisurely pace of the film will turn off a lot of viewers, especially those expecting thrill-a-minute mummy fun. But then, I reckon those people have never been big Hammer horror fans anyway. Blood from the Mummy's Tomb isn't a scary film. It doesn't instill in the viewer a sense of dread the way Hammer films at their best do. Instead, it achieves a very dreamy/nightmarish atmosphere, disturbing but never shocking save for the parts where blood spurts out of something. It has a very continental feel to it, if you dig my meaning. And if you don't -- it lacks the clinical precision of Hammer and other British horror films and instead sports that more ephemeral Italian feel. The offbeat atmosphere fortells the even more continental approach of Hammer's final horror film, To the Devil...A Daughter, with the chief difference between this film and that one is that Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is odd and enjoyable while To the Devil...A Daughter is odd and wretched.

It's a shame that Hammer didn't take more risks with unique material during the 1970s instead of going the route they went, which was to film the same things over and over but with lower budget, lesser actors, and more boobs. I mean, the more boobs part was fine, but it still shows that rather than being a trend-setter, Hammer had become a trend follower desperate to attract attention to themselves in whatever way possible. Granted the entire British film industry was in a bit of a moribund state at the time. But rocky though the 70s may have been for Hammer, Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is a stand-out that, while perhaps not keeping pace with the company at its best, certainly makes for solid b-movie material.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Sunday, September 12, 2004

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave

1968, England. Starring Christopher Lee, Rupert Davies, Veronica Carlson, Barbara Ewing, Barry Andrews, Ewan Hooper, Marion Mathie, Michael Ripper. Directed by Freddie Francis. Available on DVD (Amazon).

When a creature is so vile, so evil, so much an affront to the nature of the world and of God himself as is the vampire Count Dracula, there is no easy way to destroy him and keep him down. So it is that in every episode of man's struggle against this infernal prince of darkness, we mortals seem to succeed in wholly destroying this spawn of Satan only to see him find some way to cheat death yet again, as he has for so many centuries now, so that he may once again rise up and cast his long shadow of terror and bloodshed across the countryside. It seems this notorious bloodsucker has any number of ways he can reverse the effects of his apparent destruction, but the most powerful one by far is making certain that his movie provide bushel baskets full of money for the producers.

With the power to produce so much green, it was a given that Hammer Studio's Dracula would find a way to resurrect himself after being trapped under the ice at the end of Dracula, Prince of Darkness. Death by running water seemed a more easily circumvented fate than actor Christopher Lee's emphatic statements regarding his unwillingness to portray the caped one again. Lee made a big name for himself with his turn as the undead ghoul in Hammer's ground-breaking Horror of Dracula, but he was determined that the name he made wouldn't be Dracula. So he bowed out of the sequel, Brides of Dracula, and didn't return to the role until he was comfortable that he'd established himself as something more than the vampire count. But 1967's Dracula, Prince of Darkness proved that audiences were still bloodthirsty not just for Dracula, but for Christopher Lee as Dracula. That people were so quick to revert to identifying him solely with Dracula made Lee squeamish about reprising the role yet again, though the outstanding success of Prince of Darkness meant that Hammer could hardly pass on making another film.

So would begin a long and sometimes irritating cycle of Christopher Lee making a Dracula movie for Hammer, complaining about what crap the film was and how he would absolutely never, ever do it again, then appearing in Hammer's next Dracula film a year later. Although Lee did have his viable points for being dissatisfied with the role - chief among them that it grew increasingly unlike anything portrayed in the original Bram Stoker novel - in the end his continuous complaining coupled with the fact that he'd always show up to do another one "under protest" kind of makes you want to tell Christopher Lee to shut the hell up. Hey, I like me the Christopher Lee, but it's not like the man built for himself some legacy of impeccable artistic integrity. He did show up in Chuck Norris films and other things far worse than even the least of his Hammer Dracula films. But that's Christopher Lee for you. Sometimes he's just a bit of a blowhard, but that doesn't make his turn in these films any less enjoyable.

So obviously, despite Lee's public bellyaching, Hammer managed to sign him on for a sequel to Prince of Darkness. There was really no reason to tinker with a winning formula, and so they figured they might as well bring back Terence Fisher to direct and Jimmy Sangster to do the screenplay. Things didn't quite work out that way though, and when Fisher was injured in an auto accident, Hammer turned to Freddie Francis to fulfill the directorial duties. Additionally, Anthony Hinds ended up writing the screenplay (under his frequent pseudonym of John Elder). As good as the Sangster-Fisher team was, there was nothing to mourn in having Francis and Hinds working on the picture. Both were solid company men with a lot of good work to their credit. In fact, Freddie Francis' tendency to experiment more with dreamlike, experimental set-ups would be a nice change from Fisher's meticulous concentration on realism and detail.

The film lets you know right away that it isn't going to mess around, although this warning turns out to be a bit of a fib since the movie does end up messing around a bit. But we begin with one of the finest opening sequences Hammer would devise for a Dracula movie, as a young boy goes to fulfill his duty as the local church's bell ringer only to find the corpse of a young woman - drained completely of blood - dangling inside the bell. It's a fantastic image in a film whose main strength is going to be in its imagery. This all occurs, we are lead to understand, sometime during the events depicted in Prince of Darkness. The film then picks up some months after that one ends, with the local priest a hopeless drunk and the church abandoned. When a loudmouth, obnoxious monsignor rides into town, he berates everyone for still being afraid of Dracula even though he was indisputably destroyed by that rifle-toting monk in Prince of Darkness.

To prove his point, the Monsignor insists on dragging the parish priest up to Dracula's now-vacant castle to exorcise the grounds and scatter assorted religious iconography about the place. Unfortunately, while he's doing this, the drunken depressed priest takes a tumble off a ledge and cracks open his head right on top of the ice beneath which lies the perfectly preserved corpse of Dracula. As blood from the priest's head trickles through cracks in the ice, it touches Dracula's lips and, well, there you go. Instant vampire resurrection. This process of reviving the count seems a little, you know, unimaginative. Last time, someone had to be strung above his ashes and completely gutted before Dracula was revived, but this time it just takes a couple drops of blood and a convenient ignoring of the fact that, blood of a disillusioned priest or not, Dracula was still trapped beneath running water and should have just died again instead of being able to burst forth from his icy tomb to wreak terrible vengeance upon the world.

This method of bringing Dracula back would, however, look positively inspired by the time the series got to Scars of Dracula, where the count is brought back to un-life when a random rubber bat flies into his crypt and drools some blood on him without any sort of build-up at all.

The first thing one notices about this whole opening, which is really one of the best procession of images in any Dracula film, is the pervasiveness of religious imagery. Well, I guess the first thing you might notice is how the drunk priest's head is gushing blood in one shot and is entirely healed mere seconds later in another shot. But the religious imagery is strong, too, and indeed Risen from the Grave will emerge as one of the most potently religious of the films, continuing the progression of the series from the relatively secular adventures of Van Helsing (he pays lip service to God, but his primary faith is in science and reason, and he sees vampirism in terms of being a disease) to the "I'm religious but I'll trust my gun to do the Lord's work' view of Father Sandor in Prince of Darkness, and now into the realm of Dracula not as a plague, but as a supernatural force that exists apart from and in defiance of the laws of a rational universe.

The Van Helsing-esque voice of the enlightened man of reason comes, somewhat more pathetically than with Van Helsing, from the character of Paul, a student and avowed atheist who is in love with the Monsignor's niece, though the Monsignor is none too thrilled to have a Godless screwball courting a member of his family. The battle between the forces of secularism and religion is almost more prominent than the battle against Dracula, who eventually discovers that the Monsignor has stuck a big golden cross on the castle door and thus seeks ruthless revenge on the Christian defiler by enslaving the weak priest and moving into the basement of the inn where Paul works. If you're thinking this is kind of a lame ultimate revenge against all mankind, then you'd pretty much be right. But Dracula also enslaves a buxom bar wench, so it's not a total wash-out.

Dracula plans to eventually get around to making a vampire out of the monsignor's niece, but he doesn't seem to be in any big hurry, which means that while he gets to spend a lot of time hanging around in the cellar being illuminated by eerie green lights, we have to spend a lot of time watching him hang around the cellar being illuminated by eerie green lights. It does indeed make for some frighteningly effective imagery, which seems to be the entire point of this film, but a procession of eerie images doesn't necessarily assemble into a completely enthralling or entirely coherent film. Things do drag a bit in the middle as we watch Dracula push around the wench and the priest while Paul and his love engage in late-night rendezvous' on the rooftop. We know that eventually Dracula is going to kidnap her and there will be a scene of horses wildly pulling a carriage toward Castle Dracula. We just wish there wasn't so much dead time before that happens.

This movie does contain one of the scenes that really set Christopher Lee off to ranting about how awful all the films are. Paul manages to drive a stake - and quite a large one at that - through Dracula's heart, which Dracula proceeds to yank out and throw at Paul. Turns out you have to stake the vampire, yeah, but it's meaningless unless you also pray while you are doing it. Paul, being an atheist or perhaps somewhat versed in vampiric lore, refuses to pray. Who's heard of such a thing? You just slam the stake in, cut the head off, and then you're done for the day. This particular scene drove Lee nuts. He still brings it up even today. Everyone knows that once you drive a stake into a vampire's heart, he's done for, prayer or no.

Gaffs like that aside, this is really rather a better entry in the series than Christopher Lee would have you believe. The story, though uneven, benefits from greater depth than usual, with the battle between secularism and Christianity adding some real meat to the non-Dracula bits. Of course, any attempt to extract some sort of final message from the film is bound to be confusing. It's religion's fault that Dracula gets resurrected. If the Monsignor had listened to the superstitious peasants, none of this would have happened. And it's Paul, the atheist, who must come in and save the day when Christianity fails to get the job done. But Paul also wind sup perhaps more open to belief in Christ by the end of the film, which is full of redemption and vampires getting impaled on big golden crucifixes. So I guess the overall religious message of Dracula Has Risen from the Grave is, "don't be an asshole." Don't be intolerant or a zealot, because then you just open the door for Christopher Lee to go stand on your roof while enveloped in purple mist. And while it may be cool to have Christopher Lee on your roof for a while, eventually he's going to start asking about eating some of your chips and stuff like that.

Appearnace-wise, Risen from the Grave is the best looking of all the Dracula films to date, and really one of the best looking films Hammer ever produced. The atmosphere in the film seems to be heavily influenced by the more phantasmagoric look of Mario Bava's films, and the result is a Dracula film awash in otherworldly colors and swirling camera filters. It gives the movie a more dreamlike, hallucinogenic mood, which is perfectly fitting to mark the series' move toward more supernatural, less "man of reason" fare. The next in the series, Taste the Blood of Dracula (it's salty!), would contain even more overt references to Dracula not as some sort of social disease that can be explained with and combated by science, but as a creature straight from Hell imbued with the powers of Satan himself and able to be both resurrected and defeated through a series of religious or sacrilegious rituals.

Lee's appearance, likewise, is even more ghoulish than previous incarnations. Each film sees him get more pallid and cadaverous, while his eyes get more bloodshot. He's in snarling animal mode here, throwing people around wildly and smashing windows. He gets a few lines this time around. It was watching this movie that I finally had my little epiphany about Dracula's behavior. I'm slow, so you'll have to forgive me if this was obvious to everyone else long ago. I was always a bit annoyed by the fact that although he is four or five times stronger than a regular man, Dracula's answer to a fight is to turn tail and run. I mean, Paul isn't exactly an imposing figure. Then it hit me, and well, all I can say is "duh." Dracula is a vicious beast, but a beast never the less, and even the most vicious beast in nature is more likely to turn around and run away than fight. It's a simple animal reaction to being challenged. Unless he's really hungry, Dracula would rather take off. Not that I'd recommend combating all vampires by waving your arms in the air and yelling, "shoo!" but it seems to work sometimes. Dracula is only fierce-acting around people he already knows are weaker than him. So there you go. I'm not especially clever, but it's a cleverly profound way to portray the count.

Dracula has Risen from the Grave is a nice gothic horror despite some slow spots. It's got a decent cast, though as always Peter Cushing is sorely missed. It has a tremendous look, smart direction, the usual great James Bernard score, and a script that shoots for more meaning than usual. Lee is less of a presence here than in the last film, and his shadow doesn't seem to loom as powerfully over everything when he's not present as it did in Prince of Darkness. But when he does show up, he looks exquisite. Although Lee himself runs down these later films in the series, it's actually quite good, and the next one would be even better. Sadly, it was all downhill after that.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Thursday, September 09, 2004

The Devil Rides Out

1968, Great Britain. Starring Christopher Lee, Charles Gray, Nike Arrighi, Leon Greene, Patrick Mower, Sarah Lawson, Paul Eddington, Rosalyn Landor. Directed by Terence Fisher. Available on DVD from Amazon.

His names are legion. His name is Legion. But maybe you know him as Scratch, or Ol' Gooseberry. The Devil himself, if you will. He's one of the most compelling literary figures of all time, despite, I imagine, the original intentions of the writers of the Old Testament. Milton turned the Devil into a brash anti-hero, and for many intellectuals who see religious fundamentalism as stifling to the pursuit of knowledge. He's remained in his cool cat corner with lots of stories being written about him. Something about Lucifer lends to storytelling. It's his unpredictability. You never know if you're getting the wretched evil Devil or the suave rebellious one. Or the witty one. With Jesus, you pretty much know what you're going to get, and his story is pretty well documented and confined by the completeness of the New Testament and actual historical events. It's not that there's anything wrong with Jesus - Christian or not, you have to admire some crazy dude from Nazareth who took on both the Romans and the religious establishment, told people not to submit to a corrupt priesthood, and then said you shouldn't always be bashing each others' heads in. But where do you go from there? That's why the only people who ever tried to write the further adventures of Christ were the Mormons.

Satan, however, is a wide-open playing field with a mythology and character that has outgrown its Christian origins. In fact, most of what is considered common knowledge about Satan comes not from The Bible, but from Milton and Paradise Lost. With Satan, we're free to fill in his back-story and make up adventures for him. With Jesus, you can only tell the story of Jesus. But with Satan - well for Old Nick you can pretty much make up any damn thing you want. You can even have him fight Santa Claus and Merlin.

Certainly there is a legion of films about Satan, and some of them are even good. I know I still have a few readers who haven't taken my pleas to heart and have yet to delve into the rich history of "old" films, so to them a movie about Satan and Satanism is most likely something about a serial killer or something about a vengeful teenager or that thing where Arnold Schwarzenegger punches Satan in the face. That all started to happen in the 1980s. In the 1970s, movies about Satan usually involved boring people in robes stomping about in a circle and droning, "Hail Satan" in a listless monotonous style. But in the 1960s movies about The Devil usually featured Satanists who were part of high society, global elites who had reached the limits of human knowledge and were now seeking the expand their intelligence into more arcane and sometimes diabolical spheres. Not being a Christian myself, but always keen on learning more about arcane and esoteric tidbits, I've often entertained fantasies about becoming a member of one of these well-heeled groups of Satanic intellectuals. Unfortunately, my position as a Plebe means I'm forever doomed to keep running into Slayer fans or groups of people who all wear those goofy Anton LaVey devil horns. Still, a fella can dream, and one day I'll make a movie about a young blue-collar gentleman's struggle to climb the Satanic social ladder.

Although it seems like The Exorcist and, to a lesser degree, The Omen are about the only Satanism movies anyone can remember, the best two for my money are Rosemary's Baby and Hammer's superb The Devil Rides Out, which frankly sounds like the title to a spaghetti western. The Devil Rides Out is another one of those Hammer title's I'd not seen until now, though I'd frequently read about it and how fantastic it was. Generally, very few movies are as fantastic as they're made out to be, but if The Devil Rides Out isn't fantastic, it's only because it's something slightly better than fantastic. Released in 1968, The Devil Rides Out populates that time in Hammer's history when they were really beginning to lose their footing. Revolutions in filmmaking and changes in what was permitted to be shown on screen seemed to have passed the studio by, and their once cutting edge Gothic horror shows now seemed anachronistic and even quaint. By the late 1960s, the studio was floundering, and by the 1970s it had all but collapsed. But from this late era, a few gems - indeed a few of Hammer's very best productions - were made. The Devil Rides Out is definitely among them, a classic not just of late-era Hammer but of all Hammer; and not just of Hammer horror, but horror in general.

In a rare twist of fate, king of the studio Christopher Lee gets to be a good guy, though he's something of an ambiguously "good" good guy. He stars as the Duc de Richleau, an upper class British gentleman who is meeting up with two old friends for their annual reunion. When one of them, the young Simon (Patrick Mower, later to appear in AIP's Vincent Price vehicle, Cry of the Banshee), fails to show up, de Richleau and Rex (Leon Greene, who starred as Little John in Hammer's A Challenge for Robin Hood) pay him a visit at his stately country manor. There they find Simon is having a dinner party with his new astronomy club, though de Richleau is instantly suspicious of the gathering when he learns there are thirteen members. Queer behavior from Simon and a quick examination of his observatory reveal the truth: this is a Satanic gathering, and Simon is to be the newest member.

de Richleau spirits Simon away - it's difficult to say whether or not he rescues or kidnaps the young man, since we're unsure whether or not Simon was dabbling in the black arts of his own free will or because he was under the spell of local occult bigwig Mocata (Charles Gray, probably most recognizable as the narrator from The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which itself owes a great deal to Hammer's Frankenstein movies). Eventually, the film leans toward "under the spell," but the whole thing seems very fuzzy, which allows the viewer to interpret the movie either as a straightforward "good versus evil" tale or a more subversive look at the subjugation of free will and intellectual curiosity at the hands of the ruling elite.

The latter reading may sound a tad over the top, another one of those "reading meaning into the meaningless" things in which critics so often indulge, except that Hammer's previous record of anti-authority, anti-elitist themes (most notable in the Frankenstein movies) make it harder to dismiss, and so we can spend the entire movie wondering if de Richleau's denial of Simon's free will is any better than Mocata's taking advantage of the young lad. Complicating this even further is the fact that, though they are ostensibly supposed to be evil, most of the Satanists seem rather polite and friendly and only interested in the pursuit of knowledge deemed "forbidden" by some guy in a funny hat down in Rome. Well, later, one of the Satanists will be revealed as possessing horrible driving manners, but that's about the extent of their evilness.

Mocata is annoyed that Rex and de Richleau have rescued his would-be apprentice - and taken the new girl with them, to boot. He's determined to use spooky eyes and the forces of evil to reclaim his prize, complete his coven, and summon Big Sugardaddy Lucifer for the Sabbath.

There's plenty in The Devil Rides Out that could come across as outlandish were in not for the fact that the cast is so committed to the film - something that, by now, you should recognize as one of the great hallmarks of Hammer productions. Raised as we are today on a steady diet of tongue-in-cheek horror films that don't want to commit to being horror films, The Devil Rides Out is refreshingly free of irony. Richard Matheson's script, based on a novel by occult-thriller writer Dennis Wheatley, strives to maintain a high degree of accuracy in its presentation of occult rituals, and Christopher Lee, who was a close personal friend of Wheatley's, did extended research on the subject of Satanism and the occult and oversaw the entire project to make sure everything was presented as realistically as possible. The result is that even when bloody-eyed specters in loincloths are appearing, everything seems believable. Matheson also never panders to younger audiences. Where as today's horror films are made for teenagers - and fairly stupid teenagers at that - Hammer always liked to consider their films more adult fare. The Devil Rides Out frequently tosses around arcane terminology, much of it taken from the writings of Alistair Crowley or other more ancient texts (the Goat of Mendes and the goat-headed image of Satan was derived by Christianity from an Egyptian cult that worshipped a Bacchus-like goat god) without bothering to explain what they mean. You're either expected to already know, be smart enough to figure it out, or be smart enough to go to the library and look it up.

The film' biggest asset is the cast. Allowed to be a hero for the first time, Christopher Lee shines as the complex de Richleau. He is doubtless the good guy, but there remains something sinister about his charisma. For a man who isn't a Satanist, he sure does know a lot about the rituals and doesn't hesitate to use black magic to fight black magic. Lee brings a stern but warm authority to the figure. Even though the film doesn't depict him as infallible, he's the kind of guy you would want watching over you if Satanists were in hot pursuit.

On the flip side is Charles Gray, whose Mocata embodies the best of everything about being a villain. He's painfully polite and polished in his ways, but also possessed of a wicked streak a mile wide. His best scene comes when he visits de Richleau's friends in an attempt to regain control over Simon and the woman Tanith (Nike Arrighi). He is the very picture of a perfect English gentleman, but his act slowly transforms as he gives a rational and, frankly, convincing explanation of the goals of following the Left Hand Path, then uses his powers to try and control his host. When his attempts are interrupted, he has the film's best line when he simply says calmly and with composure, "I shall not be back, but something will. Tonight. Tonight, something will come for Simon and the girl."

Both Gray and Lee are completely convincing in their roles. Lee, in particular, though known for Dracula, was born to play de Richleau. There was talk of continuing with a de Richleau series as he appears in several other Wheatley novels, but unfortunately nothing ever materialized and Christopher Lee was soon back to playing Dracula in a series of increasingly awful (but never the less enjoyable) films that finally sputtered and died with Satanic Rites of Dracula not too much before Hammer itself closed up shop in the latter half of the 1970s.

The supporting cast performs with workmanlike competency, as they always do in a Hammer film. Nike Arrighi was unique in that she was not one of Hammer's typical big-bosomed blond damsels in distress. She doesn't fit the stereotype of a Hammer girl at all, though that wasn't for lack of the studio trying. But director Terence Fisher, who was Hammer's best director and responsible for the films that put them on the map, was apparently adamant that the role of Tanith be played by Arrighi. It was a wise position. Leon Greene is equally superb as the baffled friend who finds himself spending a couple nights of his life fighting Satan. His voice, it seems, was dubbed in and is actually that of Patrick Allen, who was also in Hammer's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, among others. Whatever the reason, they make a good team.

Fisher's direction is as stylish yet unobtrusive as fans had come to expect of the man who brought Hammer's visions of Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Mummy to the screen. Although there isn't a lot of action in the film, the pace is relentless, fueled by a growing sense of dread as the forces of evil close in on our heroes, until they are literally standing back to back in a magic circle surrounded by a whole array of creepiness. James Bernard's grand score only adds more drad to the creeping sense of terror.

It is here, unfortunately, that the film's main - and really, only -- weakness shows itself. Hammer was never a studio that relied on special effects. At their most complex, they were usually dangling a fake bat from a wire. One Million Years B.C. and Moon Zero Two were the first big special effects films for Hammer. One Million Years B.C. had the services of Ray Harryhausen to carry it (not to mention Raquel Welch in a little fur bikini). Moon Zero Two was Hammer on their own, and it showed why the studio should have continued to shy away from complicated special effects shots. The finale of The Devil Rides Out begins with an assault on de Richleau and friends first by a giant tarantula, and then by the Angel of Death himself. The tarantula in particular is a wretched failure of special effects that lets the film down. The tension built by the plot is grand, and it gets the carpet pulled from under its feet by the sorry spider effect. The Angel of Death is more successful but shot in a way that also weakens its impact, especially the part where looped film has Death's horse doing a little dance.

The rest of the movie is powerful enough to disregard these ill-advised attempts at special effects, but one can't help but wish they'd either been better executed or simply left out entirely. The weird red-eyed giant in a loincloth was far creepier and menacing than any of these later concoctions, and that was nothing but a big guy standing there with an evil grin while he wore Dracula's contact lenses. Similarly, the scene in which Mocata succeeds at summoning the Devil is effective because the effect is low-key. Satan - the Goat of Mendes - simply appears on a rock in the background, and the make-up effects are either quite good or never shown long enough for the flaws to be evident. It would have been nice, in this scene, if the British censors had allowed the wild debauched orgy of the Satanists to contain something more daring than fully-clothed actors sort of just jumping around and rubbing each other's faces. But it was enough that they were allowing Hammer to make a movie about Satanism, which had previously been a taboo subject not allowed by the BBFC. So we can forgive the fact that their occultists had to keep their robes on while AIP's occultists in films like 1970's Cry of the Banshee got to romp around in the nude.

One would hope that a string of strong films like The Devil Rides Out and Frankenstein Must be Destroyed would signal that Hammer had found its footing again and would remain viable in the 1970s. Sadly, that wasn't the case. They struggled on a few more years, but films of a quality as high as The Devil Rides Out proved to be the exception rather than the rule. Hammer's final horror film was also based on a Dennis Wheatley novel, but 1976's To the Devil...A Daughter was a far cry from the sophisticated, brilliantly executed occult thrills and chills delivered by The Devil Rides Out. And though the future may have remained unsteady, Hammer should take pride in the fact that they crafted what is, in my opinion, the very best of all the Satanism movies and one of the best, most intelligent and sincere horror-thrillers of all time. Word on the street is that Christopher Lee is still interested in doing a sequel/remake and has been shopping the idea around. Whether or not his Sauruman powers can convince some studio executive to make a horror film that isn't aimed at dolts remains to be seen. Fighting off Satan is one thing, but as they say, "against stupidity, the Gods themselves contest in vain."

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Monday, August 30, 2004

Dracula, Prince of Darkness

1966, England. Starring Christopher Lee, Andrew Keir, Barbara Shelley, Francis Matthews, Suzan Farmer, Charles Tingwell, Thorley Walters, Philip Latham. Directed by Terence Fisher. Available on DVD (Amazon).

For many, the first official sequel to Hammer's groundbreaking Horror of Dracula, an oft-neglected film called Brides of Dracula, was little more than a pit stop on the road to this film, the second sequel but first to feature the return of Christopher Lee in the title role of Count Dracula. Hoping to avoid being typecast as Dracula, Lee resisted doing the sequel, and it was another eight years or so before he agreed to don the opera cape once again and reprise the role that made him famous. In that time, he'd built up a pretty solid and diverse career that would ensure he would not become "nothing but Dracula" to the audience. Of course, in the end, he was best known as Dracula, but what can you do? He would, I assume, remain cranky about people calling him Dracula until, some decades later, everyone just started calling him Saruman.

Christopher Lee's return to the role was much celebrated, though fans were a bit disappointed to hear that peter Cushing, who had appeared in the first two films, would not be returning in the role of Professor Van Helsing, dedicated thorn in the side of Satan's spawn. Cushing, in fact, would not return to face Dracula again until Hammer's vampire films started getting really weird with Dracula A.D. 1972. He's sorely missed since none of the other fearless vampire killers could ever hope to measure up to his standards, but I reckon Hammer decided to make the Dracula movies a Christopher Lee affair in much the same way the Frankenstein movies belonged to Peter Cushing. The big difference is that in the Frankenstein movies, Frankenstein is on the screen and running his mouth for much of the duration of the film. In the Dracula movies, Lee often appears only slightly more regularly than he appeared in Brides of Dracula, and he didn't appear in that at all.

But Horror of Dracula seemed to prove that, with the count, less is more. He was hardly in that film at all but managed to make an everlasting impression on people with just a few minutes screen time and only a few lines. So if he could do that much with that little, well then heck, imagine how much more he could do with even less! Or so the thinking seems to have gone, because in Dracula, Prince of Darkness he may show up screen a few more minutes than when last we saw him, but he says even less. In fact, Dracula says nothing at all. Christopher Lee doesn't have a single line in the entire movie unless you count that animalistic, seething hiss he does every now and then. According to director Terence Fisher and scriptwriter Jimmy Sangster - both of whom served in the same roles for the previous two films - it was because they thought the strong, silent approach made Dracula even more menacing, even more like an animal. Christopher Lee maintains that the script was full of dialogue, but that it was so ripe that he flat out refused to perform it, and so Dracula became a silent role.

Frankly, Lee comes off as something of a dick in this regard. It may be the case that he's telling the truth, but then, it's not like he wasn't uttering corny dialogue in other films. Hey, Chris, do I need to remind you that you'd already starred in Asian drag as Fu Manchu? And hell, it's his job to say the lines. I know Lee takes the character of Dracula very seriously as a literary figure, but really now! Since Sangster is a good scriptwriter, and since no one else's lines are bad, one has to assume that maybe Lee is taking a slight bit of liberty with the truth here, unless I'm mistaken and Sangster had Dracula popping up and saying things like, "Blah! Blah! I vant to suck your blood!" or "One, two, three! Three giant fake rubber bats! Ah ah ah ah!" or perhaps even, "Welcome to Castle Dracula. You must be weary after your long journey. May I offer you a bowl of Count Chocula? It is a fine source of iron. Iron enriches.your blood!" Short of that, I can't possibly imagine what could have been so bad that it would cause Christopher Lee to throw a fit and refuse to say his lines. I prefer to believe Sangster and Fisher. It reflects better on the movie and makes Lee sound like less of a big crybaby.

So when last we saw Christopher Lee as the count, he was crumbling into dust after Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) gives him the double whammy of blasting him with a room full of sunlight and harassing him with a cross. It would seem that would be that for the evil aristocrat, but ten years later we find the small burg of Carlsbad still reeling from the lingering specter of vampirism. Just about anyone who dies gets a stake through the heart just in case, at least until a wandering monk named Father Sandor (Andrew Kier, who'd starred in a couple Hammer pirate movies and would later play Professor Quatermass in the wonderful Quatermass and the Pit) happens by and tells everyone to stop being such a bunch of barbarians. He wanders without fear through this valley of darkness, for he knows he travels with beneath the protective mercy of the Lord, the mercy of the Lord taking, in this particular case, the form of a high powered rifle.

Sandor later encounters two couples from England who are away on a holiday, Why exactly they've come to the blood-drenched middle of nowhere, Transylvania, is beyond me, but I figure they were probably taken in by some flashy brochure. That or they felt that a vacation isn't a vacation unless you can eat in a tavern full of those dirty peasants who get silent and stare at you as soon as you walk in. Sandor pleads with the couples not to go to Carlsbad, but they seem determined to go take that cave tour. Well, Sandor says, if you must go to Carlsbad, then for God's sake don't go to the hellishly creepy old abandoned castle up on the hill.

Hey, guess where they go?

Once up at the castle they must under no circumstances even think about visiting, they encounter the groundskeeper, Klove (Philip Latham), who welcomes them with some food, beautiful old rooms, and the usual sort of ultra-creepy "butler of evil" behavior you expect from these sorts. Up until this point, the movie has been building a sense of dread in spectacular fashion, using all the requisite Gothic horror chestnuts: the menacing warnings and portents of doom, the superstitious locals who refuse to acknowledge the existence of Castle Dracula even though they can see it out the window, the misty woods, dark crossroads, stranded travelers, mysterious black coaches, and of course, the skulking butler in the abandoned castle. It all culminates in a blockbuster moment in which one of our weary travelers is strung up in a crypt by Klove and has his throat slit, allowing the blood to gush down into Dracula's open casket, where Klove has lovingly piled all the ashes of his dead master. The result: well, you can probably figure that one out.

Unfortunately, the movie falters after this spectacularly gruesome scene and fails to maintain an even pace. There are plenty of stand-out moments in the second half of the film - particularly the transformation of Helen Kent (Barbara Shelley, Rasputin, the Mad Monk and Quatermass and the Pit) from an uptight ice queen into a wanton creature of the night (who utters one of Hammer's earliest and most overt lesbian lines when she suggests to her female friend that they don't need the men to have a good time together). Helen's transformation from sensible, repressed Victorian woman to lustful libertine vampire is representative of the film's underlying theme of Victorian-era primness giving way to a more modern, "continental" attitude about sex. When Helen is finally captured by Sandor and his brotherhood of monks, the dispassionate way in which they dispatch Helen, who writhes and hisses as if in mid-orgasm before getting the ol' stake through the heart, is Hammer's most potent sexual image, at least until Ingrid Pitt started making out with other nubile ladies in The Vampire Lovers.

The surviving travelers hole up in Sandor's monastery, but Dracula is intent on making Diana (Suzan Farmer. Rasputin, The Mad Monk) his next victim, and as you know, once Dracula sets his mind on a girl, there's just no stopping him. He sure is lucky that all the wayward maidens who stumble into his castle are big-breasted bombshell beauties. What are the chances? I'd imagine Dracula would be less persistent if Janet Reno showed up at his castle. Despite being a monastery full of religious icons, it doesn't prove an entirely foolproof haven from the power of Dracula, especially when he is aided from the inside by a feeble-minded madman who falls under the count's spell (Thorley Walters in a role that is obviously supposed to recall the fly-gobbling Renfield character from the original book). We are left, then, with the usual race against time to the castle so our heroes can rescue the maiden in distress and put an end to Dracula's reign of terror once and for all and for the second time.

As seems to always be the case, Sandor and Alan Kent (Francis Matthews, who like lots of other people in this film, appeared the same year in Rasputin, the Mad Monk) end up confronting Dracula right at dusk. Now look, fighting a vampire is not easy, but there are certain things you can do that will make the task much simpler to accomplish. Chief among these would be to not try and fight him at sunset. Dracula, Prince of Darkness at least goes to some lengths to give the film a plausible excuse for having Sandor and Alan facing down the prince of darkness as night is falling and allowing him a chance to spring up out of his coffin and toss Alan around. In plenty of other films, however, vampire killers seem to dawdle around al day and never get to actually trying to stake the evil one until it's dark. It's as if I was the one trying to kill the vampire. I know if it was me, I'd set my alarm for seven in the morning. That way, I could get up, have a good breakfast of Count Chocula, then get on with the killing of the vampire and be back home and finished with the whole sordid affair by lunchtime.

But then, you know, seven in the morning rolls around, and I hit the snooze button, figuring Dracula can't even get up until after, what? Seven at night? So I have like twelve hours to kill before the killing. By the time I roll out of bed, it's already noon, and well, I might as well wait for the mail to come at 12:30, then grab some lunch and run a few errands. Then, before anyone realizes it, it's three or four in the afternoon, and Dracula's castle is a good two hours from here, not even figuring in for traffic or murderous gypsies along the way. So I can see how vampire hunters would always end up fighting Dracula at night if they were like me, but they're supposed to be better at this than I am. They should be able to time this stuff out. Still, like I said, at least Dracula, Prince of Darkness takes pains to explain why we're facing off with the lord of the undead at sundown, which is more satisfying than something like in the first film where Jonathan Harker sneaks down to Dracula's crypt just before dark and decides to stake the far less menacing female vampire before dispatching with the most powerful undead creature ever to befoul the earth with his presence.

This is another typically strong Hammer film that manages to get over the rough spots simply by having Christopher Lee show up. His portrayal of the count here, completely without words as I said, accounts for the most savage vampire we've seen on screen up until that point, and indeed for some time afterward. In fact, I don't know that it's ever been topped. Lee's Dracula in the later Scars of Dracula is certainly more sadistic, but he's never as menacing or terrifying on such a primal level. Lee manages to do quite a lot without dialogue, though I do think his character is undermined to some degree by the silence. A few lines here and there, as in the first film, would have lent more gravity to Dracula. However, even without uttering a word, Lee manages to outshine the entire cast except for Andrew Keir.

Keir was one of the strongest performers Hammer had, and while he's no Peter Cushing, that fits the character since Sandor is no Van Helsing. Although he shares similar traits with Van Helsing - a respect for reason and common sense, an acceptance of unusual things not as the supernatural, but as ugly parts of the rational world, and a basic sense of compassion - he's also very different from Van Helsing. Sandor is possessed of a certain self-righteous bombast that comes from the power of his religion. Where Van Helsing was soft-spoken but determined, Sandor possesses a bellowing voice and a big gun. Keir is perfect for the role. He's not nearly as comforting as Van Helsing, nor as competent at killing vampires, but you could do worse when it comes to protectors. But then, he does manage to let the girl get stolen from right beneath his nose while in his own monastery, so maybe you could only do a little worse.

Compared to Keir and Lee, the rest of the cast hardly registers. Klove has a moment or two, and Barbara Shelley has her wonderful moment in the sun, but everyone else is imminently forgettable though the acting is uniformly solid. Dracula, Prince of Darkness was filmed back-to-back with the historical horror film Rasputin, the Mad Monk, and many of the sets and members of the cast appear in both film - including Christopher Lee, who also appears as the raving Russian holy man.

Terence Fisher's direction is as strong as ever and lends a sense of continuity to the three films despite the absence of Lee/Dracula from the second film and Cushing/Van Helsing from the third. Sets and costumes are, as usual, gorgeous, and the gore quotient is racheted up another couple notches, especially during the scene in which Klove does his throat-slitting. Unfortunately, Sangster's script stumbles between that scene and the finale on an ice-covered river. The film meanders from here to there after a tightly woven and smartly twisting first half, with too much time being spent doing too little in Sandor's monastery. The final showdown between the forces of good and evil is compelling, though nowhere in the league of the finale from the first or second film. There's just something about watching spry old Peter Cushing leap all over the set that adds that extra element of excitement to a battle with the undead. The showdown on the ice is also undermined by a horrible special effect which went unnoticeable in previous pan and scan versions of the movie. But seeing it for the first time in widescreen, the bit where the ice cracks beneath Dracula's feet, sending him plunging to an icy death since vampires will drown if submerged in running water, features an obvious tilting platform where you can even see the mechanism pivoting it upward. Then the ice swings closed again as if on, well, some sort of hinge, which it is. Shoddy special effect there, but Hammer movies have never been about the special effects - and for some reason, that effect bugged me though I seem perfectly at ease with giant rubber bats flopping about on bits of string.

The rough patches aren't enough to ruin what is an otherwise enjoyable film. Although it lacks the pace and excitement of the first two films, Dracula, Prince of Darkness is still a pretty rollicking good time. It's great to see Christopher Lee back in action again as the count, and really, that alone is enough to make this film enjoyable. Lee swore this would be the final time he'd play Dracula for Hammer. He was, naturally, back again as the count very shortly there after, and several more times after that, each time griping more and more about the fact that he was playing Dracula. But we'll come to those bumps in the road when we cross them. For now, we can lie back and enjoy Dracula, Prince of Darkness -- an imperfect, uneven but never the less thoroughly enjoyable foray back into the world of Hammer horror.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Friday, August 27, 2004

Plague of the Zombies

Release Year: 1966
Country: England
Starring: Andre Morell, Diane Clare, Brook Williams, Jacqueline Pearce, John Carson, Alexander Davion, Michael Ripper, Marcus Hammond, Dennis Chinnery, Roy Royston, Ben Aris.
Writer: Peter Bryan
Director: John Gilling
Cinematographer: Arthur Grant
Music: James Bernard
Producer: Anthony Nelson Keys
Alternate Title: The Zombies
Availability: Buy it from Amazon.


Hammer beats George Romero to the zombie punch by a year, but needless to say their effort, though perfectly respectable, was overshadowed by Romero's groundbreaking classic. I went into this film with mixed feelings. On the one hand, all the stills I'd seen from it looked incredible. Very spooky and atmospheric. On the other hand, my most recent experience with Hammer studio director John Gilling was the dry as a mummy's shroud The Mummy's Shroud. But I'm a sucker for pretty much any and every Hammer film that's been released, and I figure it certainly can't be any worse than Zombie Lake.

It turns out, in fact, that Plague of the Zombies not only isn't any worse than Zombie Lake; it's much, much better. Okay, maybe saying something is better than Zombie Lake isn't saying a whole lot, so let's revise the praise. Plague of the Zombies is a damn good film, maybe not the caliber of film that is Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead, but certainly on par with other great zombie films like Let Sleeping Corpses Lie and easily one of the best of Hammer's non-Dracula/Frankenstein films. Is that a mouthful?

Along with Frankenstein Must be Destroyed, it's Hammer's best film of the 1960s. Dracula, Prince of Darkness runs close behind. And I guess I'd go ahead and put The Reptile on that list, too. Actually, there was a lot of good stuff from Hammer during that decade, but few are as consistently eerie and likeable as Plague of the Zombies. Although the film is, like most of Hammer's best films, slowly paced, it's not boring, and the sheer power of atmosphere keeps the film feeling brisk and yet another example of what I wish people today would learn, or remember, or whatever: a slower pace does not mean a boring movie, and sometimes "wall to wall 100% pure action" can be dull as three-day-old dishwater. Plague of the Zombies remembers what it is a horror film is supposed to: creep you out. It has very few startling moments, but the overall sense of mist-enshrouded dread is more than enough to keep a literate viewer on pins and needles.


We start off with the number one man on what some people refer to as Hammer's B-team - a team that people seem to assume consists of every single Hammer player except for Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. The man in question is Andre Morrell as Sir James Forbes, and he's hardly B-team material. In fact, alongside Cushing, he was probably one of the studio's most solid and charismatic older leads. He exudes enlightened authority and invests every line, no matter how outlandish, with a sense of absolute conviction that makes you believe just as easily as you'd believe Peter Cushing. Did the two of them ever work together in a film? I would assume so, and if that's the case, I hope I come to that one soon.

Oh wait. Idiot me. He was Dr. Watson to Cushing's Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles. I haven't seen that movie since I was a little one and had one of the single greatest and most memorable days of movie viewing in my entire life, including as it did a late-night triple feature that began with Darby O'Gill and the Little People (remember when children's films could still be sinister and not revolve around children being sassy and making calls on a cell phone? When they could feature drunks and ghosts and Sean Connery punching someone in the face?), continued with The Hound of the Baskervilles, and finally concluded with Vincent Price in Cry of the Banshee. Curiously, Cry of the Banshee didn't have an actual banshee in it, but Darby O'Gill and the Little People did, and it was one hell of a scary ghost, to boot. Darby O'Gill and the Little People also held up surprising well over the years, and I still get a kick out of it today. Cry of the Banshee less so, though childhood nostalgia has kept my opinion of that film kinder than most. As for The Hound of the Baskervilles, I'm thinking I might just bump that up a spell on my Netflix queue.

Well, what I was meaning to say is that Andre Morrell is one of Hammer's finest "men of reason," and he's in one of his best roles here as the seasoned doctor who is called upon by a former pupil to help solve the mystery of a deadly plague that is ravaging a small Cornish town. He certainly deserves to be regarded with as much adoration as Cushing, and frankly, perhaps even a dash more than Lee, though you'd never hear me say that in public. It's just that Lee so often played it evil or mute. I do like that he's become something a legend reborn thanks to The Lord of the Rings, the series of films that finally gave him his wish of no longer being thought of only as Dracula. Now he'll always be remembered as Sauron. Sure, he was in those worthless new Star Wars movies too, but the less said about those heaps of rubbish, the better. By comparison, they almost make some of the hammier entries in Lee's resume seem respectable. And yeah - no matter how revered he has become and indeed deserves to be, a little piece of me will always remember things like, "Christopher Lee is Fu Manchu!" or "Christopher Lee battles Chuck Norris!" or even, "Christopher Lee stars in The Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf!"

Of course, the funny thing about Christopher Lee is that he's not even in Plague of the Zombies. Neither is Peter "Grand Moff Tarkin" Cushing for that matter. So why don't I just can it about those two guys and get on with things? After all, my point was that Andre Morrell, who starred in other Hammer productions like She, Vengeance of She, and The Mummy's Shroud and probably best known for playing Quatermass in the original TV series, deserves to be as big a name, though I guess I'd balk and reconsider saying "bigger that Christopher Lee." So okay, let's just leave him as the bright shining light of the Hammer B-team, the actor who brought A-team credentials to his roles thanks to also appearing in substantial roles in non-Hammer blockbusters like Ben Hur and The Bridge over the River Kwai. And just to make one more Cushing/Lee/Morrell link, though Morrell is the odd man out for appearing in Star Wars films, he was involved in The Lord of the Rings -- the maligned Ralph Bakshi animated version, that is, where he did the voice of Elrond.

Morrell's Sir James Forbes travels to the village with his insistent daughter, played by a real Hammer beauty with some real acting chops, Diane Clare (most recognizable to classic horror fans for her role in The Haunting, still hands down one of the best horror films ever made). He immediately surmises that this is no ordinary plague, if such things as ordinary plagues exist. His pupil, now colleague, Dr. Thompson (Brook Williams, who later starred in the superb WWII adventure film Where Eagles Dare alongside Clint Eastwood and Richard Burton) has been stymied in his attempts to understand the sickness since the locals are a superstitious lot (aren't they always) and refuse to allow him to perform an autopsy. Forbes, ever the gentleman but never bound by a gentleman's behavior when it comes to confronting the horrors of disease, figures the best way to solve this dilemma is by sneaking out to dig up a freshly buried corpse so they can perform a clandestine autopsy on it. Unfortunately the grave they pick is empty, even though they themselves saw the body buried earlier that very day. In fact, the entire cemetery seems to be full of empty coffins.

Complicating matters, because matters always have to be complicated, is the fact that Thompson's own wife seems to be coming down with the plague. A local band of fox-hunting aristocratic thugs under the leadership of local town squire Clive Hamilton (John Carson, who went on to Taste the Blood of Dracula if you will) seem to tie into matters as well. Eventually, Forbes come sot the conclusion that, despite the irrationality of it, someone in the town is practicing voodoo to infect villagers then resurrect them as shuffling zombies. Thompson can hardly believe such a fantastical tale, but Forbes is a more world-aware and open-minded man of science. Of course, when Thompson sees a zombie actually crawling up out of the grave, he has to admit that there might be something to the whole undead theory.


There's so much going for this film that I don't even know where to begin. I guess since I've already started in on Andre Morrell, I'll continue from there. He's superb, striking just the right balance of academic detachment and genuine warmth. He is inquisitive, caring, and when the time calls for it, intrepid. I know a fair number of doctors, but I can't really think of any I'd trust to competently spearhead a fight against the hordes of the living dead and the Victorian-era frat boys with a voodoo fixation who summoned them from beyond the grave. Forbes is probably one of Hammer's most likeable "men of reason." Cushing's Van Helsing was likeable but a bit impersonal, and while his Frankenstein was charismatic, you wouldn't necessarily want to be on his bad side. But Forbes is a class act from beginning to end, and as I said, Andre Morrell's belief in the role is contagious. In an era and a genre where mad scientists were and sometimes still are all the rage (thought they've been replaced more or less by the far less interesting "amoral greedy corporate madman"), it's nice to see a legitimately likeable scientist for a change. And hooray for a character whose chief heroic traits are a sharp mind and a belief that intelligence can prevail.

While Brook Williams doesn't make as much of an impression as the supporting Dr. Thompson, he's still a pretty good guy as well. Likewise for the rest of the supporting cast, including Diane Clare as Forbes' demure yet determined daughter. She has some great scenes and emerges as one of Hammer's stronger supporting women, even if she, like most other women, eventually gets carried over a misty set by one of the monsters. John Carson's squire is an exquisitely reprehensible character who oozes charm even when we all know he's a total bastard. The rest of the cast and extras perform with what you should now, after several of these Hammer film reviews, recognize as typically solid Hammer professionalism.

The script by Peter Bryan, who also wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles and the under-rated and under-seen Brides of Dracula for Hammer, is another of the film's strong points, and you know, it's always good when the story in your story is one of the story's strong points. Hammer specialized in making outrageous and sometimes downright absurd situations seem wholly reasonable, and Bryan hits this one out of the park. Despite whatever wild stuff gets paraded across the screen, Gilling's direction, the casts' performances, and Bryan's sincere script make it plausible, even intelligent. Bryan knows we all know the obnoxious rich guy who spent time in Haiti is the one responsible for the zombies, so he doesn't make the "whodunit" central to the plot. We know early on who the culprit is, and the script draws its energy from making us see how Forbes and his rag tag little group of weary doctors, cranky constables, and the small town vicar will triumph over this seemingly all-powerful man of privilege who also just so happens to command the dark undead forces of evil. Because Plague of the Zombies takes time out to make you like the central core of characters, you in turn care about the movie, even when it's taking a breather in between digging up graves and being menaced by shrieking ghouls on the dark moors.

The story also continues a favorite theme of Hammer horror films, that of the enlightened "literate" class struggling to drag the masses into the light while combating the upper class forces that profit by keeping them there. Forbes is a man of sophistication and culture, but he's hardly upper class. By contrast, the wealthy Squire and his crew of hooligans behave like lunatics and revel in the exemption from suspicion granted them by their position of power. The masses are too brow-beaten by the caste system to think that maybe the elites aren't as cultured as they seem, and it takes a man who values reason and inquiry and free thought over outdated notions of class and social standings to pull back the curtain and reveal the ugliness. He's a kindred spirit of Frankenstein, only without the acidic bad temper and homicidal tendencies. And he's certainly more sexually liberated than the misogynistic Frankenstein. Heck, he even gives his daughter a break and does the dishes himself!


But ultimately, Bryan's biggest accomplishment with the screenplay is how perfectly structured it is. Everything that happens is essential, but nothing is thin. It's a very dense, literary work, and despite not being based on a classic novel, perfectly conjures captures the ideal of "Gothic horror." There is no throw-away scene, no filler, and that's what keeps the film moving ahead so skillfully. Something is always happening, and that doesn't mean "action is always happening and stuff be blowing up all the time." It means that plot is always happening, which is a beautiful, beautiful thing to behold, especially when it's so smartly constructed as this.

Man, do you know how good it feels to be able to ramble on and on about how good the script for a horror film is -- or any film, given current standards? So forgive me if I over-indulge. I was just happy to have a plot that's really worthy of sinking into. And hey! Characters you actually like and care about! What a novel concept!

The final ace in the film's hand is Gilling's clever direction. As I said in the beginning, I had misgivings about him after viewing The Mummy's Shroud, which came out the same year and also starred Andre Morrell. It just shows what a good script can do for a movie. The Mummy's Shroud was a lumbering bore. Here, Gilling turns in one of Hammer's most thoughtful, inventive, and flat out spooky movies. For this film, at the very least, Gilling proves himself the equal of Hammer's legendary Terence Fisher, and perhaps even the more visionary of the two a he indulges in surreal dream sequences and some utterly horrific imagery that will stick with you long after the film is over. Gilling fills every shot with a palpable sense of menace and creeping doom, even when someone is just having a nip of Scotch. His exteriors - foggy forests, windswept moors, mazelike little country villages, dilapidated old mining works - are the stuff of nightmares. Where as Fisher's films are possessed of a very British, very rational approach to direction, Gilling seems willing to indulge more experimental techniques, and ultimately Plague of the Zombies feels like a perfect blend of British perfectionism and continental European surrealism. It exists somewhere between Fisher and Mario Bava.

The shots of the atrocious, white-eyed, gray-faced ghoul screaming insanely as it lumbers across rotting moors with a dead woman in its hand is as chilling as anything Hammer has ever filmed, up there and perhaps even more striking than the shots of Christopher Lee's cadaverous creature stumbling across the bleak country forest in Curse of Frankenstein. Likewise, the scene of the zombies besieging Dr. Thompson in the cemetery is incredible. Dark, unnerving, and thoroughly beautiful in a sinister, macabre way.

The creatures themselves are haunting but ultimately play little role. They are more akin to the undead slaves of earlier films like White Zombie than the aggressive and independent (if not particularly bright) zombies of Night of the Living Dead. They follow a master and do only what he bids them to do - at least, naturally, until the fiery climax of the film. Still, they're quite ghoulish in their appearance, and used and shot as they are, they remain menacing and creepy. They represent the final hurrah for the old guard before George Romero changed everything. It's certainly a hell of a way to go out, or pass the torch, or whatever it is zombies do when they shift paradigms.

Plague of the Zombies was originally filmed back-to-back with another Gilling film, The Reptile. Both were exceptional endeavors despite being meant as the B-side of a horror double feature. Plague of the Zombies was paired with the higher profile Dracula, Prince of Darkness, which celebrated the return of Christopher Lee to the role of the bloodthirsty undead count a full decade after he starred in the original. Plague of the Zombies got lost in the large shadow of Hammer's vampire juggernaut, but later fans have had a chance to go back and re-evaluate the film. The result has been that many people discovered what I discovered - one of the great ignored gems of the horror world.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Keith at | 2 Comments


Thursday, August 19, 2004

Revenge of Frankenstein

1958, Great Britain. Starring Peter Cushing, Francis Matthews, Eunice Gayson, Michael Gwynn, Lionel Jeffries, Oscar Quitak, Charles Lloyd Pack, John Stuart, Margery Cresley, Anna Walmsley, George Woodbridge, Michael Ripper. Directed by Terence Fisher. Available on DVD from Amazon

Are you getting tired of Hammer horror dominating the content of the parade these past few updates? Well, I sure hope not, because I'm not tired of it, and there's more to come as I continue to feed my seemingly insatiable appetite for Peter Cushing in a high-collared shirt and Inverness coat. I tell ya what, all these Hammer movies are kind of making me want to strut around town dressed like some Victorian era country gentleman, which would be fun and cool except for the parts where people would refer to me as Goth. Somehow, "I'm not a goth! I'm a Peter Cushing fan!" doesn't seem a particularly powerful defense.

When last we saw Baron Victor Frankenstein, he was being marched to the guillotine to face a beheading for the murders committed by his man-made man, not to mention the murders in which he himself dabbled. Well, you can't keep a good mad scientist down, and there are none better or madder than Cushing's Frankensetin. With the help of a prison attendant who wants access to the Baron's peculiar talents, Frankenstein escapes the execution and sets up a new identity and a new medical practice in another town. Hey, cheating death is what Frankenstein is all about, right?

All seems to be going well for the doctor, who has a bustling private medical practice and a generous public hospital for the poor. Sure he draws the ire of the local medical society when he refuses to join their ranks, but all in all, this new Dr. Stein seems to have turned over a new leaf and started working for the good of mankind. But wait…wasn't that what he thought he was doing the last time around?


Sure enough, it doesn't take long for Frankenstein to show us he's still up to his old tricks. He's unduly enthusiastic about amputating various body parts from his impoverished charity cases, even when the injuries seem unserious and, from time to time, not entirely existent. When a young doctor by the name of Hans Kleve (Hammer stalwart Francis Matthews) recognizes Stein and the legendary and presumed dead Frankenstein, but rather than wanting to turn him in, Hans practices a bit of friendly blackmail to get himself taken in as Frankenstein's pupil and assistant. Kleve is an interesting opposite of the previous films moral crusader Paul, and the lack of Paul's "tampering in God's domain" speeches and self-righteous aggrandizing is welcome as Hans Kleve throws himself enthusiastically and entirely behind Frankenstein's work. Rounding out the office is Karl (Oscar Quitak), the crippled man who assisted Frankenstein's escape from the guillotine in exchange for Frankenstein's promise that he would transplant Karl's brain into a healthy, custom-made body. And of course, since things have to be complicated and include some bosoms and a Cockney rapscallion, there's Eunice Gayson as a woman working as an assistant at the charity hospital and George Woodbridge as the sleazy janitor.

With Hans' help and Karl's willing donation of a clever brain, things seem to be going well for Frankenstein. The transplant is a smashing success. Frankenstein's man-made body sewn from the various parts of unlucky hospital patients looks like an actual man, with only a few noticeable scars and no hideous hazy eye or rotting flesh. Well, things are going well until Karl finds out that he'll end up being paraded around like a zoo animal to be examined and prodded by various doctors and scientists. A tussle with a night watchman causes Karl, now played by Michael Gwynn, to start suffering side effects from his days-fresh operation. Among other things, he starts having homicidal rages, and his body begins to contort back into its original half-paralyzed shape.

As with the first film only more so, this is Peter Cushing's show. This is a film about Frankenstein the doctor, the man of science who is forever blinded to morality by his singular dedication to research at any cost Although the character was solid the first time around, here Cushing and the script invest even more depth in the doctor. He commits no murder, but he also mercilessly pillages the ranks of the lower class when he needs an arm or an eyeball. You would think with no one to reel him in a la Paul in the first film, he'd go even crazier, but having a willing accomplice in Hans seems to temper the doctor's tendency to kill off the occasional human obstacle. But he's no less obsessed, and once again it is merely the means that fascinate Frankenstein, not the ends. Everything bad that happens in the movie could have been avoided if Frankenstein had simply stuck around to keep an eye on his new creation. Instead, no sooner has Karl regained consciousness than Frankenstein takes off for his lab to continue tinkering on a new project. His interest isn't in the discovery, but in the pursuit of the discovery. Cushing once again manages to make you sympathetic against your better judgment to a character who crosses the line time and time again without remorse or even awareness that what he's doing might be wrong. Hammer was wise to stick with Cushing's doctor as the main character rather than going the Universal route that focused on the monster with a cast of interchangeable and generally forgettable Frankenstein descendants. Cushing owns the film and the character and pulls you in completely.

The lack of Christopher Lee only seems important before you see the movie. It is, after all, a tale about the doctor, so it makes sense that we would see a procession of different "creatures." And as Karl in his new body, Michael Gwynn is absolutely incredible. Where as Lee's creature was a shambling mess who could not speak, Karl represents Frankenstein's evolving skill and assistance from two sharp and willing accomplices. He is very nearly a regular man, so Gwynn is allowed to do a little more than Lee and, in doing so, creates a fully sympathetic "creature" who is not a creature at all. The scene in which he desperately struggles to destroy his old body, both to wipe the memory of it from his mind and avoid being put on display next to it in Frankenstein's "before and after" diorama, is among the best in the entire series. His inevitable degeneration into "the creature" is as heart-breaking as anything Hammer ever filmed, and his final appearance at a society event - the sort of appearance that cliché demands should end in some sort of a rampage or carrying off of the woman - instead turns into a poignant piece in which Karl simply stumbles weakly toward Stein and pleads with him, "Frankenstein - help me!"

Likewise, Matthew Francis is tiptop as Hans, a sort of "Frankenstein in training" only without the doctor's acidic bad temper and lack of social graces. It's perhaps worth noting that it could be his slightly more agreeable attitude that helps Hans become in effect the one and only man in the entire series who, during the film's epilogue, successfully completes a brain transplant and the creation of a new man. Unlike Frankenstein, Hans cares as much for the outcome of his work as he does the process by which he achieves it. It's a good part, and Francis is wonderful.


The supporting cast is up to the usual Hammer standards, though Eunice Gayson is given precious little to do, as was the case with the women in most Hammer Frankenstein films except, obviously, Frankenstein Created Woman. There's a sexual dynamic to the film that was never fully explored in my opinion. Where as the Dracula movies make it more overt, the tale of a sexual predator with red eyes and fangs who seduces simply to destroy, in the Frankenstein movies it's less animalistic and more political. Frankenstein is, after all, attempting to eliminate women from the process of making life. He shows open disdain for them most of the time, and at his best is merely tolerant of their existence. Where the Universal movies frequently took the "tampered in God's domain" line of philosophy, Hammer films seem more secular in their life politics. It's not God he's upsetting; Frankenstein is tampering in woman's domain. He sees Karl, ultimately, as just another experiment to be filed away once completed (Frankenstein talks of showcasing his creation, but of course never gets the chance, and one wonders if he'd actually take the time or simply lose interest and launch off in pursuit of some other mad scheme instead). When Eunice Gayson's Margaret discovers Karl recuperating in the hospital, her immediate instinct is to befriend and help me; if not to treat him as a mother would, then to at least treat him as a fellow human being.

While Revenge of Frankenstein is subtle in its approach to this battle of the sexes, it definitely builds upon the concept and carries it over from the previous film. There, Frankenstein was kind but condescending and ultimately uninterested in his wife while using the maid purely for pleasure and, one would assume, her cooking and cleaning skills. He doesn't go off and murder a woman in Revenge of Frankenstein, but he has a much more unpleasant opinion of them in general.

If Margaret represents Frankenstein's continuing battle against women, then the hospital's janitor and the elitist members of the medical union represent his equal contempt for class. Frankenstein exists in a classless society, one in which the only people he truly respects are those who are smart and daring enough to embrace his work. Although initially introduced as a charitable doctor aiding the disenfranchised, we quickly learn that Frankenstein's love of the lower class goes no further than seeing them as a cheap and easily accessible population of limb and organ donors. He is openly sneers at the hospital janitor and berates him for no good reason. The janitor isn't a particularly nasty fellow. Unwashed, yes, and maybe a little sleazy, but he certainly doesn't deserve the abuse that the doctor directs toward him. On the flip side are the doctors of the medical board and a local duchess, all of whom represent the high society Frankenstein plays at being a part of. In fact, he's even more contemptuous of them than he is of the poor. He masquerades as one of their ranks simply so that he can get away with what he does and not be questioned. Status is his best disguise. He pretends to be an aristocrat so he can have access to their freedom from suspicion, but at heart he is a technocrat, a man who believes bold men of science should lead society via their technical prowess. In fact, he's a technocrat in both the positive and negative sense of the word, encompassing both the romanticized notion that the best educated should lead while also fulfilling the criticism of technocracy that claims the decisions technocrats make are often inadequate because they are made based on science and theory and do not take into account the actual parameters of a given situation.


Free from the obligation to adhere, at least loosely, to a pre-existing novel, scriptwriter Jimmy Sangster is free to indulge in the doctor's curious character and does so with brilliant results. As with the first film, Revenge of Frankenstein seems on the surface and if it was simply recounted to you, to move slowly. Most of the scenes consist of Frankenstein and Hans fiddling with strange scientific apparatus. The monster is very human looking. But none of this equals any degree of boredom. Fueled by the power of Cushing's performance, by the earnestness in which he handles everything, and by the obvious adoration and sincerity he has for exploring the depths of this madman's obsession, Revenge of Frankenstein moves at a fast pace without insulting its literary heritage. I appreciate any horror film, or any film in general, that doesn't try and boil everything down to a series of dumb action sequences. Sangster's crowning achievement is the remarkable twist ending. In keeping with the film's overall theme of class conflict, Frankenstein's final undoing (at least until the next movie) comes not in some fiery showdown with his monster gone mad, but instead with the poor house patience who realize he has been using them as nothing more than a body part farm. And of course the final shot of Hans' own creation was just magnificent. Rather than rest on his laurels and turn in a quickie sequel, Sangster worked hard to maintain, and perhaps even exceed, the fine quality of the original film and keep everything fresh.

Terence Fisher's direction is, again, beautiful. As one expects of a Hammer film, it's simply ravishing to behold. He never gets a chance to create anything as memorably chilling as the scene from Curse of Frankenstein in which Christopher Lee's bandaged monster is initially revealed or the scene of the monster wandering through bleak late autumn woods, but his direction remains high quality and inventive, playing a lot with light and shadow.

For my money, the double whammy of Curse of Frankenstein and Revenge of Frankenstein represents the high water mark for Hammer horror productions. They're simply wonderful films, perfectly connected to one another without the sequel being a derivative rehash. I like Christopher Lee's Dracula movies as much as any Hammer horror fan and there were plenty of non-series films of high quality, but there is such heart, such macabre beauty, and such craftsmanship in the Frankenstein movies that they are, in my opinion, the absolute best examples, past or present, of gothic horror movie making. The Frankenstein series as a whole represents Hammer at their best, though the next film, The Evil of Frankenstein was a misstep that, thankfully, didn't misdirect the entire series of films. It remains, as of yet, unavailable on DVD, so we'll be skipping it anyway.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Sunday, August 15, 2004

Mummy's Shroud

1967, Great Britain. Starring André Morell, John Phillips, David Buck, Elizabeth Sellars, Maggie Kimberly, Michael Ripper, Tim Barrett, Richard Warner, Roger Delgado, Catherine Lacey, Dickie Owen, Toolsie Persaud, Eddie Powell. Directed by John Gilling. Buy it from Amazon.

Ho hum, the mummy again. That wouldn't normally be my reaction, as I'm rather a fan of mummies and the havoc they wreak upon the living, but this entry into the Hammer compendium of vengeful Egyptian crypt guardians manages to do very little beyond eliciting a yawn. This was their third mummy movie. The second, Curse of the Mummy's Tomb remains as yet unavailable on DVD, though I do believe there is an RL Stine "Goosebumps" story with the same title.

The Mummy's Shroud's problems are several, and not the least of them is the fact that it fulfills what seems to be the mummy's curse demanding that all mummy movies be more or less exactly like all other mummy movies. There is practically nothing at all on display in this film that is new or fresh. The plot is a rehash of the tried and true and terribly over-used mummy movie plot involving an expedition that disturbs a mummy's tomb only to have some mad Arab resurrect the mummy and send it out to kill those who desecrated the temple. Honestly, the things you can do with a mummy are rather limited, so the spark in the story must come from telling it in a unique fashion, or injecting some new element into the proceedings to keep them, at the very least, fresher than the cloth-swathed beast delivering terror on the screen.

But there will be none of that here. The Mummy's Shroud hits the requisite points but nothing innovative with them. A far cry it is from Hammer's successful and invigorating original film, which managed to bring a new twist to Universal's classic Karloff film. Hammer should have learned a thing or two from Universal though, who followed up Karloff's masterpiece with a series of increasingly lame and lackluster sequels that offered nothing new to the formula or mythology. Instead, Hammer's cloth-wrapped feet tread down the same precarious trail.


The Mummy's Shroud, as I said, takes the story from various other mummy movies and puts it out there one more time. We begin with a painfully long prologue, narrated I believe by Peter Cushing - a fact that will only make you all the more aware of the fact that this movie is sadly bereft of Peter and could have really used him. Half the prologue takes place as the camera pans lazily over various "ancient" paintings, which is the first obvious clue that this is going to be a film rather on the cheap side of things. When we switch to actual action for the second half of the prologue, it's plagued by the same troubles I thought plagued the first film's Egyptian sets, only more so. Nothing looks the least bit convincing. Everything looks fake, lightweight, and far too clean. The difference between The Mummy's Shroud and The Mummy is that the 1959 film managed to make up for whatever short-comings manifested themselves in the Egyptian sets by boasting a tight story and great acting from the team of Cushing and Lee - and Lee without even speaking! The Mummy's Shroud doesn't have enough going for it in the story or acting department to distract from the high-school play cheapness of some of the sets.

The thing about the prologue is that not only is it long, it's pretty much totally unnecessary. You could wrap it all up, so to speak, in a few quick sentences of exposition, or Peter Cushing could have simply come on and said, "Listen up, folks. It's the same old thing, really." Eventually, we get to the present or to the 1920s anyway, and once again a team of British archaeologists s raiding the tomb of a long-dead Egyptian king. Even the knife-wielding mad Arab can't dissuade them from carting out the jerky-like mummy of a young boy-king. The Arab this time around is pretty foul. In the 1959 film, there was at least an attempt to give the Arab class and sophistication and intelligence, not to mention a compelling argument against the desecration of tombs by foreign archaeologists who were frequently condescending to "the natives," treating their tombs as classrooms in ways they would never treat the tombs of whites. This time around, however, the mad Arab is all spittle and bulging eyes. And for your money, you get another mad Arab in the form of the cackling fortune-telling crone.

But at least there's something memorable about those two. The greater portion of the cast, that is to say, the British portion of the cast is comprised largely of characters who exist solely so they can be killed by the mummy. Mario Bava's 1971 thriller Twitch of the Death Nerve is generally tagged as the first slasher film, but if you break slashers down to their basic components, you could say with some degree of security that, if they didn't start with this particular mummy movie, they did start in some mummy movie, and The Mummy's Shroud as about as typical a slasher film as you can get, except that instead of half naked teenagers getting killed, it's fully clothed British academics. But still, you have the unstoppable killing machine. You have the old weirdo spouting portents of doom. You have a cast of largely interchangeable and disposable characters who only exist to be killed, and you have said killings growing ever more ludicrous.


Our nominal heroes are Paul (David Buck) and Claire (Maggie Kimberly), but it doesn't take much for them to be heroes in a film populated by spittle-spurting crazed Arabs and immoral, greedy millionaires who sweat profusely. The film's best scene is the finale, in which this particular mummy does provide the film with a little originality by forsaking the usual method of mummy attack (sort of swatting people with your forearms and choking them or throwing them out a window) and just picks up an ax. You know, there are plenty of images in this world that should chill you, but one thing I sure as hell never want to see is a mummy coming after me with a big ax. I don't really even want to see a mummy without an ax coming after me. People tend to scoff at mummies as monsters because they are frequently plodding. Well, first of all, they must have missed Christopher Lee as the mummy leaping through windows and hauling undead ass across the misty British countryside. Second, the thing about mummies is that they never stop coming after you. Once you're attracted the ire of the cloth-wrapped avenger, he's always going to be looking for you. And sometimes, he'll have an ax.

I guess to highlight the positive, another thing this movie does a little differently is that, at least for once, the mummy isn't swayed by the appearance of a woman who looks just like some long lost love of his.


And speaking of mummies, let's speak of the mummy. Technically, we have two mummies in the story. One remains in active and looks like mummies you might see on TV. He has no wrappings and is just a shriveled preserved corpse. This would be the body of the boy-king. Why he just got thrown in the sand with a shroud over him while his servant got to get wrapped up and properly stored I didn't quite understand. The second mummy, the servant, is the one who does the killing. Although the face was modeled after an actual mummy on display in England, the mummy itself is rather silly looking. It's bandages look more like a big jersey, and the face is too packed with "the crust of the ancients" to afford the creature any of the range displayed by Christopher Lee during his turn as the ancient Egyptian avenger. Though the idea may have been to make the mummy less of a "human" character and more of an unstoppable supernatural force, what it actually did was just make the mummy more of a dry character (sorry), and thus a lot less interesting. The one scene where we do see the mummy's eyes, we're treated to a rather unconvincing animatronic model. There is a reason people remember Christopher Lee as the mummy but not Eddie Powell.

But again, a crummy mummy (again, sorry) could have been compensated for by a good script. With that absent as well, The Mummy's Shroud just collapses in on itself much like its mummy in the final scene. This movie does have a couple other decent scenes. The mummy's attack on a photographer of no importance to the story is exciting, if totally irrelevant. And his assault on the beleaguered assistant to the sweating millionaire asshole is probably the film's only emotionally engaging scene as it seems so unfair that the abused toady remains abused and then just gets offed by the mummy. Unfortunately, it's not enough to string together into a good movie, and while The Mummy's Shroud isn't a total loss, it's really the sort of film only for people like me, who are Hammer and/or mummy completists.

Labels: , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Friday, August 06, 2004

The Mummy

Release Year: 1959
Country: England
Starring: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Yvonne Furneaux, Eddie Byrne, Felix Aylmer, Raymond Huntley, George Pastell, Michael Ripper.
Writer: Jimmy Sangster
Director: Terence Fisher
Cinematographer: Jack Asher
Music: Franz Reizenstein
Producer: Michael Carreras
Alternate Title: Terror of the Mummy
Availability: Buy it from Amazon.


Ahh, Sangster and Fisher. If you want my opinion, and you must or else you'd go read a much better website that this, that screenwriter-director team is as integral to the success of the Hammer horror films as the Cushing-Lee acting team. When you make a list of the best films Hammer produced, the Fisher-Sangster duo comes up quite frequently. The whole quartet is at it again with this, Hammer's third reimagining of a classic Universal Pictures horror icon. By now, there was no real gamble involved in the Hammer formula. Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula had proven the effort, and Hammer's only challenge now lie in maintaining the high standards set by those two films. With two Universal legends left, those being the mummy and the Wolfman, Hammer decided to go all old Egypt and bring the bandaged avenger of desecrated tombs into the Technicolor world of Hammer horror.

The first two gothic horror films established a successful order to things, and Hammer saw no reason to tinker with it. Fisher directs, Sangster writes, Cushing takes the lead as a scientist, and Christopher Lee must again command the monster role without speaking a word, or at least very many words. And once again, it all works out wonderfully, though as much as I like this film, I like it less than the Frankenstein and Dracula films that preceded it. Actually, no. Scratch that. I like it less than Curse of Frankenstein and about the same as Horror of Dracula. The script is as smart as ever, and Cushing owns the film once again, but some of the ancient Egyptian sets leave a little to be desired. But we'll get to all that in due time.


The story is pretty much the same as the story in every mummy movie that has ever been made. Archaeologists disturb the tomb of a Egyptian princess, which awakens her mummy guardian (and invariably, her former doomed lover and high priest) to seek revenge on the desecraters while a guy in a fez makes ominous predictions about the fate of those who defile the tombs of the ancient ones. Yeah, that old chestnut. With these movies, it's not the newness of the story but the freshness with which you present it, and Hammer's approach is as fresh as you can get with a guy who's been dead and stuck in the wall for a thousand years.

The movie takes a while to get going, but once it does get going, there's no stopping it. Sangster's dialogue is again top notch, and Cushing and crew manage to deliver it in a way that makes even the most ludicrous monster movie statements seem serious and believable. As would be the case with all of their early gothic horror films, it would have been easy to allow them to sink into the level of camp or winking self-parody. And as with the other films, Hammer refuses to indulge in what modern filmmakers can't seem to get enough of. The Mummy remains serious and seriously delivered, which makes it believable and convincing no matter how outlandish the action on screen becomes. Everything is delivered with such faith and conviction that it pulls you in, which is why these films work even when there is a lot of talking involved. In fact, the film's best scene is an exchange between Cushing's Dr. Banning and George Pastell as Mehemet, the controller of the mummy, in which they debate the merits of digging up ancient tombs, with Mehemet trying to make an impassioned argument that it's nothing more than grave robbing while Cushing attempts to egg him on in hopes that he'll get frustrated and reveal something sinister about the mummy that's been killing everyone involved with the old expedition.

When the action does come, it comes fast and bloody, as Hammer has established it would. Christopher Lee's mummy may be a little stiff in the joints, but he's no lumbering slowpoke. He can move at a fair clip, smash through windows, and kick down doors. Once again, Lee is wonderful at acting in a part where not only does he not get to speak, but he is also covered up in pasty-face make-up and bandages. He does get to utter some lines in a flashback to ancient times scene, but they're little more than incantations delivered in typical ancient incantation tone. His primary tools as the mummy are his eyes, which he uses wonderfully, and his height, which allows him to tower menacingly over everyone else in the cast.

Peter Cushing once again shoulders the burden of carrying the film and does so as admirably as he had in the previous two Hammer horror outings. This movie has a lot of talking in it, but Cushing is the kind of actor that can make you want to listen as he goes on about ancient curses and burial rites. It's a pretty physical role for him as well, featuring lots of mummy fighting and being flung about. Although Christopher Lee has emerged over time as the number one icon of these horror films, watching them makes you realize that Cushing, the eternal 45-year-old (he was actually 45 when made this one), was the real foundation upon which the Hammer house was built.


The supporting cast of character actors perform as they always did and generally always would. Yvonne Furneuax is great as Isobel, Doctor Banning's wife and, inevitably, the spitting image of the priestess Christopher Lee's mummy was in love with so long ago. How is it that every mummy manages to be awakened from its eternal slumber by someone who just happens to know a woman who is the spitting image of the mummy's old flame? I guess those past life regressionists are correct. I always thought it was odd that in their previous lives, everyone was an Egyptian princess or some other lofty figure instead of being just some serf or the village idiot. But given the number of times mummies come back from the dead to extract horrible revenge on tomb desecraters only to run into a double of their ancient Egyptian love, I guess there are a lot of latter-day reincarnations of princesses walking around. It's a lucky thing, too, otherwise we'd have nothing with which to distract the mummies.

As the requisite "mad Arab," George Powell acquits himself well. It's a tricky role, especially by modern standards where cultural stereotyping is a more sensitive subject. However, you can't help but sympathize with Mehemet, who sees British archaeology as nothing more than pompous, condescending white men stealing the bodies and art of another culture for their own amusement. Cushing's Banning argues that it is through such acts that we learn of the past and fill in the gaps, but Mehemet remains convincing in his argument that it is more about prestige and low opinions of "the natives" than it is about filling in the gaps of history. Sympathetic though he is, when it comes time to solve the problem, he has no qualms about sending his mummy out to choke people and ruin their expensive bay windows.

On a final cast note, I was almost convinced by the voice of Eddie Byrne, who plays Inspector "I deal in facts" Mulroony that it was a young Fred "Herman Munster" Gwynn. He even looks a little like Gwynn, but the voice similarities are uncanny.


Sets are, for the most part, typically top notch, though the Egyptian settings are pretty unconvincing. The tomb walls look light as cardboard, even when characters are pretending they weigh a lot, and everything is spotless clean and looks like it just came from the prop department. When recreating Victorian England, Hammer was unmatched, but they're out of their element and/or budgetary constraints with their Egyptian sets. Still, they're at least pretty, and the rest of the movie is good enough to make it not matter all that much. As is the case with both Horror of Dracula and Curse of Frankenstein, one can't help but compare it to the old Universal film. I'm a big fan of Karloff's The Mummy, and I'm a big fan of this one. I think they're different movies for different times, and I don't really see any point in trying to figure out which one is "better." Just enjoy the fact that they're both available to you on DVD. Hammer's mummy film is as brash, daring, and energetic as their previous two efforts, and as with them, it's a real treat.

The studio's fate was sealed after the release of this film and it was all horror, all the time from there on out. Not a bad thing, though I'd be interested in seeing some of the studio's pre-Quatermass war films. As with Dracula and Frankenstein, several sequels followed in the footsteps of The Mummy, though none were as good as some of the Frankenstein or Dracula sequels. Hammer would also go one to try their hand at the final Universal monster, resulting in the superb Curse of the Werewolf, which because it didn't star Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing, gets less attention than the other three films, though it is no less a picture even though Oliver Reed's Wolfman is spectacularly ugly. Mummy sequels included Mummy's Shroud and Blood from the Mummy's Tomb, but none featured the Fisher/Sangster/Lee/Cushing crew again.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Curse of Frankenstein

1957, Great Britain. Starring Peter Cushing, Hazel Court, Robert Urquhart, Christopher Lee, Melvyn Hayes, Valerie Gaunt, Paul Hardtmuth, Noel Hood, Fred Johnson, Claude Kingston, Alex Gallier. Directed by Terence Fisher. Available on DVD from Amazon.

Technically, this should have been the first Hammer horror film I reviewed, if for no other reason than the sake of some chronological order running through this ongoing journal. This is the one that started it all. Well, no, technically I guess Quatermass Xperiment started it all, but this is the one that really made "all" all that much more. But in our zeal to watch a good vampire movie, we skipped ahead a bit and went for Horror of Dracula first. A faux pas, perhaps, but thanks to the miracle of hyperlinks and the web, you can always read this one first then skip on back to the other one. Or you can do what most people are probably doing anyway, and just not worry about it.

1955's Quatermass clued the folks at Hammer in to the fact that maybe they had something on their hands with this horror and sci-fi business. They rushed out two more horror-scifi amalgamations, then in 1956 went to work on what was to be their first in a series of films that were, depending on who you are, either adaptations of classic works of British gothic horror, or remakes of old Universal Pictures horror films. The four biggest films in the Universal pantheon of horror were Frankenstein starring Boris Karloff, Dracula with Bela Lugosi, The Mummy again with Karloff, and The Wolfman with Lon Chaney Jr. For their first crack at the legends, Hammer went with Curse of Frankenstein.

It was a bit of a gamble, what with the Karloff film being one of the great iconic films not just of horror, but of movies in general. Hammer was going to have to figure out a way to do something just as good but totally innovative, something that would at once hearken back to and be largely different from its legendary predecessor. To start things off they assigned studio director Terence Fisher to the project, then furnished him with well-known television star Peter Cushing to portray Frankenstein. A good start, but if the Karloff film had taught anyone anything, it was that whoever plays the Monster will be the focal point of everyone's attention. Hammer had a long series of auditions for a variety of big, hulking men before finally deciding on a tall but relatively lean actor by the name of Christopher Lee. Lee already had a decently long filmography under his belt, but most were small parts in small films, so he was more or less an unknown at the time. So an unknown director directs two seasoned but obscure character actors in a film based on a character that had more or less been made into a parody by the time Universal was finished with it, all at a time when interest in old gothic horror was at an all-time low in favor of whiz-bang science fiction adventures. No problem.

There were other hurdles to clear. Universal was none too happy about someone making a new Frankenstein film. Although they didn't create the character, they reasonably argued that when the average moviegoer heard the name Frankenstein, they didn't think of Mary Shelley's novel; they thought of the Universal movie. Hammer could have argued back that nothing they were going to do could have been any worse than some of those Frankenstein sequels that Universal pumped out during the 1940s. But that would have been rude to bring up. Universal threatened to sue Hammer if their monster came out looking anything remotely like the Karloff Monster, so Hammer went about stitching together, if you will, an entirely new look for Frankenstein's frightening creation. Hammer also decided that, rather than focus on the tragic tale of the Monster and "tampering in God's domain," they'd focus, like the book, on the title character and his obsession with research.

The gambles paid off in spades. Christopher Lee's monster, while never the icon that Karloff's was, looked hideous and creepy because, for the most part, it looked so real, like a ghoulish, pallid man who had been created out of sundry body parts from other corpses. And the focus on Frankenstein himself allows Peter Cushing to shine and give audiences a doctor who is as memorable as the creature was in the original film. At the center of the film is Frankenstein's own mania regarding research. As one character points out in the film, minutes before being pushed to his death by Frankenstein so the mad doctor can have a fresh, genius brain, some scientists have trouble with becoming obsessed with research then quickly growing bored with the outcome. Cushing's Frankenstein is obsessed with research to the point that he really doesn't care about the outcome. When he and his assistant Paul revive a dead dog, thereby making the single greatest achievement in the history of science, all Frankenstein is concerned with is taking the research to the next level. And when that next level is achieved, when he has created a man from the parts of dead men, all Frankenstein is interested in is yet more research, further pushing the boundaries of what he's doing all day and night locked up in that lab.

Cushing's portrayal is brilliant. He plays the doctor not as a mad scientist who turns remorseful and attempts to atone for his transgression, as was done by Colin Clive in the original, but instead as a man so engrossed by his research that he completely lacks any concept of the notion of good or evil. He doesn't willingly violate taboos; he simply doesn't comprehend that they even exist. Everything he sees is either an aide to or obstacle in his research. He is utterly amoral, but never evil. Cushing strikes the proper blend of British reserve and over-the-top histrionics. A role of this nature requires one to go over the top at certain moments, but there are a lot of different grades of over the top. Lesser actors simply ham it up and look ridiculous. Cushing, however, pushes it to exactly where it needs to be. The story revolves around him, and he's more than up to the task of carrying its weight.

He's surrounded by a superb supporting cast. Robert Urquhart is wonderful as Paul, first Frankenstein's mentor and later his colleague, a man torn between a sense of decency and morality and a sense of curiosity about just what this brilliant madman can achieve. He suffers the car wreck syndrome, wanting to turn away but unable, too enticed by the doctor's bizarre experiments just as he is repulsed by them. Hazel Court, who would go on to star in a handful of the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations that came from AIP and Roger Corman, is featured as Elizabeth, Frankenstein's hapless bride-to-be who finds herself loyal to the baron even as he ignores her utterly in favor of his research. And then there's Christopher Lee, charged with turning in a world-class performance as the monster without uttering a line of dialogue beyond "Arrhhh!" Karloff was able to do it in 1931, and Lee repeats the feat by giving us a monster that is not nearly as gentle and innocent as the Karloff creature but still plenty pathetic and tragic.

His make-up and outfit are truly ghoulish and eerie. I remember seeing a picture of him long before I'd ever seen the movie, back when I was in the second or third grade and bought a set of monster movie books through that Troll Book Order thing that made us so happy at the end of every month. There were four books in the set: Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolfman, and then a general one about space monsters. I don't recall there being one about mummies, but I could be forgetting, though everything else about the books remains vivid. I was already a huge monster movie fan by that time and had devoured the old Universal movies and Godzilla, but these books opened up a world I'd never seen. I was particularly impressed by the woodcut print of Vlad Tepes with all those impaled guys around him - you know the one. It shows up in any and every book or documentary about Dracula. But the thing that really scared the heck out of me was the full-page picture of Christopher Lee as Frankenstein's Monster, in that black coat with the ragged skin and the misty eye. Freaked me out, and I still think it's the most effective Frankenstein make-up there's been. Man, I sure wish I still had those books. I remember they had black covers with a picture of the signature monster on them. There was this picture in the space monster volume of some guy in a weird black spacesuit kneeling over another guy in a black spacesuit who has been reduced to a skeleton. I've looked for years for that movie, but I have no recollection of the title, and that one photo isn't much to go on.

The appearance of the creature is, of course, of thematic importance and always has been. Frankenstein goes on about how he will create man from scratch, perfect in every way, with the hands of an artist, the body of a hero, and the brain of a genius. And in every adaptation, this one included, the best he can do is a shambling flesh mound with homicidal tendencies. For Curse of Frankenstein it's a symbol of the fact that the doctor doesn't care about the ends so much as he does the means. All he wants to do is build and research. He's created life, after all, and he's blind to the eventual repercussions or its position as something of an abomination.

The attention to set dressing is wonderful as well. The film looks gorgeous and would set the high standard that would become one of the trademarks of Hammer films. If it's not historically accurate down to the very last detail, it's at least suitable convincing and complex. Frankenstein's lab is, naturally, filled with all manner of scientific gadgetry, including a spinning turbine that makes that "mad scientist lair" whir, though I can't help but think his experiment might have ended up better if he'd had a Jacob's Ladder on hand. Fisher's shot composition is wonderful as well. The scenes of Lee's monster ambling through bleak, yellow-and-brown fall forests is still incredibly creepy, as the scene in which Paul takes aim and blows off a goodly portion of the monster's head remains shocking.

The script by Jimmy Sangster is wonderful, literary feeling without being slow, and with several nods to the Shelley source material, though like all adaptations of both that and Bram Stoker's Dracula, it plays it pretty loosely with what was in the book versus what goes up on screen. Curse of Frankenstein manages to be suitably bombastic with subtle touches, and because like subsequent Hammer gothic horrors it takes itself so darn seriously, it never devolves into the arena of camp. This is, after all, a film based on a famous work of literature, and so it is lent the proper weight and respect. The film never lagged for me or got boring, and this is a testament to Cushing's command of the screen and the sharpness of the dialogue and pacing. It's a film that realized you don't have to pack in a generic "thrill a minute" to keep audiences interested so long as what you are saying is reasonably intelligent and engrossing.

Curse of Frankenstein was a smash success. Audiences went wild for the film's brazen mixture of gothic horror, vivid Eastmancolor, and gore. It opened the door to several sequels and established Hammer as the preeminent name in horror the world over. It revived the entire concept of the gothic horror movie, paving the way for such coming innovators and history makers as Mario Bava and Corman's Poe films with Vincent Price. It launched the careers of both Lee and Cushing into the stratosphere, though it would be several more movies before Christopher was allowed to really use that theatrical, booming voice of his on more than a few lines. The success of Curse of Frankenstein also convinced Hammer to try their hand at reinventing a couple more classic Universal monsters thought flogged to death during the '30s and '40s. And once that started, everything else at the studio was put on hold as they became the Hammer House of Horrors, so to speak. Their resurrection of Dracula, previously covered here on July 25th, was another smash. To complete their cycle, they would then turn once again to the team of Fisher, Cushing, and Lee and give the world The Mummy.

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Sunday, August 01, 2004

Brides of Dracula

Release Year: 1960
Country: England
Starring: Peter Cushing, Yvonne Monlaur, David Peel, Martita Hunt, Freda Jackson, Miles Malleson, Henry Oscar, Mona Washbourne.
Writer: Peter Bryan, Edward Percy, Jimmy Sangster
Director: Terence Fisher
Cinematographer: Jack Asher
Music: Malcolm Williamson
Producer: Anthony Hinds
Availability: Buy it from Amazon


When people talk about the sequence of films that make up Hammer Studio's "Dracula" series, a good many of them make the eight-year leap from the first film, 1958's Horror of Dracula to Dracula, Prince of Darkness in 1966. It's quite a jump, indeed, but one that seems to land you just about where you need to be, with the latter film beginning with a quick recap of the climax from the former. What gets lost in between the two films is the actual first sequel to Horror of Dracula, which is a shame because it's one of the best in the series, and one of the best vampire films Hammer ever produced.

1960's Brides of Dracula gets skipped over primarily for two reasons. First, it is the one of the only Hammer Dracula films not represented by a DVD release as of this review. This means that fans amassing a Hammer collection have a notable hole in the series that some of them might not even realize exists. The second reason Brides of Dracula tends to lurk in the shadows is because, while it sees the return of Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing, it is Dracula - and Christopher Lee - free. Upon seeing how popular he was in the role, Lee was keen not to play the count again lest he be typecast and never get to play anything again besides Dracula or some cheap public domain variation thereof. The phenomenal success of Horror of Dracula and the first two Hammer Frankenstein movies showed the producers that audiences were hungry for the Hammer brand of Gothic horror, and another entry in the Dracula series was a given. But where to go when your Dracula doesn't want to do it again?

That was the question facing Hammer as they set about creating a sequel to Horror of Dracula. Without Lee, where do you go? The most obvious option would be to cast another actor in the role. That Dracula was destroyed in the finale of the first film was meaningless. Hammer could make up any number of ways to resurrect the count if they had the right man in the cape. But dropping another actor in, even another very good actor, just wouldn't do. Hammer was smart enough to recognize that a big part of the reason Dracula was so popular was because of Christopher Lee. Replacing him would almost surely result in fan backlash. So Hammer went with the second option, which was to attempt to handle the franchise the same way they were handling things in the Frankenstein movies.

Going into Horror of Dracula, Peter Cushing was the big name, and Christopher Lee was still an unknown commodity despite his appearance as the creature in Curse of Frankenstein. Coming out of Horror of Dracula, if Lee wasn't quite as big a name as Cushing, he was inarguably a big name. Hammer had progressed to a second Frankenstein film without Lee, focusing the series on Cushing's Baron Frankenstein instead of the monster. Perhaps, then, they could do the same with Dracula, and focus the film on the reoccurring character of Cushing's Dr. Van Helsing and his conflict with a parade of vampires. Assembling the remaining key players from the first film - director Terence Fisher and screenwriter Jimmy Sangster - Hammer went about creating the sequel to Horror of Dracula without Dracula or Christopher Lee. Initially titled Disciples of Dracula, the film soon became Brides of Dracula because even if Dracula isn't it, that doesn't mean you can't have his name in the title. Bruce Lee could tell Dracula a thing or two about that.

The movie begins with fearless Hammer beauty Marianne (Yvonne Monlaur, also in Circus of Horrors and Hammer's Terror of the Tongs) finding herself stranded in one of your standard-issue creepy little villages with an ominous secret. She's desperate to make it to the academy where she's to start a new teaching job since showing up days late with stories about villagers giving you the evil eye rarely endear you to the headmaster. Naturally, no one is willing to go out after dark though no one will explain exactly why. And they're not willing to give her a room at the inn, which is often the case with these grumpy locals, though I can't for the life of me figure out why. The landlord yells at you not to go out after dark and then, a breath later, yells at you to get out because he'll not rent a room to ye! What does he get by not renting out the room? I mean, they're often shown later regretting their decision and going, "Well, what you have had me do?" How about give her a room and then see her off in the morning with a smile?

Marianne eventually finds a sour old woman named Baroness Meinster who is willing to give Marianne a place to stay for the evening. Now all of a sudden the landlord has all sorts of rooms for rent and pleads with Marianne not to go. What's with these guys? If you went and ordered a pint of ale from them, they'd yell, "We've no ale for likes of you!" as they were serving you up a pint of ale. Every one of them is loopy as a shithouse bat. Not wanting to stay with the gruff and apparently crazy innkeeper, Marianne graciously accepts the Baroness' invitation to spend the evening in a posh mansion. Of course, we all know this'll lead to trouble, and it soon does. The Baroness seems to act weirder and weirder the longer Marianne is there, and before too long, Marianne even encounters the Baroness son, who the Baroness keeps chained to the wall in another room. Obviously this woman is as loony as the innkeeper, so Marianne agrees to free the young Baron Meinster (David Peel). Well, wouldn't you know it? The guy turns out to be a vampire, though Marianne herself is unaware of the fact.

Marianne gets where she's going with the help of one Dr. Van Helsing (Cushing), who happens to be passing through the area on his never-ending quest to study, understand, and drive a stake through the heart of the undead. Meinster, meanwhile, spends his time out of the grave preying on the local beauties, as well as the girls at the finishing school in which Marianne now works. As young lovelies start dropping dead then crawling back out of the grave, it's up to Van Helsing and Marianne - but mostly Van Helsing - to put an end to Meinster's reign of terror, thus putting one more nail in the coffin of the horrible disease of vampirism his old arch-foe Dracula has spread throughout the world.

Although a Dracula film without Dracula sounds like it should be a misfire, Brides of Dracula works even better for the absence of the titular neck-biter. David Peel's Baron Meinster isn't in the same class as Christopher Lee's towering prince of darkness, but he's plenty good and looks well scary when he starts to get all lusty and vamped out with bloodshot red eyes. Peel didn't have a lot of credits to his name before or after this film, but that doesn't reflect on his performance here. He is superb, tender and sincere-sounding when he needs to be, and ruthlessly animalistic once he's free to show his true colors. He wisely decides not to attempt a Christopher Lee impersonation and instead come up with a unique vampire character that has some obvious similarities stemming from the fact that the blood of Dracula runs through all vampire veins.

As Marianne, Yvonne Monlaur is acceptable - another in the long line of Hammer beauties who were picked for their looks instead of their skills, but who never the lass manage to come off relatively well, or at least well enough so as not to ruin the scenes in which they appear. Though her agreement to marry the Baron comes almost out of nowhere, we can write that off as Victorian-era female innocence and the desire to be swept off one's feet by a dashing prince, or baron as the case may be. Too bad he's the baron of evil. Despite the occasional girlish foible, Monlaur has one of the better sketched-out female roles in the Dracula films. She is surrounded by women who, one by one, succumb to Meinster's charms, to say nothing of his fangs, and she rarely resorts to screaming and running down unless it's absolutely necessary.

The focal point of the story, however, and the link to the first film, is Peter Cushing returning as the intrepid Dr. Van Helsing. He is here as he was the first time around: authoritative, kind, and believable. The sort of chap you'd really want looking after you if a vampire was chasing after you. From interviews I've read with his co-stars and directors, Cushing was fiendishly devoted to every role he had and did mountains of work before the cameras started rolling. The result on screen is that he makes this type of role look utterly effortless and thoroughly convincing. Hammer films have about as much half-baked mysticism and "occult anatomy" in them as the average episode of Star Trek has half-baked techno-babble, but coming from Cushing, you'd never dream of questioning his theories on vampirism not so much as a function of the supernatural, but as a social or sexual disease, very much a part of the rational world.

Cushing is also very good in the action scenes, of which there are several. The finale of the film, in which Van Helsing goes one-on-one with Meinster in a burning windmill is at least as good as the climax of the first film, and perhaps even a bit better, especially given the ingenious way Van Helsing eventually defeats his undead foe. It's one of the best scenes in a film that is full of great scenes.

Speaking of which, two of the other great scenes in the movies belong to the other two standout performers. Martita Hunt is wonderfully creepy as the mysterious Baroness Meinster, who seems at first to emerge as the villain of the film until we comprehend the reasons for her cruelty to her own son. The scene in which she beseeches Van Helsing to kill her after her son has turned her into a vampire (something Van Helsing seems to liken to a form of incest) is outstanding. The other scene involves Freda Jackson as the Meinsters' servant. She seems to be on the side of the Baroness, but it's soon revealed that her true loyalties lie with the vampire in the secret room. The scene in which she, in full ranting hag mode, coxes a young victim of the baron out of the grave is positively chilling.

Sangster's script is well-constructed and keeps a quick pace as it navigates the many twists and turns that establish everything. The complex path upon which we're carried that leads to the freeing of Baron Meinster is quite exciting and well put-together - intricate without being convoluted. There are also a number of clever surprises in the film, not the least of which would be the fact that Baron Meinster gets the better of Van Helsing and puts the bite on him. We can guess that Van Helsing will have some multi-step ritual to reverse the infection of the bite, but even so it's a major shock when we see him actually get bitten. This script seems to have been the result of some serious rewriting when Cushing apparently reacted very unfavorably to the initial draft and said he thought that he, like Lee, might want to have nothing to do with it. Although there are some small holes here and there, the story is all the better for whatever amount of revisions they made to keep Cushing happy and on board. It's handling of vampirism from a less supernatural, more social, approach is inspired.

The one short-coming in the story is that although Van Helsing is the nominal focus of the film, he doesn't show up until the halfway point, leaving the first half of the film on the shoulder of the supporting players. Luckily, they are more than capable supporting players, and so ultimately it doesn't harm the film any. Still, it would have been nice to see Van Helsing a little sooner.

Fisher's direction is once again top notch. The film is filled with the various requirements of Gothic horror as set down by Hammer itself. Misty forests, decaying cemeteries, shifty peasants, and the mincing dark old house up on the hill are exploited for their full power by Fisher's expertly guided camera. Along with cinematographer Jack Asher, Fisher paints another gorgeous picture for Hammer and further solidifies the studio's emerging look and style. Asher it as much responsible for defining the look of Hammer horror as Fisher, perhaps even more so given Fisher's reportedly easy-going style of direction. Asher had already worked on the big three - Curse of Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, and The Mummy - as well as the equally superb Revenge of Frankenstein and The Hound of the Baskervilles. His work in Brides of Dracula goes a long way to establishing the increasingly menacing mood developed by Sangster's script.

If Brides of Dracula is the forgotten Dracula film, I can't imagine it will stay that way for very long. It's simply too good. Maybe not quite as good as the original, but definitely the equal of the next sequel, Dracula, Prince of Darkness, which saw the return of Christopher Lee to the role of Dracula. Brides of Dracula may even be better than that film. It's certainly a real gem in Hammer's filmography. Almost everything about the film works perfectly, and the few parts that don't work are easy to overlook. Cushing is magnificent, Peel is solid, and in the Baroness and her servant we have two of the best supporting characters in the whole series. A proper DVD release would seem inevitable given that pretty much all Hammer horror material is making its way to the format. At that time, Brides of Dracula should be able to take its rightful place next to Hammer's best horror productions.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Sunday, July 25, 2004

Horror of Dracula

1958, Great Britain. Starring Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling, Carol Marsh, Olga Dickie, John Van Eyssen, Valerie Gaunt, Janina Faye, Barbara Archer, Charles Lloyd Pack. Directed by Terence Fisher. Available on DVD from Amazon.

Embrace the Darkness II rears its ugly head of comparisons (huh?) once more. Maybe for the last time? We can only hope. But I can't help but bring it up at least this one last time since it was one of the worse vampire films ever made (and most vampire films are among the worst vampire films ever made) and Hammer Studio's Horror of Dracula is, without a doubt (at least in my mind), the absolute best vampire film ever made, and quite simply one of the finest examples of proper Gothic horror that's ever been filmed.

It was a busy couple of years for Britain's Hammer Studio. In 1955, their sci-fi/horror thriller Quatermass and the Pit became a smash hit, and the studio soon learned it was because audiences were hungry for shocking, boundary-pushing films of the fantastic and horrible that still handled themselves with a degree of wit, intelligence, and dignity as would befit a rousing British tale of terror. Inspired by that film's success, execs turned to studio director Terence Fisher to rework Mary Shelley's classic tale of gothic horror, Frankenstein. It was a risky move for any number of obvious reasons, not the least of which was the fact that Universal's Boris Karloff version of the monster was practically a global icon. Hammer had to come up with a completely new approach to the monster's appearance, since the Universal version was copyrighted, and they figured that while doing so, they might as well ratchet up the sex and violence and see just how much they'd be able to get away with in a horror movie.

Well, we'll cover all the details of that film shortly, since it's on the block for next week, but the short of it is that the film was a huge hit for the growing British studio. It turned TV-star Peter Cushing and relative unknown Christopher Lee into bona fide sensations, and it inspired Hammer Studio to try its hand at another gothic masterpiece turned Universal Pictures horror film, Count Dracula. Even with the initial ground broken by Frankenstein, Dracula would be no less of a challenge, and Bela Lugosi's performance as the blood-sucking count was no less iconic and cherished than Karloff's as The Monster. Fisher was once again the director, and Lee and Cushing were signed again as the stars. Hammer basically repeated the same formula with a different monster, turning up the blood and sex as much as an X rating would allow them, and then seeing if they couldn't turn it up just a little more. Critics were aghast at the results, and many condemned the film as perverse, disgusting, vile, and any number of the usual adjectives applied to such a film. A few critics responded more favorably, thanks largely to the wonderful sets, direction, and acting, but ultimately, none of the critics opinions amounted to a hill o' beans. Audiences turned out for the film in droves, perhaps even encouraged by the reviews that didn't so much say the film was bad as much as they just vilified it for being so bloody and dangerous and evil. Nothing drives patrons to the theater quite like the promise of shattered taboos. Years after the fact, as taboos have been pushed far further than Hammer could have done in 1958, the film is easier to evaluate on its merits as a film than as a sensation.

Chrsitopher Lee stars as Dracula, Eastern European count, dweller in a big creepy castle, and as you should well know by now. Once again, as with Macbeth, I implore you to get out and grab a copy of the book is you haven't already read it. I assume that Teleport City visitors are avid readers (you're reading this, after all). Stoker's Dracula was the first book I ever read that flat-out terrified me. I must have been nine or ten when I first cracked it open, and it kept me up late at night even long after I'd finished reading it by flashlight underneath the covers. As a late-night addict to Louisville's "Memories of Monsters" show on Saturday nights at midnight, I was also a huge fan of Bela Lugosi's film. It wasn't until years later, when I was in high school, that I saw the Hammer version for the first time. It fully blew me away at the time, and revisiting it again as a grown man has seen it lose none of the visceral impact it held that first night I saw it and realized this was an altogether different sort of bloodsucker than Bela's reserved, debonair aristocrat.

Christopher Lee's interpretation of the count, based as fast and loose on the book as every other cinematic adaptation, has an air of sophistication about him, but it is quick to dissolve as Dracula acts more on his animalistic impulses. Here he is a monster, through and through, ferocious and terrifying. He does not woo the women; he simply takes them. He does not dazzle salon audiences with his wit and intelligence. He is a beast, a stalker, a predator without remorse or pity. In short, he's the Dracula you thoroughly believe will kick your ass. My number one complaint about vampires, besides the fact that modern tales of vampires so often give them silly names, is that they're generally played up as lonely, tortured souls given to self-indulgent whining about the sad state of their damnation. They're not as likely to overpower and kill you as they are likely to bore you to tears with their moping and reading of bad teen angst poetry. Blame it on a couple generations of Anne Rice fed goth rockers who play up the sappily romantic and "erotic" side of the vampire while forgetting everything else. End result? Tom Cruise in a Renaissance festival shirt.

But here is a vampire who, for my tastes, does everything right. Christopher Lee isn't a man or a monster so much as he is a barely contained forced that overpowers anything with which it comes into contact. He is strong, towering, and above all, menacing. When Christopher Lee as Dracula shows up, you believe with every inch of your soul that's he going to put the serious hurt on you, not ask you to waltz or listen while he reads some verse to you. When this Dracula looks at you, he sees nothing but food. That Lee's performance is so mesmerizing, so memorable, is testament to how good it truly is - he is on screen a total of less than ten minutes, and only has a handful of lines at the very beginning.

His foil in this tale is the actor who would appear alongside Lee in more films than a sane man would care to count, the man who made a career out of lines like, "But surely you can't be serious, man! I saw him die myself!" and finally the man who was born 45 years old, Peter Cushing. Cushing stars here as Van Helsing, fearless vampire killer and all-around enemy of the undead. Just as previous and later films enjoy giving us a Dracula who is suave and debonair and practically a Victorian era Rat Packer, these same films enjoy turning Van Helsing into a tortured soul, an alcoholic or drug addict. You know, a man who enjoys the occasional shot of absinthe. It's because we so often like to make our heroes into villains and our villains into heroes. But here, Cushing plays Van Helsing straight, a determined vampire hunter and caring doctor. Cushing sinks his teeth into the role (because it was far too easy to use that line about Christopher Lee) with the utmost conviction; you believe him when he says something, no matter how fantastical.

In fact, the conviction with which Cushing goes about the business at hand is indicative of the entire feel of the movie. Part of the reason it's so good is that it never lets up. It never winks at you or makes a joke. It's impossible, it would seem these days, to make a movie without a comic foil or a bunch of so-called sly self-referential jokes. But everyone involved in Horror of Dracula is completely serious, and the film takes no time out for comic relief. Everyone treats the story as it should be: as a piece of literature. Lee in particular seemed very adamant about this, fan of classical literature that he is.

Horror of Dracula does almost everything right, and its few missteps are forgivable if not unnoticeable. Most obvious of the foibles comes when Johnathan Harker confronts a slumbering Dracula and his bride. Harker has traveled far and risked much, including being bitten himself, to destroy Dracula. The day is waning. Completion of his task is within his grasp, so what does he do? Walk over and stake the woman first instead of doing what everyone else in the world would have done, which is take care of the six-foot four lord of the undead first, then worry about the lady. Sometimes I think horror movies do this sort of thing intentionally, just to get people worked up and shouting at the characters.

The film's other misstep is debatable, and that would be how much screen time is devoted to Dracula. A fair number of people complain that he's so scarce in this film, show up mostly to either walk in on or choke Van Helsing. While I agree that I'd like to see him do a little more than just step through a doorway, then run off or run over and throw someone, I think Dracula's limited screen time keeps him as an ominous shadow looming over everything, present even when he's not actually onscreen, especially since almost everything that happens in the movie revolves around him or having conversations about him. He remains mysterious and savage and does not get overexposed. This leaves the pace of the film up to Peter Cushing's Van Helsing, and he is more than up to the task. Horror of Dracula is not a long film, and it rarely stops for a breath. Even during scenes in which there's nothing more going on than Van Helsing dictating notes to himself, the film doesn't slow down. It shows that you needn't jettison the plot or character development in order to have a briskly paced film.

The success of this film cemented Hammer's position as the preeminent producer of quality horror for the next ten years. Considering that most American horror films at the time were bargain basement cheapies, the vivid color and lurid content and promise of a daring time set the country on fire and opened the way for Roger Corman and AIP to ape the style of Hammer in a series of horror films revolving around the tales of Edgar Allen Poe. But no one could match Hammer for the sheer force of atmosphere. Horror of Dracula crawls with Gothic eeriness. It clings to the film like a graveyard mist. Costumes and sets are rich and lavish even here at the relative beginning of the horror arc. They would grow more so as the films got bigger, and the look and style of a Hammer film would become as much a trademark as the blood, the buxom beauties bursting out of their bodices, and Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing chasing after one another and wearing those Victorian overcoats.

Horror of Dracula was such a phenomenal success that Hammer was keen on rushing out a sequel. It happened eventually, in the form of 1960s Brides of Dracula, but without Dracula and without Christopher Lee. He and the infamous count wouldn't return until years later, with 1966's Dracula, Prince of Darkness. That movie, however, lacked Peter Cushing. No worries though, because the two would appear alongside one another in countless other Hammer horror classics, including their third re-invention of a classic Universal horror icon in 1959 with the release of The Mummy. But those are all movies for the coming weeks.

Hammer films - we love them, and thankfully this Netflix project has given us the kick in the seat we needed to get some of them reviewed on this site.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 3 Comments