|
|
Post by driver1980 on Oct 3, 2024 2:45:05 GMT -5
Great review, codystarbuck! I had no idea Fenella Fielding (love her) did the voice of the public announcements in The Prisoner. One truly does learn something new every day! |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Oct 3, 2024 3:04:53 GMT -5
From 1971, directed by Al Adamson:  This is a “so good it’s bad” film, and some of Al Adamson’s output would have put Ed Wood to shame! For some inexplicable reason, the body of Frankenstein’s Monster is buried in California (no, me neither). Dr. Durea (J. Carrol Naish) is the last descendant of Doctor Frankenstein, and he is performing experiments to perfect a serum that can cure his paralysis. Dracula also seems to be hanging around California for reasons not entirely explained. He proposes an alliance with Dr. Durea, which will see them rule the world. Can mankind stop them? There’s some other human-based stuff which, quite honestly, feels like it’s from another film. They say eating fish is good for the brain, so I’d propose eating fish and getting a good night’s sleep before you even attempt to decipher most of the admittedly fun nonsense here. The budget was probably around $10. Don’t quote me on this, but I think this may have been the last film appearance for Lon Chaney Jr. He plays Groton, an Igor-like assistant to Durea. Roger Engel was a stockbroker who had links to Sam Sherman, the co-producer of this film. Given the stage name Zandor Vorkov, he played Dracula. I have only ever found two screen credits for him. Lines for Dracula include, “And all those who would meddle in the destinies of Frankenstein and Dracula...will see an infernal bloodbath the likes of which has not swept the Earth before!”  It has a certain charm to it, but as stated, very little makes sense - and the final battle between Dracula and the Monster is less exciting than the film poster itself. The funniest scene is when the Monster kidnaps a woman who is sitting in a car with her boyfriend on a highway. A sheriff and his deputy drive past. Their bullets have no effect on the Monster - so they try hitting it with their guns and having a fight. Thanks for trying, guys. Still, sometimes life is about silly films that don’t make any sense, so I’m glad I revisited this one. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 3, 2024 5:19:12 GMT -5
Honestly, the only interesting character in the film is Renfield. I don’t actually dislike any of the characters, but Renfield is the only one who actually gets an arc. For me, the best part of the film is that fake-out where we are led to believe Renfield will be our protagonist, and then NOPE. Dracula takes him out like a chump. After that, Dwight Frye might even outshine Lugosi in the film. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 3, 2024 8:09:32 GMT -5
Torso (Sergio Martino, 1973)
Of the four giallo masters, Martino is the director I'm least familiar with. The blurb I read for this described it as being a bit "trashy" compared to the artistry of Bava and Argento, but I felt that was unfair. It may not have been as stylish as a Bava or Argento film, but it was a well-directed film and from the mid point on was the most exciting film I've watched so far. The second half is basically your classic slasher film where the female protagonist fights against all odds to survive, but it was gripping and tense, and featured an amazing set piece where the girl was trying to avoid being caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 3, 2024 10:13:20 GMT -5
From 1971, directed by Al Adamson: This is a “so good it’s bad” film, and some of Al Adamson’s output would have put Ed Wood to shame! For some inexplicable reason, the body of Frankenstein’s Monster is buried in California (no, me neither). Dr. Durea (J. Carrol Naish) is the last descendant of Doctor Frankenstein, and he is performing experiments to perfect a serum that can cure his paralysis. Dracula also seems to be hanging around California for reasons not entirely explained. He proposes an alliance with Dr. Durea, which will see them rule the world. Can mankind stop them? There’s some other human-based stuff which, quite honestly, feels like it’s from another film. They say eating fish is good for the brain, so I’d propose eating fish and getting a good night’s sleep before you even attempt to decipher most of the admittedly fun nonsense here. The budget was probably around $10. Don’t quote me on this, but I think this may have been the last film appearance for Lon Chaney Jr. He plays Groton, an Igor-like assistant to Durea. Roger Engel was a stockbroker who had links to Sam Sherman, the co-producer of this film. Given the stage name Zandor Vorkov, he played Dracula. I have only ever found two screen credits for him. Lines for Dracula include, “And all those who would meddle in the destinies of Frankenstein and Dracula...will see an infernal bloodbath the likes of which has not swept the Earth before!” It has a certain charm to it, but as stated, very little makes sense - and the final battle between Dracula and the Monster is less exciting than the film poster itself. The funniest scene is when the Monster kidnaps a woman who is sitting in a car with her boyfriend on a highway. A sheriff and his deputy drive past. Their bullets have no effect on the Monster - so they try hitting it with their guns and having a fight. Thanks for trying, guys. Still, sometimes life is about silly films that don’t make any sense, so I’m glad I revisited this one. Angelo Rossitto is in it! I saw it five or six years ago and I kind of love it. I have a friend who’s kind of obsessed with it. If I had seen it for the first time 20 years ago, I probably would have been kind of obsessed with it as well, and I’ll bet I would have seen it 10 or 15 times. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 3, 2024 17:40:32 GMT -5
I’ve been reading a cultural history of Sweeney Todd, and a later chapter mentions a 1997 TV-movie version where Ben Kingsley is Sweeney Todd and Joanna Lumley is Mrs. Lovett! And it’s directed by John Schlesinger, who directed Midnight Cowboy!
And it’s free on Tubi!
I watched it this afternoon. I found it to be very entertaining.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 3, 2024 17:51:09 GMT -5
Revisited Tod Browning's The Thirteenth Chair (1929) last night, the film he did just prior to Dracula (and also starring Bela Lugosi). It's the kind of drawingroom mystery horror that Dracula would go on to drive out of vogue, but I still appreciate those kinds of films when they're done well. Not much in the way of cinematography nor atmosphere; much like most films of this subgenre, it's a stage play adapted for the screen. And yet, if you accept the film for what it is, it's pretty good, with very strong characters and acting, especially the sweet old Irish lady fortune teller at the center of the mystery, who both is a fraud and is not. The mystery itself is elaborately multi-layered, constantly revealing new dimensions to everything we think we know throughout, though it absolutely cheats at the surprise ending, revealing information we couldn't have guessed prior.
Bela plays a sort of good guy for really the first and only time in American film, but he's already been playing Dracula on stage, and that character absolutely creeps into his performance. Much as I love Bela, he isn't the most memorable part of this thing, and yet it probably would have disappeared into obscurity decades ago if not for his involvement.
Really fun film if you dig the old, slow-paced drawing room murder mysteries. Just don't expect to get scared.
6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 3, 2024 18:33:51 GMT -5
Revisited Tod Browning's The Thirteenth Chair (1929) last night, the film he did just prior to Dracula (and also starring Bela Lugosi). It's the kind of drawingroom mystery horror that Dracula would go on to drive out of vogue, but I still appreciate those kinds of films when they're done well. Not much in the way of cinematography nor atmosphere; much like most films of this subgenre, it's a stage play adapted for the screen. And yet, if you accept the film for what it is, it's pretty good, with very strong characters and acting, especially the sweet old Irish lady fortune teller at the center of the mystery, who both is a fraud and is not. The mystery itself is elaborately multi-layered, constantly revealing new dimensions to everything we think we know throughout, though it absolutely cheats at the surprise ending, revealing information we couldn't have guessed prior. Bela plays a sort of good guy for really the first and only time in American film, but he's already been playing Dracula on stage, and that character absolutely creeps into his performance. Much as I love Bela, he isn't the most memorable part of this thing, and yet it probably would have disappeared into obscurity decades ago if not for his involvement. Really fun film if you dig the old, slow-paced drawing room murder mysteries. Just don't expect to get scared. 6/10
I might try this one myself if I can find it. As often happens in these threads I'm getting lots of new ideas or reminders of old ones from all the things everyone else is watching. Dracula vs Frankenstein, Carry On Screaming, the Fulci movies, ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeddak on Oct 3, 2024 19:12:09 GMT -5
Funny Games - 1997 - I found this film on one of those listicles, this one devoted to movies that are hard to watch. Yeah, it belongs on the list. This is an unnerving, disturbing work, due more to the approach than the plot.
The plot is basic. A family is on vacation in their lake house, but 2 lowlifes take over and subject the victims to various physical and emotional tortures. But writer/director Michael Haneke doesn't want to just titillate the audience. He wants to use the movie to force the audience to ask themselves why they enjoy watching this sort of abuse. Several times, one of the creeps breaks the fourth wall, as if asking the audience if they're really into the sadistic show. When the wife is forced to strip, knowing that many in the audience want to see this, Haneke denies it, showing her only from the shoulders up, showing her degradation without letting the audience get any pleasure from it. And when she gets a gun and kills one of the creeps, Haneke basically tells the viewer 'nope, you don't get to celebrate after condoning all that abuse' and literally reverses the scene. There's no release, no happy ending.
The movie is asking who the real monster is, and then pointing a finger at the audience. A big middle finger.
Look, conflict and bad things happening to people are essential to drama. Yes, films can go too far, seeming to revel in the pain of the characters, and inviting the viewers to join in the enjoyment. There is a line, and even though we know these are not real people suffering, we do have to know where empathy ends and sadism begins. But I don't think most horror fans go off that deep end; we root for the victims to overcome, or at least survive. And this movie hit me as confrontational, assuming the viewer is watching for all the wrong reasons. Bottom line, it was an important message, but I felt hit over the head with it.
This was the original, Austrian version. The director made an English version which is apparently a scene-for-scene remake. I won't be watching it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 3, 2024 20:16:05 GMT -5
The Mummy (1932)
I actually watched this not super long ago in the big screen with my youngest son. But what the heck.
I’ve always liked this one quite a bit. The make-up for Karloff is outstanding. And really I like the ambiguity of it. You can make the case that Imhotep/Ardeth Bay is just trying to hm get his squeeze back. And it’s not remotely clear if it’s Helen or Anckesenamun or a combo of both that’s there at the end.
It’s too bad there was never an actual sequel to this one.
Most hilarious line in the film, “The British Museum works for the cause of science, not for loot.”
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 3, 2024 21:36:09 GMT -5
Funny Games - 1997 - I found this film on one of those listicles, this one devoted to movies that are hard to watch. Yeah, it belongs on the list. This is an unnerving, disturbing work, due more to the approach than the plot. The plot is basic. A family is on vacation in their lake house, but 2 lowlifes take over and subject the victims to various physical and emotional tortures. But writer/director Michael Haneke doesn't want to just titillate the audience. He wants to use the movie to force the audience to ask themselves why they enjoy watching this sort of abuse. Several times, one of the creeps breaks the fourth wall, as if asking the audience if they're really into the sadistic show. When the wife is forced to strip, knowing that many in the audience want to see this, Haneke denies it, showing her only from the shoulders up, showing her degradation without letting the audience get any pleasure from it. And when she gets a gun and kills one of the creeps, Haneke basically tells the viewer 'nope, you don't get to celebrate after condoning all that abuse' and literally reverses the scene. There's no release, no happy ending. The movie is asking who the real monster is, and then pointing a finger at the audience. A big middle finger. Look, conflict and bad things happening to people are essential to drama. Yes, films can go too far, seeming to revel in the pain of the characters, and inviting the viewers to join in the enjoyment. There is a line, and even though we know these are not real people suffering, we do have to know where empathy ends and sadism begins. But I don't think most horror fans go off that deep end; we root for the victims to overcome, or at least survive. And this movie hit me as confrontational, assuming the viewer is watching for all the wrong reasons. Bottom line, it was an important message, but I felt hit over the head with it. This was the original, Austrian version. The director made an English version which is apparently a scene-for-scene remake. I won't be watching it.
I've found the Haneke films I've seen consistently intelligent and thought-provoking but I've avoided this one as I haven't been able to shake the feeling that Haneke wanted to play some "funny games" with the audience himself with this offering. Your review has reinforced this feeling so for now I think Funny Games will continue to stay near the bottom of my list of Haneke films to watch.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 3, 2024 21:51:55 GMT -5
The Mummy (1932) I actually watched this not super long ago in the big screen with my youngest son. But what the heck. I’ve always liked this one quite a bit. The make-up for Karloff is outstanding. And really I like the ambiguity of it. You can make the case that Imhotep/Ardeth Bay is just trying to hm get his squeeze back. And it’s not remotely clear if it’s Helen or Anckesenamun or a combo of both that’s there at the end. It’s too bad there was never an actual sequel to this one. I still find the series that follows more enjoyable than the original. Sure, the original has more pathos and (of course) Karl Freund, but the sequels are more fun AND have a dude in bandages for more than two minutes. The Mummy's Ghost, in particular, always rocks my world, with John Carradine playing an awesome villain and an ending that's an unexpected punch to the gut. Me thinks the film doth protest too much. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeddak on Oct 3, 2024 22:29:33 GMT -5
Funny Games - 1997 - I found this film on one of those listicles, this one devoted to movies that are hard to watch. Yeah, it belongs on the list. This is an unnerving, disturbing work, due more to the approach than the plot. The plot is basic. A family is on vacation in their lake house, but 2 lowlifes take over and subject the victims to various physical and emotional tortures. But writer/director Michael Haneke doesn't want to just titillate the audience. He wants to use the movie to force the audience to ask themselves why they enjoy watching this sort of abuse. Several times, one of the creeps breaks the fourth wall, as if asking the audience if they're really into the sadistic show. When the wife is forced to strip, knowing that many in the audience want to see this, Haneke denies it, showing her only from the shoulders up, showing her degradation without letting the audience get any pleasure from it. And when she gets a gun and kills one of the creeps, Haneke basically tells the viewer 'nope, you don't get to celebrate after condoning all that abuse' and literally reverses the scene. There's no release, no happy ending. The movie is asking who the real monster is, and then pointing a finger at the audience. A big middle finger. Look, conflict and bad things happening to people are essential to drama. Yes, films can go too far, seeming to revel in the pain of the characters, and inviting the viewers to join in the enjoyment. There is a line, and even though we know these are not real people suffering, we do have to know where empathy ends and sadism begins. But I don't think most horror fans go off that deep end; we root for the victims to overcome, or at least survive. And this movie hit me as confrontational, assuming the viewer is watching for all the wrong reasons. Bottom line, it was an important message, but I felt hit over the head with it. This was the original, Austrian version. The director made an English version which is apparently a scene-for-scene remake. I won't be watching it.
I've found the Haneke films I've seen consistently intelligent and thought-provoking but I've avoided this one as I haven't been able to shake the feeling that Haneke wanted to play some "funny games" with the audience himself with this offering. Your review has reinforced this feeling so for now I think Funny Games will continue to stay near the bottom of my list of Haneke films to watch.
It's intelligent and thought-provoking, absolutely. And the line of thought it provokes is important. But I felt like the movie was judging me for having chosen to watch one of 'those' movies. I'd say it is worth watching, especially if you like his other work. But it left a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm in no hurry to check his other films out, myself. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 4, 2024 1:43:24 GMT -5
Tonight's entry was 1966's The Ghost and Mr Chicken. Not exactly a horror movie, but it plays on the tropes of ghost and haunted house stories. Don Knotts is Luther Heggs, a typesetter for the local paper, in Rachel, KS, who dreams of being a reporter. He gets pushed into writing a story about the 20th anniversary of a murder-suicide, in the Old Simmons House, by Janitor Mr Kelsey, who had been the gardener there and seems to have the ear of Luther and Ollie, the main reporter for the paper. Luther then is enticed to spend the night in the house and write about it, by the editor of the paper. Luther does, finds a hidden stairwell to the organ loft of the house and music playing on the old organ, with no one there. He runs downstairs and finds a portrait of the mistress of the house, with gardening shears thrust into the image. Luther tells his story and it is a sensation, earning him attention from the town and helping to catch the eye of Alma Parker, a girl who has been dating Ollie, but on whom Luther has a crush. The nephew of the original owner is trying to get clear title, but he is blocked by the local banker, whose wife believes in the supernatural and the story and owns 51% of the bank stock, forcing her husband to not sign the papers. Simmons files suit against the paper and LLuther, claiming libel and Luther is forced to try to prove his story in the house.
The film is silly fun, written by Jim Fritzell and Everett Greenbaum, two regular writers on The Andy Griffith Show. The film is inspired by a haunted house story in the show and Andy Griffith got a token payout for adapting it. Director Alan Rafkin was also an AGS director, who could work fast to meet the 27 day shooting schedule. The cast is filled with character actors, many veterans of the Andy Griffith Show, including Hope Summers, who played Clara Edwards, Aunt Bea's best friend, and Hal Smith, who played Otis Campbell has a cameo, at the beginning, as a local drunk. Dick Sargeant, of Bewitched is the editor and Joan Staley is Alma, the love interest. She had appeared, strategically covered, in Playboy, in 1958. She was a blond, but wore a brunette wig, because they felt she looked too sexy, as a blond.
It's rarely completely hilarious and Luther might as well be Barney Fife, right down to the same civilian suit and hat. However, there is a nice running gag of someone yelling out "Attaboy, Luther," when he has to speak in public and court (voice by Everett Greenbaum) and my favorite line by the banker, about his wife, who when asked by Simmons if she believes the story, he responds "She came home and vibrated for an hour." That's about as dirty as any Don Knotts movie got (well, maybe The Lover).
Silly fun, not really scary, but a nice Scooby Doo-style haunted mystery, minus the hippie and the pooch. Okay, beatnik and the mutt.
Of course, Don Knotts would go on to work with Scoob and Shag, on The New Scooby Doo Movies.
Okay, it isn't The Wicker Man; but it still says "Halloween" to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeddak on Oct 4, 2024 6:33:37 GMT -5
Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein - 1972 - Written and directed by Jess Franco. I keep trying Franco movies, but I have yet to find one I actually like. Some are interesting, some are not. Let's see about this one, eh?
So Dracula attacks a couple of women. Some guy puts a spike through one victim's eye, I guess to keep her from coming back as a vampire. Then he goes for a long buggy ride through the woods to the local castle, spends a long time looking for a way in and looking around before he finds Dracula in his coffin. He stakes Dracula in the dullest staking scene I've ever seen, and leaves. Dracula turns into a bat when he dies, by the way.
Then there's a voice-over by Dr. Frankenstein, telling us that Dr. Seward is the guy who killed Dracula, that Doc F is looking for Dracula's castle, and a gypsy woman is his enemy. He moves into the castle, complete with his mute assistant and a creature he's already put together, who he brings back to life. We get another voice-over telling us he intends to revive Dracula as well.
Then we go to the local pub for a song.
Dr F revives Dracula, in a scene involving a real and obviously terrified bat. Bastards! Then we see a female vampire hiding in the castle. No idea who she is, and no one seems to know she's there. Then we get another voice-over from the doc, telling us that Dracula now serves him and will give him an invincible vampire army with which he can conquer the world. All this is told to us while Dr. F sits there looking thoughtful. Or sleepy, whatever.
The monster attacks Seward, who is nursed back to health by the gypsy woman. Remember her? She says that Seward is the only one who can stop Frankenstein, but that a werewolf is coming to town who will help. Less than 20 minutes to go here, folks.
Then the mysterious female vampire kills the doc's assistant. Don't know why. Then the gypsy dies, and Seward leads the villagers to the castle. Then a werewolf shows up, goes to the castle and attacks the monster. Then Dr F kills the female vampire. Don't know why. Then he decides that Dracula has betrayed him, somehow, and kills him. Then the monster shows up, having apparently killed the werewolf offscreen, and the doc kills him. Don't know why. Then Seward shows up and finds everybody dead, except Dr. Frankenstein; don't know what happens to him. Seward takes credit for the win, and that's the end.
What a mess. Apparently the actor playing Frankenstein was an alcoholic, and Franco didn't trust him with any dialogue, which is why all the important information is delivered by lifeless voiceovers. But there is still a lot of stuff left unexplained. Why is the gypsy opposing Frankenstein? Why is Dracula suddenly Frankenstein's slave? Who's that female vampire? Who's that werewolf, and why was he even in this movie? Instead, there are lots of long, lingering shots of the castle, the woods, people sitting around a fire, people in the lab puttering around. Run time of 1:23, and it could've been cut down to half an hour and not lost anything important.
|
|
