Blu-Ray Review: The Brides of Dracula

NOVEMBER 13, 2020

GENRE: HAMMER, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Slowly but surely, Scream Factory has been building up their Hammer library, inching me closer to a dream of having the complete Dracula and Frankenstein sets in something resembling consistency on my shelf (an actual boxed set seems to be a pipe dream). And since my very out of order journey began with The Brides of Dracula, all the way back in 2007, it makes me particularly happy to see this one added to the lot. My enjoyment of the film inspired me to keep watching the others, often on DVD (one was actually VHS!), and it's been a long time since those viewings, making these remastered blu-rays an ideal way to see them again for what might as well be the first time.

That said I specifically remembered one bit in this one: Peter Cushing's Van Helsing (the lone returning character from Horror of Dracula, though another HoD actor plays a different bit part here) using the shadow of a windmill's blades as a makeshift cross to vanquish his vampiric foe. No, I'm not sure if that would actually work, but I'm always a fan of people making crosses out of other things in a pinch, and you can't get much better than Cushing going through the action hero theatrics of pulling it off in what's already been a slightly more action-driven entry than average. Having rewatched a lot of the Universal horror films over the past couple months, it made me appreciate how much more exciting the Hammer counterparts often were; I still enjoy the Uni ones of course, but if my son ever asked to watch "classic" horror, I think he'd lose interest in those pretty fast, but he might be able to stay focused on something like this.

I suspect the additional action here was a way to make up for the absence of Christopher Lee, as the movie has several antagonists in his place. There are the titular Brides, of course, though neither of them are married to Dracula as far as I can tell (the big guy is only mentioned once or twice in passing throughout the film), as well as a human woman, Greta (Freda Jackson) who is a sort of Renfield to the film's main "Dracula", Baron Meinster (David Peel) as well as his Baroness mother. All of these people are mostly introduced via Marianne (Yvonne Monlaur), who is en route to teach at a Transylvanian school when her coach abandons her in one of those towns that only exist in period horror movies, where everyone eats at the same inn and seems to be perfectly aware that there's a vampire/monster/whatever in town but don't feel particularly compelled to do anything about it.

Anyway, Marianne ends up staying at the Baron's manor, where she discovers Meinster chained up and frees him, unaware that his confinement (imposed by his mother) is for the protection of women like her. She runs off after learning the truth and passes out in the woods, only to be rescued by Van Helsing, who was summoned to the town due to one of the Baron's previous misdeeds. Van Helsing's reappearance is bizarrely without any fanfare; they make you wait over a half an hour for him to return in this "sequel" and when they finally do he just kind of shows up as if he was already there all along. Over the next hour he takes care of all the vampire problems that have sprung up, while Marianne inexplicably decides to marry the Baron (it is quickly but unsatisfactorily explained that she can't remember anything that happened in the first half hour), so you get the seduction stuff as well as the standard Van Helsing staking action - it's a pretty great mix.

Fitting for one of the better Hammer films, the blu-ray is packed and will take you several hours to get through it all. There's a full hour long episode of The Men Who Made Hammer devoted to director Terence Fisher, who helmed this and at least half of the other Hammer titles that probably come to mind when you think of the brand. It covers some biographical material but is mostly devoted to his biggest Hammer entries, as host Richard Klemensen illustrates why Fisher's work, often labeled as "work for hire" stuff, actually does have some consistent themes, as well as noting how much work he would put into the films despite their sometimes underwhelming scripts. That sentiment bleeds into a shorter episode about DP Jack Asher, who was also the type to give 110% and eventually fell out of favor due to being a bit too slow for their liking (despite the results speaking for themselves). Then there's also a piece on composter Malcolm Williamson, and a featurette on Oakley Court, which was used as the Baron's exterior here and has been featured in any number of other genre films (including Rocky Horror Picture Show!) and still stands today, as the hosts tour the grounds as the editor cuts in footage from where this or that part of the building was featured in different films.

And as always there's a historian commentary, this one from Steve Haberman and Constantine Nasr. They goof on the "amnesia" subplot a bit more than necessary, but also go into why the script is sometimes a bit sloppy - it had to be rewritten twice, once just to get Cushing to be in it at all (he hated the first draft he was approached with) and also to account for Lee's absence, as they did try to get him to make a brief appearance which would have explained his connection to the Baron. They also refer to the bits that were originally written for this film and then resurrected for the (unrelated) Kiss of the Vampire, which Scream put out just a couple months back - the two would make a nice double feature, especially if you take in their respective commentaries as well. There's also an older making of retrospective piece featuring Monlaur and screenwriter Jimmy Sangster, among others, that was on a 2013 release in the UK and (I assume) now presented on a Region 1/A disc for the first time.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I truly hope these releases are successful enough for them to keep tracking down the others, because they're much more exciting to me than updating modern things like Idle Hands or Willard (i.e. movies that already had special edition releases when they came out). I doubt they'll ever get their hands on the Universal classics (just the B-movies that they collect for these sets, which I enjoy), leaving Hammer era material to account for the bulk of their "old" catalog and keep their portfolio a little more diverse. The Warner Archive discs that are available for a few of the entries in this series (Dracula AD 1972, for example) are bare-bones, and deserve better, but if these titles aren't big money makers for Scream I don't see them bothering to try to wrestle the license away from Warner or whoever else owns this or that entry. Here's hoping there will be more in 2021 and beyond!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blu-Ray Review: Kiss of the Vampire (1963)

JULY 13, 2020

GENRE: HAMMER, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Troubling. When I got a press release about Kiss of the Vampire, I replied saying "I haven't seen this, I'd love to review!" and then I watched it when it arrived, formed my opinion, and got ready to write up my thoughts. Part of my prep for such a thing involves looking at the Wiki and IMDb pages for the film, and it was on the former that I saw a note about how it had been released in an eight-film Hammer Horror set. "I have that set and used it for HMAD!" I thought to myself, "Why did I skip it?" So I searched HMAD and, as you might have guessed by now, I *didn't* skip it - I watched and reviewed it in 2009. And at no point during this viewing in 2020 did I even get a slight sense of deja vu. Sigh.

The good news is, my opinion didn't change, so you can read that old review and spare me the trouble of writing it all out again. However, thanks to the new Scream Factory release, I have a little more context for some of its weaker points (if you're too lazy to click over, my overall feeling on the film is that it's "fine", basically), which warmed me to the film a bit. For example, it was originally designed to be a third Dracula film, following the Drac-less Brides of Dracula (which was also on that same set), but those elements were written out. When a movie starts off as one thing and is overhauled, it can never really get around the disconnect caused by the rewrite - it lost its reason to exist (i.e. make big sequel money) and thus is just kind of there, without any of that creative spark you'd normally find in an original.

I also had to laugh at my old note that the vampires don't really do all that much in the movie, because it's From Dusk Till Dawn-level violent in comparison to "Kiss of Evil", which was the television cut of the film. While removing the bloodshed isn't too surprising (though the movie was hardly gory to begin with, even by 1960's standards), the television version removed all violence and references to vampirism - even just shots of one of them baring fangs! - making the movie somewhat incoherent at times as we get people reacting to things that were completely excised. For example, one of the movie's cooler moments is when the hero is wounded in the climax, and he smears his own blood into a cross shape to ward off the vamps as he makes his escape. But the TV cut removed his quick thinking action, and all the vampires come off as human cult members or something, so the climax is now... the lot of them just simply letting him go for no apparent reason.

The censors removed so much of the footage that they had to shoot new scenes in order to get the film back up to a proper running time. But unlike the similar situation with Halloween (where the cast and crew were back together to shoot the sequel, so the new scenes, while still awkwardly placed, at least had some legitimacy), they didn't have the actors, sets, or (as far as anyone can tell) same people to create them, so they are not only clumsily shoehorned into the narrative, but ultimately serve no function. These scenes tell the story of a family living in town, whose of-age daughter is potentially falling under the spell of the film's villainous Ravna (the Dracula replacement), who the family is acquainted with because the mother is the one who makes the robes for all of his disciples*. To blend these scenes with the movie, they have one of the new actors look out their window and see, for example, the hero's carriage passing by, then comment on it while carrying out their own little stupid subplot, while never once interacting with any of the other characters.

Hilariously, these scenes manage to be even duller than the rest of the film, even in its violence-free form. The movie doesn't really start getting interesting until a (too-late) development where the vampires try to gaslight the hero into thinking that his wife (who they've inducted into their ranks) didn't exist and that he had arrived in town by himself, but none of this new footage involves that (if it were me I would have tied it in by saying that their home was where they hid all of the wife's belongings). So the new scenes just make you wait longer for the best part, before then cutting up the climax and making it incoherent. Oh well.

As usual, Scream Factory has put together some bonus features, including the ability to watch the new "Kiss of Evil" scenes on their own and a pair of brief tributes to the film's composer and production designer, respectively. And there are three commentaries, though they are confusingly split across the three different versions of the film that are available. The first is an old one with two of the actors (Edward De Souza and Jennifer Daniels), which is moderated by Peter Irving and is presumably from some laserdisc or DVD special edition, and it's fine - they're not as catty as some of their British peers so it's mostly complimentary about everyone, which gets a bit dull.

The other two tracks aren't listed in the "Extras" menu however, so you have to look for them. One is by Constantine Nasr and Steve Haberman, and it's only available on the 1.66:1 version of the film (which is 1.85:1 by default). Why, I don't know - there is no explanation for why the movie is presented in two aspect ratios, let alone why they couldn't just put the track on the default version. The 1.66 one also omits subtitles, which is annoying since sometimes they comment on a bit of dialogue that you can't hear OR read, though at this point I have given up hope SF will ever match most other companies and put subtitles on everything (hell, some of them even subtitle their commentaries! I don't ask for that much, but it's still nice). It's a good track though, especially the awkward parts where one will contradict the other (one guy will say "Polanski didn't mention this film specifically as an influence on Fearless Vampire Killers..." and the other will reply "Actually, in this one interview he did," heh. Fight!), plus they note the same thing that I did in my old review, which that the movie is curiously devoid of any of the big Hammer regulars. Nice to know I'm as observant as the licensed historians!

The other track is by Troy Howarth and Nathaniel Thompson, and that one's only available if you opt to watch the complete "Kiss of Evil" version, which is basically presented as a curiosity (in fact, I only found it because I clicked it by accident - the track isn't even listed on the packaging) since you can watch the extra scenes on their own rather than sit through the film, now cropped to 1.33:1 and taken from an ugly standard def Sci-Fi Channel broadcast. It's a great track though; they explain the new footage for this and a few other Hammer films that had similar treatment, plus (as Nasr and Haberman did) go into the film's "Dracula 3" origins and some other trivia, as well as offer the usual biographical info. And, as I did in my old review, they also swoon about costar Jacquie Wallis, so I feel better about my 2009 thirst (when I was only a few years older than her!) when these much older dudes are panting about her in 2020. We don't do things like that anymore, gents!

All in all, if you're a fan of the film I think you can agree that it's a terrific package despite some bizarre decision making as to how it's all presented, where the best bonus features are buried in sub-menus in places you wouldn't think to look. I wouldn't say it's a top tier Hammer movie, even if just limited to their vampire films, but Don Sharp's direction is solid and the climax is worth most of the wait. When it hits 4K UHD in 2031 and I get a copy for review I'll do my best to remember I've seen it before.

What say you?

*Watch this version back to back with Us for a "We didn't care how they got their matching clothes!" double feature!

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

FTP: The Devil Rides Out (1968)

JANUARY 3, 2019

GENRE: CULT
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

When The Devil Rides Out arrived from Scream Factory over two months ago I threw it in the "pile", because I thought I had seen it already. But when looking for something to put on a few nights back when it was late but I wasn't tired enough to go to bed, I read the synopsis said "Hmm I don't remember this at all?", and only then did I realize I was thinking of To The Devil A Daughter, the OTHER Hammer movie with Christopher Lee based on a Dennis Wheatley novel. That one I did see, and it's an OK enough movie (per my nearly eight year old review, it's a bit dull and the central mystery doesn't work very well), but this one turned out to be a total delight to me, so I'm happy I picked it out of the ever increasing number of movies in/around that overflowing box next to my couch where all the random screeners and trivia winnings go in hopes of becoming an FTP review someday.

In fact I liked it enough to read the book to compare for a future Collins' Crypt piece, so I won't use up all of my thoughts on the film here. But I will say that a big part of why I liked it was that Lee was not playing the cult leader - he was actually the hero for a change, one of two older men who were trying to save their pal from the satanic cult he had joined. But he doesn't do much action heroics; he leaves that to Leon Greene as the other (younger) guy. Instead, Lee hilariously smirks his way through the film's thoroughly enjoyable opening sequence, where the two men visit their pal at his home unannounced, on the night where his cult has gathered under the guise of an astronomy meeting. Lee knows damn well the guy's mixed up with satanists, but he plays along with the ruse, marveling at his friend's newly redecorated floor (satanic symbols) and such. Honestly I could watch an entire movie of this stuff, sans any horror at all.

Luckily, those elements work well, too. Since Lee is usually a villain and is occasionally vague about certain things (he gives Greene some chemically based protections, but says he has "other protections" without divulging what they are), I spent a good chunk of the movie thinking he was merely pretending to be a hero but in reality trying to build Greene's character up as an eventual sacrifice or something. So that adds a layer of intrigue that for all I know was never intended by the novel or script (adapted by Richard Matheson), and the direct/obvious horror stuff is pretty successful to boot. Late in the film, our heroes have to endure a ritual and fight off the temptations of the black magic, which reminded me of A Dark Song (something no less an authority than Kim Newman points out on an interview, making me feel a bit proud for having noticed it), another strong sequence. The effects aren't that great (Lee hilariously trashes them on the commentary) but the general ideas come across just fine, and the unusual three male hero setup (Lee, Greene, and the guy they were trying to save, played by Patrick Mower) adds much suspense as you're pretty sure one of them will probably die, but who?

The villain is played by Charles Gray (yep, two future Bond villains square off in this!), quite possibly the most sinister looking man alive. Sadly he is kind of sidelined for big chunks, focusing on Lee and Greene's attempts to free their pal (plus Greene's love interest, played by Nike Arrighi) instead of whatever the cult folk are doing in between their sacrifices. But he casts a long shadow even when he's not on screen and gets some great bits, including a hypnosis scene and a climactic scene where he nonchalantly plans to sacrifice a child. Perhaps Wheatley's book has more for him to do (it's 300 pages in very tiny font size, and the movie is only 95 minutes, so obviously they had to excise a lot), though if there's a direct confrontation between his character and Lee's I'll be disappointed it wasn't filmed, as the men rarely interact directly (Greene gets to punch him out though).

Scream's blu is packed, of course; the Lee commentary (shared with Sarah Lawson and a moderator) is older, along with a few old making of specials, but there's a new track with historians Steve Haberman and Constantine Nasr, plus Newman's interview and another exclusive one with Jonathan Riby. And the film has a new transfer, which looked quite good though of course I can't compare it to any previous releases (it appears to be the first Blu-ray release in the US, with an Anchor Bay DVD being long out of print). They have a few more Hammer movies on the way (including Rasputin, which this one was paired with on the Anchor Bay DVD) so I hope it's a sign they are being diligent about acquiring as many as they can - sure, there are some duds in that mix, but I'll sit through a few chores like The Reptile if it means occasionally getting a real treat like this.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Lodge (2019)

SEPTEMBER 28, 2019

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (BEYOND FEST)

Having missed the first few nights of Beyond Fest due to unexpected medical issues (bleeding ulcer, I'm OK now I think), I finally got to make my first trip there for The Lodge, which is an unusual way to kick things off. The fest routinely programs wild/outlandish fare (both new and old), and this film is a "slow burn" type that keeps its insanity confined to the mind of one of its characters - the sort of thing I'd expect to watch on a quiet night at home, not at the same festival that frequently employs the use of T-shirt cannons and eating contests. That said, it was an intriguing and mostly successful example of its kind, not to mention the best new Hammer film since Wake Wood, and will do well with folks who don't mind their horror to be a little on the moody and atmospheric side.

Riley Keough stars as Grace, a woman who is about to marry a man with two children from a previous marriage. The kids naturally don't like her all that much, so the dad (Richard Armitage) figures maybe spending the holidays at his cabin will help them bond a bit - especially during a three day period right before Christmas Day that he has to return to the city for some work matters. Naturally, things don't go too swimmingly - a snowstorm confines them to the lodge, which then loses power to boot. And worst of all - one morning they wake up to find all of their belongings missing, with Grace suspecting her will-be stepchildren of doing it on purpose to drive her crazy. But as it gets colder and their supplies run out, could the kids really be to blame when they're at risk as well? Is someone else in the house with them, or are supernatural forces the real culprit?

Naturally I won't spoil that for you, but I will say that up until the point we have our answer, the film works terrifically. Keough (no stranger to slow burn/isolated thriller fare, having appeared in the very undercooked It Comes At Night) has a tough role to play and she handles it well, as Grace isn't just the usual "stepmom" kind of character who oversteps her boundaries and needs to prove herself. No, she's actually the lone survivor of a Heaven's Gate-style cult led by her father (so essentially she's Jennifer Rubin from Bad Dreams!), and clearly hasn't fully adjusted to normal life yet - established by some medication she needs to take, which is of course among the things that go missing along with the rest of their stuff. So as her mind cracks even further, she switches from protagonist to antagonist, as we fear for the lives of the children - all the while remembering that they may be the true villains all along.

And it's easy enough to believe they may be, as this is from Veronika Franz and Severin Fiala. They are the team that gave us the evil child movie Goodnight Mommy, and the film shares a number of similarities - up to and including spending the entire movie wondering if we can trust its lead actress. Thankfully their approach has improved; I enjoyed Goodnight Mommy but my overall opinion was stymied by the way they handled their key twist, as I never could tell if it was even SUPPOSED to be one (in that it was so obvious to me by the film's twenty minute mark I wasn't sure if it was something they were even trying to hide). Here, it's clear that they don't want you to be that far ahead, allowing for a little more variety in the action and a little less time spent wondering how I as a viewer was supposed to be taking in this or that scene, so overall I found it to be a better film.

Unfortunately, once they do tell us exactly what happened, the movie kind of fizzles. As with Us, it almost might have been better to leave things unexplained, because by opening that Pandora's Box I found myself left with more questions (chiefly among them: what exactly was ______ hoping to accomplish?), and less engaged with the film's climax than I should have been. It's not that the answer is bad on its own, it's just that it's not particularly well developed, and even somewhat contradicts earlier information (can't really explain that one without spoiling, so I'll just say to consider an early scene involving a computer). There's also a curious lack of information about how Grace ended up with Armitage's character - the kids say she's a psychopath "from Dad's books" but his job is so vague I'm not even sure if they mean a book he wrote or a book he owned (and if he's an author, what kind of backwards ass movie writer is this where he has to LEAVE his isolated cabin to get some work done?).

But until then, they really had me hooked in - for proof, I stayed awake the entire time even though I was still very much low energy thanks to my hospital stay (and, as a result of the prognosis, I certainly wasn't partaking in anything sugary or with caffeine). The production design alone made the film worth watching - as with Hereditary, there's a bit of a dollhouse motif that spreads to the real sets, as everything seems just slightly off (in this case, hallways seem unnaturally narrow, while the bedrooms have awkward amounts of space between furniture), and Thimios Bakatakis' camera almost never stops gliding and slow zooming its way around the areas. And it pays tribute to its snowbound horror masters in both overt (they literally watch The Thing) and subtle (Grace's dog is named Grady, heh). Also, Keough sports some very excellent sweaters - as my rare chances to wear my sweaters are the thing I hate most about living in California, I find myself increasingly drawn to people wearing them in movies, the way wannabe gangsters idolize The Godfather and what not.

It's a shame Neon won't be releasing the film until February; its snowy look and Christmas setting would sell more tickets in November or December I'd think, but what do I know? It's the one thing I dislike about reviewing festival films - by the time it's out, I might forget a few things and not have the time for a second watch, so more people will be seeing it and I'll have trouble remembering what they're referring to, especially when by spoiler law I had to be vague with my review and won't be able to consult it for any specific reminders. The blunder in the last reel isn't crippling; it isn't the first and won't be the last movie that couldn't quite maintain its allure in the home stretch, especially among these slow burn types. Here's hoping the marketing doesn't spoil its surprises (the below trailer doesn't give too much away, though as always it's better to go in blind for these kind of films) and that it finds the folks who will enjoy it - and that Franz & Fiala's next film manages to make its ambiguous nature pay off in the end, instead of unnecessarily restraining it.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scars Of Dracula (1970)

AUGUST 27, 2019

GENRE: HAMMER, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

At long last! I can't recall why I never got around to seeing Scars of Dracula back when this was a daily operated site, since the only other one I missed at the time was the offshoot 7 Golden Vampires (and even that I eventually got to, earlier this year), though I assume it had something to do with availability. But no matter - I can finally say I've seen this entire franchise, albeit completely out of order and spread across so many years that my memories of most entries consist solely of whatever my own review can muster up. I still long for a boxed set that will a. look nice on my shelf and b. ensure that I watch them in order for a second go around (I've only seen one or two of them a second time), but I'm sure the rights issues will keep that from ever happening.

Then again if anyone could pull it off it'd be Scream Factory, since they managed to get all of the Halloweens together and they were spread even further apart I think. Scars is the third of the Hammer Dracula series they've released (after 7 Golden Vampires and Dracula: Prince of Darkness), so they're clearly making efforts to inch us ever closer to some kind of release consistency. Now that they have a tie to Warner Bros (who controls several of the others, including the original Horror of Dracula) there's at least a decent chance they can nab them all eventually, even if they are - like my own viewing experience - released completely out of order.

However there's been an upside to this erratic order, in which I only once managed to watch two of the films in sequence (something unique to this franchise for me; I'm usually a stickler for going in order). Some of the films - in particular this one - are criticized by critics and Hammer faithful for betraying continuity in this or that way, but I was never quite sure where in the history I was, so I never noticed or even really cared much. Apparently at the end of the previous film Dracula was killed in a church, but here his bones are in his castle (where he is resurrected by a bat); no explanation is given for how they got there, but for all I knew there was nothing amiss, so I was able to watch the film by starting off on the right foot, whereas the die-hards were annoyed before the title even came up.

I'm not saying they're "wrong" to be angry - I've certainly gotten my own panties in a bunch about such things in the past (I've mellowed out a lot since). But for me personally, being blind to this kind of thing helped me enjoy the film much more than I might if I were a student of the series and knew exactly where his body should have been, and I can't help but wonder how much more I would have enjoyed something like H20 back in the day if it was the first sequel I had seen, without being grumpy that it was dismissing my beloved H4 and not resolving the cliffhanger in Curse of Michael Myers. There's a pretty believable theory that Hammer wrote the film in a vague way in case Christopher Lee didn't come back, thus making a break from the continuity to start anew with a different incarnation of the character, and then simply didn't care enough to adjust the script accordingly when Lee did in fact return for his fifth outing as the Count.

But I'm glad he did, because it's the most active he's been in one since the original. He talks more here than in the last few combined, I think, and does more Stoker-y things (like climbing on the walls), giving the character (and in turn, Lee himself) a better showcase than most of the other entries, despite whatever issues one might take with how it compares to the others. Yes, it's a bit odd to see him acting so violently here, but I'll take it over him barely appearing or speaking and let everyone else carry the movie. As for the others, it's yet another guy named Paul (the third, at least, in this series), his brother Simon, and some villagers, plus Simon's fiance who fills the obligatory "lady that Dracula is obsessed with" role. I particularly liked the priest (he's not given any name) played by Michael Gwynn, who (SPOILERS FOR 50 YEAR OLD MOVIE AHEAD!) kind of fills the Van Helsing role to some degree, making it a fun shock when he's killed off with 20 or so minutes to go.

It's also got a little more adventure-y action, with both Paul and Simon scaling the castle, a runaway coach scene, etc - it feels like part of Hammer's attempt to modernize the brand, and I bet the film would pair nicely with Captain Kronos (as opposed to House of Frankenstein, the film it was actually shown with upon release). With Lee doing more and all of this other stuff, it's easy to see why it played so well for me, and it's a shame that the Hammer gatekeepers couldn't have much fun with it. Indeed, the commentary by the usual historian, Constantine Nasr, is downright nasty at times as he lambasts the continuity, the violence, Roy Ward Baker's direction, etc. It'd be like me doing one for Freddy's Dead or F13: New Blood: presumably amusing to those who shared my less than glowing opinion of those films, but a bummer and even kind of obnoxious to those who enjoyed them. He does give it credit on occasion (such as the quite good matte painting for the long drop from the castle) and still provides the usual historical background and anecdotes (he even has Baker's copy of the script with him, with handwritten notes and such), so it's not a total waste of time, but I do wish one of the other Hammer folks could have been roped in, assuming at least one of them enjoyed the movie more.

The other commentary is an older one by Lee and Baker, moderated by Marcus Hearn (another Hammer expert). Hearn wasn't even really needed here; the two men rarely pause as they talk about the film, the state of Hammer at the time, etc., while Lee chimes in with other random observations like his favorite Benny Hill sketches (when that show's cast member Bob Todd shows up in a bit part here). As always these British gents are delightfully candid which makes some of their stories bluntly hilarious, and at the very end Lee admits he's never even seen the movie before, so it's just a treasure - I'm glad Scream Factory carried it over from whatever release it was recorded for (in 2001 or so, based on Lee's saying he hasn't made a Hammer film in 25 years as his last one at the time was 1976's To the Devil a Daughter). The transfer is also spectacular; as is often the case perhaps a bit TOO good as you can often see the wires holding the giant bat that frequently attacks our heroes.

I started this franchise in the early days of HMAD, with Brides of Dracula in 2007, and am just now finishing it up, just shy of a full twelve years later. Needless to say, my memories of the ones I watched more than a few years ago are practically non-existent, so I wouldn't begin to try to rank them or anything. That said, re-reading my reviews it seems I was often mildly charmed by the majority of them, with Dracula AD 1972 being the only one I seemed really "into" beyond appreciation for what it was doing at the time it was doing it. Maybe if I watched them all in order I'd feel differently? Who knows. All I know is I had a good time watching this one and was happy to end my Hammer Dracula viewing on a high note. Here's hoping you find it as enjoyable!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

FTP: The Witches (1966)

APRIL 10, 2019

GENRE: CULT, HAMMER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Maybe from now on I'll stay away from anything Hammer made in 1966. I like Plague of the Zombies OK but it's partially my nostalgia driving that one (first one I saw), but The Reptile was possibly my least favorite and now The Witches gets pretty close to that territory as well. On paper it sounds fine (incidentally, it's adapted from a book), telling a Wicker Man-ish story of a lady taking a job as a schoolteacher in a town where everyone is "off", but the movie never has a pulse until its final ten minutes, and that stuff isn't scary or thrilling - it's just ridiculous, which is an improvement over "plodding", sure, but certainly isn't what anyone would probably want when they sat down for a Hammer movie about witches.

Things are amiss almost instantly. The film begins in Africa, where our protagonist Gwen (Joan Fontaine) is desperately trying to escape from some approaching witch doctors, due to events we're not fully privy to. The masked doctors crash through the door and approach her, seemingly to kill her, and then the movie fades to credits, only to come back in England where she's meeting about the schoolteacher job - she's apparently just a bit rattled by her experience that seemed to suggest she was about to be murdered. I actually spent a chunk of the runtime thinking maybe she was dead and this was some kind of Jacob's Ladder kind of deal, but as the movie dragged along I realized that would be too exciting a conclusion for this particular story.

Oddly enough, the most fun I got out of the disc was the historian commentary by Ted Newsom (the package says he'd be joined by Constantine Nasr, but while Mr. Nasr is mentioned a few times he's not there). I tend to find most of these a bit too dry for my liking when they're solo, but Newsom doesn't seem to think too highly of the movie either, so instead of rattling off filmographies and mildly amusing anecdotes from the production he's actually just kind of complaining about it half the time. He rightfully lambasts the inexplicable decision to include an amnesia detour at around the film's 50 minute mark (tellingly for how dull the movie is, Newsom says it happens 90 minutes in - clearly it just felt that way, since the movie is only 90 minutes long entirely), notes how "dowdy" everyone looks every few minutes, and laughs at some of its rare attempts at suspense. He also doesn't seem to be reading from notes the whole time, another thing that made it more lively than some others.

I should note that this is a recent "pile" acquisition; it only came to disc like three weeks ago. The problem with this new experiment is that more stuff keeps coming in, so I'm trying to balance it between newer arrivals and ones that have literally gotten dust on them because they've been there so long. I hope you guys don't mind the shorter reviews, but honestly for movies like this I don't think I could find enough to say to make it standard length, so I'd probably end up saying nothing and this site would be a ghost town that much longer. It took me five attempts to watch it because I kept dozing off; it was only the allure of the Hammer brand that kept me going because I was sure it'd get better. And technically it did (the climax is truly goofy), but too little too late. Oh well.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974)

APRIL 9, 2019

GENRE: HAMMER, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

My attempt to go through the entire Hammer Dracula series in the old days of the site (can you believe it's been six years since I "quit"? That's as long as I ran it in the first place!) was not successful - I am only just now catching The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, and I *still* haven't seen Scars of Dracula. But I chalk this up to seeing them all out of order (not as much by choice as by availability); it makes it hard to remember which ones I was missing, and in at least one instance I obtained one I thought I had missed only to discover not only had I seen it, I already reviewed it! I vow though, come hell or high water - I will see Scars this year! Or at least in less than six years from now.

Anyway I knew this one was kind of the black sheep of the series due to having someone else play Dracula besides Christopher Lee, and also for making it a hybrid between vampire movie and kung fu flick, as the latter was very much in vogue at the time. So I was surprised to discover it was actually quite a bit of fun; the plot is nonsense, yes, but it's never dull for a second - if there's ever more than maybe five minutes of plot stuff, a fight will break out and last an equal (or longer) amount of time. And it's good fighting too - although uncredited, Cheh Chang brought his considerable experience (The Flying Dagger, The One-Armed Swordsman) to make sure the fight scenes were authentic, with Hammer stalwart Roy Ward Baker's team giving them the lighting/editing polish the kung fu flicks often lacked, so it's like a best of both worlds kind of scenario more often than not.

Of course, in the usual martial arts films there would be a bunch of normal humans fighting, whereas here we have undead vampires on one side of the battles, making it look more than just a little goofy at times. As is always the case, you'll see bad guys waiting their turn to get their ass kicked by the hero because they never think to rush him as a group, but it's far more ridiculous a sight when he's got a skeleton face and (as vampires tended to do in these things) is jumping up and down while he waits. But the choreography and stunt work doesn't seem to be much affected by their costumes, making all of the battles exciting (if somewhat repetitive) and in turn giving the entire film a pulse most Hammer films only really reach in their final reel.

As for the Hammer part of the equation... well I can see how the die-hard purists would be disappointed. Even if it was Lee in the role I can't imagine too many folks would be satisfied with his use here - he's only in the film's opening and closing scenes, seemingly thrown in just to tie it into the series as opposed to anything particularly necessary to the story. And it's hard to even think of it as a sequel anyway - not only does the timeline throw off what passes for continuity in these things (in a prologue set before any of the other films, Dracula takes the form of a Chinese man and isn't reborn in his usual form until the end - in a scene that takes place after most of the other entries), but Peter Cushing is playing a different Van Helsing than he played in the others. In AD 1972 it made sense that he'd be playing his own descendant, but that doesn't seem to be the case here - he's just a generic "Van Helsing" (no first name) that does the same things but doesn't appear to have any connection to the one we knew from the previous films. Unless it's like a Halloween (2018) thing where they were ignoring some of his entries? If so it's not made clear.

Anyway, like Dracula Van Helsing's role in the proceedings isn't particularly necessary - he's a professor who tells his class that vampires are real, and are terrorizing a village somewhere, but only one of them believes his story. And for good reason: he's the grandson of a man who killed one of the vampires (leaving six), and is planning to head there and kill the rest (excellent timing for the syllabus on Van Helsing's part!), inviting the professor to come along. They're joined by Van Helsing's son (an obligatory handsome young man, interchangeable with the ones who appeared in other Hammer films of the era), a rich lady (read: Hammer Glamour) who funds the trip, and lots of redshirts who help make the fights more epic. Why Helsing is needed is unclear; it's only in the final few minutes that he does much beyond watch the fights, maybe waving a torch around every now and then.

But on the other hand, it actually does offer plenty of legit horror stuff - the scene where the undead vampires rise from their graves is actually pretty effective, and it's got some surprising (at times even gratuitous) bloodspray if that's your bag. And there's even a surprising death or two in the climax, so I found myself continually surprised that while the kung fu aspect was clearly the focus, Baker and his team weren't dropping the ball when it came to the genre elements. As with AD 1972, they clearly realized audiences wouldn't be much interested in another "Dracula rises and seduces a lady in his castle" kind of movie, so the change of scenery (and in this case, faster pace) gives it an adrenaline shot most franchises would die to have in their 9th installment.

Alas, it was also the final installment - while another "exotic" sequel was planned that would send everyone off to India, it was never made, due to both the film's mixed reception and Hammer's own problems as a whole. So at least it went out on a high note - it may not be the best of the series, but it's an exciting and memorable entry all the same, which is more than I can say for what ended up closing off the likes of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Paranormal Activity series. And Scream Factory gives it a proper Blu-ray; in addition to the fine transfer, it's got a solid historian commentary, which is loaded with anecdotes about the film's tense shoot (the two crews didn't mix well together; Baker is actually referred to as a "racist" at one point) and some context for the period that will help explain why Dracula is palling around with martial arts gurus for the unsuspecting viewers.

It also has the incomprehensible US cut of the film (under the title The 7 Brothers Meet Dracula, which isn't even accurate), which chops at least fifteen minutes out and rearranges key scenes, while also reducing Cushing's role even further - it reminded me of certain Dimension productions of the 1990s, in fact. Even having seen the proper version the day before, I often found myself baffled as to what was going on, and can't imagine how it would play to a fresh viewer. I love when they include this sort of thing - there's no real use for it anymore, but it's fun to try to put yourselves in the shoes of a ticket buyer in 1974, who didn't have the internet or a Blu-ray commentary to explain why things were the wacky way they were. I try my best to go in blind to every movie I see, but in this era it's too easy to find out what went wrong - how long did the US audiences (those who cared anyway) have to wait until they found out who anyone was, since this cut omitted most of their full introductions? What a time to be alive!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Plague of the Zombies (1966)

JANUARY 29, 2016

GENRE: HAMMER, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Hammer knew their strengths (or at least, knew the box office) and thus didn't step outside their comfort zone too much when it came to horror sub-genres. Their first real ghost movie, for example, was 2012's The Woman in Black - nearly fifty years after their heyday. And if I can trust what I've read online, The Plague of the Zombies is their only zombie movie, which shocks me since it was so influential on Night of the Living Dead, you'd think that, during their waning era in the '70s, they'd want to cash in on the trend that they helped pave the way for by trying it again. Whether it would have made any difference in the downturn that led to their 30+ year absence from the horror genre, I'm not sure - but they certainly proved here that they could pull off zombies as well as vampires or mad scientists.

Indeed, the film has a vague Frankenstein-esque feel at time, particularly Frankenstein Created Woman, as it also has a scene where a girl is terrorized by local thugs and shares that film's teacher/student relationship between the two male leads. However it should be noted this one came first, so maybe they were just borrowing elements for Frankenstein instead of Plague using familiar/successful material to fall back on as they waded into new territory with the undead. And it's not like they had a lot of movies to draw from in that area - in the 34 years since White Zombie, there had only been a couple dozen other zombie films, many of them not likely to have influenced anyone on anything, ever (Voodoo Island or Voodoo Man, anyone?) and several of them only technically falling under the description, like the sci-fi/action serial Zombies of the Stratosphere, which had drone-like aliens but no walking undead.

All that is a long-winded way of explaining why I can forgive them for the movie's only real blunder, but it's kind of an obnoxious one - the half-assed attempts at a mystery for the villain. We know who it is - he's the only suspect, the zombies are usually seen around his house, he takes the heroine's blood after she cuts herself on a wine glass... but for some reason he wears this tribal mask even during scenes where only his own men are around, so there's no need to be hiding his identity. And even when it's taken off during the climax the director drags it out for another few seconds, obscuring his face (via POV of a woozy character) before finally revealing that it's... the guy you knew was the bad guy as soon as he was mentioned. So why hide it? I mean, I'm sure there was some history of the mask being used in these voodoo rituals, but the way it's used in the film it feels like they're trying to conceal a mystery. Plus, the guy playing the villain, John Carson, is a delight and I wish the movie included him more - he's in relatively few scenes overall, in fact, mask or not.

Instead it's mostly André Morell's show, as the well-to-do doctor who travels to this little town (along with his daughter) to help out one of his former students, Peter, who is the town's doctor. The area has had a number of mysterious deaths and Carson's character, the local squire, won't let their bodies be autopsied, so Morell and Peter investigate together, and you can probably figure out what's going on just from what I've already explained (and the title). This first hour or so works best; there are more exteriors than in most Hammer movies, giving it an even richer atmosphere than their brand is already known for, and the zombie scenes are actually kind of terrifying if you remember that this was a relatively foreign idea back then. Peter's wife is one of the victims and we get to see her rise from her grave after reanimating - this had to be one of the first examples of such a scene that wasn't a vampire, so the lack of fangs (and vague romanticism that comes with vampire territory) gives it a much creepier vibe. I also enjoyed the bit where Morell sticks up for Peter at the pub, as he's being harassed by the surviving family members of "plague" victims for not doing his job properly, at which point Morell strolls in, explains that he was his best student, then buys all the jerks a round (there's one extra who's WAY over enthusiastic about his sudden reevaluating of the other man's worth) to take the high road.

But the climax isn't as engaging, sadly. There's a fire, because of course there is, and we get Carson and his guys trying to outrun the zombies, while Morell, his daughter, and Peter make their escape from the inferno - you know exactly how it will play out, and there are no other stakes in play, so once Carson is finally unmasked (removing the last bit of hope that maybe they were going to pull a twist on us and reveal Peter was the villain all along or something) there's really nothing left to latch on to beyond "Will it cut to credits as soon as they escape the fire, or will director John Gilling give them a reaction shot or two first?" Well, I wouldn't dare spoil that for you, so you'll just have to see for yourself - just don't be surprised if you start missing the earlier tone of the movie, where you were kind of sure what was going on but enjoying the process of Morell figuring it out. There's a great bit where him and Peter are digging up a grave only for a constable to interrupt and try to arrest them for grave-robbing, then back down when he sees that the grave is empty (turns out his son died from it earlier in the year, so now he's on their side and wants to get to the bottom of what's happening). I'm used to the police always being a hindrance to our well-meaning (but occasionally shady) heroes in these things, so it was nice to see a uniformed officer as an ally for a change. Also, it's funny, because I'm finally used to pre-Romero zombies having a certain look to them, and the ones here are closer in appearance to post-Romero zombies (almost like the Fulci ones, really), throwing me off yet again.

Speaking of what I'm used to in these movies - I could have sworn I actually saw it back in 1998 when I grabbed a few of the Hammer VHS films (one of which, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, I finally watched for this site - 15 years after buying the damn tape), but absolutely nothing rang a bell. In fact the only strong memory I had involved two males next to a river, and there's nothing like that here. So either I watched something else (besides Dracula, the others - per my memory - were Quatermass and the Pit, Rasputin, and this) or dreamed up my own movie after dozing off during it, which is sadly likely. But I still vividly remember seeing their plastic clamshell cases in the little dorm room bookshelf I had next to my bed, next to my (also clamshell) copy of Casablanca that I picked up around the same time. This was when DVD was starting to really explode (and before I had a player), so VHS copies were on sale a little more often as the stores wanted to clear space, and I was bulking up my collection. Then I ended up getting a DVD player that spring and so a lot of these impulse buys never got watched. I definitely watched Casablanca in that dorm room though. Good movie.

I wish I kept the VHS so I'd know for sure, and also because it might actually look better. As this was one of those old Anchor Bay DVDs that's no longer in print (kinda surprised Netflix still had it - maybe I'll just keep it forever), the transfer kind of blows, as it occasionally looks like it has that motion smoothing garbage on or something. And the extras aren't anything worth having - just an episode of "World of Hammer" or whatever it's called (the clip show narrated by Oliver Reed) and the typically overblown/hilarious trailer ("DRUMS!") that gives away most of the scares and part of the ending. Again, if someone could put together a boxed set with a lot of the Hammer one-offs like this (meaning: not the Frankenstein/Dracula films - they should get their own dedicated and COMPLETE sets), I'd pay handsomely for it. I want a library of Hammer films for my own entertainment and also for my son when he's older (they're perfect for when he's old enough for some minor bloodshed but not ready for splatterfests), but these out of print discs with transfers that weren't even good enough for their original retail cost aren't going to cut it. This would be a great entry point for him, in fact - it's close enough to the now-standard version of a zombie movie (meaning, Romero-esque) but without excess gore or even a nihilistic tone - a zombie movie where all of the heroes survive! The only one older than this that I'd really want him to see sooner than later is The Earth Dies Screaming (and maybe White Zombie, if he's OK with the more important black & white films i.e. the Universal Monsters). But either way, I just want more worthy releases for these films - I have only a few scattered movies and that number doesn't even include most of my favorites. Let's get whatever rights issues solved before 2021, 2022, please?

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Woman In Black 2: Angel Of Death (2015)

JANUARY 1, 2015

GENRE: GHOST, HAUNTED HOUSE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I enjoyed the 2012 Woman In Black, but didn't think it needed a sequel; I certainly didn't think it needed one three years later when the film hasn't exactly remained at the top of our memories - when is the last time you talked about it prior to seeing a poster or trailer for The Woman In Black 2: Angel Of Death? But for what it's worth, it's a perfectly decent followup, offering up the same sort of old-school, fog machine drenched atmosphere and low key thrills that the original did, albeit without that film's primary selling point: Harry Potter as an adult! So what does it bring to the table?

Well, ironically, the proof that they can franchise this thing for quite a while if they want, as rather than make a direct followup (which would be difficult, given the original's ending) they have jumped ahead 40 years and introduced an entirely new set of characters heading to the house. Daniel Radcliffe's character isn't even given the usual "non returning cast member reference" of a story in a newspaper or whatever, and in fact they repeat enough of the backstory that you can watch this one on its own without being lost. I'm not sure if they do as good of a job explaining the current/tide that turns the area into an island every now and then, but otherwise it's as if it was the first film in a series, instead of a sequel (which makes the "2" in the title - a first for Hammer! - rather odd). And since it works, they have license to continue switching time periods for future installments if this one's a hit - the 70s, the present day, even a (sigh) prequel would be acceptable as they've wisely cemented the series as one about the title character instead of any particular hero.

This one's about a lovely schoolteacher named Eve (Phoebe Fox) who is tasked with taking a group of children (whose parents are either fighting in or killed because of World War II) up to the house, as it will serve as a makeshift shelter/school that will hopefully escape enemy bombs. The most recent addition to the group is Edward, whose parents were killed the night before and has become mute as a result, so of course he will be the one the evil ghost will fixate on once they all arrive. Eve takes a particular liking to him as well, for reasons that are obvious but still doled out over time throughout the movie. This is a plot machination that I never quite understood (and was demolished by Film Crit Hulk a couple years back), in that the screenwriters confusingly withhold information about the hero of their movie until the halfway point or so, even though it informs their actions. It's a perfectly good device for secondary characters; indeed, there's a nice scene later in the film where we learn why Eve's boss (the school's headmistress) is such a pain in the ass - Eve learns along with us, and thus it works perfectly. But why do we need a similar reveal for Eve, when she's our surrogate in the narrative? We should know this sort of stuff up front.

Anyway, with 7-8 children and a ghost who makes its victims kill themselves, it's not a spoiler to say that this gets into some rather grim territory, including one such death that's on-screen. Ryan Turek of Shock Till You Drop (well, formerly - he's got a new gig at Blumhouse!) had tipped me off before I saw it, so I found this stuff easier to digest than I would have assumed, as having a child of my own has made me more sensitive to such things (I probably won't even be able to watch Pet Sematary ever again). It helps that the first kid to be offed is a total asshole, and his target (the mute kid, of course) vaguely looked what I imagine my son will look like when he's 6 or 7 - serves you right, asshole kid! I do wish the movie had spent more time with the children instead of the older characters, as we've already covered similar territory with The Awakening, but it's hard to argue wanting to point the camera at Ms. Fox, and rounding out the kids might have made the movie too upsetting when they're put in peril.

But the other benefit is that it might have given the movie more of its own identity. The World War II stuff helps, of course, but once they're in the house (which doesn't appear to have been touched since Radcliffe's character left it) it's hard to remember it's supposed to be the 1940s anyway, which is probably why there's a late-game diversion to an airfield (and increased screentime for the male lead, a fighter pilot with his own reveal). But beyond that, it treads closer to remake than sequel at times, with Eve uncovering the same things about the Woman in Black's tragic past, and even a few of the same damn jump scares! Another bird whacks into a window (with accompanying exaggerated sound FX), and new director Tom Harper shares his predecessor's penchant for closeups of creepy, half broken toys. Again, you can go into this one blind and not get lost, but at times it almost seems like it might be beneficial to do so, as you wouldn't experience so much deja vu.

Then again, after a couple years' worth of found footage and CGI driven supernatural fare, it's refreshing to see a period, low-key piece like this. Hammer never made any haunting type films in its heyday (Night Creatures was a half-exception; the villains were flesh and blood guys posing as ghosts), but the atmosphere alone is very much at home with their older (read: best) stuff - the fog machines, the period setting (their 1950s and 60s films were usually set in the late 19th century; now in 2013 they make one for the 40s - again around 70 years prior), and (unlike the first) a lovely young lady in a major role. And while the neighboring town's presence has been greatly reduced, but they still find enough to do for a strong supporting cast, including actor Adrian Rawlins, who played the lead role in the original British TV production of the first story. There's no jump scare as good as the one in his version (ghost above the bed), but it's still a nice tip of the hat to have him around, and thankfully without any winks (at least, none that I detected).

I also liked that it didn't pull the usual sequel shit of retconning too much information. Especially with haunting movie sequels, there's almost always a character coming in to explain how part of what we learned before was wrong, or "There was ANOTHER child!" or whatever, because the first movie explained what needed to be done to save the day and now they need an excuse for the ghost to be up and about again. But no, it's pretty much as we remember it: the kid drowned, the mom grieved, and now she's a vengeful ghost. This is why changing time periods is helpful - it allows them to have it both ways: a clean slate for some things, but no worry about messing up existing continuity on the other. Hopefully, if the series continues (the theater had a good sized crowd, for what it's worth) they will continue using this approach, rather than dig themselves into a hole like the Paranormal Activity series has done. I get why true anthology films rarely catch on, but there should be nothing to stop them from making a series of mostly unconnected films about a particular house and the spirit that inhabits it, using whatever period they like to tell their otherwise original tale. Just try to cut back on the fake scares, yeah?

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blu-Ray Review: Dracula Prince Of Darkness

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013

GENRE: HAMMER, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Thanks, I assume, to various licensing issues, we've seen very few Hammer movies given proper blu-ray presentation here in the States - and even the ones that were announced took quite a while to get here. For example, Dracula: Prince Of Darkness was announced early in 2012 and released in the UK, with the original plan being to have it out in the US a few months after, but it's just hitting now - and the other titles they announced (such as Plague Of The Zombies, the first Hammer film I ever watched) are still without US release dates. Thankfully, if this set is any indication, it will indeed be worth the wait - and nothing greases the wheels like money, so I'm happy to say this is worth adding to your collection.

It's a bit odd to start what will hopefully be a series of releases with what is essentially part 3 of a franchise, but as explained on one of its bonus features, this Dracula is sort of the quintessential Hammer film, and thus it makes perfect sense. And lest anyone thinks they shouldn't start in the middle of the series, it starts off with a recap of how Drac got "killed" at the end of the first Dracula (he sat out part 2, Brides of Dracula), and I don't even think it's necessary - even in 1965 I'm sure audiences knew how these movies worked and thus wouldn't be confused as to where he was for the first 20-30 minutes.

Plus it's a pretty fun entry; as I mentioned in my review of the film, they might be working from a template of sorts, but if ain't broke why fix it? It's got the folks getting warned from going to the place that they're going to go anyway, the big castle, the horse-drawn carriage chase, the race to stop Dracula before the sun goes down... everything you'd want, plus Hammer's lavish sets and well-dressed ladies. But they do put some wrinkles into the formula; of course there are two potential "Brides", but since they're new characters (instead of Mina and Lucy) there's some suspense as to which one will become stake fodder and which one will be rescued in the finale. Also, there are TWO Renfield types to create a threat for when Drac's not around, and a team of monks instead of the usual investigators.

Also, there's no Van Helsing. Future Quatermass Andrew Keir fills in that role as Father Sandor, the head of the monks who assists hero Charles as they follow the path of their Dracula movie hero predecessors. But even though the change is minor, it's enough to give it some flavor; I only wish they spent more time with these folks instead of the more traditional elements, but as it had been 7-8 years since their first film, I can see why they wouldn't want to go too far off the beaten path with Lee's comeback to the role. It's a shame that they had to basically con Lee into appearing in the sequels (they'd pull on his heartstrings, basically, telling him that if he didn't do it he'd be putting a bunch of his hard-working friends out of a job), but anyone who puts in those painful red contact lenses sort of has the right to bitch about whatever he wants after the job has been done.

Speaking of the contacts, the shot where he has the red eyes and gnashes his teeth at the two girls is just one of many that kind of blew me away on this new transfer. Having only seen the film on a VHS tape, I spent most of my watching time just sort of fixating on details: the texture of a suit, the hairs in a beard, wallpaper... anything that would have just been a solid mush color on my previous viewing. There might be a touch more DNR than I'd like, and sometimes the color appears to be intensified a bit much making the actors look like George Hamilton, but nothing too problematic, and if you're watching a Hammer film you want vivid colors anyway, so whatever. It's a terrific looking picture, with a solid 2.0 audio mix to accompany it.

For bonus features, we get a brand new retrospective doc featuring a few of the surviving players (no Lee, sadly) and some Hammer historians to provide the backstory for the project, its place in the studio's history, etc. It kind of jumps from topic to topic, but considering that most of its makers are now dead I was surprised how thorough it was for a new piece, and it even includes a bit about the restoration process, which included a faithful recreation of the title cards. A separate piece offers some before/after comparisons of select shots from the movie, occasionally staying in split screen (old on the left, new on the right) so you can see how much better the film looks than it did on previous releases.

The other extras are ported over from other editions or older material; there's a 25 minute episode of a British TV show that honored certain icons - the episode devoted to Lee is presented here. Narrated by Oliver Reed, it's pretty short on biographical information, and despite being produced in 1990 it only includes films up to 1976's To The Devil A Daughter, so it's kind of pointless unless this is the first of his films you've ever seen. Then there's a commentary (recorded for the 1997 release) with Lee, Suzan Farmer, Francis Matthews, and Barbara Shelley, where the group (recorded together! Such a relief) enjoys revisiting the film, telling set stories and other anecdotes. It's a bit hard to tell the two women apart, and Matthews doesn't offer much, but it's a lot of fun to listen to them carry on, correct each others' faulty memories, and marvel at their youth. A trailer and some stills round things out, and if you're a good person and buying the disc instead of renting it, you'll get 5 collectible cards that resemble (smaller) lobby cards. Good deal.

I'd take out a small loan to have a boxed set of all the "A" Hammer titles (that is, their Dracula and Frankenstein series, and pretty much anything else with Cushing or Lee, plus the Quatermass films, Plague of the Zombies, etc.), but that's probably never going to happen. Hopefully whatever issues have caused the delays in getting the other titles released here will be smoothed out, and whoever owns the rights to the other titles either give them up to Studio Canal or does their best to match their efforts here for their own releases. At this time of year, these are the sort of movies I look forward to curling up on the couch with (now that I'm "free" of new entries to watch/write up), and I would very much like to have them presented as wonderfully as this.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blu-Ray Review: The Vampire Lovers (1970)

APRIL 26, 2013

GENRE: HAMMER, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

I never got around to seeing Twins of Evil for HMAD proper, but I'll get to it, I swear! In fact, once the initial "Yay, I'm retired!" thrill wears off (and my work schedule gets a little more lax for the summer) one of my goals here is to "plug holes"; finishing off series I saw in part such as this. In the meantime, I took another look at The Vampire Lovers, which hits blu-ray (for the first time in US) in a few days courtesy of Shout Factory, who has been draining horror fans' wallets all year with plenty more to come. They've been compared to "Criterion for horror" by more than one writer, and I'm inclined to agree - the "Scream Factory" line has amassed a truly impressive output in a fairly brief time.

Lovers is a bit of an anomaly in that group; however - it's the first (but hopefully not last) Hammer release to join the line. I can assume they'll also pick up Twins and the 2nd, not particularly good film Lust of a Vampire, and if so the bar for a release is set pretty high with this disc - a gaggle of new extras and a top-notch transfer should please anyone, not to mention inspire newcomers to check it out. It also allows folks like me to reappraise it; at the time I watched (in 2010! Which is to say I barely remembered it and had to consult my own review to see what I thought about it) I wasn't all that impressed, but I admitted that was probably due to seeing the 2nd film (Lust) the day before, as it was basically the same thing.

So now, on its own and with my memories of both films reduced to "some attractive vampire ladies, right?", I can see that it's actually a pretty solid vampire film, if a bit slower than some of the others of the period. The 3rd act is terrific, with the usual race against time stuff plus a fun little subplot about Carmilla (Ingrid Pitt) trying to get the garlic flowers removed from the beside of her target. She's got a "henchwoman" in the house, a countess played by the lovely Kate O'Mara, and the two of them repeatedly try to get the other folks in the house to get rid of them, only to be thwarted over and over - it takes some chess-style thinking ahead for them to finally get cleared. Meanwhile, Peter Cushing, a guy that looks like Jeffrey Tambor, and a handsome young man join forces to deliver exposition and realize that Carmilla needs to be destroyed before she finishes taking hold of Emma (Madeline Smith), the young girl in the "Lucy" role.

But the first hour could have benefited from some improved pacing; because the story tends to get similar to Dracula (albeit with a woman). Yes, I'm aware the "Carmilla" story predates Stoker, but the latter's had been filmed over and over so these beats can't help but feel familiar regardless of who was first, and they might have opted to take that under consideration even if it meant changing the book (which I understand they were fairly faithful to). It starts off with some vampire hunting, but it's just a prologue that gets repeated again at the end anyway, and after that first time there isn't much action until Emma starts getting sick. Plus it's sort of like Shocker (yep, I just did that) in that there's a lot of plot to set up before getting to the stuff anyone remembers; after that prologue there's an extended sequence (actually the entire first act) where Carmilla seduces another girl and kills her before going on the run and meeting up with Emma and starting the process all over again. So it can feel a bit repetitive within itself on top of all the "Dracula"/other "Carmilla" versions (such as the terrific Vampyr, an ACTUAL Criterion release), which is probably why I was a bit restless the first time.

Knowing that already this time, however, made it easier to enjoy while focusing on what worked, like Pitt's terrific performance, and the high def image allowing me to further appreciate the traditionally lush Hammer visuals (courtesy of Roy Ward Baker here) and set designs. The resolution can be a bit TOO good at times - I noticed a seam (or crack?) in the "sky" behind a character during an exterior scene - but for every little glitch like that there are about 10 closeups of Pitt or O'Mara to appreciate, so who cares? The image isn't clear enough to get any more insight as to who the hell the man in black that we see throughout the movie is, however - I had forgotten all about this bizarre, unexplained subplot. Of course now I can just go look up the info and discover that A. I'm not dumb - there IS no explanation for him in this film and B. the sequel (where the actor was replaced) revealed him to be Carmilla's husband, but at the time this must have been one of the most baffling goddamn things in movie history.

They don't talk about him much on the commentary featuring Pitt, Baker, and screenwriter Tudor Gates (moderated by Hammer authority Jonathan Rigby), however. The film was made during a rather difficult period in Hammer's history; the box office was declining and their style was becoming outdated as American horror was in the middle of a creative rebirth thanks to Romero and Polanski. So a lot of the commentary tends to drift toward that element of the production, as well as the sort of "package" process that they stood by - Rigby will ask Baker about a particular cast or crew member and he'll just say it was someone that the studio gave him. Pitt seems to be having trouble breathing at times (she died in 2010 but this was recorded in 2003 at the latest as it was included on a DVD from MGM), so some of her stories take patience as she pauses (or merely gets sidetracked), but her anecdotes are always very lovely and funny, including the one where she talks about meeting Cushing for the first time - during (spoiler!) her death scene where he cuts her head off! Pretty funny. Cushing's role in the film isn't large, but they have plenty of things to say about him, including some truly gut-wrenching stuff about his demeanor after his wife died - he took it very hard, almost to the point of suicide if their stories are to be believed. Cushing's one of those actors you never really hear anything bad about - everyone loved him, and that comes across even though his role is fairly brief in the film itself.

The rest of the extras are solid as well, including a new retrospective featuring some Hammer historians and critics in lieu of anyone from the film (kind of hard to avoid; Pitt, Cushing, some of the other actors, and nearly every principal member of the creative team is dead), complete with some great anecdotes and further explanation of its importance during Hammer's decline (it was a hit and almost singlehandedly kept the lights on for a few more years). I particularly liked the point one guy makes about the film's "Dorian Gray" inspired portrait subplot, as the film featured heavy (for the time) lesbian elements, while Oscar Wilde was expressly forbidden from including any homosexuality in his novel. And then there's a lengthy interview with Smith, one of the few main actors from the film who are still alive. She repeats the sentiments about the others, talks about the nudity, the film's legacy... it runs a bit long but it's worth a look, as is the carried over selection of passages from the book, read by Pitt and played over the appropriate scenes from the movie. Again, her voice is a bit shaky, but it's a unique feature - rare to see the source material being given any sort of reverence on a DVD of the movie. The trailer and some radio spots are also included, though I gladly would have traded them for a proper scene selection menu - there are chapter stops but no way to access them, so if you want to skip to the 3rd act you have to hit play and tap the "next chapter" button over and over until you get there. Yes, it's not the end of the world, but if you're like me and doze off (it took me a few days to get through the whole disc), it's a pain to have to do that just to get to the last 10 minutes of the commentary when you dozed off the night before.

Otherwise, you can't ask for a better Blu-ray release; it ports over the existing extras while adding a few others, and tops it off with a pretty great transfer - exactly what all companies should be doing with their high def double dips. I see some blu releases from the studios that strip the film of the bonus material it had on DVD and/or offers nothing new, making it hard to justify buying again, especially if your HDTV isn't top of the line anyway (mine sure as hell isn't). Shout's doing it right - wish the majors would follow their lead.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...