Na Teia da Aranha

When Michèle Mercier appears in the sequence when she's still "alive" and puts on a necklace,it is obvious that the director was thinking of her "Angelique " character.The scene looks like an outtake of the Bernard Borderie's saga.

"Nella..." is certainly an underrated work:it does not rely on special effects or on gore and sex is kept to the minimum.Probably influenced by Bava,Margheriti creates fear with his camera ,using elements of the settings ,a mirror for instance.His lead is an earnest thespian,Anthony Franciosa, a former student of the Actor's Studio,not a mediocre amateur as we often meet in European horror movies.Supernatural is smartly introduced and the screenplay is much more elaborated than usually.Many people will disagree but Amenabar's style in "the others" is not that much different,even if that director is infinitely superior to Margheriti."Nella..." was also certainly influenced by Robert Wise's classic "the haunting " (1963!!!) as far as the conclusion is concerned.

Poe's presence (Klaus Kinski) and the fact that the hero's first name is "Allan" do not bring much to the movie.

In spite of the poor rating,I sincerely believe that fantasy and horror buffs won't waste their time if they watch "nella...."

The opening of this film treats us to Klaus Kinski in twice his usual state of delirium - thrashing about in a shadowy, cobweb-laden crypt. He's playing Edgar Allan Poe, and he looks the very embodiment of an absinthe-soaked poete maudit. His role, alas, turns out to be little more than a glorified cameo! Still, he sets the tone admirably for the next 90 minutes of flickering candelabra, ethereal vampire beauties and white muslin curtains billowing softly by moonlight.

It would be easy to dismiss this movie as a compendium of Gothic horror cliches. Easy but unfair, I feel. Like any other highly stylised art form (Romantic ballet, bel canto opera...) a Gothic tale rests on a set of unreal and perhaps arbitrary conventions. Much of a fan's pleasure depends on how faithfully, how stylishly, these conventions are played out. In truest Gothic horror tradition, Nella Stretta Morsa del Ragno does very little that's new - but does it in grand style!

In a nutshell, the fiendishly deranged Poe inveigles a young journalist (Anthony Franciosa) into spending a night in a creepy old mansion. The family who inhabit this mansion seem to spend all their time dying and coming back to life. The rest of the 'plot' is predictable enough, but Michele Mercier (as the most glamorous ghoul) looks stunning whether dead or undead. Her romantic agonies are offset by Ottavio Scotti's splendid Gothic art direction. If the editing and camerawork look a little choppy at times, I blame the ghastly pan-and-scan job on my video copy.

Web of the Spider (1971)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Journalist Alan Foster (Anthony Franciosa) is having a conversation with Edgar Allan Poe (Klaus Kinski) when a bet is made. The bet is that Alan can't spend an entire night inside the Blackwood Castle where there are rumors of strange things inside.

I've always enjoyed watching remakes because it gives someone a new stab at some familiar material. There were a handful of directors like John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock who managed to remake their own works, which is an even more interesting thing to do. Italian director Antonio Margheriti made CASTLE OF BLOOD in 1964 and seven years later he'd do a color remake with WEB OF THE SPIDER.

As I said, I really do enjoy watching remakes but there's no question that this film is really lacking when compared to the original. I think the biggest issue that this film has is the fact that it's in color and this just takes away so much from the story. The original film contained some great B&W cinematography that actually added to the atmosphere and it actually helped make a rather eerie picture. The sets and costume design look great here and the cinematography is great but the color just really doesn't help matters.

I'd also argue that the slow nature of the film really doesn't help matters either. The problem is that there's really not much of an atmosphere here and it's certainly not creepy so the slow-burn that the director goes for just isn't as successful as I'm sure he was hoping. Yet another problem is that there just isn't anything fresh or original done with the material outside of the opening scenes with Kinski playing Poe. These early scenes were actually quite good and it's too bad that Kinski doesn't stick around for long.

I thought Franciosa was good in the lead role and Michele Mercier is good as the mysterious Elisabeth. Kinski clearly steals the film but he's only at the beginning and end. As I said, WEB OF THE SPIDER is technically well-made but on its own it just doesn't have enough to really work. When compared to the original, it makes this one all the more forgettable.

First, I really liked the Gothic setting and the look of everything, it was done really well.

I liked the beginning where Kinski as Poe was completely captivating his audience in the tavern with one of his stories, thus setting up the meeting between him and the American journalist.

All that was great, and actually up until about 1/3 to 1/2 way through I was fairly engaged in the excellent atmosphere and the Gothic mood of the story. I really liked the Bava-esque lighting which added to the dark atmosphere.

The acting was pretty decent, I liked the way our lead gentleman came across as very likable and believable. But unfortunately after the very good intro and buildup of him going to spend the night in the 'Castle' and some good moody camerawork and Creepy atmospheric happenings, when additional characters were introduced, to me, it really seemed to lose its way in the story.

Like another reviewer here stated in his/her review, it was the 'Castle of Flashbacks' and I really felt that all the excellent mood and tension that had been created up to that point just kind of dissipated rather quickly, losing whatever good momentum that it had.

The rest of the 'Story', such as it is just seems to meander without much purpose and I feel completely loses the interest of the audience, leading sadly to a very anticlimactic and tepid ending. I honestly think that if more thought had been put into the development of the 2nd half of the story, AND most definitely in this case, if the running time had been Greatly shortened and the storyline really tightened up, yes, then I think the 2nd half would have followed nicely and kept the same intriguing and engrossing hold of its audience.

However, this is a good example of a really effective idea and good beginning pretty much ruined by a lackluster and poorly thought out 2nd and 3rd act. A shame too considering the strong and engaging beginning.

So, some good stuff here, mainly all in the first act or so, but if you can put up with the overly drawn out, aimless rest of the film, then you might get some enjoyment out of it. Definitely a mid '5' rating at best...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just a note as to how I do my reviews... I usually don't repeat the basic plot since almost everyone else does that (Claudio Carvalho is an excellent example of this. He writes about 6 paragraphs of a synopsis, and then adds maybe 2 sentences as an actual review... :/ ) and you can get the basic synopsis from a bunch of other places, to me that is a waste of time, and I feel honestly just doesn't really tell you anything that helpful. So, what I concentrate on in my reviews is hopefully putting across whether I think it is a Good film, or if I think that it is an Entertaining movie and what I feel it's strengths and weaknesses are in the way it is made.

That way, Hopefully it will be of more benefit and actual help to others as to whether I feel it is worth watching (and also perhaps what 'Type' of film it is and what type of people may enjoy it)

My Particular Way of Rating:

5 - Flawed, but perhaps with a little entertainment value here and there for some.

6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.

7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.

And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )

In comparing this 1971 remake with its 1964 original, one immediately misses the presence of Barbara Steele, although in both titles the 'heroine' only makes her first appearance at the half hour mark. Director Antonio Margheriti must have felt the absence of color in "Castle of Blood," and really adds little else to this new version, with Michele Mercier's Elisabeth fleshed out to some degree, as we see more of her absent husband, barely seen in the original. All the plot elements are virtually identical, right down to the lesbian love scene, resulting in three corpses lying on the floor in roughly two minutes of lustful activity. It was definitely daring in 1964, but here is treated in such timid, predictable fashion that it loses all the bite of the original. The guest filled ball is the one sequence that adds more running time here, 106 minutes over 1964's 89, Elisabeth juggling multiple affairs while her husband is away in America, and both male and female lovers equally jealous to the point of murder. The main weakness in both versions remains the same, a skeptical journalist who doesn't engender audience empathy with his failure to discover what the audience already knows. I would recommend the black and white version with Barbara Steele over the color one, both of which aired twice on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater, between 1976-1982.