Change Your Image
tomjeffrey2001
Reviews
FleshEater (1988)
An Overabundance of Flesh in this Flesh Eater
This film was written, directed, and produced by S. William Hinzman, whose one claim to fame was his memorable role as the cemetery zombie in George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. This film might well have been titled The Further Adventures of George Romero's Cemetery Zombie, because that's essentially what it is -- except that it lacks even a trace of the talent that Romero brought to his masterpiece.
Once Hinzman's zombie rises from his grave early in the movie, the film becomes a non-stop killing spree punctuated with numerous scenes of gratuitous nudity. Now I am far from being a prude, and I appreciate gratuitous nudity as much as the next guy. But this film went too far, in my opinion.
Admittedly, some of the killings are interestingly executed (so to speak) and the gore effects are pretty good for a film this low budget. The acting is at times painfully amateurish, but according to the documentary that accompanies the Shriek Show DVD, the actors were paid only $25 a day. As the saying goes, "you get what you pay for."
The first and last part of the film are reminiscent of Night of the Living Dead -- victims trapped in a farmhouse surrounded by zombies; local yokels rounding up the zombies and shooting them. The middle scenes involving a family in their home preparing to go trick-or-treating and a Halloween party with a bunch of costumed drunken "teenagers" are somewhat more interesting and original.
This film is the definitely least interesting of the three films on Shriek Show's Zombie Pack 2, the other two being Zombie Holocaust and Burial Ground. It is, however, watchable, and the gore effects should please hard-core zombie fans who know exactly what they're getting when they watch this kind of movie. I found the documentary in the Extras section to be more interesting than the movie itself, as it explains how many of the effects were done and includes numerous humorous anecdotes about the making of the movie.
All in all, not a great movie but o.k. as part of a three-disc set.
Le notti del terrore (1981)
Burial Ground: Where the Bark Is Worse than the Bite
There are a number of misconceptions about this film floating around this website, so first to set a few things straight.
Peter Bark, the midget who played ten-year-old Michael, was born in 1955. That would have made him about 25 years old when this movie was filmed -- not 30 or 35 or 40 as some have said. He definitely was NOT older than Mariangela Giordano, the actress playing his mother, who was born in 1937. According to an interview with one of the people involved in the film, Italian labor laws at the time were very strict about what kind of films children could appear in, and Burial Ground was definitely not one of them.
There were numerous complaints about the poor quality of the videotape, which made it nearly impossible to see what was going on in the night scenes. Having recently viewed a trailer for this film online, I understand this complaint. For viewers who enjoyed the movie but were disappointed by the technical quality of the images, I would recommend the DVD version that I watched, which is part of Shriek Show's "Zombie Pack 2." I guarantee you'll see everything.
As for the movie itself, I agree with the majority of the reviews I have read thus far. There is very little plot or character development, the acting ranges from poor to mediocre, the Zombie makeup and effects range from cool to laughable, and the plot has as many holes as a slice of Swiss cheese. For example, at the beginning of the movie we see the characters driving up to the castle in three cars. Nothing seems to happen to the cars, so why don't they just run out of the castle and drive away? What the for-goodness-sake is a BEAR TRAP doing in the castle garden? Four of the characters who are murdered by zombies are alone when they're killed; why don't they stick together? When Leslie disappears, her husband doesn't even seem to know she's missing till he discovers her body much later.
Despite these numerous flaws, the movies has two things going in its favor that, in my opinion, justify my fairly high rating: (1) non-stop zombie action and lots of gory effects; and (2) Peter Bark. There are numerous other low-budget zombie movies that are partially redeemed by the first factor, but this is the ONLY zombie movie that has Peter Bark in it. And even before he turns into a zombie at the end of the movie, Peter Bark is one hell of a creepy fellow. He steals every scene he is in, and his creepiness gives the entire film a creepy ambiance that makes this movie quite unique in the zombie genre. The English-language version adds to the enjoyment of watching this adult pretend to be a child by having his voice dubbed by another adult pretending to be a child.
Even outside of Italy, a number of people involved with this film would probably have landed in jail had they used a real child in the role of Michael. Because little Michael -- how shall I put it? -- has a "thing" for his mom. This becomes apparent near the beginning of the film, when he spies on mom and step-dad going at it in their bedroom. And, believe me, that is the LEAST creepy of several scenes involving Michael and mom, the most notorious being the final one which convincingly demonstrates that breastfeeding a zombie is NOT a good idea.
I rate this film five stars for its gore and non-stop zombie action and an extra two stars for Peter Bark.
The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974)
Interesting Mix of Horror and Martial Arts
I saw this movie on television several years ago and remember it as being a confusing mess of chop-suey. After viewing the Anchor Bay version on DVD last night, I realize that, first time round, I must have been watching the bowdlerized version known as "Seven Brothers Meet Dracula." While not the best Hammer movie ever made, "Golden Vampires" is a coherent and entertaining movie that kept my interest throughout. I am not a martial arts fan, but this is basically a horror movie with some martial arts thrown in, and I enjoyed it as such. Peter Cushing is in fine form as Prof. Van Helsing, but John Forbes-Robertson's Dracula is a pale imitation of Christoper Lee's iconic vampire. Perhaps I would have felt differently if Dracula had been given more to do. As it is, he makes only a cameo appearance at the beginning and very end of the movie.
For the most part, the movie chronicles the adventures of the seven brothers (and one sister) as they travel with Van Helsing to their ancestral village to rid it of a vampire curse. The siblings are all skilled in the martial arts, which partially compensates for their lack of distinctive personalities. They overcome numerous obstacles along the way before finally reaching the village and encountering the vampires and their zombie allies in one final battle. The movie ends with the obligatory encounter between Van Helsing and Dracula, which is brief and somewhat unsatisfying.
Again, this is not the best Hammer movie I've ever seen, but I have to give the studio credit for trying. The later Christopher Lee Dracula movies were getting awfully repetitive and formulaic, and the decision to move the locale to China (after an opening sequence in Dracula's castle) offered interesting possibilities for a new approach to the old vampire legend. Indeed, the sight of Oriental vampires riding horses and wielding swords and aided by legions of zombies did make for some interesting viewing.
This movie is definitely a "must see" for all aficionados of Hammer horror and well worth a look for other horror fans. I wonder whether the clowns who hacked up "Golden Vampires" and turned it into "Seven Brothers" are the same talentless morons who ruined "Kiss of the Vampire" and "Evil of Frankenstein" for television. Their names should be posted on a wall of shame, so all will know who they are!
The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)
Outstanding Sequel to "Curse of Frankenstein"
Released just a year after "Curse of Frankenstein," "Revenge of Frankenstein" chronicles the further adventures of Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) as he miraculously escapes the guillotine (his fate at the end of the first movie), relocates to a new town (Carlsbruck), assumes a new identity (Dr. Stein), and seemingly becomes a respectable citizen. Before long, however, the doc is up to his old tricks, collecting body parts and transplanting a brain into a new stitched-together creature. This time, his experiment seems to be a rousing success. However, things soon go awry.
Like the 1935 Universal classic "Bride of Frankenstein," this is one of those rare sequels that surpasses the original. Although "Revenge" is not quite in the same league as "Bride," The Creature (played by Michael Gwynne) is a much more complicated, and therefore more interesting, character than Christopher Lee's Frankenstein Monster, who was basically just a homicidal maniac. Karl (The Creature) is not evil, merely misunderstood and terribly unlucky.
Peter Cushing's Baron Frankenstein is also a much more sympathetic character than he was in "Curse of Frankenstein." There he did not hesitate to engage in cold-blooded murder to further his goals. Here we have a kinder and gentler Baron, resolute to be sure but not murderously ruthless. This remarkable character transformation is never explained nor even alluded to. But it makes the Baron a character we can root for, something that we could never do in the original movie. In that regard, the title is somewhat misleading, since revenge is not a major theme and the Baron is not out to get those who may have wronged him.
The same steady hands who guided Hammer's first "Frankenstein" film to box-office success -- Terence Fisher as director and Jimmy Sangster as screenwriter -- are also at the helm in this one. Cushing's presence adds a certain gravitas to the proceedings, and the other actors, particularly Gwynne, also turn in first-rate performances. Although there are few scares, the movie is well written and maintains the viewer's interest throughout.
It should be noted that, like most of Hammer's Frankenstein sequels, this one chronicles the further adventures of Victor Frankenstein and not the Frankenstein Monster. In that respect, they are quite unlike the Universal sequels, where the Monster eventually ran out of things to do and ended up being a virtual parody of himself. The original Monster would, in fact, return in the next Hammer sequel, "The Evil of Frankenstein," and again a few years later in "Horror of Frankenstein," which was a remake of "Curse" (this time with Ralph Bates as the Baron) rather than a sequel. Both of these films, while enjoyable in their own way (particularly for Hammerphiles), are inferior to this one and, in my opinion, not as good as the other sequels (most notably "Frankenstein Created Woman") that do not feature the original Frankenstein Monster.
Highly recommended.
The Faculty (1998)
Highly enjoyable alien invasion movie
There are a lot of high-school kids who look upon their teachers (some of them, at least) as monsters. But in this high school, the faculty are turning into real monsters, as their bodies are taken over, one by one, by a strange alien parasite. Six students, who have nothing in common and don't even like one another, must bond together to defeat the alien menace and save the planet.
The first time I viewed this movie (I have seen it several times since), I didn't quite know what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining, and how well done, the film turned out to be. When I saw the closing credits (I'm one of those who reads them to the last word) and realized that Robert Rodriguez was the director and that Kevin Williamson wrote the screenplay, it all fell into place. A first-rate script, a first-rate director, a first-rate cast. The perfect recipe for a first-rate movie.
I cannot praise the acting highly enough. Robert Patrick practically steals the show as The Coach, managing to be menacing and hilariously funny at the same time. Bebe Neuwirth, Piper Laurie, Famke Janssen, and Jon Stewart (yes, that Jon Stewart) also put in excellent performances. The actors playing the students, particularly Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood, also prove fully up to the task. Although this is not a comedy, everything is done with tongue firmly in cheek, and there's little doubt that all will come out right in the end. There are some terrific set pieces, my favorite being the Friday night football game, where the opposing players are turned into aliens as they're tackled, with the cheering crowd completely oblivious to what is really happening.
I had a lot of fun watching this movie and will undoubtedly check it out again next time it shows up on cable.
Fright Night (1985)
Lots of Fun!
What would you do if you found out that your new next-door neighbor was a blood-sucking creature of the night? That's Charley Brewster's dilemma in this highly entertaining mix of horror and comedy. Charley tries calling the police. That doesn't work out so well. None of his friends believe him. Out of desperation, Charley finally solicits the aid of Peter Vincent, the washed-up host of a local horror television show who, unfortunately, doesn't believe in real-life vampires.
This is one of those rare mixes of horror and comedy that really works. The comedy bits are funny and the horror is, at times, truly horrific. Much of its success is due to the actors who play the lead roles -- Chris Sarandon as the super cool vampire Jerry Dandridge; William Ragsdale as the hapless Charley; Roddy McDowell as the skeptical Peter Vincent; and Stephen Geoffreys as the aptly named Evil Ed. Add to the fine acting a literate script and excellent special effects and the result is a funny, frightening masterpiece.
Highly recommended for all fans of vampire movies.
The Brides of Dracula (1960)
Effective Sequel to "Horror of Dracula"
Despite its title, "Brides of Dracula" does not have the character of Dracula in it. Although the master vampire is dead, having been effectively dispatched by Dr. Van Helsing in the previous film, his disciples live on. One of them is Baron Meinster (David Peel), a young man who fell in with some bad company, and returned home a vampire. His mother, the Baroness (Martita Hunt), keeps him chained in the castle and periodically lures young women there to feed his blood lust.
Enter Mlle. Danielle (Yvonne Monlaur), a young school teacher who is lured to the castle, presumably to serve as snack food for the Baron. She stumbles across him chained to the wall, and unaware of his dark secret, allows him to escape. The Baron's first victim is his own mother, who is put out of her misery by Van Helsing (Peter Cushing). The Baron then follows Mlle. Danielle to the school where she is teaching and, several victims later, is finally dispatched by Van Helsing.
This is one of those rare sequels that comes close to equaling the original. It is not simply a retread of the Dracula story, but an imaginative and highly entertaining vampire tale in its own right. Peel doesn't have quite the sinister presence of Christopher Lee, but I actually enjoyed this film more than I did the Dracula sequels that had Lee in them. Peter Cushing turns in an excellent performance as Van Helsing; Hunt is outstanding as the Baroness whose love for her son is the source of her misdeeds; Freda Jackson is hilariously Over The Top as the devoted (and demented) servant, Greta; and the other characters, both major and minor, are well acted and well drawn.
I would heartily recommend this film to any fan of vampire movies or Hammer horror. I watched it recently on DVD and, despite the passage of the years, it remains a chillingly effective horror movie.
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
The Movie That Put Hammer Films on the Map
Prior to the release of "Curse of Frankenstein," Hammer Films had been making movies off and on since the 1930s. During the 1950s it ventured into sci-fi-horror with such notable efforts as the two Quatermass movies. However, it was not until this remake of the 1931 Universal classic that Hammer Films truly came into its own.
"Curse of Frankenstein" has all the characteristics that we have since come to expect in a Hammer film. Lots of full-color blood and violence; a stellar cast (headed in this case by Peter Cushing as Victor Frankenstein and Christopher Lee as The Monster); an atmospheric Gothic setting; a rousing musical score; and first-rate production values that belie the low budget.
The one disappointment is The Monster himself. Christopher Lee is fine, but his monster has little to do except lumber around and kill people. And he looks more like a horribly disfigured human than the unearthly creature that Boris Karloff created a generation earlier.
Hammer would go on to make numerous Frankenstein sequels, all of them without Lee but most with Peter Cushing as the sometimes evil, sometimes not-so-evil Baron. It would follow up the success of "Frankenstein" with even more successful remakes of "Dracula" and "The Mummy." Numerous other Gothic horror movies would follow until the the films finally petered out in the late 1970s.
Back in my childhood days, I eagerly awaited the release of each new Hammer movie. By today's standards, the blood and gore of "Curse of Frankenstein" and other Hammer productions of the era seem relatively tame. But the films are still quite entertaining, and this one -- the first of the line -- has earned its rightful place in horror movie history.
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
The Standard By Which All Zombie Movies Must Be Measured
I first saw this movie in a drive-in theater the year it was first released and long before it became a well-known cult classic. As I recall, it was the third movie in a triple bill. I had no idea of what I had gotten myself into! There I was alone in my car and, ten minutes into the movie, scared sh--less! I had never seen a horror movie like this one before, and I had seen hundreds. Forty years later, "Night of the Living Dead" has not lost its power to chill.
The plot by now is too familiar to need retelling. But for those who have been living on another planet, I'll briefly explain. A group of people are holed up in a farmhouse, with a growing army of the undead outside and trying to get in. Instead of joining together to fight the zombies, they fight among themselves about strategy. The obnoxious white guy wants everyone to go down into the cellar. The black guy who is the main protagonist (a rarity in those days) says that would be suicide and wants everyone to remain upstairs. "United we stand, divided we fall" as the saying goes. And partly because of the bickering, the zombies end up invading the house.
Ironically, the obnoxious white guy turns out to have been right all along. Because the sole survivor, the black guy who wanted everyone to remain upstairs, ends up saving himself by locking himself in the cellar. The rescuers arrive the next day, mistake the survivor for a zombie, shoot him, and throw his body on the fire along with all the others.
This is the movie that put George Romero on the map and set the standard by which all future zombie movies must be measured. Its influence on the genre cannot be overstated. Romero would go on to make a sequel, "Dawn of the Dead" that in my opinion is even better than the original, as well as several others not quite up to the caliber of the first two.
This is one helluva scary movie and a must-see for any horror-movie fan.
Dracula (1958)
Hammer's Best Movie and Maybe the Best Dracula Ever
Until the release of "Horror of Dracula" (as it was called in the United States), Bela Lugosi had stamped his personality so thoroughly on the character of Dracula that it seemed unlikely that anyone else would ever replace him as the quintessential Count. That all changed in 1958 when Hammer Studios released its updated version of the Bram Stoker novel. Christopher Lee, who a year earlier had played The Monster in Hammer's "Curse of Frankenstein," infused new blood (so to speak) into the character of the bloodthirsty count.
Unlike the 1931 Universal classic, "Horror of Dracula" was shot in color with plenty of blood. The violence was much more overt, and this time Dracula and the other vampires actually had fangs! Add to that a literate script, plenty of Gothic atmosphere, a rousing score, Peter Cushing in the role of vampire slayer Van Helsing, and a stellar cast of supporting players, and the result was an instant classic that rivaled if not surpassed the Lugosi version.
The screenplay by Jimmy Sangster takes numerous liberties with the Stoker novel. Some of the characters (most notably Renfield) are missing entirely and others (like Jonathan Harker) are quite different from the characters as penned by Stoker. That meant nothing to me when I first saw "Horror of Dracula" as a ten-year-old boy, because I had not read the novel. In fact, watching this movie is what inspired me to read the book. And as much as I enjoyed it, Stoker's novel did nothing to lower my estimation of this movie.
For someone who is looking for a Dracula more faithful to the original source, I would recommend Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 remake. Personally, I prefer the Hammer version. I have seen it many times since its first release, and even after the passage of more than 50 years it has not lost its power to frighten or entertain. Christopher Lee would go on to play Dracula in numerous sequels and in some non-Hammer movies as well. Some of these sequels are quite entertaining in their own right, but none comes close to approaching the quality of the first. Still, whenever I think of Count Dracula I think of Christopher Lee, just as an earlier generation equated Bela Lugosi with the Transylvania blood drinker.
I have watched hundreds, if not thousands, of horror movies over the years, and there is none I would recommend more enthusiastically than this one.
Blood of Dracula (1957)
Decent Teen Monster Movie
I agree with some of the other reviewers about the title of this film. If you're going to make a "Dracula" movie without the character of Dracula and with a teenager (or young adult) in the title role, then why not just call it "I Was a Teenage Dracula"? Particularly if the writer is the same man who co-wrote "I Was a Teenage Werewolf" and "I Was a Teenage Frankenstein" and the director was also at the helm of "Teenage Frankenstein."
The plot is quite similar to that of "Teenage Werewolf." Troubled teen is transformed into monster by mad doctor using hypnosis. I first saw this movie the year it was released. I thought it was very scary and the vampire make-up was pretty cool. After seeing it again years later on television from the perspective of a middle-aged man rather than a ten-year-old boy, it seemed less scary than before but I still thought Sandra Harrison looked pretty cool as the vampire. If you enjoyed American International's other teenage monsters, then check this one out if you can find it.
Children of the Living Dead (2001)
I'm Glad Someone Liked This Movie . . .
. . . because that means it wasn't a total waste of celluloid.
I am a great fan of bad movies. In fact, I believe that many "bad" movies are not really bad, but just misunderstood, as I've tried to explain in my reviews of other much maligned movies such as "Robot Monster" and "Night of the Living Dead 3D." But this one, in my opinion, is not enjoyably bad, not laughably bad. Just plain bad.
The opening scenes with Tom Savini are passable. But when Abbott Hayes makes his appearance, things go downhill really fast. In fact, it quickly got to the point where I could no longer watch this movie. I felt that I had already wasted too much of my life on this piece of trash and could not afford to waste any more.
All the negative comments that have been made about this movie by previous reviewers are true. It is total garbage. For the few who enjoyed it, I say more power to you. But as for me, I wish I had read the reviews before investing a half hour of my life that I will never get back.
Liane, das Mädchen aus dem Urwald (1956)
Recommended for All Eleven-Year-Old Boys
An expedition discovers young topless Liane (Marion Michael) cavorting around the jungle, where she is worshiped by the locals as a goddess. They bring her back to Germany, where her rich grandfather lives. There, she must remain fully clothed, as another relative intrigues and murders to prevent Liane from inheriting the family fortune.
I saw this movie at my neighborhood theater around the time it was released in the USA (1959). It was on a double bill with "Plan 9 from Outer Space," which was the only reason I was in the theater that day. Imagine my surprise and fascination when Liane first made her appearance, swinging on that rope flashing her bare breasts! I was eleven years old, and it was the first time I had ever viewed a woman's breasts. I'm guessing that they were only on screen for a few seconds, but to me it seemed like forever.
Once removed from its jungle setting, the movie becomes rather pedestrian and uninteresting. Still, because of its promising beginning, "Liane Jungle Goddess" has made a lasting impression on my life. Indeed, it has made me the man I am today. I would rate it "5" for the cinematic experience and "10" for the breasts.
Robot Monster (1953)
Not the "Worst Movie Ever" By Any Stretch
Reviewers of this movie can be grouped into two categories: (1) those who condemn and/or mock it (the majority); and (2) those who defend it (the minority). I'll admit right off the bat that I'm part of the second group. And I defend it for the same reason as most of its other defenders. (Here comes the spoiler.) We find out at the end that the whole movie was a dream! It all took place in the hyperactive imagination of a young child who was knocked unconscious at the beginning of the film.
In that context, all of the silliness and cheesiness suddenly becomes not only comprehensible but justifiable and relevant. This is a point-of-view movie, and the POV is that of someone quite capable of imagining aliens in gorilla suits and space helmets. Sure, the movie looks low-budget. For $16,000 what do you expect? I've seen plenty of high-budget movies that I've enjoyed much less.
This is not a great movie, or even a good movie. But it was fun to watch, and it doesn't deserve the bad rap that it's gotten.
Night of the Living Dead (2006)
Not the Crap Fest That Some Have Called It
Anyone who views this movie expecting a remake of George Romero's 1968 classic is sure to go away disappointed. Apparently the creative minds behind this film wanted to do a remake of the obscure 1950s film, I Bury the Living. But the producers, wanting to make the product more marketable, decided to turn it into a rip-off of the Romero film. Under the circumstances, I can understand the disappointment of many reviewers and the low ratings.
However, if a viewer is willing to accept this film for what it really is -- a movie about the living dead that merely references the Romero film from time to time (as in the opening credits) -- he or she may be in for a pleasant surprise. Although it will never end up on anyone's 100 Best list, and I can't honestly call it a good movie, I did find it to be an entertaining, "not bad" movie.
The premise is actually quite different from the Romero movie. Instead of being a worldwide plague threatening to destroy humankind, this zombie outbreak is limited at first to the mortuary of "Junior" Tovar (Sid Haig), who cannot bring himself to cremate the dead people whom he's embalmed. So he simply leaves them lying around the mortuary. Over a period of two years, the corpses begin piling up and eventually become infected with a mysterious virus that gets into his embalming fluid. They then begin to come alive again. At first Junior manages to control the problem with his trusty shovel, but it soon gets beyond his control.
The main action takes place in the house of a local pot farmer, where the stoned-out characters are watching a broadcast of Romero's "Living Dead." They initially fail to comprehend the gravity of the situation, as a frightened young woman who has escaped from the zombies at Junior's mortuary seeks refuge in their house. The fact that the owner is engaging in illegal activity explains his persistent refusal to call the police. The house is finally overrun by zombies, and the remaining survivors flee with Junior (who has joined them and explained the source of the zombie outbreak) back to the mortuary. Then it turns out that Junior has been keeping a secret that threatens the lives of the other survivors.
Some reviewers have called this the worst zombie movie ever made. I wonder if they have seen some of the stuff I've seen. In my opinion, it's head and shoulders above such Italian-made crap as Zombie 4: After Death and Zombie 5: Killing Birds. The question that I ask after watching such movies is: do I feel that I have just wasted 80 minutes of my life or do I feel like I've been entertained? And . . . would I consider ever watching it again? Thus far, I've seen this movie twice and have felt entertained both times. If you want to see a decent retelling of the George Romero film, then watch Tom Savini's 1990 remake. If you're willing to settle for some mindless entertainment with plenty of zombie action and some gratuitous nudity to boot, then you may want to check this one out.
Scream and Scream Again (1970)
A Movie Well Worth Viewing . . . Time and Time Again!
This is one of my all-time favorite horror movies. I saw it when it was first released almost 40 years ago, and I have watched it many times since. At first, this appears to be four quite separate movies all rolled into one. There's a mad doctor movie starring Vincent Price and assorted body parts. Then there's a modern-day vampire movie with Michael Gothard as the blood drinker and Alfred Marks as the intrepid inspector on his trail. There's an espionage movie with Christopher Lee at the helm. And, finally, a movie set in a country with a Nazi-like government, with Peter Cushing as the Supreme Leader and Marshall Jones as his much-too-ambitious subordinate.
Gradually, the various strands deftly begin coming together, like the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, until we finally see the complete picture. I actually enjoyed this movie more on my second viewing, as I could more clearly see the picture taking shape. I will say nothing more about the plot(s), but for those who want to learn more, and don't mind spoilers, there's a link to an excellent synopsis on the main page.
Because of the film's complex structure, the three masters of horror -- Price, Lee, and Cushing -- share no screen time together with the exception of a brief (but important) scene involving Price and Lee. Cushing and Lee have roles that are little more than cameos. Price's role as the mad doctor is more substantial, and this is vintage Price at his hammiest and most endearing. Marks is drolly funny as the very British police superintendent, Gothard is appropriately creepy as the almost superhuman blood drinker, and Jones is a villain to be reckoned with. The director, Gordon Hessler, is a longtime collaborator of Alfred Hitchcock, and he also produced and directed some of American International's Edgar Allan Poe movies.
For those who are incapable of non-linear thinking, this movie may appear to be a chaotic mess, but I enjoyed it immensely and will certainly watch it again next time it shows up (without commercials) on a cable channel.
The Vampire Lovers (1970)
Pretty Women and Pretty Darn Good
The Vampire Lovers is one of the better Hammer films of the 1970s. It has all the hallmarks that we expect from Hammer: good acting, good production values, and atmospheric settings. This time, however, the main vampire is not Dracula but Carmilla (aka Marcilla and Mircalla), played by the beautiful Ingrid Pitt. Years earlier, young Baron von Hartog (Douglas Wilmer) had destroyed a nest of vampires, one of whom had killed his sister. But he had been unable to find the grave of Mircalla Karnstein, and now she has come back.
A few reviewers found this film to be slow-moving and boring. It is true that if you want non-stop vampire action, this is not the movie for you. Likewise, those who are expecting a flesh feast will be disappointed. There is one extended (i.e., over a minute) nude scene involving Carmilla and one of her potential victims and three much shorter bits of nudity, but otherwise this is a horror movie (albeit a sexy one) and not a skin flick.
Most of the overt vampiric action takes place at the very beginning and very end of the movie -- the latter involving the great Peter Cushing, who plays more than the cameo role suggested by some reviewers. For the remaining hour, we see the beautiful but evil Carmilla seducing and attempting to destroy two equally beautiful victims -- first the daughter (Pippa Steele) of General von Spielsdorf (Cushing) and later the daughter (Madeline Smith) of the General's friend, Roger Morton (George Cole). Carmilla is aided and abetted by The Countess (Dawn Addams) and a mysterious Man in Black (John Forbes-Robertson).
There are some departures from traditional vampire movies. For example, Carmilla can go out in the day as long as she isn't in direct sunlight. And the vampire's victims don't turn into vampires themselves. They just die -- slowly in come cases, very quickly in others. Carmilla definitely prefers women victims over men, and the women whom she really likes are the ones who die most slowly.
Although The Vampire Lovers is quite different from Hammer's Dracula entries, I found it a very entertaining hour and a half and would recommend it as a good horror movie and a "must see" for any fan of Hammer horror.
Vampire Circus (1972)
One of the Best of 70s Hammer Horror
By the early 1970s, Hammer's Dracula franchise was definitely beginning to wind down, with such lackluster entries as Dracula A.D. 1972 and the Satanic Rites of Dracula (both ill-conceived attempts to update Dracula to the 20th century). At the same time, however, the studio was releasing a number of more imaginative vampire movies, of which Vampire Circus is a prime example.
Hammer returns to its Gothic roots here, with the setting a 19th-century Serbian village. Count Mitterhaus, an evil vampire who has been terrorizing the countryside, gets his just due in the first 15 minutes but lays a curse on the villagers and their children. Fast forward 15 years, and the village is now plagued by a mysterious illness that is decimating its population. And then the circus comes to town.
The circus motif is quite imaginative and takes the story in a very different direction than the standard vampire film. The oddball characters, exotic animals, and various circus acts are quite entertaining, while the connection between the circus and the deceased (or is he?) Count soon becomes apparent. There are numerous scary moments and gruesome deaths before the final denouement.
I am surprised that this movie received a PG-rating in the United States, because the violence and nudity are abundant. Its major flaw is the absence of a compelling hero in the mold of Van Helsing or a villain of the caliber of Dracula. The acting, however, is first-rate, quite up to the standards expected of Hammer films. The film is handsomely produced, very atmospheric, and thoroughly enjoyable. Vampire Circus has been out of circulation for some time, but it showed up recently in the On Demand section of my local cable station. Although I've known about this movie since its release, and heard many good things about it, this is the first opportunity I've had to view it. It's great to have the Circus back in town!
Rise of the Dead (2007)
Good Movie For What It Is
When I first began watching this movie, I was expecting to see a zombie flick. "(Something) of the Dead" just has to be a zombie movie, right? Well, in this case, no. Its original title was "Tantrum," and it was subsequently changed by the distributor, presumably to make it more marketable. I can understand the disappointment of some reviewers, but if one accepts this movie for what it is -- a creepy little ghost story -- it's actually pretty good.
For some reason, residents of a town are turning into homicidal maniacs. The reason becomes clear as the story progresses. The spirit of a young boy who died an accidental and tragic death is coming back to seek revenge on those responsible. His spirit moves from one host to another, as the body count steadily mounts. I can understand why some reviewers found the ultimate resolution to be controversial, but in my opinion the ending is imaginative and very much in the spirit (so to speak) of the movie.
This movie was done on a very low budget, and several of the actors double as producers, make-up artists, costume designers, and so forth. I thought it had a very professional look considering the budget. The acting, while not of academy award caliber, was competent. And it definitely was creepy enough to make me feel that the short amount of time (about 70 minutes) it took to view was not wasted.
Not the greatest movie ever made, by any stretch of the imagination, but well worth a watch.
Dellamorte dellamore (1994)
Perhaps the Best "Zombie Movie" Ever Made
I put the phrase "Zombie Movie" in quotes, because this Italian-made flick is so much more than your standard zombie movie. There are enough plot summaries already on this website to make another one unnecessary. Fans of zombie action will not be disappointed, and those who like their zombies with a touch of humor (actually more than a touch) will not feel let down either. However, this is, at heart, a serious and thought provoking movie profound enough to justify multiple viewings. It should be reiterated that this is NOT a George Romero kind of zombie movie, so do not approach it with that frame of mind. Instead, keep your mind open and be prepared for an enormously entertaining viewing experience.
If I read the credits correctly, Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's company financed this movie.
1776 (1972)
Wonderful Movie (and a Great History Lesson, Too!)
Let me begin by admitting that I am not a big fan of Broadway musicals. But 1776 is anything but a "typical" Broadway musical. I am a professional historian and a fan of entertaining movies, and I would give this movie high scores on both counts. Few of us today realize how close we came to NOT declaring independence from Britain in 1776 or understand the obstacles that the Founding Fathers had to overcome to create an independent nation. Nor do most of us appreciate the role that John Adams played in almost single-handedly turning around the Continental Congress to win support for his independence resolution. I recently saw a revival of the Broadway musical, and I was impressed by how closely the movie version adhered to its original source. Unlike some reviewers, I do not regard the songs as intrusive but consider them to be an integral part of the whole concept. The language is a bit racy at times, but nothing like the profanity that abounds in today's movies. My nine-year-old son enjoyed this movie every bit as much as I did, and I would recommend it to viewers of all ages.
Vampire on Bikini Beach (1988)
Dreadful Vampire Movie That Should Be Avoided At All Costs
This movie is recommended only for those who feel they MUST see every vampire movie ever made. I've seen a lot of comments on this website to the effect that "(such and such) is the worst movie I've ever seen." In that case, the reviewer has obviously not seen THIS MOVIE. It's totally bottom of the barrel in terms of plot, direction, acting, and utter lack of scariness or suspense.
The plot, such as it is, involves a vampire cult in Venice, California, led by some vampire in a cheesy rubber mask and another vampire given to making long-winded and boring speeches. They are assisted by various other vampires in cheap-looking robes, a human servant, and assorted biker-type humans. The long-winded vampire wants to find his true love so that she can drive a stake through his heart (!), while his rubber-faced second-in-command wants to rule the world through an army of the undead brought to life by the "Book of the Dead." The book falls into the hands of this surfer dude and his bimbo girlfriend, who show it to a priest recommended by the local bookseller. Before the priest has time to completely decipher the book and learn its meaning, he is murdered by one of the black-robed guys. Instead of calling the police, surfer dude and girlfriend decide to get back the book themselves so that their friend Weird Harold (who apparently is a computer whiz along with being a musician and surfer) can complete the deciphering with the help of a partial translation that the priest left behind. Or something like that.
In any event, surfer dude and girlfriend are captured by the vampires who for some reason don't kill them like they've done to everyone else in the movie. Probably because they're the "stars." By means that must be seen to be believed, they get away from the vampires, alert Harold, his girlfriend, and two other bimbos. Then they go back to the vampires' secret hideaway one or two more times, get captured, escape, get re-captured, and finally kill all the vampires and associates with the help of this other black-robed dude whom they conjure up with the "Book of the Dead."
Although I've added a "spoiler alert" in order to avoid being added to the blacklist, there is really nothing here to spoil. The characters, good guys and bad guys alike, are all so completely uninteresting that their fates are of no concern to us. The movie is NOT redeemed in any way by the T&A, of which there is precious little in the possibly bowdlerized version that I watched. In fact, the entire bikini beach motif disappears about halfway through the movie, the remainder of which takes place indoors, primarily in the vampires' secret lair (which is shrouded in smoke so that it doesn't look so much like it was shot in someone's basement).
I've seen a lot of cheap-looking horror movies, but I don't remember one quite as cheap or amateurish as this one. It was originally shown on the USA network's "Up All Nite" and has recently re-surfaced in the "on demand" section of our local cable network. Not recommended.