Web of the Spider

I REALLY like Klaus Kinski. He made some wonderful movies like Aguirre: Wrath of God, Fitzgaraldo, Android and Nosferatu...so I buy anything with him in it.

I bought Web of the Spider because of Klaus. Well, you can forget about that. I peered into the darkness of the opening scenes and tried with some difficulty to tell if I was looking at K.K. or not.

At the end of the movie there was more of the same, and most of it could have been left out...plotwise.

I was a little let down, but I stuck with it, and was surprised at the quality of this little gem! It's atmospheric and moody and well done.

I enjoyed my first viewing of it tonight, and I'm looking forward to watching it again.

Seven years after giving us the very enjoyable Castle of Blood (1964), one of the most gothic of '60s gothic Euro horrors, director Antonio Margheriti decided to tell the exact same tale again, only this time in colour and without cult favourite Barbara Steele. The result is entertaining enough but also rather redundant if you've already seen his earlier, better movie.

The promise of Klaus Kinski as Edgar Allen Poe is undoubtedly a draw, and sure enough the actor chews up the scenery with a typically wild-eyed performance, but his appearance is little more than an extended cameo to kick off proceedings. The majority of the film follows American reporter Alan Foster (Anthony Franciosa) as he endeavours to spend an entire night in a haunted castle for a wager. As in Castle of Blood, he meets several mysterious characters, all of whom turn out to be ghosts who feed on the blood of the living to ensure their existence.

The film is atmospheric enough and the performances adequate, but I had hoped that Margheriti would have moved with the times, opting for a more exploitative approach this time around, just to make the film a little different from its predecessor (I'd have happily seen more of Michèle Mercier and Karin Field, who play ghostly babes Elizabeth and Julia). It's not to be: Web of the Spider is remarkably reserved, aiming for style over sleaze. Oh well...

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... : )