100 Years of Horror

Generally speaking, most of these compilation "tributes" are crap...even this one was done on the cheap. Perhaps on account though of the clips used (95% trailers, if you're observant enough to notice) and Christopher Lee's (who else???) narration, the thing works. Matter of fact its great stuff!

Definitely more of interest to the over 40's (over 60"s wouldn't go that far astray either, now I come to think about it!) as the greater majority of the referenced work here is from archived horror 1940 and earlier. Not ALL though, even relative "acolytes" such as John Carpenter get their few minutes worth on camera!

As one reviewer pointed out, it was funny stuff to hear Lee's more than realistic comment upon his own contribution - to the "horror" that was HOWLING II!

I saw an edited version of this that was made into a 2 hour movie and it was super choppy and disjointed, jumping around all over the place with no flow or purpose. There were some neat clips and Lee is always great but it was pretty hard to watch overall. Maybe as a series it worked better?

I would have given this series a higher rating except for the audio quality inconsistencies, granted they're dealing with a lot of older movies so the sound quality isn't going to be the greatest by today's (or in this case, the late '90s) standards, I'm not talking about those clips, what I mean are the interview bits and Christopher Lee's bits, sometimes he'd sound fine, then other times his voice would be louder and way too heavy in the low end... and the interviews often were too quiet and/or muffled. Otherwise a great show.

I only watched a third of these before giving up, so I will do a blanket comment.

This is many hours of stuff stretched out possibly three times as long as it deserved. Interviews are reused in multiple weeks. There is lots of footage from the films they are talking about, but almost exclusively from trailers. The host is a nitwit who blathers on, partly in character. The people interviewed have almost nothing to say.

But its such a rich topic with so many, many opportunities for reward that I kept hoping.

Their definition of horror excludes Giallo. There's no mention of sleaze horror. Omitting these is like not mentioning whiskey in a history of the US. There's an episode on girl monsters and another on scream queen victims, but no mention of sex. No discussion of redheads.

There's no examination of racially based horror. How could that be?

The omissions are not as crazy as the way things are grouped. There's an episode about freaks. Now there are enough of those to fill a couple episodes. But they are crammed in with the maimed and scarred. Does anyone on the planet believe these work the same way?

I found only one mildly interesting thing: the episode on sorcerers has some pretty good background on Crowley and the actor who played Caligari's ghoul (who in turn influenced Christopher Lee). And then talks about Svengali. This seems to have been written by someone who knew the history and knew how the device is used: evil hypnotizes.

But other than that (episode 19), you really should look at any horror film closely. You'll get more than you'll get here.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I would have to say that this is a very good video. They really made this right. The only thing is that where is George Romero? They should have had him on because he was the one who gave a zombies a new name (well thats what I think). Anyway it is overall excellent.