Arabian Adventure!

Arabian Adventure is not a great movie by any means, but it is a perfectly good one. It attempts to recreate the style of movies from the 1940's such as The Thief of Baghdad, while at the same time making use of some then modern special effects trickery. I remember seeing this movie when it came out way back in 1979. It was produced by John Dark and directed by Kevin Connor, and was the fifth movie these two had teamed up to deliver. Some previous films were The Land that Time Forgot, At the Earth's Core, and The People that Time Forgot. The big draw for me in this movie is the participation of Christopher Lee as the villain Alquazar. He is in top form and the screen bristles when he's on it. Also, on hand his friend Peter Cushing in a small supporting role. 

One thing I remember this movie for is the poster created by Marvel Comics artist Alex Saviuk. It gives us more than a peek at what we'll get in the film. I think it's a dynamite composition. The posters showcase the real highlight of the movies technically which are the flying carpets, which I'm convinced are meant to evoke a Star Wars dogfight feel in the climax of the movie. 

(Emma Samms)

Less impressive to me were the lead actors Oliver Tobias and Emma Samms in her first movie role. They are the obligatory young lovers in this one who are denied their chance at romance by the villain and the hero has to successfully complete a dangerous mission to win her hand. He is assisted by Milo O'Shea who is excellent as the duplicitous henchman. This one has a kid in it too who has a big role, and while as a rule I don't cotton to kid actors, this little fellow was okay. Mickey Rooney shows up in a wonderful role which evokes the Wizard of OZ. 

The movie is a charming distraction. 

Rip Off

The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes!

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is a Holmes film that carries a great deal of panache and that mostly comes from the fact it was written and directed by Billy Wilder. The film starring Robert Stephens as the great detective and Colin Blakely as his trusty biographer, was met at the time in 1970 with glowing reviews and some regard it as the best Sherlock Holmes film ever made. All this hullabaloo made me eager to see it. I have at long last had that pleasure, securing a copy from the folks at Kino-Lorber. My assessment is that the movie falls well short of its reputation. 

For one thing it's too long, clocking in at a cool two hours and five minutes. Like most movies that are too long and the product largely of one creative mind, it's relatively easy to find spots to cut. These kinds of projects often lack the perspective to see where precious words need not appear. The movie's plot is actually fairly simple. Holmes is ordered by his brother Mycroft (played wonderfully by Christipher Lee) to help guard a secret military project. He refuses but then gets involved with a lovely young woman looking for her husband. There are other details such as missing midgets, cages full of canaries, obscure Scottish castles, and a submarine. This movie does offer up the allure of Holmes confronting the Loch Ness monster mystery, but the solution is pretty humdrum and is even given away on the poster. (The poster is a humdinger by artist Robert McGinnis who offers up one of his exceedingly tempting semi-dressed dames.) 

The solution to the Loch Ness mystery (it's a secret military project) reminded me of the third issue of Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD in which pretty much the same solution is offered, and a bogus ghostly hound is bounding to boot. Steranko really smashed it all together quite neatly. 

Maybe in 1970 the actress Genevieve Page romping around 221 B Baker Street in the nude was provocative (they show nothing) but it's pretty mild by modern standards. Perhaps folks were provoked by the film's hints here and there that Sherlock Holmes might have a preference other than lovely women. There's little sizzle there for a modern audience. 

Don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly fine flick. It does the usual stuff that a Sherlock Holmes movie does and does it in a calm reflective manner, but it is hardly the finest Sherlock Holmes movie ever made. Any moviemaker who treads on this territory has to contend with the legends of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, and alas this one doesn't cut the mustard much in that regard. Though I was happy to see that Watson was treated as a buffoon as often as was the charming Bruce, something hardcore Sherlockians claim to hate. 

 Oh, and the Loch Ness Monster is a submarine. I'd say I was spoiling the plot but it's on the fricking poster. I do like that poster! 

Rip Off

Classic Horror!

Picked up a set of four flicks gathered under the title Classic Horror from a local shop the other day and have thoroughly enjoyed them all, each in its own way.

Terror of the Tongs starring Christopher Lee is the reason I dropped a few dollars to begin with for this set. Though the reviews of this movie are generally tepid, I still had a hankering to see what Lee did with an Oriental menace clearly in the Fu Manchu tradition. He didn't disappoint, though he's not on screen all that much, he does chew the scenery in dandy fashion when he does. The story is a rather hoary one admittedly, though with some real surprises. A sturdy and forthright sea captain finds himself pitted against the local criminal outfit, the Dragon Tong. Their murderous ways strike close to him and he seeks vengeance and goe about it in the most ham-fisted way possible. But there are some neat ruckuses along the path he chooses as he pits his good guy power against the murderous hatchet men of the Tong.

Five is a post-apocalyptic tale, according to some sources the first post-nuclear movie fable ever. It's a cheapie for sure, filmed largely at the house of the writer and director Arch Obloer. The actors are largely unknowns and the film has that spare quality many such low-budget efforts have, though there is a grace to certain scenes many of these films do not aspire to. It's largely the story of five people who gather together (eventually) at house in the mountains after the bombs have dropped. They each have their own tale of survival though we mostly follow the saga of the sole woman who it turns out is pregnant. One of the male survivors is black and race does become an issue in the story. One of the notable features of the movie is that the house was apparently designed by Frank Loyd Wright and it's a handsome ediface for sure.

Vincent Price is outstanding (per usual) in The Mad Magician. The story is straightforward enough. Price is a master builder of great illusions who seeks the limelight for himself but is forestalled by his partner who demands he remain a faceless technician. They also shared the same woman as wife and that tension results in a flurry of murders, each carried out with aplomb and style and ferocious energy. Lots of fun characters, especially a married couple who dabble in solving murder mysteries and a pretty assistant make this one a totally watchable bit of fluff. My favorite moment is when Price loses track of one of his decapitated heads and has to chase across the town to locate it before it falls quite literally into the hands of the police. Humor like this gives the movie a grisly quality that is quite effective.

And finally we have The Man Who Turned to Stone. I expected little of this story of a girls reform school haunted by a mysterious killer, but it turns out there was much more to it thanks to a completely competent cast filled with the likes of Victor Jory. It turns out the killer works for a deadly cabal who run the joint and use the hapless girls as guinea pigs in experiments which have gone on longer that anyone can suspect at first. A well-meaning young woman seeks to investigate the mysterious deaths and is helped by the local young and handsome doctor. The two conduct an investigation that's filled with blunders, but of course we all know justice will eventually win out. This one has some really rather creepy scenes in it and the back story is quite rich.

All in all, a completely solid set of four movies which one might be inclined to overlook. They are worth the time and money (small money really) for any fan of horror. Highly recommended.

Rip Off

Hammer Times - The Mummy!

The Mummy from 1959 continued the Hammer tradition of picking among Universal classics and deriving their own flavorful variation. Pairing the dynamite team of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee together again, this one is going to be good just on that score. These two definitely were able to combine for an effect which was greater than the sum of their parts, a synthesis which added up to entertainment.

The story is pretty familiar. Our mummy Kharis is the recognizable priest who commits sacrilege for love and gets punished by being mummified (sort of) and entombed alive to forever guard a great treasure. That treasure is found by the Banning party and the Mummy is brought to life to seek vengeance. That comes when the elder Banning is made mad and his son is made lame for life. (The limp in this mummy movie is possessed by the hero not the monster). Years pass and things seem to be quiet but all the time a cult has raised the Mummy and plan to use him to seek revenge on those who desecrated the tomb. All this latter action takes place in England, so instead of sands and sun, we get moors and bogs and gloom. That's dandy really. There's much activity, but in the end of course after many deaths, the hero claims the girl and the Mummy gets the shaft.

This one is really really consistent throughout. That's at once good and bad, since the story rarely rises above a simmer. Christopher Lee looks amazing as the Mummy and we slowly see him crumble bit by bit through the movie as his actions take their toll. There's not a thing wrong with this movie, but it's never as exciting as I think it ought to be and while the atmosphere is top notch, it's rarely scary. Quality stuff, solid movie, but not a thrill by any means.

Rip Off

Hammer Times - The Horror Of Dracula!

1958's Horror of Dracula is one of my favorite Hammer films.  This is the one which gave us the great Christopher Lee as Bram Stoker's immortal Count. The movie got the green light after the success of The Curse of Frankenstein the previous year, though the path to the theaters for this classic remake was a twisting one indeed. Along with Lee, we have Peter Cushing as Professor Van Helsing and the whole shebang is directed by Terence Fisher using a script by Jimmy Sangster.

The story is at once familiar but different enough to hold the interest throughout. I've always been particularly taken by the first half hour which focuses on Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) as he visits the castle of Dracula posing as a librarian. It's in these scenes only that Dracula (Christopher Lee) ever speaks and we are allowed to see the polished nobleman who contrasts with the bloodthirsty fiend of the rest of the flick. The story is wise to shift as it does to Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) as he follows up on Harker who had been working in league with him. I prefer a Harker who knows what he's getting into, it worked well. Now the balance of the movie shifts to the home of Arthur and Mina Holmwood (Peter Gough and Melissa Stribling) and we see the corruption of Harker's love Lucy Holmwood (Carol Marsh). The story is nicely compact and has a great pace.

Lee's Dracula is laced with a casual brutality that can still be shocking even today. The way he casually tosses a body into a grave, the manner in which he coldly looms over his prey are pretty chilling. In contrast  Cushing gives us a Van Helsing with some decent characteristics, he's polite but determined. The finale is a pretty good one.

Rip Off

Hammer Times - The Curse Of Frankenstein!

The Curse of Frankenstein came out the year I was born (1957 to be exact) and marked the beginning really of Hammer Studio's long association with the lurid horror revivals they are most famous for. It put together Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee for the first time and delivered a powerful and potent horror movie which has had lasting effectiveness nearly sixty years later.

The movie has been well appreciated by others over the decades, but I have to confess its total effectiveness eluded me a bit until my most recent viewing. I've always preferred the vintage 1930's Universal monster flicks to Hammer's more visceral renditions (and still do) but the punch of Hammer's approach by giving the stories a more lurid presentation does add some oomph to the familiar yarns.

Terence Fisher's direction is effective and he gets a lot of story done in a short time. The novel's elements are reshaped nicely to add a focus to the story necessary for a movie, evoking the novel's epistolary reflective quality while at the same time being somewhat more unified in its narrative. Victor Frankenstein is a madman throughout the show but his madness only begins to show itself brazenly in the last half of the story. It's this cool insanity, buried under a mask of handsome gentility that Cushing presents so effectively. His Frankenstein is downright charming, but a brutal sociopath (psychopath?) all the time.

Christopher Lee portrays the first of his many monsters for Hammer and buried underneath some truly ugly make up it's difficult to get much from him. It's in the posture that the Creature communicates. The movie is truly well-crafted (as most Hammer efforts were) and I am always struck on each viewing how much is communicated but how little is actually shown. The murders of an old man and a little boy are shown but not shown and neither are they lingered upon, making the acts even more terrible in some inscrutable way.

I love that the Creature is only seen by three people (who survive to the end of the movie and Frankenstein only just) which captures the mystery of the classic novel much better really than the classic series from Universal did. The Creature is a product of Frankenstein's mind truly and we are left even to ourselves to doubt slightly the story he delivers to the priest.

Nicely done.

Rip Off

Christopher Lee R.I.P.

The death of Sir Christopher Lee does not come as any great surprise, but it certainly does evoke great sadness. At ninety-three he still possessed a commanding presence on the big screen as evidenced by his appearance in the most recent movie trilogy derived from Tolkien's work. This work was an especially effective turn because of Lee's devotion to the Middle Earth material, which he reportedly read annually.

But as good as his Saruman is, it will always be (at least for me), his turns as Count Dracula in the many Hammer movies he worked in which define his career, either fairly or unfairly. Lee brought a ferocity to that role which forever redefined how people related to Bram Stoker's count. Other actors come and go, but aside from Lee and Lugosi, no others have defined the role of the undead Count.

Not unlike his generational peer Clint Eastwood, Lee was dominant on the big screen for the simple reason he was often taller than his colleagues and his gaze was mesmerizing, even when he wasn't trying to entrance you. Good looking enough for all practical purposes, his face was always rich with character which spoke of experiences that untold still informed his presentations. Whatever was going on in any given scene, there was a good chance your eyes were on Lee.

Even the worst schlock, and he was in some schlock for sure, is made better by his presence. Even a movie as poorly concocted as Captain America II: Death Too Soon is pretty much only watchable because of Christopher Lee's presence. His commanding voice gave resonance to even the most vapid lines.

 Many will mention his turn as Scaramanga, the James Bond villain and "Man with the Golden Gun". That movie unfortunately has a number of silly elements, and wastes Lee's possibilities in many respects, but overall it still rises above the pack of the Roger Moore Bond flicks. I've read that he lost out on the original Bond villain role of Dr.No, and that's a great shame; he'd have been magnificent.

Also of note is his addition to the Star Wars saga as Count Dooku, one of the select acolytes of the dark side of the enigmatic Force. His role is relatively meager (for Lee) but significant and it adds heft to the trilogy which many malign out of all proportion to its sins.

 There are so many grand characters Lee portrayed that it's difficult to recall them all immediately. The Creature of Frankenstein, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Kharis the Mummy, Francisco Scaramanga, Rasputin, Fu Manchu, Lord Summerisle, and so many others.

Now Lee has passed, and has joined his colleague and friend Peter Cushing with whom he made over twenty films. Here is an article which details some of the amazing facts about Lee's vivid and long life.

Rip Off

The Films Of Fu Manchu!

The Face of Fu Manchu from 1965 is a movie with a great deal of chutzpah. A top-notch cast works diligently to bring Sax Rohmer's original "Yellow Peril" to the screen and by and large do a pretty snappy job of it under the directorial hand of Don Sharp. 

Fu Manchu himself of course is portrayed by the great Christopher Lee who brings a languorous charm to the master criminal, who in this story is plotting to get hold of a deadly gas which can murder people in the thousands. To that end he kidnaps a talented scientist and later his daughter (Karen Dor) to force his cooperation. The rescue of these two form the motivations for the early part of the story.  He is helped in his schemes by his own sadistic daughter Lin Tang (Tsai Chin).

Opposing Fu Manchu as always is Nayland Smith, played wonderfully by the charismatic Nigel Green. Green is the best Nayland Smith I've ever seen, he is a tall and powerful man who commands the screen and seems every inch the adventurer Smith is supposed to be. This is a guy who I believe can go toe-to-toe with the "Devil Doctor".

Helping Smith is Dr.Petrie, played in full-blown blustery Watson mode by Howard Marion-Crawford. Also along for the ride is Joachim Fuchsberger as the love interest of the kidnapped daughter who is there to be the romantic lead and to lend a hand in the fights. Oddly he seems a bit too old for the role, but offers up an energetic hand nonetheless.

This movie was a joint German-English production and so many of the leads do have a decidedly continental accent. There is a surprising amount of action in this one. Several hand-to-hand fights blast across the screen for long stretches and a few car chases add to the spectacle. The weird is injected into the proceedings by Fu Manchu's elaborate system of drowning his enemies and ejecting their bodies into the Thames River.

Perhaps the highlight of the film is the cold murder of an entire English town, a cold and heartless act which is presented with a strange sterile brutality, but which nonetheless adds to the tension. A weakness is that these horrendous murders seem not to have the psychological weight they require later in the movie.

The finale is fine but not surprisingly leaves the door open for a sequel.

That sequel is titled The Brides of Fu Manchu and hit the big screen the following year in 1966.

The Brides of Fu Manchu picks up the action immediately after the first movie. Don Sharp is on hand again to direct and in fact all the regulars return save for the lead role of Nayland Smith. Nigel Green, as able as he was, is replaced by Douglas Wilmer (not "Wilner" as it says on the posters). Wilmer had played Sherlock Holmes before and this Smith feels a great deal of that kind,  less an adventurer and more a cerebral opponent for the great Fu Manchu.

Chistopher Lee and Tsai Chin return as the villainous pair who this time are kidnapping lots of scientists and also their daughters to build a network of power transmission devices which can effectively deliver a death ray to any point that Fu Manchu seeks to attack.The "Brides" of the title are the beautiful bevy of daughters who are kept tucked away in a remote desert temple as their fathers are forced to do Fu Manchu's bidding.

This is a rouser, but lacks the sense of depth the debut movie had and the grotesque, an essential Fu Manchu element seems a bit wanting. 

There are three more in this series, by different directors. I've yet to see them, but I'm eager to do so.

Rip Off

She Again!

Late last spring I finally got around to reading H.Rider Haggard's epic novel She and at that same time got hold of the 1935 movie adaptation. Go here to read what I thought of those if you'd like. But recently Turner Classics put on the other famous version of She, this starring the stunning Ursula Andress in the...ahem...titular role.

Take a gander.

It's difficult to overstate how beautiful Andress is in this movie, she's just fabulous, worthy of all the praise I've seen heaped on this flick. Her oddly stiff acting style actually enhances the alien nature of Ayesha who having lived for thousands of years can be a bit odd to say the least. And her exotic beauty does indeed connote something at once alluring and dangerous and intoxicating. You can understand why some guy might jump into a fire for her.

But if it were only her in this flick it would be a boring lot indeed, as staring at a pretty face however attractive gets dull eventually. The Hammer gang is along for this wild ride through deserts and mountains into the long-forgotten and distance lost city Ayesha rules. We have stalwarts Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee on hand as always, the classic tag team of 60's weird horror giving their usual bravura performances. Cushing's rendition of Holley is actually less restrained than many of his presentations and a welcome change from his usually internal and intellectual characters. Holley here is loyal bounder. Bernard Cribbins is on hand as the loyal Job and does a crackerjack job in a thankless but necessary role. Lee is the counter-villain in this one plotting against our heroes and Ayesha and he gives his usual oily venomous performance.

Cribbins, Cushing, Andress, and Richardson

The surprise for me was how good John Richardson was as Leo. He's not an actor who has impressed me in the past, but he does a pretty good job playing a man overwhelmed by the events which have swallowed up and largely demolished his ego and his life. Rosenda Monteros is wonderful as the girl Ustane who loves Leo and challenges Ayesha. Her fate is a real stunner in a flick that turns in on itself neatly with an ending which does justice to the time invested.

I liked this one much more than I expected. I feared it would be dreary, with Andress being deadly dull. It's not, and she's certainly not. I can see why people hold this version in such high regard. It's a good one.

Rip Off

Corridors Of Blood!

I've read this evocative title in many a monster magazine and elsewhere, a late feature in the career of the matchless Boris Karloff. But I've never had the chance to see it...until yesterday. AMC ran it early yesterday morning and I caught not all but most of it.

I liked what I saw.

Boris Karloff plays Dr.Bolton, a pioneering surgeon in the 1840's who is seeking anesthesia so that as he says "the knife and the pain can be separated". He is scoffed at by some of his peers, but continues and discovers what he seeks, but alas his demonstration is a disaster ruining his reputation and he desperately falls into drug addiction while seeking to finish his life's work. He then finds himself among a pack of murderers who trade in bodies for the very doctors he associates with, especially one named Resurrection Joe played by Christopher Lee.


It's neat to see these two most famous screen Frankenstein Monsters together in a very smart movie that makes a lot of the talents of both men. Lee has little to say and relatively little screen time, but he gets his moments an makes the most of them.

I've read criticism that the movie is dull, but I didn't find that to be the case. Karloff is in top form and makes you really care for a desperate man. He's exceedingly well cast in a roll perfectly suited to his age and situation. Likewise the others in the cast seem well chosen. It's a slick movie.

Apparently though it was not thought well of by its producers though as it was allowed to languish in the vaults for four years. The movie was made in 1958 and is Lee's first role after his memorable turn as the Monster, but was not released until 1962. Whatever others thought of it, I liked it a lot and mostly because of the impeccable acting of the late great Karloff.

Rip Off

The Wicker Man!

The Wicker Man is a movie I've heard about for decades, but not one I much wanted to see until recently. I passed on a few dvd copies, and I've regretted that, but this morning I caught it on television in an uncut form. Actually I saw the last twenty minutes last evening and looked to see it was replaying early this morn. I awoke in the nick of time to catch it and it's a hoot.

If you've not seen it and want to, then spoilers are in order I'll tip you when they are over.

Spoilers begin.

Knowing the ending didn't hurt my enjoyment at all, but rather intensified it as I was able to see how Howie was being led along. The movie looks great with fantastic landscapes and it's simply brimming with interesting looking folks, both of the eccentric type and the downright gorgeous type.


Christopher Lee is magnificent as Lord Summerisle. It's one of the best parts I've ever seen him play. He indicates in some online interviews that the part was written for him. It's a great match of talent and type. He's a charming devil for sure.


Edward Woodward as Detective Howie, the intense but ultimately hapless "copper" who seeks the missing Rowan, is great too. His compulsions are no less peculiar than the islanders, and I can only imagine his rants on morality rang hollow even in the day.


Britt Ekland looks fantastic as the alluring Willow, and the other honeys especially Ingid Pitt are right pretty too. It's the eroticism in this movie which is so commomplace in the movie that makes it click.

This movie shows well that a scary flick can take place in the daylight if the ideas behind it are creepy enough. Stumbling across an island of pagans in the modern day smacks of Lovecraft, but it has a neat modern spin to it in addition.

Spoilers end.

This movie was challenging in today's environment, so it must've been positively transgressive when it was released. This is a movie that will stand up to repeated viewings, so I must get about acquiring a copy.

If you're not familiar with the movie here's the trailer.



Rip Off

Christopher Lee's Other Dracula!

Though I am a committed Bela fan, I have growing but still grudging admiration for Christopher Lee's version of the Count at Hammer. His Dracula is the opposite of Lugosi's in that while Lugosi depended on the power of the word to compel, Lee found himself depending on something less civilized and more visceral. That's because Lee's Hammer Dracula rarely talks, and sometimes is even rarely seen. He's a force more than an individual, and Lee does what he can with that, which is considerable.

In Jess Franco's Count Dracula Lee gets the chance to perform Dracula with a different twist. While the animal aggression is still very much present, this Dracula talks and some of the speeches are spectacular, especially at the beginning when Harker is at the castle. Lee is Dracula as an old man, who becomes younger as he drinks the vital blood of his victims, this is from the novel.

But aside from getting Dracula's motivations down, there's little to suggest this version of the story is particularly more or less accurate than Hammer's earlier one. They both keep about the same proportion of the original Bram Stoker novel, but just use different bits. Some critics say this one is boring, I'd say it's just quiet and restrained, a necessarily an evil in a good horror flick.

Given Franco's reputation, the movie is much less lurid than I expected. There's some blood, but it's well within the bounds of taste, at least taste in a vampire movie. Klaus Kinski is famously in this as Renfield, but while I found his eccentric take on the old fly-eater interesting, it doesn't really add much to the unfolding story. He's largely outside the tale in this version, aloof and isolated in his madhouse. The ending is pretty weak as well, having something of a hasty quality to it and not really delivering on the atmosphere that had been established earlier.

But all that said, this is a well acted version of the story and features perhaps Lee's best Dracula performance.

Rip Off

Count Dracula And His Vampire Bride!

I can't really say I've been a big afficianado of Christopher Lee's Dracula. I've seen several of them recently, and I have to confess he brings a certain different something to the mix. The first thing I noted about his movies is that he isn't really the star, it's the folks who are pitted against him who dominate the screen and Dracula appears sparingly to wreak havoc and whatnot.

The Satanic Rites of Dracula or as it was known in the U.S. Count Dracula and his Vampire Bride offers up a pretty good brew of what makes these Hammer flicks tick. This one set in the 20th century follows on the events of the previous movie Dracula 1972 A.D..

There are some spoilers below so tread carefully.

Dracula it seems didn't "die" after the last movie (shock) but survived yet again and became the mysterious director of an organization which has a headquarters on the site of the church where he was presumably killed. This company has lured in powerful men in government and the military by means of a seemingly Satanic cult. Some government security agency becomes aware of this and sends in an agent who is killed but who manages to report back. His superiors realize that the men involved are too powerful and influential to oppose openly so they enlist the aid of Dr.Van Helsing to guide them in matters supernatural. Dracula's role is uncovered and the ultimate battle is an interesting if curious one. I'll have to say that Dracula is trapped in the most original if contrived way.

Peter Cushing as Van Helsing is looking quite old in this one, but he and Lee as Dracula have some very good scenes together. The movie though seems to want to be an action flick and does so pretty well in places. The horror elements are minimal after the first section of the flick, though I will confess the basement full of vampire chicks was pretty heinous. The lighting undermines the effectiveness of these scenes, as the color is brighter than I expected. They seemed to want lurid more than creepy.

All in all this is a fun and diverting movie, better than I expected frankly.

Rip Off