A visit to "Lyvia's House" is a great way to start Spooky Season!

Lyvia's House (2023)
Starring: Tara Nchol Caldwell, Joshua Malekos, Ann Marie Gideon, Andrew Diego, Danielle Octavien, Deborah Tucker, and Pete Davis

Director: Niko Volonakis

Rating: Six of Ten Stars

After being swept off her feet by the handsome and romantic Johnny (Malekos), Tara (Caldwell) moves with him to a small, isolated town and the large mansion he owns there. As Tara learns more about the town and the former owner of the house, she comes to realize that a serial killer who is supposed to have died years ago is once again becoming active... and that she and Johnny might be in his sights.

"Lyvia's House" is a film that I found it difficult to assign a rating to. There were many things about it that I loved, and almost as many things about it that I disliked. In the end, though, I feel like the good outweighs the bad in this modern-day horror thriller with strong gothic romance overtones, making it a solid Six on my 0-10 scale. I also think that it's worth your time to check out if you enjoy slow-boil mystery stories with heaps of gothic flavoring.

In the good column, is the fact that "Lyvia's House" is a gorgeous and expertly executed film. On a visual level, every scene is perfectly framed and lighting is used effectively to deepen suspense, mystery, and horror. Although the story is slow in unfolding, the visuals are so well done that the viewer is still drawn in and is focused on following Tara's dangerous path along with her.

In fact, I can't even level my oft-made complaint about scenes being underlit here, because the job done by the crew was perfect in pretty much every way--perhaps it helped that the director was also a camera operator and the cinematographer also served as the gaffer. This is the first feature length production that Cody Martin worked as cinematographer on, and he did such an amazing job that I hope he has a brilliant career ahead of him.

Speaking of contributors to this film for whom this is a first, "Lyvia's House" marks the feature film debut of Tara Nichol Caldwell. Actually, it marks her professional acting debut, period, but you wouldn't know it from the great performance she gives. She is the lead actor in this film however you want to define that, and I hope I'll have a chance to see her in other films. (One of the signs of her great skill is that she has some truly terrible, borderline unintentionally funny lines, but her delivery and physical performance makes them work.)

Unfortunately, I can't give that sort of praise to Caldwell's co-star, Joshua Malekos. He gives a performance that is almost completely flat and monotone. Sometimes, it felt to me like he was just reading lines with the expectation that a voice actor would come in and an actual performance would be delivered during post-production. I suspect that he was going to something in between charming and mysterious, but it ended up just seeming empty. Even as the film enters into its riveting third act--where secrets are exposed, masks slip, and the film goes into full gothic horror mode--Malekos is something of a dead spot.

Even with Malekos's lackluster performance, I liked many other aspects of this film so much that I might have given it a Seven... if not for certain weaknesses in the script. I've already touched upon some of the dialogue being laughably bad, but even worse are the pointless scenes involving phone calls with Tara's best friend that serve little purpose other than to break the mounting suspense as the story unfolds. Even worse are the moments when characters fail to comment to things that are painfully obvious and SHOULD be something they'd remark upon (or at least worry about).

The most glaring of these is when Tara sees the self-portrait painted by Lyvia, the former owner of Johnny's house. Lyvia looks so much like Tara that it looks like Tara might have sat for the portrait. It's something that she (or SOMEONE) should have commented on; if Tara didn't notice that she could be Lyvia's twin sister, certainly someone in the village would have and made some comment.

I could go on and get increasingly nitpicky, but, as I said above, the good outweighs the bad in "Lydia's House". Despite its flaws, it is an engaging film that will add value to your Amazon Prime and/or Hulu subscriptions when it debuts on those and other platforms on October 1, 2024. (It's a pretty good way to kick off the creepy Halloween Season, I feel!)

Check out this preview of the film:

And while you're waiting for "Lyvia's House" to become available, check out this post spotlighting Tara Nichol Caldwell over at the Shades of Gray blog.

Murder, Mayhem, a Cat--Oh My!

Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eye (1973)
Starring: Jane Birkin, Hiram Keller, Anton Diffring, Doris Kuntsmann, Françoise Christophe, Dana Ghia, and Venantino Venantini
Director: Anthony M. Dawkins (aka Antonio Margheriti)

Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Corringa (Birkin) returns to her ancestral home after being expelled from an elite Catholic boarding school. As if reuniting with her quirky family and the strange servants and hirelings that are hanging about wasn't bad enough, people start turning up murdered.

"Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eye" hits all gothic horror notes--it's set in an isolated castle that's full of secret passageways, and which is inhabited by a noble family with a fading reputation that's either cursed, corrupt, crazy or some mixture of all three. And there's the wide-eyed maiden who goes running through the shadowy halls in a diaphanous gown while carrying a lantern or candelabra, while spending equal amounts of time conducting half-assed investigations, being targeted by the killer, and being the vessel of love and kindness through which the handsome and bitter--but ultimately goodhearted--male protagonist is brought to redemption. There's also the doctor with questionable ethics and motives, the priest/spritual advisor who may or may not be too good to be true... and so on, and so forth.

Unfortunately, while all the elements are present to make this an excellent and spookily fun film, they aren't deployed as effectively as they could be, due to flat and uninteresting characters and a script that is so sloppy that what should have been central characters barely appear in the story. For example, the sensitive and wise priest played by Venantino Venantini, known for playing romantic and/or heroic leads and thus his casting here was a bit of brilliance given the character's important place in the film's central mystery and for what is motivating the murders... but the Big Reveal doesn't have the full impact it could have had if the character had been more present as events unfolded.

But instead of a scene or two that could have bolstered Venantini's presence in the film, we're treated to truly pointless bits about a pet gorilla (which inexplicably gets referred to as an orangutan on a couple of occasions) because they serve no purpose in the plot. There are also lame attempts to make it feel like there might be a supernatural component to what's happening in the castle; we know as viewers that there is no curse or ghosts in the mix here, and the characters in general aren't buying into that nonsense either, so why are the filmmakers wasting our time and theirs with it, when there are real issues that needed to be addressed? In the end, the story is so poorly put together that the characters just seem to be drifting from plot point to plot point, and the viewers never become all that invested in them to care if they live or die. Sometimes, problems like these are created when a film gets re-cut for markets outside Italy (this film's country of origin), but the version I watched was "restored", and the scenes added back in didn't solve any of the problems mentioned.)

Maybe if a little more effort had been put into shaping the script in general and the characters in particular, I wouldn't have been quite so annoyed at the forced romance between Birkin's Corringa and Keller's Lord James. Likewise, I think what is an okay climax of the film would have been an excellent one--if there had just been more of a drive to establishing characters and possible motivations.

The effectiveness of the film is also undermined by the dialog being iffy (sometimes overblow, sometimes just nonsensical) and the voice actors doing the English aren't the greatest; it seems more like they thought they were voicing a comedy, given the goofy accents they're doing. As such it's hard for me to judge whether the actors on screen were good or bad. All I can really tell is that Jane Birkin did a good job as the imperiled maiden, Hiram Keller did a good job as a crazy noble, and Anton Diffring did... well, Anton Diffring was Anton Diffring, so I once again loved to hate him. I think the character I cared most about in the film was the poor cat who wanders around and sees all these people get murdered.

If you enjoy gothic tales, you'll find a lot to like in "Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eyes", and I think you'll be glad you did. It's not great in that respect, but it's also not terrible. If you're hoping for a gory Italian horror flick, then this is not it.

--

This post was made on Jane Birkin's 75th birthday. A celebratory post of pictures was made at our sister blog, the Shades of Gray. Click here to check it out.

31 Nights of Halloween: The Whistle 3

During this year's 31 Nights of Halloween, I've brought you the available installments of "The Whistle" series of short films. I thought the first one was creepy, I thought the second one opened up an entire, very interesting world and ended with a thrillingly bewildering twist.

I assumed the third one would continue the threads from the second film, but instead, it's a flashback. It ties into the second entry in the series, but it doesn't really build on anything, nor does it even lay a foundation that any of the other films rest on--except establishing the woods as the place the creature lives. (But then, one wonders, why did it attack the person in the first film?)

Also... did i miss the whistling in this one?

Taken on its own, "The Whistle: Maria" is a well-crafted, moody picture that lovers of gothic horror will enjoy. Taken as part of a series, it's a little lacking. Taken on its own, it's a Seven-star effort, but as part of the series, it only rates a Six.

The Whistle: Maria (aka "The Whistle 3") (2019)
Starring: Vanessa Sacco, Brenda Heilmann, and Marcel Heilmann
Director: Klaus Quirin
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

31 Nights of Halloween: The Open Doors

Here's an excellent adaptation of a classic gothic twist-ending story. It's a perfect mood-setter for the tricks and treats of Halloween!

The Open Doors (2004)
Starring: Charlotte Ritchie, Michael Sheen, and Cherie Lunghi
Director: James Rogan
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

'The Bloody Judge' is one of Franco's greatest

Jess Franco week continues with another of Franco's best movies. It shows that the budget one has to work with can make a difference.

The Bloody Judge (aka "Throne of Blood", "Throne of the Blood Monster", "The Witch's Trial" and "Witch-killer of Broadmoor) (1970)
Starring: Christopher Lee, Leo Genn, Maria Rohm, Margaret Lee, Hans Hass, and Milo Quesada
Director: Jess Franco
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A hypocritical judge (Lee) illustrates why a little rebellion among the peasantry can be a good thing every now and then.

Loosely based on the final months of notorious and controversial historical 17th century British hanging judge George Jeffries, this film is one of the best works I've seen from Spanish director Jess Franco. The plot is coherent and engaging, the camerawork and sets are fairly decent, and there's actually a few well-staged action scenes. To top it off, the characters are even interesting... as repulsive as Jeffries comes across, he is emerges as a fascinating character... and Maria Rohm's pure-hearted peasant girl (who is forced to have sex with the vile Jeffries in exchange for her sister's life) is a character that the viewer can feel real pity for.

Unfortunately, the film also has all the hallmarks of some of other Franco's pictures, such as unnecessary torture scenes and nudity and just general crap thrown in to guarantee an R-rating at the very least. (Franco must have been the role-model for the fools who were in charge of "Snakes on a Plane" as far as that approach goes.)

Interestingly, this film would have been stronger if a scene that apparently was only included in the German-language version of the movie had been in all the edits. Although repulsive for some of its sexual/torture content, it does make some later part of the film seem a little less unmotivated plot-development wise.

This "lost" scene and other bonus material included on the "Blue Underground" DVD release of the picture actually makes up a very worthwhile package for fans and scholars of "exploitation cinema" and other B-movies. It's material that gives excellent insight into rare insight into the production and marketing processes that went into these multi-national European productions of the 1960s and 1970s. (Yeah, the liner notes are a little ridiculous--the reviewer who wrote them seems to hold Franco's body of work in much higher regard than a sane person should--and the interview with Christopher Lee makes him seem like a pompous ass, but it's all very interesting.)

Like a romance novel with a twist

Frozen in Fear (2000)
Starring: Catherine Oxenberg, Eric Roberts, Rod Steiger, Joan Benedict, Scott Plank, and Ellina McCormick
Director: Robin P. Murray
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A Seattle art dealer (Oxenberg) travels to a remote mountain town to convince a talented but reclusive painter (Roberts) to sell his work through her gallery. She soon falls in love with the emotionally damaged man, but even as romance blooms, someone is creeping through the night and murdering women passing through the area. Is the killer the quirky sheriff (Plank), the much-feared town patriarch (Steiger), or the sensitive artist? And will our heroine become one of his victims?

"Frozen in Fear" is a made-for-TV movie that is as much a romantic chick-flick as it is a horror movie, complete with the fantasy of a woman healing a man's soul through the power of love. The cast of characters are basically off-the-shelf figures from gothic romances--and you'll quickly recognize each and every one of them as soon as they are introduced. And you'll eventually realize that none of these thinly written characters, whose actions are driven entirely by plot concerns whether there is any logic to them or not, will never rise above the status of stereotypical figures. The only thing that saves this film from being a total snooze fest is the horror aspect.

But even the presence of a mad killer can't save this film, because, even though there is a mildly clever twist surrounding his identity--at least if one views "Frozen in Fear" as a romance tale first and horror story second--he emerges as such a ludicrous figure that the horror is undermined almost from the outset. And as if the writers wanted to make sure the film remained on the level of trash they throw am ill-conceived "surprise twist ending" that tries to elevate our high mountain stalker to the level of a Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers. The lame ending alone drags this film down a Three Rating when it might otherwise could have been a Four or maybe even a low Five.

I wish this film had been invisible, like its monster

Orloff Against the Invisible Man (aka "Dr. Orloff's Invisible Monster" "The Invisible Dead", and "Secret Love Life of the Invisible Man") (1970)
Starring: Howard Vernon, Francis Valladares, Brigitte Carva, Isabel del Río, Evane Hanska, and Fernado Sancho
Director: Pierre Chevalier
Rating: One of Ten Stars

Mad scientist Professor Orloff (Vernon) has created an invisible, artificial humanoid that he plans to use to conquer the world... while protecting his daughter (Carva) who was traumatized after being buried alive at 16 and nearly murdered by grave robbers when she came to.



Obstensbly a sequel to Jess Franco's "The Awful Dr. Orlof", a surprisingly effective film by Franco standards, "Orloff Against the Invisible Monster" is an embarrassment when compared to it. It can barely stand in comparison to Franco's later pictures and many of those are pretty awful.

In fact, this film is so incoherent and has such a botched, anti-climactic ending that I have to give the director credit for perfectly mimicking all the elements that make most Franco films such piles of garbage... even down to the invisible creature going on a rape-rampage in the film's third act after Orloff decides to unleash it on a serving girl who he thinks betrayed him. But it's not just rape for the sake of rape... Orloff wants to study the creature's sex drive or some such rot. Yep, the creature that is to protect his frail daughter needs to be willing to molest and rape... seems legit! And about as sensible as everything else just about every character does in the picture.

Sometimes, these films are worth sticking with because they offer unintentional comedy or because there's some other sort of pay-off in the end. That is not the case here. What is intended as comedy falls flat or is repulsive, and there is no unintentional comedy anywhere. And if one sticks with the movie in the hopes that things get better, one will be very disappointed, because Chevalier is such a protege/mimic of Jess Franco that he even gives the film an ending so incredibly lame that he may even have topped the master of lame endings himself! (Note to would-be filmmakers: If you don't have the budget to show castle in fiery ruins at the end of your film via a model or stock footage, and don't even have the budget and/or skill or sense to blow a little smoke in front of the camera in an attempt to make it appear the survivors are standing near a burning building, you probably shouldn't end your movie with a fiery climax. Also, don't have your monster get killed by a deus ex machina "plot twist".)

The only things that saves this pile of rubbish from a Zero rating is that Howard Vernon gives an appropriately sinister performance that is actually better than the film deserves. Further, Chevalier does manage to evoke a creepy mood on several occasions, taking full advantage of the real castle and its dark cellars in which the film was shot.

Most viewers will rightfully dislike this movie. However, if you are among those who consider yourselves fans of the Jess Franco Style, you might enjoy this pastiche of his... um... cinematic flourishes.

Jack Palance is great in dual role

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968)
Starring: Jack Palance, Denholm Elliott, Leo Genn, Billie Whitelaw, Oskar Homolka, Gillie Fenwick, and Jeanette Landis
Director: Charles Jarrott
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

After the scientific establishment laughs at his theories that he can eliminate man's baser instincts with a medical treatment, Dr. Jykell (Palance) tests his concoction on himself and is transformed body and mind into the vicious Mr. Hyde (also Palance).



This 1968 made-for-TV movie is perhaps the best screen adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic tale. It is more faithful in tone and spirit than actual content--as I suspect a completely faithful adaptation would be a little boring.

That said, this Dan Curtis-produced film is swathed in London fog (via Canadian sound stages) and is drenched with gothic horror atmosphere. It wastes no time in getting going, and within the first 20 minutes, Dr. Jekyll has unleashed Mr. Hyde, and he's racing down the road to personal destruction and murder.

The film is driven more by excellent dialogue than actual action, but what action there is as thrilling as it is chilling... because Jack Palance is at the top of his game in this film.

Palance is absolutely bone-chilling as Mr. Hyde, showing him as every bit the wild and impulsive figure of Victorian repression unleashed... not to mention pure evil; the scenes where he takes on a group of thugs and later when he torments a woman just because he can are some of the most powerful and dark moments Palance ever had on screen. He also, however, manages to invoke a mixture of sympathy, pity, and occasional disgust, in the viewer with his portrayal of Dr. Jykell, an arrogant and foolish man who lets his dark side run wild just because he can. Jykell's ultimate weakness of character is exposed as the film reaches its climax, and Palance builds it up perfectly with his performance.

This is a must-see for fans of gothic horror, Jack Palance, and just well-made films.

'Tales of Terror' is Roger Corman at his best

Tales of Terror (aka "Edgar Allan Poe's Tales of Terror") (1962)
Starring: Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Basil Rathbone, Leona Gage, Maggie Pierce, Joyce Jameson, and Debra Paget
Director: Roger Corman
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

This is the film that convinced me that Roger Corman actually could make a good movie, when I first saw it. My first exposure to his work was "The Wasp Woman" and "The Terror", not exactly Corman at his best.

"Tales of Terror" is an anthology film that features three shorts loosely adapted from stories by Edgar Allan Poe, and further tied together by the fact that each star Vincent Price in a different role.

First up, we have the chilling and tragic tale "Morella", where a young woman (Pierce) returns to her childhood home in one last attempt to connect with the father who rejected her (Price) after the death of her mother. Moody throughout and downright terrifying at the end, this story is a excellent excursion into the dark corners of the human heart and a fabulous horror story.

Next, we have "The Black Cat", which folds the story of the same name and "A Cask of Amontillado" into one tale of dark comedy as a drunkard (Lorre) ends up in a hum-dinger of a drinking competition with a snooty wine-taster (Price) after he stumbles into an annual wine festival. When he later discovers that wine-taster has been having an affair with his wife, he decides to take drastic action. This tale is characterized by a taut balance between comedy and a brooding sense of dread, with the on-screen interplay between Lorre and Price being a fabulous bit of movie magic. (They're even better here than in "A Comedy of Terrors".)

Finally, we are presented with "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar", an exceedingly creepy tale of a greedy mesmerist (Rathbone) who uses hypnosis to trap the spirit of a dying man (Price) between this world and the next... with terrible consequences for everyone involved. This segment isn't as stunning visually as the first two, but it gets plenty skin-crawly as it builds toward its climax.

The ever-present cheapness in a Corman film is invisible here. I've no doubt that every dollar is present on the screen, but the crew working on this film built some great sets, they're beautifully lit, and the camera work and editing is excellent; the material here looks far better than what I still think of as "typical" Corman. Further, there's no obvious padding to dispel the mood of horror and dread in any of the three stories.

All the principal actors (and even some of the bit-players) give excellent performances. I would even venture that Price might not be the best in this film--Lorre's comedic performance is fabulous, as is Rathbone's turn as a blackhearted villain. (That's not to say that Price isn't great in all the three parts he plays.)

If you like classic horror movies, I'm sure you'll love "Tales of Terror." If you tend to sneer at Corman films, as I used to, maybe this one will show that he can be really, really good when working with the right cast, writers, crew... and when he takes more time than 48 hours to shoot a film.

Meat Loaf: 'It's All Coming Back to Me Now'

Here's another fun and spooky video for a fine Jim Steinman song. All music videos should be this entertaining.

And I thought '2001' had a crappy final reel

Crucible of Horror (aka "The Corpse") (1971)
Starring: Michael Gough, Yvonne Mitchell, Sharon Gurney, and Simon Gough
Director: Viktor Retelis
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Edith (Mitchell) joins with her teenaged daughter (Gurney) in a plot to murder the domineering, sadistic, obsessive-compulsive head of their family (Michael Gough). But something goes wrong....

"Crucible of Horror" is the most bewildering movie I've seen this side of "2001." And in the end, I hate it almost as much.

For most of its running time, it's a nice little gothic thriller that's a bit slow in the uptake and prone to abandon plot threats almost as soon as they are introduced, but it's a fairly solid film until the final 10-15 minutes. Then it all goes to crap.

Oftentimes, with a movie like this, I can say, "Stop watching after this or that happen... you'll still end up enjoying the movie, because you'll never experience the shit that spoils it at the end." That doesn't work with this one, because even if you stop watching, there are so many unresolved plot threads that you won't be satisfied. Sadly, those plot threads NEVER get resolved, and the film ends in such a baffling, nonsensical and convoluted way that even the parts you thought you knew what was going on end up not making any sense in context.

I try not to spoil even the crappy movies--because, after all, one man's trash is another man's treasure--but I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the mother and daughter do not successfully kill their tormentor; it a feature of this type of film--either the dead man isn't dead, someone is posing as him, or he's a ghost. At least I don't think they do. The ending is so messed up that I really can't say for sure, because it is so out of step with the earlier film. I kept holding out hope that what was happening in the movie was that the apparently dutiful son (played by star Michael Gough's real-life son, Simon) had also planned to murder his father and that their plans had gotten tangled in each other. That turns out to not be the case, but it would been a far better movie it had been.

The only thing that saves this film from being relegated to Movies You Should (Die Before You) See is the performance given by Michael Gough. He exudes evil in this rare starring role, and it's a performance that shows that he should have been given more chances to take center stage like this. It's a shame it was wasted on a turd such as this.

The rest of the cast is also decent, and the movies technical aspects for the most part solid... even if I could have done without some of the quick-edit flashbacks and the kooky, trippy dream-sequences.





Trivia: Simon Gough and Sharon Gurney, who play bother and and sister in this film, were actually husband and wife.

'Fangs of the Living Dead' has no bite

Fangs of the Living Dead (1969)
Starring: Anita Ekberg, Julian Ugarte, John Hamilton, Diana Lorys, Adriana Ambesi, and Guy Roberts
Director: Amando de Ossorio
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A model (Ekberg) is summoned to her ancestral home to receive her inheritance. She comes under the influence of her sinister uncle (Ugarte) and the cult of vampires that is forming around him.

"Fangs of the Living Dead" plays like a lobotomized version of "Dracula", with several scenes heavily inspired by the novel and with Ekberg's Sylvia standing in for Jonathan Harker, crossed with a "dark old house" movie and flavored with the graphic sensibilities and tight dresses of 1960s Hammer gothic horror flicks. If the filmmakers had stuck with this approach, the over-the-top acting, the melodramatic dialogue, and the dippy characters would all add up, whether intentional or not, to a hilarious send-up of the gothic horror genre. The overblown soundtrack music only makes it all the more funny. Unfortunately, it's all ruined when writer/director Amando de Ossorio tries his hand at a twist ending that tries to undo everything that unfolded in the film and reduces what was funny to a level of idiocy. And the twist on the twist doesn't help any. In fact, these are such misguided twists that one wonders if everyone involved with the production has severe memory issues, as it doesn't fit with much of what unfolded earlier. (That said, the "twist" itself could be a misfired attempt at spoofing horror movies, which would mean the movie was intended as a send-up all along; in the 1930s and 1940s, it wasn't uncommon for the supposed supernatural elements in a film to be written off through a revelation in the third act that it was all a hoax. The most blatant example of this can be found in "Mark of the Vampire".)

The film is further crippled by the fact that headliner Anita Ekberg is miscast. At 38, she was a bit long in the tooth to play the part of the "naive young heiress" and as a result she comes across more like a blonde so dumb that calling her retarded would be a compliment.

However, for all its weaknesses, the film features some nice cinematography, and the director manages to evoke a chilling atmosphere here and there, especially during the sequence when Ekberg is running around the castle in terror, and the one that riffs on the "Dracula" scene where the heroes wait for the undead Lucy in the graveyard. The drunken village doctor who stands in for the Abraham Van Helsing character is also a great deal of fun... and then there's the vamp-on-vamp battle to the death during the film's climax, one of the great cat-fights in cinematic history.

In the end, though, the bad far outweighs the good. The film rates the lowest possible Three I can give it, and it is only suitable for viewing as part of a Bad Movie Night.

Hammer unmasks the 'Phantom of the Opera'

The Phantom of the Opera (1962)
Starring: Edward DeSouza, Heather Sears, Herbert Lom, Thorley Walters, and Michael Gough
Director: Terence Fisher
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

As if Harry (DeSouza), a young director and producer of operas, didn't have enough problems dealing with the massive ego of the creator and backer of his latest show (Gough), and the backer's unsavory designs upon the young, virginal diva (Sears), the production is plagued with mysterious disasters. Harry soon uncover darks secrets surrounding the production, but will he manage to placate the Phantom of the Opera (Lom) before it is too late for all involved?!

The Hammer version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is the fastest moving, most-visually interesting adaptation of the tale that I've seen. The watery lair of the Phantom is very cool, Heather Sears is a hotty and she also plays nicely off Lom, and Michael Gough is the perfect upper-class slime and wanna-be musical genius who only acheives that status when he steals the life-work of another man. All in all, the cast here is great, and it's another Terrence Fisher-helmed movie that's absolutely gorgeous to behold.

Meat Loaf's 'I Would Do Anything for Love'

It's a great video for one of his greatest recordings. (It was directed by Michael Bay.)

'The Reptile' is Hammer at its most gothic

The Reptile (1966)
Starring: David Baron, Jennifer Daniel, Noel Williams, Jacqueline Pearce, and Michael Ripper
Director: John Gilling
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A retired military officer and his wife (Baron and Daniel) inherit a cottage in a small Cornish village after his brother dies under mysterious circumstances. When he moves there with his wife (Daniel), he discovers that there has been a rash of deaths and that all of them can be attributed to a rare poisonous animal found only in far-away India. The obvious perpetrator behind these dastardly deeds is the reclusive doctor of theology (Williams) who has made a career out of studying obscure religions in the Far East and who keeps his daughter a virtual prisoner in their manor house. But throw in a mysterious swarthy fellow, the daughter’s strangely hypnotic effect on her father when she plays the sitar, and things are a little less clear. Will the newly arrived couple’s only ally in the area (Ripper) help them stop the spreading evil before it consumes them all?

“The Reptile” is the most strongly gothic-in-genre of all the Hammer horror flicks. There’s the ogre-like father and the oppressed daughter; there’s the mysterious Outsiders who are bringing a corrupting influence to wholesome British society, and there are curses and victims and victimizers who may not be what they seem. It’s a well-mounted film that contains several moments of genuine chills.

“The Reptile” would have gotten an 8-Star rating if not for the inexplicable over-acting displayed by all the principles in the first half of the movie; inexplicable because the leads in the film director John Gilling helmed immediately prior to this one (“Plague of the Zombies", which even used many of the same sets) was blessed with beautifully restrained performances that made the film even creepier and more believable. It’s even odder because Michael Ripper gives the same type of understated performance he did in “Plague.”)

As the film evolves, the over-blown performances start to fit with the tenor of the going-ons, but they seem so out of place early in the film that it’s an irritant. The movie’s resolution is also a bit weak, with the title creature going down without much of a fight. The combination of the overacting in the first reel and the shaky climax were enough to knock off a Star. Still, it’s an entertaining film if you enjoy Hammer-style movies or gothic tales.

How awful that Allan is haunted or insane

How Awful About Allan (1970s)
Starring: Anthony Perkins, Julie Harris, and Joan Hackett
Director: Curtis Harrington
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Allan (Perkins), who has been suffering from hysterical blindness since the burning death of his father, is released from an asylum and into the care of his sister (Harris). But mysterious events start occuring around Allan, events that fill his blurry world with terror. Is he being haunted by the ghost of his dead father, is his sister trying to drive him insane, or is it all in his mind?


"How Awful About Allan" is a well-staged and perfectly paced modern-day gothic thriller. With a great cast--among which we see Anthony Perkins giving what might have been the best performance of his career--who were working with an intelligent and well-written script, and a director who knows how to deploy his entire arsenal of set design, cinematography, lighting, sound effects, and music to envoke a sense of mystery and dread.

Despite its humble (and sometimes obvious) television origins, this is a film worth seeking out by anyone who is a fan of gothic tales. ("How Awful About Allan" stands as one of the great achievements of the late Aaron Spelling.)

Sometimes, the murdered won't stay dead

Dominique is Dead
(aka "Dominique" and "The Avenging Spirit") (1978)
Starring: Cliff Robertson, Jean Simmons, Jenny Agutter, Simon Ward, and Ron Moody
Director: Michael Anderson
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

After David Ballard (Robertson) finally murders his rich wife (Simmons), he becomes the center of a series of ever-stranger events. Worse, his wife, Dominique, still appears to be roaming the halls of their mansion. Is it her vengeful ghost back from beyond the grave, or is something even more sinister unfolding?

"Dominique is Dead" is an atmospheric little gothic thriller that's not terribly original in the way it unfolds, but the cast delivers such good performances and the solid story moves along fast enough (with complications delivered at just the right moments) that it is still an enjoyable experience if you like this kind of stories.

'The Hearse' is a so-so ride

The Hearse (1980)
Starring: Trish Van Devere, David Gautreaux, and Joseph Cotten
Director: Gregory Bower
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Jane (Van Devere) is recovering from a nervous breakdown when she decides to spend the summer in a remote house she just inherited from her mother. Once there, she finds the townsfolk less than friendly, with the handsome and mysteriously alluring Tom Sullivan (Gautreaux) being the one exception. Worse, whenever Jane travels the road into town, she is pursued by a massive hearse that no one but she can see... and when its driver starts appearing in the house, it's clear that something strange and possibly supernatural is going on. Or is Jane merely coming unglued?


The flaws with "The Hearse" are many, but two major ones is that the script establishes a level of creepy tension early on and stays there instead of building, and the fact that Trish Van Devere is the only decent performer in the film. She out-acts everyone, partially due to script issues (Jospeh Cotton has nothing to do other than be an obnoxious old man, for example) but also because with few exceptions none of the other "actors" show any acting ability.

Perhaps the greatest problem with the film is the characterization of the sullen citizens of Blackburn town. It's a requirement of a gothic thriller that our mentally troubled protagonist be isolated from any possible help, but "The Hearse takes it a step too far, particuarly in its characterization of the town's sheriff. Even the most corrupt cop wouldn't behave the way he's shown as behaving. Finally, the film's ambigious non-ending leave the viewer wondering, "Hey, shouldn't there be at least three more minutes before those credits start to roll?"

The film does have some technical highpoints, though. The multitude of night scenes are genuine night scenes--no lame night-for-day blue camera filters here!--and they are expertly lit. (There are some issues with the climactic hearse chase scene, but otherwise the crew does a bang-up job.) Also, the sequence where the hearse driver appears in Jane's house for the first time is a genuine shock and fright. It is rare that I am surprised anymore by a "Boo!" sort-of scare in a film, but this one got me good.

'House of the Living Dead' is soul-crushingly boring

House of the Living Dead (aka "Curse of the Dead" and "Kill, Baby, Kill!")(1973)
Starring: Mark Burns, Shirley Anne Field, David Oxley and Bill Flynn
Director: Ray Austin
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A South African plantation is haunted by a madman who starts killing animals but soon graduates to the butchering of people. Will the young lady of the house (Field) get to the bottom of the mysteries of this family she's marrying into... before she becomes a victim herself?


"House of the Living Dead" could have been a nice little gothic horror film if only its 85 minutes or so weren't so soul-crushingly dull. This is a film that takes "gradual build-up" to new extremes, but it does so without successfully building the sense of menace necessary. The last half hour, though, is great, spooky, 19th century mad-scientist/occultist fun... but it's not enough to make the misery of the film's early part worth sitting through.

Like so many bad horror films, "House of the Living Dead" has a great idea at its core, but its execution is completely botched. The actors all do a decent job, but the writer and director fail them. The end result is a movie that is best avoided... unless you're the world's greatest devotee of South African cinema.

Bava gave strong showing in directorial debut (as well as made a star of Barbara Steele)

Black Sunday (aka "The Demon's Mask", "The Mask of Satan" and "House of Fright" and "Revenge of the Vampire") (1960)
Starring: Barbara Steele, John Richardson, Andrea Checchi, Enrico Olivieri and Arturo Dominici
Director: Mario Bava
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A devil-worshipping witch and her consort (Steele and Dominici), executed 200 years ago return from the dead as a strange breed of vampires after a traveler exploring her tomb (Checchi) callously damages the specially built sarcophagus that was supposed to keep them interred forever. The witch sets about claiming revenge against the descendants of those who executed her, as well as trading the body of her last living female relative (also Steele) for her own time-ravaged one.


"Black Sunday", Mario Bava's directorial debut and the film that established Barbara Steele as a horror movie icon on par with Vincent Price and Boris Karloff, has been hailed as a masterpiece in many quarters, and I have finally gotten around to seeing it.

I feel a litle bit like I did when I saw Universal's original "Frankenstein"--I don't think the film is quite worthy of the reputation it has. It's a decent horror flick in the gory-gothic mode that Hammer Films and director Terence Fisher brought to the fore with "Horror of Dracula" and "Curse of Frankenstein", but I did not find this film to be the masterpiece I'd been promised. (I'd even argue that Bava's "Hercules in the Haunted World" and "Diabolik" are both superior to this effort.)

The first and biggest problem the romantic subplot between Our Hero, the dashing Dr. Gorobec (played with perfect blandness by John Richardson) and Damsel-in-Distress Katia (Barbara Steele) falls completely flat because of a near-complete lack of chemistry between the two performers and because it's one of those Insta-Romances that even less believeable than average.

The film also suffers from number of unintentionally silly moments where Bava goes overboard to drive home a dramatic point or to make something clear to the denser members of the audience. The worst (or best, if you're watching the movie for its badness) is when a vampire is sneaking invisibly through the castle halls. Apparently, Bava wanted to make sure we knew the vampire was sneaking invisibly and he didn't feel some ruffled wallhangings or shifted chairs was enough to show it, so he has the vampire knock down everything he passes, including several suits of armor that go clattering loudly to the floor. I found myself wondering what the point of being invisible is if you're so drunk you can't walk straight... and moments later I was laughing when members of the household were claiming they'd been awakened by a terrible scream, but none had apparently heard all overturning of furniture and knocking down of armor that the drunken, blind and/or spastic vampire had been engaging in moments before.

There's also a hilarious bat attack that has got to be among the worst creature effects ever put on film.

That's not to say the film doesn't have some truly scary or cool moments. The opening sequence of the witch's brutal execution is fabulously done, with the hammering of a spike-lined mask onto the woman's face being especially squirm-worthy. The ressurrection sequence of the witch is also very creepy, with lighting, camera angles, and sound effects all being deployed with perfect precision to make it a great scene. Finally, the film's ending is perfectly done (and I can't say much more without spoiling one of the movie's most shocking moments), so, while there are flaws, Bava does get the movie's finale exactly right, a rare feat. Bava's ending is also more modern in nature than many films of this vintage, with a denouement after the main action has concluded.


And, of course, there is Barbara Steele's dual performance as the evil witch and the innocent young woman whose body she is intent on possessing. Steele does a fine job of portraying both characters, undergoing a transformation that almost rivals that the great Boris Karloff did in his great dual role in "The Black Room" (review here.)

While "Black Sunday" may not be the masterpiece some claim it is, it's worth checking out, particularly if you're a fan of Hammer Films-style horror or an admirer of the exotic beauty that is Barbara Steele.