Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 16, 2021 8:45:42 GMT -5
The Phantom of the Opera
After the mysterious murder of a stagehand, an opera based upon Joan of Arc is postponed and in desperate need of a lead actress as the previous one quits. They soon find Christine Charles, a chorus girl with a magnificent voice, and decide she is perfect for the lead. She begins a romance with producer Harry Hunter but also finds herself the victim of unwanted advances by theater owner Lord Ambrose D'Arcy. After refusing Lord Ambrose, Christine finds herself dropped from the opera. Soon after, she is abducted by the mysterious Phantom, who lives in the catacombs underneath the theater, who vows to help her reach her full potential.
It's become a bit of a punching bag for people who look back on Universal's Horror legacy and because of that it's easy to overlook just how big of a hit the 1943 Phantom of the Opera film was. It held great box office performance and even won two Oscars, which is something Universal had never received for a horror film before. Universal was so happy with its success that they immediately commissioned a sequel to it that was to reunite Claude Rains and Susanna Foster as the Phantom and Christine. Rains wound up dropping out and the film was hastily rewritten into The Climax, with Boris Karloff taking what would have been Rains role while keeping the sets of Phantom and the lavish Technicolor cinematography. That movie's not very good.
But Universal was always keen to return to Phantom of the Opera because the 40's film continued to be very popular in reissues. They originally wanted to do a new version in the 50's but it fell through. When they struck a deal with Hammer to do new versions of Dracula and The Mummy, Phantom of the Opera was a project that they specifically brought to them saying "We want a new version of this, will you make it so we can distribute it?" So they did, and it has its fans, but it didn't generate the response Universal was hoping for.
The film is directed by Hammer's go-to, Terrence Fisher, who directed all of Hammer's more successful horror flicks. The movie looks and feels like a Fisher film though it does not have a hugely satisfying pace. The Phantom stays in the shadows for most of the movie, usually whispering from off screen, and becomes an onscreen presence in the final half hour or so. The majority of the movie is more of a romance between the Christine and Harry characters, as they subtly learn more and more about the supposed "Phantom" as time passes. There is no actual romance between the Phantom and Christine that most versions of the story include, chosing to instead show the Phantom more in love with the music and wishing Christine to reach her full potential. There is not a whole lot that's compelling about his scenes with Christine as he just kind of is like "SING BETTER" at her, and as far as that story goes this film is no Whiplash. Then the movie stops in its tracks to tell the Phantom's origin story, which is almost in the place of an actual climax. Harry and the Phantom have something of a verbal confrontation that mostly amounts to the Phantom saying "Let me train her!" and Harry being like "K." Christine sings, is almost crushed by a chandelier, and Phantom saves her then dies. The end.
Even Michael Gough's character, who is a massive scumbag who is both responsible for the Phantom's fate and is sexually harassing Christine, doesn't get a whole lot of comeuppance for the poopie he pulls. The Phantom confronts him and his mask is pulled off, causing Gough to scream and run away. This movie is admirably restrained on Hammer's patented violence that is in most films, but it's also all tease and never follows through on a climax.
Herbert Lom plays the Phantom. He is best known to most film fans as Chief Inspector Dreyfuss, Peter Sellers' Jacques Clouseau character's increasingly irritated superior in the film A Shot in the Dark and the various Pink Panther sequels that followed it up. Lom is a very good actor, but the problem with a role that hides the face and uses large amounts of body language is that the actor playing the role needs strong vocal presence. The creative choice in this particular film is that the Phantom's voice is muffled and he mumbles. It gives his Phantom very little presence, even though the design isn't the worst and Lom is game to use the body language required. Christine is played by Heather Sears, a lovely girl with a lovely voice, and she is an admirable leading lady who feels like she's capable of doing more than this script will allow. The character of Harry was initially written for Cary Grant, and while Grant was eager to play the role for whatever reason it never happened. Edward de Souza instead steps into the role, and while he's no Cary Grant he plays it well.
After the relative underperformance of this version compared to the Lon Chaney and Claude Rains films, Universal cooled their jets on Phantom of the Opera. More would be made, just not by them. Halloween 4 helmer Dwight Little made a film in the 80's starting Robert "Freddy Krueger" Englund. Famed Italian filmmaker Dario Argento did a version in the 90's starring his daughter Asia (of flapjacksing course). And the director of the greatest movie ever made, Batman & Robin, Joel Schumacher did an adaptation of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Broadway musical starring Gerard Butler, for some reason. Even today, everyone seems to go back to Lon Chaney while other versions are swiftly forgotten. There's probably a reason for that.
Side Note: Shout Factory's Blu-ray features an extended cut aired on television that runs 13 minutes longer. The only thing is that it's a washed out video print in full frame. I might watch that in the future to see if it's worth watching.
Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 17, 2021 7:55:19 GMT -5
The Kiss of the Vampire
Newlyweds Gerald and Marianne are trekking across Germany for their honeymoon. They stop for rest and find themselves invited to a local party, which they attend. The next morning Gerald wakes up with Marianne nowhere to be found. He is told he arrived alone and nobody had seen him with a wife. The only person in town who believes him is Professor Zimmer, who believes Marianne was taken by the same vampire cult who had taken his daughter.
This movie could have had an interesting premise if it was told a little differently. If it was less fun spooky in vibe and more psychological there might be a winner here. They had an opportunity to make a mystery story of Gerald's missing bride and what might have happened to her, except we see what happens to her as it plays out. As Gerald is told his wife doesn't exist the film becomes frustrating, bot because we know what happened and Gerald does not, but rather because there is no real suspense as to what happened to her because we already know. It's just a waiting game for Gerald to find out, and the charade becomes tiresome.
I found myself flashing back to "Manos" The Hands of Fate more than a few times during Kiss of the Vampire. Kiss is a much better film, though its premise is a bit similar to the infamous crap classic. Both films involve families getting lost looking for shelter getting stuck in the grip of a cult, who will suck them into their ranks if given the chance. Kiss is also less memorable than Manos, lacking style or scares and being replaced by a frantic and goofy vibe that doesn't work in the film's favor. The vampires are easily trapped by someone drawing a cross on their door and are defeated by invading rubber bats that won't stop bumping into their faces. The one virtue of the ending is that all the female vampires are so busy rolling around in their white robes that they flash the audience with various panty shots. That's about all I got from this movie.
Side Note: Like Phantom of the Opera, there is an extended TV cut on the blu-ray disc, which is also sourced from a full frame video master. This one is only about 5 minutes longer, but its been retitled "Kiss of Evil."
Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 18, 2021 8:01:50 GMT -5
The Old Dark House
Car salesman Tom Penderel drops off a car at an old mansion for his friend Casper, only to find the car accidentally destroyed and Casper dead. Stuck at the mansion, Casper's eccentric family invites Tom to stay with them, though there are crazy things happening in this spooky house.
While most Hammer Horror lists don't list The Old Dark House on them, likely because it's more comedy than horror, I felt compelled to include it because a prior Old Dark House adaptation was made for Universal by none other than James Whale and I was curious to see how it held up.
The credits start rolling...
A Hammer Production
A William Castle Film
::record scratch::
Oh hell. William Castle teamed up with Hammer to remake a James Whale movie? Just what in the flying hell did I get myself into?
(I'm not playing dumb. I literally did not know Castle directed this movie before popping it in)
The first thing I notice about Castle's Old Dark House is that it's much broader, more of a madcap slapstick comedy than Whale's film. It feels a little bit like Jerry Lewis lost in a mansion, only with almost no Jerry Lewis. Gags are often and done with an exclamation point, as they're usually accompanied by musical cues to enhance them. This is an old method they used to use for silent films, where if comedy wasn't hitting they'd underline them with certain music cues like slide whistles and drum beats or whatever. Hearing this in this movie leads me to believe it just wasn't that funny and they were creating the illusion that it was.
It's almost unfair to compare it to Whale's film. Whale had such a devilish sense of humor, and the macabre setting of The Old Dark House suited him well. Castle is the director of House on Haunted Hill, which is a campy and stupid movie but keeps its tongue firmly in cheek and has Vincent Price keeping things dark and somewhat charming. The Old Dark House is missing a Vincent Price figure and it's just not macabre enough. There are a few turns that are kind of fun, but it just doesn't understand the vibe it needs to be aiming at.
Coming Attraction:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 20, 2021 8:08:34 GMT -5
I had a post ready for yesterday, but I had a cut and paste snafu and accidentally deleted it. Didn't have time to rewrite it, but I decided to just do the best I could to double up this morning. The Evil of FrankensteinWhen we last saw Peter Cushing's Frankenstein, he had been nearly beaten to death by an angry mob. With the help of his assistant Hans he successfully transplanted his brain into a new body and lives under the alias "Dr. Frank" so he can continue his experiments in anonymity. Where do we go from here? We don't. Frankenstein is not bound by your limitations of "continuity." The world would be much better without it! And that's what we get, a movie with no concern about what happened previously. Peter Cushing is back as Frankenstein, but that's about it. In the original films the creature was destroyed by falling into a vat of acid, while the story told in this one has him gunned down in the mountainside. Frankenstein was then sentenced to death but escaped his fate, but here that's retconned into him just being exiled. I mean, why bother with continuity. The other movies were years ago and nobody remembers what happened. And it's not like any form of home media will be invented in the future so people can compare everything from one film to another. And in the unlikely event that that happens, only a loser would do that. Lmao. But this version of Frankenstein is forced to return to his hometown with his assistant Hans (presumably the same Hans from Revenge of Frankenstein, but he's played by a different actor and this movie probably doesn't care if it's the same character). They're soon found out by the authorities and take refuge with a mute deaf girl in the mountains, where she houses the frozen corpse of Frankenstein's original monster in her cave. Frankenstein then returns the monster to his castle where he intends to reanimate it back to life with the help of a hypnotist named Zoltan. But Zoltan now has the monster under his control and he intends to use it. Evil of Frankenstein is the only Peter Cushing starring Frankenstein film that was not directed by Terence Fisher. This film was instead directed by Freddie Francis, who helmed the okay-but-not-great Paranoiac and the Mystery Science Theater classic The Deadly Bees. (Don't mind me, I just have to post this every time I bring up The Deadly Bees) Francis's direction is a bit more rudimentary than Fisher's. It's not bad, just more of a lacking sense of style and with no real imagination. It has no flare for macabre or is even that creepy. But with Hammer's dealings with Universal, Francis is actually able to work in more Universal Frankenstein references into his film, including basing the look of the monster off of Boris Karloff's iconic design by Jack Pierce. Hammer's version of that design is not that great, mind you. It's just a large man painted blue with an absurdly lumpy headpiece with mad caveman brow. As for the movie's story, I like the idea of Frankenstein returning home a d rediscovering his original creation but this film is a lackluster delivery of it. The characters here make absurdly poor decisions at every turn, especially Frankenstein, who should be smarter that throwing his impulsive temper tantrum in public that brings him back into the eyes of authorities. (Believe it or not, this still is a plot point) He sees that the town's Burgomaster is wearing his ring (wrapped around the most gratuitous heaving bosom this side of Village of the Giants) and grabs a cop and starts screaming "ARREST HIM!" How exactly Frankenstein expected to charge the man without revealing his identity is up in the air, but I have doubts he was thinking it through. Same with the screenwriters. Victor, you've been here TWO MINUTES!The movie introduces a few new character, including a deaf mute girl who helps Frankenstein out for no reason at all nor does she serve a real purpose to the story. The film's non-monster antagonist is Zoltan the hypnotist, who is big mad because he was denied a permit to make people act like chickens in public. He is used to help wake the monster up and takes control of it to his advantage. It's kind of dumb, and he's a nothing character, so I'm not digging it. While I didn't hate Evil of Frankenstein, it's clearly the worst Hammer Frankenstein film so far. I'd even say it's worse than all of Universal's Frankenstein films, which were all pretty entertaining even in their lowest points. There are more Frankenstein films in Hammer's future. Let's hope series creator Terence Fisher can reanimate this corpse. Double Feature?RIGHT NOW! NightmareAfter seeing her mother stab her father to death, young Janet is plagued by nightmares for years. Things get worse for her as she begins to see the ghostly image of a woman haunting the hallways. Believing her to be the woman haunting her, she stabs the wife of her guardian Henry, killing her. Janet is sent to an asylum, unbeknownst to her that the ghostly woman was actually the nurse Grace, who was plotting with Henry to make Janet snap and murder his wife so she'll take the fall and they'll be free to marry each other. But when the same haunting images start happening to Grace, she begins to suspect Henry is plotting to do the same to her. Released in double features with Evil of Frankenstein, Nightmare is another film directed by Freddie Francis, director of The Deadly Bees. And if you hadn't have told me beforehand I wouldn't have believed it. Nightmare is a far more stylish film than I've ever seen from Francis. The cinematography is spellbinding, the lighting is dynamic and striking, and there are more than a few images that are genuinely chilling. This is one hell of a good looking movie. The twisted nature of the plot isn't quite innovative, but it's fun to keep tabs on it. Nightmare is a solid ride of a horror movie that really kept me interested in the game it was playing. If I took issue with anything, I'd say Moira Redmond could be a bit over-the-top, especially toward the end when she's in hysterics. The film's climax when it stops in its tracks to explain itself is a bit tiresome as well. But I'd say this is probably the best time I've had watching a Hammer movie and it's definitely a legacy highlight. Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 21, 2021 8:40:24 GMT -5
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb
In the year 1900, an expedition has uncovered the tomb of Ra-Antef, as well as Ra-Antef mummified remains. The mummy and the treasure of the tomb are brought back to America for exhibition, but Ra-Antef soon turns up missing. The mummy eventually turns up as a walking corpse, murdering the people who entered its tomb.
This movie is about as much a sequel to Hammer's previous Mummy film as The Mummy's Hand was to 1932's original Mummy, ergo not at all. Hit the thing about mummy movies is that a lot of them essentially have the same premise: people enter a tomb, mummy wakes up, kills people who enter tomb. All of the Kharis Mummy films from the 40's for example are essentially the same movie, just with slightly different surroundings.
Who'd have thought Boris Karloff's original would be the most unique mummy film ever made? That one at least dumped the monster early on and became a gothic romance.
Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is a mummy movie, there's no doubt about that. It pretty much puts its cards on the table of how well made it will be from the first frame, where we see some atrocious stock shots of a real desert intermixed with one of the fakest desert sets you'll ever see. The movie just kind of stumbles around with that sort of carelessly cheap nonchalance for a while. It presumes we want to get to know the characters, which isn't all that rewarding an experience as they're thinly written and our leading lady is horrendously dubbed with a humorously thick French accent. Spending time with these characters is not my idea of a good time.
It takes a while for the movie to get going, as the mummy finally appears fifty-five minutes into an eighty minute movie. Suddenly the movie starts trying to be a real movie at this point and starts putting effort into cinematography and atmosphere. There are ever some interesting twists involving some of the characters as well. The mummy himself looks as if he's made of plaster, though suit actor Dickie Owen has better body movement than Christopher Lee had. Too bad it's a boring mummy design.
The last twenty-five minutes are amusing enough to save my waning interest even if the whole movie is a dud. It saves it from being my least favorite Hammer flick at any rate, which still goes to The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll. If the movie didn't start becoming a little fun at that point it might have been a closer race though.
Double Feature?
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 22, 2021 9:29:21 GMT -5
The Gorgon
Over the past five years in Europe, seven people have turned to stone overnight during the full moon cycle. The father of one of the latest victims believes the creature to be Megeara, a Gorgon from mythology, a cursed woman who could turn people who meet her gaze into stone. He is also turned to stone, as his son comes upon learning of his father and brother's demise, he continues his father's search.
I didn't look into what film played first in the double feature of The Gorgon and Curse of the Mummy's Tomb. In situations like Curse of the Werewolf/Shadow of the Cat, it was clear which was A and which was B. Evil of Frankenstein/Nightmare feels like Frankenstein was A and Nightmare was B because Frankenstein had marquee value and Peter Cushing was the star while Nightmare was black and white, which was fairly archaic by 1964. It just so happened that the B movie was better than the A in that case. The Gorgon was likely the A movie in this particular double feature as it has the combined might of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Terence Fisher, together for the first time since The Mummy. Mummy's Tomb is just cheap and bad. Whatever the case, if they came out on the same date I decided to watch them in alphabetical order, so I wound up watching Gorgon second.
I quite liked this one. It was familiar Hammer horror but with a different flavor. Part of it maybe has to do with Christopher Lee getting to play the hero for once instead of the monster. Also we have a lady monster this time, and the Gorgon herself is kept mostly in the distance throughout the movie, while usually filmed at odd angles so we don't directly look at her, likely to maintain the illusion that meeting her gaze will turn someone to stone.
The special effects could use some sprucing up though. The Gorgon herself has rubber snakes stuffed in her hair and it looks a little silly. The finale can be a bit of a dumpster fire, as there is a careless cutting back and forth between actors and obvious stunt performers throughout. Meanwhile the decapitation of the title monster results in a close-up of a hilarious plastic head rolling around. That said, I enjoyed the make-up of people who were turning to stone and thought it was quite effective.
In a surprise, the inspector character here is played by former (then-future) Doctor Who Patrick Troughton. Apparently he also had a role in Phantom of the Opera but I missed it. Here he has a haircut and a little moustache, so it's good to know he didn't always look like the British Moe Howard. Incidentally, fellow Doctor Who Jon Pertwee had a role in the Hammer comedy The Ugly Duckling. As far as I know I won't be seeing any more Doctor Who actors in this marathon, but I'll keep my eyes peeled.
The end of the film is very bittersweet as the evil is defeated but at a great cost. It's almost Hamlet-like in the amount of people who had to die to have the story reach its conclusion. But it's melancholy nature is satisfying.
Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 23, 2021 9:02:17 GMT -5
Dracula: Prince of Darkness
Two wedded couples are abandoned by their superstitious coach driver near near the castle of Count Dracula. They take refuge in the castle and are waited on by Dracula's servant Klove, who claims that his master is long since dead. Little do they know that Klove soon attempts to resurrect his vampiric master and intends the residents to be his fist prey.
It had been about seven to eight years since Christopher Lee played Dracula, having sat out Brides of Dracula which was instead a Peter Cushing vehicle. I'm not sure if it was reluctance to repeat the role or not but somebody finally came up with the bright idea of bringing him back and he said yes. Prince of Darkness keeps in tune with the latter portion of Horror of Dracula and Lee stays silent throughout the film, playing more of a Jason Voorhees style kill machine than a character. Lee claims his dialogue was so bad that he refused to read it, though the screenwriter claims he never had any dialogue to begin with. There seem to be moments where Dracula could have had dialogue, choosing instead to hiss or stare, but if he had any they clearly didn't lose much.
Prince of Darkness starts out as more of an Old Dark House riff than Hammer's Old Dark House was. While it takes a while to get moving with some overly simple characters, it gets to a showstopping resurrection scene for Dracula which is actually quite creepy. This leads to the residents getting into an intense row with Dracula which is so fun that it's hard to believe it's not the finale. But there is still a half hour left to the movie and it slows down a peg. There are some sequences that are quite nice, and they do give Dracula a solid death scene that isn't a recycle of his previous one, though it just never gets back to that high note.
Interestingly the Shout Factory Blu-ray of this film has two different versions, one for the US and one for the UK. At first glance they're identical, only the US print runs about ten seconds longer because it has the 20th Century Fox logo at the start. I looked up what the reason for these two cuts was and apparently the US version muted the colors a bit to make it darker. I guess that's neat, but I'd never watch it. Taking away color from a Hammer film seems sacrilegious to me.
Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 24, 2021 8:38:42 GMT -5
The Plague of the Zombies
A village in the nineteenth century finds its inhabitants dying to a mysterious plague. As outsiders help investigate they find that there may be murder and graverobbing involved as well. It soon becomes known that someone in the town is using voodoo to reanimate the dead and turn them into slaves. But why?
Plague of the Zombies was made partially as a part of a new production distribution deal with 20th Century Fox as Hammer utilized a cost saving maneuver to film four horror films utilizing the sets constructed for Dracula: Prince of Darkness. This film was filmed using those sets to play in double features with Prince of Darkness, while the next two were filmed as their own double feature.
The resulting film has very strong moments in it. The zombies themselves are mostly unnerving and the masked voodoo element keeps things mysterious and intense. However I find myself not caring about this film too much in spite of its strengths. I find the acting wooden and the characters not too engaging. When the movie is action and atmosphere it stands out, when it's exposition it's a bore.
Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 25, 2021 7:55:35 GMT -5
Rasputin, the Mad Monk
Loosely based on the life of Grigori Rasputin, Christopher Lee plays Rasputin, a monk that has the power to heal and control minds with his touch. Rasputin uses his power to get close to the local royalty, but he sees opposition by those hurt by his actions and even betrayal by his allies as his actions grow more cruel.
This film was directed by Don Sharp, who directed Kiss of the Vampire, and if I didn't look it up I probably wouldn't have figured it out. Rasputin is a much more assured production and a far more entertaining film. Sharp also directed Christopher Lee in The Face of Fu Manchu and The Brides if Fu Manchu, which were the first of Lee's tenure as the notorious/infamous/offensive literary villain (Lee's fifth film, Castle of Fu Manchu, was featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000). One tidbit I find interesting from this film's Wikipedia page is that Sharp has met both the man who killed the real life Rasputin, Felix Yusupov, and Rasputin's daughter Maria. I have no idea what the latter thought of the film itself, but it sounds like she would have hated it as she had a high opinion of her father.
I have no actual knowledge of what Rasputin's actual life was like, though at a glance this appears to be a fantastical and heightened take on who he was, to create an effective villain for Lee to play. And Lee is absolutely fantastic here, as he is so lively and menacing, and it's great to see him play an antagonist with actual dialogue in one of these films. He is fully in control of the film and is mostly why it works, historical liberties or not.
Coming Attractions: ::vague gesture to last trailer::
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 26, 2021 7:54:33 GMT -5
The Reptile
After inheriting a cottage, a newlywed couple travels to a small village which has been battling a plague that has taken several villagers. But as they see more people die to the plague, it starts to seem as if they are the victims of a bite from a mysterious creature, and it may have something to do with their new neighbors, the agitated Dr. Franklyn and his seemingly abused daughter Anna.
The last on the four films they filmed using the Dracula: Prince of Darkness sets, The Reptile is a fairly simple little monster movie. I kinda dug it, as it was just an undemanding little mystery as we play the waiting game for the title monster to appear. The exposition for the origin of the monster is interesting though vague. It almost seems like it could be a movie itself.
The creature effects are a little cheesy but I like the design. I also liked the fact that the Reptile was a rare lady monster for Hammer, and Jacqueline Pearce does well as the creature. I enjoyed the creative play they had with her creature concept, as we see shed skin in her bed and her venom creating the illusion of a plague. The creative concepts for this particular creature are rich and constantly entertaining.
It's one of those monster movies that won't set the world on fire but is enjoyable in the moment.
Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 27, 2021 8:06:33 GMT -5
The Witches
Not to be confused with the Roald Dahl novel (which hadn't been published yet) or its adaptations, The Witches sees Joan Fontaine play a schoolteacher named Gwen who takes on a new class in a remote village. While there she encourages and gives guidance to many youths, including a talented student named Ronnie and his would-be girlfriend Linda. One day Ronnie falls into a coma, leading Gwen down the rabbit hole of the town's dark secrets and how dark forces may have something sinister planned for Linda.
The Witches starts out very promising. I like how the film starts out with former Hitchcock leading lady Joan Fontaine (in her last feature film) as a mostly unassuming schoolteacher as she is just trying to establish relationships with her new students. If it weren't for the witch doctor/voodoo opening, there would be little evidence that this was a horror movie at all. The movie slowly becomes more odd and unnerving as it goes on, as she begins to notice townspeople doing strange things and weird things going on.
The third act kind of whizzes down its leg though. The movie seems focused on keeping its tone intact, but it seemingly doesn't notice that a bit of its aesthetic has drifted into camp. The film then becomes a bizarre mixture of dread and silliness that becomes hard to pin down. I admire the films determination to see itself through to the end, but it feels like it tripped on its landing then bounced up and said "I'm okay!" and acted like nothing happened.
The music is pretty good though. A lot of its tone comes from its score. The Witches is probably worth a watch based on that alone, just don't expect it to end on a high note.
Coming Attractions:
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Oct 31, 2021 20:03:46 GMT -5
I was sick the last few days. Got halfway through The Mummy's Shroud and I was like "Wow this movie sucks" and watched poopie I'd rather be watching instead.
I still have quite a few Hammer movies left, even if I had finished the month. I'll get to them later but I'm going to take a break for a while.
|
|