|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 23, 2018 18:23:53 GMT
Quatermass and the Pit works differently. In that one, yes, the alien threat is defeated, but the ending suggests humans are the aliens. It ends on a negative.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 27, 2018 17:21:50 GMT
To drag us (kicking and screaming) a wee bit more on topic, what’s everyone’s least favorite Hammer flick? Or how about this classification: best, worst, most underrated, most overrated (though I don’t really like that word…), most fun (which isn’t necessarily the same thing as “best”), least fun? And for this I suppose we should keep with the Gothic monster flicks just to keep it straightforward. For me… Best: Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, 1969 Worst: Taste the Blood of Dracula, 1970 Most Underrated: Scars of Dracula, 1970 Most Overrated: Horror of Dracula, 1958 Most Fun: three-way tie of The Brides of Dracula, 1960/ The Evil of Frankenstein, 1964/ Night Creatures, 1962 Least Fun: Most of the Dracula flicks, which I find extraordinary boring! Seriously, maybe The Devil Rides Out? Great material, and it’s as dull as dishwater. It’d certainly win for “most disappointing.”
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 27, 2018 19:24:10 GMT
Best: Too hard to choose because it depends on criteria Worst: The Old Dark House Underrated: Hands of the Ripper Overrated: Probably Horror of Dracula but the significance of the innovations it brought to the genre cannot be exaggerated Most Fun: Night Creatures/The Lost Continent/Scars of Dracula/Sister Hyde Least Fun: Demons of the Mind
Taste the Blood of Dracula is considered one of the best in the Dracula series. Funny too, the Dracula series was more financially successful than the Frankenstein series, but I think the quality of the latter was more consistent.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 27, 2018 19:36:18 GMT
Best: Too hard to choose because it depends on criteria Worst: The Old Dark House Underrated: Hands of the Ripper Overrated: Probably Horror of Dracula but the significance of the innovations it brought to the genre cannot be exaggerated Most Fun: Night Creatures/The Lost Continent/Scars of Dracula/Sister Hyde Least Fun: Demons of the Mind Taste the Blood of Dracula is considered one of the best in the Dracula series. Funny too, the Dracula series was more financially successful than the Frankenstein series, but I think the quality of the latter was more consistent. I do too. Cushing’s constantly great in the series. One entry that really surprised me was Evil; I think it’s underrated in that it’s a little different from the norm (the Baron’s slightly more sympathetic) and more Universal-esque. For a pure Monster flick, though, it’s tons of fun (same with Scars of Dracula). I just can’t get through Taste the Blood of Dracula, and God knows I’ve tried. I thought the whole thing was self-serious and goofy, and the scene with poor Ralph Bates (pretty great in Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde) just had me laughing out loud (oh, and Lee solemnly intoning, “The first…the second…the third…”!). Which is all too bad, as I like the idea they were going for. There’s a late John Dickson Carr novel ( Fire, Burn!, if I’m remembering correctly) with a scene in a brothel/decadent club, and I always thought Anthony Hinds or someone had to have read that. It came out the year before Taste the Blood, and the brothel scenes are just too close for it to be coincidence. (Carr’s novel is set around the same time as the movie, too.) While a few scenes work, I think, once Lee appears the pace goes completely dead (no pun intended). I think I would have liked it better as originally planned, with Ralph Bates as the Dracula-esque figure. I haven’t seen The Old Dark House or Hands of the Ripper. Heard the first is an abomination, though.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 27, 2018 19:59:56 GMT
I just can’t get through Taste the Blood of Dracula, and God knows I’ve tried. I thought the whole thing was self-serious and goofy, That's what makes it refreshing to me. It takes the fantasy seriously, and unlike today, the actors are of a much higher caliber so it is a more energetic kind of seriousness (the Lord of the Rings has one of those moments when Ian McKellan is facing the Balrog and shouts "you shall not pass!" That's the type of old fashioned approach I am talking about). Lord Courtley was an interesting character-I could have used more of him. The poor guy does what they want--and when they refuse to drink the blood and dare him to do it--he does, and then for his trouble they kick him! Geoffrey Keen's father character is also intriguing since he isn't the standard wicked patriarch--they give him a sympathetic moment. You have me curious about the novel you cited though. As a "we don't really have the budget to do Dracula so what can be do as a variation on it?" story I think its a decent effort at re-imagining. But the shots of Dracula throwing things in the church is very un-becoming. The score is one of the most memorable too. Dracula was added at studio insistence and while I always welcome Lee's appearances, he is not really needed for the story--a re-animated Courtley could have worked about as well I think). There was a claim Vincent Price was considered for the movie, but I am not sure who he could have been. Keen's role? I think Dracula coming back to get revenge for his servant is a bad reason. That reminds me of the One Million Years BC-Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth films actually--one impressive thing with those is how deadly serious the Shakespeare trained actors take the gibberish they have to speak! Patrick Allen comes to mind. Such professionalism. It's impressive they could keep a straight face and buy into the story as if it was Macbeth.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 30, 2018 0:31:04 GMT
I really like Horror of Dracula. Cushing is by far my favorite Van Helsing. Wasn't as big on Curse of Frankenstein or The Mummy. Found Hound of the Baskervilles and The Vampire Lovers forgettable. Saw The Nanny as a kid and remember it being solid.
Of the newer ones, I found Let Me In a pointless remake and The Woman in Black a bland jumpscare fest with a decent ending.
|
|
|
Post by Raimo47 on Apr 30, 2018 1:35:58 GMT
Favorite Hammers:
1. Horror of Dracula 2. Dracula: Prince of Darkness 3. Taste the Blood of Dracula 4. Dracula Has Risen from the Grave 5. Scars of Dracula
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Apr 30, 2018 3:22:29 GMT
Favorite Hammers: 1. Horror of Dracula 2. Dracula: Prince of Darkness 3. Taste the Blood of Dracula 4. Dracula Has Risen from the Grave 5. Scars of Dracula I detect a pattern.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 1, 2018 8:12:42 GMT
Salzmank, I think earlier you said something about Universal and Gothic horror, I may have mentioned it already but you know what film I think has a Universal horror kind of vibe in parts? Michael Mann's Manhunter. The Tooth Fairy character, especially his relationship with the blind woman--the Man Who Laughs, Bride of Frankenstein--coincidence? There's something of the 1930s pathos in there.
Evil of Frankenstein has a mute woman who speaks to the frozen creature (Hinds really knew how to crank up the pathetic), and the Hands of the Ripper has a blind woman (although the "monster" is a woman too so not quite in keeping with the traditions).
Anyway I am rambling a bit before bedtime but Hands of the Ripper really deserves more scrutiny. This was the EMI period when Hammer was no longer getting Hollywood support. It's a mixed bag but HOTR shows they could still come up with an innovative concept within the parameters of their original Victorian mandate--and without either Lee or Cushing. My favorite line is when Eric Porter bumps into the prostitute (who was the Ascot fantasy girl from A Clockwork Orange) and she says: Don't squeeze the fruit unless you're buying it!
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on May 1, 2018 18:31:55 GMT
I've watched the majority of the Hammer films I've seen over the last few years around Halloween. One year it was all the Dracula movies, another year it was the Frankenstein movies. The Frankenstein series was better, overall, in my opinion. The Dracula series had a few stinkers. One of the best, The Brides of Dracula, didn't even have Dracula. The Frankenstein movies focused on the madman Dr. Frankenstein himself and his ruthless quest to create life from the dead, good stuff!
I've seen a few of the Mummy movies, but not all of them. I like their version of Sherlock Holmes too. One movie that has escaped me so far, but I've heard good things about is their one werewolf movie, The Curse of the Werewolf, with Oliver Reed.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 2, 2018 3:14:19 GMT
Hands of the Ripper is one I haven’t seen, Primemovermithrax Pejorative, and I think I’ve only ever seen Manhunter in bits and pieces. Interesting observations, though. Lebowskidoo 🦞, yeah, I think we all think the Frankies are better than the Dracs. Brides is my favorite of the latter series too, though I think their best vampire flick (though far from perfect) is probably The Kiss of the Vampire.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 2, 2018 5:42:09 GMT
THESE ARE THE DAMNED is another Hammer film that has developed a reputation with time. I have seen it once but probably should re-assess it.
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on May 4, 2018 11:11:40 GMT
I picked up the 21 film Hammer Collection a few years ago on DVD, the price was pretty hefty but I had been wanting it for a while and just ended up one day purchasing it on "impulse". Sadly I think none of the films were subtitled and it would become a bit of a problem later on as some seemed to suffer from very bad sound quality or were very uneven and stuff like that is always annoying. As a bonus the box-set featured several post cards or lobby cards from most of the titles included.
Anyway, I was exepecting far better quality than what I ended up with, and specially far more horror related films as the box seemed to focus or sell it as a horror themed release, but there were some truly awful and extremely dull/boring movies which should have never been included in the first place and they ended up dragging the whole thing down several notches. However, it did come with some nice surprises, such as the psychological thriller The Nanny.
My favorite of all of the Hammer Horror films that I have seen so far is without a doubt Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969).
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on May 10, 2018 19:16:11 GMT
Watched The Curse of Frankenstein 1957 yesterday, and it's always interesting to see a movie one has heard about, but the follow-up is a much better movie. It was more a melodrama with horror elements. Oakley Court that was used in exterior shots as Frankenstein's house is nowdays a luxury hotel, and for a little while housed Hammer's little office in the late 1940s.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 10, 2018 19:41:23 GMT
Great picture of Oakley Court there, teleadm—I wonder if Disney used it as an inspiration for the Floridian Haunted Mansion? They look alike. I agree that Revenge is superior; Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is my favorite Hammer, but the whole Frank series is interesting (and much better than the Drac one).
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 11, 2018 1:15:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on May 11, 2018 16:06:38 GMT
Nalkarj Seeing them both nearly side by side I can see similarities between Oakley Court and Disneyland's Haunted House. Not impossible if Walt Disney once had seen it while travelling, and making a sketch out of memory, and told his architects and constructors to build something like that. The Hammer Frankenstein's follows the crazy doctor, unlike Universal's who follows the monster. Universal was breathing down the necks of Hammer if there was any similarities between the movies threatening to sue, with the exception of the public domain parts that they couldn't touch. So I can understand that when they did the follow-up they could work more freely to creating stories.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 11, 2018 16:41:52 GMT
Well, without going too far off-topic, teleadm, we know that the one in Florida was based on this picture from a book we know the Disney people owned: But Oakley Court does seem pretty close too. I wonder if one of the Disney architects did happen to remember it. What you said about the Frankenstein seres is accurate, of course, but Curse of Frankenstein is already pretty different from the ’31 Universal version. And by the time Evil of Frankenstein (in which, ironically, Baron Frankenstein is at his least ‘evil’) came along and Universal was distributing the Hammer flicks, many Uni elements (the flat-headed Monster, the Monster in the ice, the creation story, etc.) were brought in.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 2, 2018 18:33:30 GMT
I rewatched SCREAM OF FEAR. For some reason I forget these Jimmy Sangster psychological horror films-they tend to blur together for me. Anyway it is expertly made but I think the basic gist of it is very contrived.
The scene where she sees the body in the room for the first time. Given that she is putting on an act, should she really react like that? No one was watching-or do we assume that someone was? Secondly, the chauffeur and the wheel chair on the cliff.
Would his first instinct be to push it--or to wonder how the hell the occupant survived?
I just think it hinges on character behavior that is insincere and I don't count it as "Hammer horror" since it doesn't have a supernatural element.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Dec 7, 2020 19:54:27 GMT
For some reason I rewatched the first half of Hammer’s The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960, dir. Terence Fisher) last night; I’m intending to finish it tonight. I liked it much more than I did the last time I saw it: the filmmaking isn’t half as good as the 1931 Rouben Mamoulian/Fredric March version, but it’s a heckuva lot better than the dull 1941 Spencer Tracy version.
I’ve seen some critics complain that Christopher Lee should have played Jekyll and Hyde, but he’s great here as Jekyll’s Dorian-Grayish friend.
Unfortunately, Paul Massie, who does play Jekyll/Hyde, doesn’t convince in either role. The concept is great—Jekyll is boring, middle-aged, and shy, while Hyde is charismatic, handsome, and worldly—but Massie’s not terribly interesting in either characterization. Jekyll is so boring that I had no real interest in watching him, and Hyde is too obviously evil from the get-go.
Yet the pace is good, which is not always a given for a Hammer horror, and Hammer star director Terence Fisher makes the most of just a few sets. Will chime in with my thoughts on the rest when I finish it.
|
|