Film Review: The Last Witch

"The Last Witch"
** (out of ****)

Watching the Spanish horror movie "The Last Witch" (2015) makes you realize just how influential "The Blair Witch Project" (1999) was and how it created a whole new sub-genre of horror movies - the found footage movie.

To be honest, I never found "The Blair Witch Project" scary or interesting. I also didn't care for last year's sequel / reboot, "Blair Witch" (2016). I don't find the concept of the found footage movie scary in general. The gimmick is more of a distraction than anything else. The hand-held camera work is bad. The "naturalistic" acting is bad. The dialogue is bad and never comes across as natural, especially when it needs to get across certain plot details. And finally, the movies aren't scary. Listening to a group of characters talking about noises they hear in the wind is not my idea of a good time.

On the flip side though the movies are inexpensive. Young filmmakers can easily make one of these movies. You don't need well known actors to appear in them, it defeats the "this is real life not a movie" illusion. You can use natural lightening and don't have to worry if anything is properly lit. You can shot on location, like in a forest, and don't need to build sets. You don't need a musical soundtrack, so you don't have to worry about copyright laws. In general, if someone really wanted to make a movie, the found footage movie would be a cheap way to go.

This is what I thought about watching "The Last Witch", the feature-length directorial debut of Carlos Almon Munoz. Munoz, a horror movie enthusiast, is only 25 years old and 23 when he made "The Last Witch". Within itself, that's great. A young man was able to make a movie and fulfill a dream.

But does that make "The Last Witch" interesting to watch? This is essentially a rip-off of "The Blair Witch Project" in Spanish. Three young friends decide to investigate the legend of "the last witch". In 1619 six women were accused of witchcraft. They were tortured and hung, all except for one. What happened to the last witch? Our three lead characters will head out to a forest to find the home of the witch, Joanna Toy (Clara Gayo).

This part of the story is supposed to be based on fact. In Spain, in the town of Terrassa, there were witch trails, just as there were in other parts of Europe, and five women were executed. The twist to Munoz's story is there was a witch that got away.

And with this set-up we get the predictable hike in the woods, riveting shots of trees and leaves and the characters' shoes. We get the dialogue about noises in the wind but to the movie's credit, we can actually hear the noises too. There also isn't much of the "I feel strange standing here" dialogue. Where one character tells another character he has a bad feeling and can sense something is wrong. Cinematically, that isn't scary.

The problem however is the plot isn't developed enough to sustain a nearly 90 minute movie. By the end of "The Last Witch" I was more confused than anything else, questioning characters' motivations. Some of those motivations seem to come out of left field. Director Munoz doesn't offer any clues to build suspense.

There is also the issue of the characters. They do not feel complete and distinctive from one another. We follow Sandra (Paula Pier), Mario (Alfonso Romeo) and Eduardo (Jorge Gallardo). With the exception that Sandra is a woman, you can't really tell these characters apart. The movie doesn't take its time to establish them as people. The main objective of the movie is merely to place these pawns in scary situations.

The best decision Munoz makes however is we actually see the witch. We see what the lead characters are afraid of. Some won't like that decision. The idea behind "The Blair Witch Project" was, what we don't see is what scares us. But what we saw (the wind and leaves) bored me. Being able to see a villain added slightly to my involvement.

The problem becomes overkill. Munoz creates the idea of a cult that worships Joanna Toy. Members of the cult follow the three young friends in the forest. They seem to appear out of nowhere and rarely speak. The majority of the time they are figures seen at a distance. However this is done too often. I find in horror movies, less is more. The threat of the villain should always loom over the characters but you shouldn't see the villain too often. It diminishes the character and takes away from the suspense. The more times you see something, the less scary it becomes.

We see the witch too as she directly speaks to one of the characters, explaining her revenge. It may have been a better idea if the character didn't speak. Joanna's motivation for revenge is well explained by the other characters. There is no need for an additional speech from Joanna.

Munoz describes "The Last Witch" as a labor of love. It very well may have been but the movie never seems to rise above amateur level, and I don't think that was deliberate. A found footage movie is difficult to pull off. The odds are against it succeeding. When it works, as in the case of "Paranormal Activity" (2009), it can be very effective. When it doesn't work the leaves a viewer feeling unsatisfied and exposes how silly the entire found footage concept really is. Unfortunately, "The Last Witch" falls into the latter category.

The movie can currently be seen on Amazon Video, POV Horror Roku and POV Horror Amazon Fire TV.

Film Review: Dracula: Dead & Loving It

"Dracula: Dead & Loving It"  *** (out of ****)

Mel Brooks takes the bite out of vampire movies in "Dracula: Dead & Loving It" (1995).

"Dracula: Dead & Loving It" turned out to be the final feature-length comedy written and directed by Mel Brooks. By the time "Dracula" was made the public attitude towards Brooks had changed. Once believed to be one of the funniest men making movies, Brooks' best days were behind him. He repeated gags from previous movies. He got by on reputation alone. Audiences didn't flock to see his movies anymore.

Within this context you can see what Brooks was hoping for with "Dracula". Many consider "Young Frankenstein" (1974) to not only be one of Mel Brooks' best movies but one of the funniest comedies of all-time. What if Brooks could strike lightening twice? What if he could do to Dracula what he did to Frankenstein? If nothing else it would serve as a nice companion piece.

Unfortunately "Dracula" didn't restore the Brooks brand. The movie wasn't a comeback. Not that it matters but the box-office was poor and critical reaction was negative. "Dracula" would prove to be a rehash of Brooks jokes from better movies. Even the title of the movie is recycled from one of Brooks' comedies, the television show, "Get Smart", which Brooks was a co-creator of and co-wrote the series pilot. "And loving it" was a catchphrase of the Maxwell Smart character used to emphasis his approval of something. For example, if Smart was told he would be in great danger on a mission, he would respond by saying "and loving it".

It's not a good idea but if we were to compare "Young Frankenstein" and "Dracula" you would see a major difference in the approach to comedy. With "Young Frankenstein", perhaps because of Gene Wilder, more attention was paid to the story. The movie is funny but the jokes naturally arise from the situations and characters. It doesn't feel forced. "Young Frankenstein", like other successful comedy / horror movies, takes the horror part serious and understands you essentially have two movies in one. "Young Frankenstein" treats the Frankenstein background story serious. With "Dracula" the movie throws five jokes a minute at the dart board hoping one will hit the bullseye. Eventually one will hit but you have to sit through a lot of failed attempts. Brooks makes no attempt to show Dracula as a menacing figure. He doesn't create atmosphere.

Mel Brooks is well known for satirizing movie genres, i.e. the western, science-fiction, horror, Hitchcockian suspense, but, with "Dracula" Brooks isn't creating a satire of the horror genre, he is merely making fun of a specific movie. That is the key difference. Brooks has created a cartoon version of Dracula.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. There is something about "Dracula" that makes it worth watching. Yes, its true, this is not a great Brooks comedy. And, yes, it is true this is not a great example of comedy / horror. But, I laugh and smile at the movie. It is silly. It is silly for the sake of being silly. That's an approach that doesn't always work. But when it does, it can really make you laugh. Think "Airplane" (1980) , "The Naked Gun" (1988) or "Scary Movie" (2000).

"Dracula" gets most of its visually cues from the classic 1931 version starring Bela Lugosi and (at the time) the more contemporary version directed by Francis Ford Coppola in 1992. In large part Brooks uses these two movies to make his casting choices. For example Brooks, who plays Van Helsing, looks like a lot like Anthony Hopkins take on the character from the Coppola version. Peter MacNicol, who plays Renfield, directly channels Dwight Frye who played the role in the original. Among the cast, it is MacNicol that stands out. 

This is an example of something other Mel Brooks comedies are guilty of as well. The audience must have a good understanding of what is being spoofed. You have to be familiar with the 1931 movie and know the famous lines to get the joke in Brooks' movie. When we first see Count Dracula (Leslie Nielsen) in his castle, standing atop of flight of stairs, greeting Renfield, a bat flies pass Dracula, and in typical Brooks fashion, poops next to Dracula's shoe. Dracula tells Renfield, "children of the night. What a mess they make." Funny? Maybe if you knew the original line it might be. In the original Dracula hears a wolf howl and says, "children of the night. What music they make." Funny now? There's also the famous mirror scene in the original version which Brooks magnifies and creates one of the best comedy sequences in the movie. The sequence, like the movie as a whole, is funny on its own but funnier if you know the source of inspiration.

From a narrative standpoint "Dracula" nearly follows the original version exclusively, except for a scene where a vampire is killed by a stake in the heart, which recalls Coppola's version. It is also a stand out comedy sequence.

Renfield arrives by stagecoach to Transylvania where he learns about the legend of Count Dracula, whom he is supposed to visit, regarding a real estate transaction. The villagers believe Dracula is a vampire and beg Renfield not to travel further once the sunsets. That is the time Dracula roams the country side looking for blood. Renfield will not be persuaded and travels on.

Dracula puts a spells on Renfield, turning him into his slave. Together they travel to London, where Dracula has just purchased property. Here he meets Dr. Seward (Harvey Korman, doing a Nigel Bruce impression), his daughter Mina (Amy Yasbeck), her fiance, Jonathan Harker (Steven Weber) and Dr. Seward's ward, Lucy (Lysette Anthony).

Lucy has fallen terribly ill and when two small puncture marks are discovered on her neck, Dr. Seward calls his old friend, Professor Van Helsing, for help. It is Van Helsing's belief, this is the work of a vampire. And so the hunt begins.

It is a well known story that actor Leslie Nielsen began his career appearing in dramatic movies, undoubtedly best known for his roles in "Forbidden Planet" (1956) and "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972) and late in life made a change to comedy, after appearing in "Airplane", which lead to starring in a series of "Naked Gun" movies and other similarly styled comedies such as "Spy Hard" (1996) and "Wrongfully Accused" (1998).

On paper a pairing between Brooks and Nielsen would seem to be comedy gold. Two men with a strong reputation in the spoof genre should have been able to make comedy magic happen. I can't say Nielsen does anything wrong performance wise here. Besides a bad Hungarian accent (why do my people have to be forever associated with vampires?) Nielsen plays Dracula no different than he played Frank Drebin although I sense Nielsen is "winking" more at the camera here. He shows he is in on the joke. Most of the actors do the same. No one is playing it straight, except at times MacNicol, but when playing a character that eats insects, it is hard not to play it broadly.

As he does in other movies, Brooks also throws in references to things unrelated to the genre being spoofed. The Nigel Bruce impression for example. Movie fans will know Bruce as Dr. Watson from the Sherlock Holmes movies of the 40s with Basil Rathbone. Brooks' wife, the late Anne Bancroft, makes a cameo appearance as a gypsy who warns Renfield not to travel to Dracula's castle. Her name in the movie? Madame Ouspenskaya. Why you ask. Because that was the last name of Maria Ouspenskaya who played a gypsy in "The Wolf Man" (1941). Brooks even throws in 1920s pop culture references when a character delivers his lines in the style of the song, "Yes! We Have No Bananas". But, will anyone under 80 years old get these jokes?

"Dracula: Dead & Loving It" was written by Brooks along with Rudy De Luca, who often worked with Brooks, co-writing "Silent Movie" (1976) and "High Anxiety" (1977), and Steve Haberman, who co-write the Brooks comedy, "Life Stinks" (1991). It lacks a lot of big laughs but has enough small laughs that it serves as a guilty pleasure. This is not Brooks at the top of his game but I admire the silly nature of the movie. I saw this movie opening day when I was 12 years old. It really appealed to me back then. That should tell you all you need to know.

Film Review: Shock

"Shock"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

Italian horror filmmaker Mario Bava gives us one final jolt with "Shock" (1977).

It is a debatable point but fellow Italian filmmaker Dario Argento may be the name most synonymous with the sub-genre of horror films known as giallo however you will find many that credit Bava as the master of giallo and is recognized as having directed the first giallo film, "The Girl Who Knew Too Much" (1963).

The term "giallo" (meaning yellow in Italian) initially referred to novels which combined elements of thrillers, horror, crime and the supernatural. They were called "giallo" because that was the color of the book covers.

To American movie fans "giallo" almost exclusively means "Italian horror". The closest American equivalent would be the slasher movie.

When released in America, "Shock" was released under the title "Beyond the Door II" implying it was a sequel to another Italian horror movie, "Beyond the Door" (1974),  which was one of several demonic possession movies made after the success of "The Exorcist" (1973). However Bava's movie is a stand alone and was not intend as a sequel. "Shock" deals with different characters, is not about a demon taking possession of a body but does deal with the supernatural and does suggest one character has been taken over by a spirit.

The movie begins with Dora (Daria Nicolodi, once romantically linked to Dario Argento) her son Marco (David Colin Jr.) and her second husband Bruno (John Steiner) moving into Dora's old home, where she lived with her first husband. Dora, it is said, has been living in an institution the past few years, recuperating after the death of her first husband, a drug addict, believed to have killed himself although the body has never been found.

Moving back into the house seems to have a strange effect on Marco, who always seems to be in conversation with an invisible friend. Marco's behavior soon becomes violent towards his mother, at one point telling her he must kill her. The young boy also shows signs of sexual resentment towards his mother. In one scene he awakes from his sleep, sits up in his bed and in a strange voice starts calling out "pigs" while we cut to Bruno and Dora making love. In another scene Dora finds her underwear in Marco's dresser, ripped to shreds.

The movie does more than suggest Marco has been taking over by the spirit of Dora's first husband, who seems to want revenge against Bruno and Dora. This is established in a scene where Marco seems to be performing black magic on Bruno, an airline pilot. Marco has cut Bruno out of a picture with his mother and tapes the picture to a swing. When Marco pushes the swing, causing it to sway back and forth, Bruno, flying a plane at the time, experiences a great deal of turbulence in the air nearly causing the plane to crash.

"Shock" is often considered a "lesser" Bava movie not up to the visual aesthetics of his earlier movies. On that count one must agree however I find "Shock" to be a very involving movie that really kicks into high gear by the third act with strange going ons in the house with Dora hearing noises, having disturbing flashbacks of the night her husband died and slowly suspecting there is something wrong with her son.

If you are familiar with Bava and his movies that may make "Shock" sound like a typical horror movie rather than a "Mario Bava movie", which is why fans never fully embraced it. "Shock" doesn't drench itself in atmosphere the way "Kill, Baby, Kill" (1966) did for example. As its title suggest "Shock" is out to shock us and throw scares our way using now cliche horror techniques. Some of those cliches still work on audiences and me in particular, when done correctly. Bava is too good a filmmaker not to know how to use this cliches correctly and so everything works.

The two things I usually don't like about Italian horror movies is the acting, which I often find amateur at best, and the music, which has a very distinct 70s rock sound to it that now seems terribly out of place and doesn't compliment the scenes the music is behind, creating the proper mood. "Shock" suffers from both of these problems. Daria Nicolodi I've usually felt has a tendency to over act and here she does nothing to change my opinion of her, especially in the scenes where she is suppose to express hysteria and fear. Also, John Steiner feels a little bland. You don't feel he has created a real character with a full range of emotions.

Despite all that "Shock" is a movie that deserves a second chance. It plays around with some of the themes often found in Bava's movies but has more of a psychological twist to it, sometimes making the viewer question what is real and what isn't. And it has an ending that may make some think of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Black Cat". It is not a great introduction into the work of Bava but is one you should build yourself up to seeing.

Film Reviews: Murders in the Rue Morgue & The Black Cat

"Murders in the Rue Morgue"  *** (out of ****)

Bela Lugosi gets mixed up in a lot of monkey business in "Murders in the Rue Morgue" (1932).

In the space between Universal Pictures release of "Dracula" (1931) and "Murders in the Rue Morgue" Bela Lugosi had appeared in a few movies, in insignificant roles including an appearance in the Olsen & Johnson comedy "50 Million Frenchmen" (1931) and a Joe E. Brown comedy, "Broadminded" (1931). However it was here that Lugosi was given his first prominent role since playing the iconic character that defined the rest of his career.

Many literary scholars believe Edgar Allan Poe's "Murders in the Rue Morgue", published in 1841, was the first modern detective story. A lot of Poe's short story was changed for this screen adaptation, changing it from a procedural detective story to a horror / mystery movie with the usual anti-science theme.

It is 1845 Paris and Lugosi plays Dr. Mirakle, a scientist that has a side show at a carnival. His attraction is Erik the Ape. According to Dr. Mirakle he has re-learned Erik's language and is able to communicate with the ape. You see, Dr. Mirakle believes humans are descendants of apes through the process of evolution. His audience strongly rejects this theory which forces the doctor to prove his ideas. He wants to mix the ape's blood with that of a woman, hoping this would create a female companion for Erik. In other words, we are almost dealing with bestiality. Remember this is a pre-code movie and is a bit racy.

Dr. Mirakle has set his sights on Camille (Sidney Fox). She and her fiancee, Pierre (Leon Waycoff, later known as Leon Ames) attend the carnival one night, with some friends, and catch the doctor's show. Camille and Pierre walk up to Erik's cage where he takes Camille's bonnet and tries to strangle Pierre. At this moment Dr. Mirakle is sure Camille would be the perfect selection for Erik.

One of the most notable scenes in the movie involves Dr. Mirakle kidnapping a prostitute (played by Arlene Francis in her screen debut) and discovers her blood is "rotten", which I guess means she has a sexual disease. When the doctor finds this out he yells at her, her "beauty was a lie", suggesting she isn't "pure".

Another interesting scene has Pierre at home trying to solve the murder of the prostitute and two other woman that have been murdered (which are not shown on-screen). His roommate, Paul (Bert Roach) is making lunch and begins to complain when Pierre doesn't come to the table to eat. Obviously this has homosexual undertones with Paul playing the nagging wife and Pierre the neglectful husband. Paul even has an apron on which is a symbol of emasculating the character.

There is also an interesting camera technique used in a scene when Camille is on a swing. As Camille swings back and forth, the camera sways as well. The cinematographer was Karl Freund, who is credited as the inventor of the unchained camera, providing more mobility. This scene is an example of that. Freund was also the cinematographer on "Dracula" and directed "The Mummy" (1932).

So many of the Universal horror movies of the 1930s have a strong anti-science theme to them. Here of course the characters reject the theory of evolution. The character that does believe in it is presented as a "mad scientist". The doctor character also wants to interfere with biology implying science should just leave everything alone, much like a later Universal movie, "The Creature From the Black Lagoon" (1954). Science is meddling in things it should not and ambition is getting the best of scientist.

And although it was made in 1932, the idea of an ape being attracted to a woman made me think of "King Kong" (1933) which of course is impossible, since "Kong" hadn't been released yet. But we even see the ape climb up the side of a building to enter the bedroom of the woman.

If I had to guess what prevents this movie was being better it would be it needed more for the Pierre character investigating. It needed more of the slow build-up that Dr. Mirakle is behind the murders. It would have also been nice to show the murders on-screen rather than talk about them in the past tense. Supposedly nearly twenty minutes of this movie cut to tone down the violence.

Directed by Robert Florey, "Murders in the Rue Morgue" may not be able to scare audiences it does however do a nice job of creating mood and suspense. The performance by Lugosi is good but at times its a bit over dramatic. Still, Lugosi has been in worse movies with primates, "Bela Lugosi Meets The Brooklyn Gorilla" (1952) comes to mind.

"The Black Cat"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

The honeymoon in Hungary turns into a honeymoon from hell for the newlyweds in "The Black Cat" (1934).

"The Black Cat" has the honorable distinction of the being the first of several movies to co-star Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, the two men who starred in arguably Universal's two best horror movies, "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" (1931).

For marketing purposes alone you could see why this pairing would be considered a big deal, Dracula meets Frankenstein's Monster. In fact the movie was a box-office hit and is even today considered a classic horror movie and usually ends up on lists of the best horror movies ever made.

Starting off on a dark and rainy night, a car accident leads a group of passengers into the home of Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff), a famous architect however it may not have been a coincidence.

This set-up is not unlike other movies which focus on a big scary house with people trapped inside it. In fact Karloff starred in one himself, "The Old Dark House" (1932). By comparison, that is the better movie and is one that serves up more freights and makes better advantage of its setting.

"The Black Cat" has a nice look to it but doesn't give the house enough personality to create a menacing presence, the same with Karloff's performance. The character has an interesting look but Karloff plays the character too stiff and doesn't really interact with the other actors, feeding off one another. And Lugosi is just way over-the-top.

The newlyweds are Peter (David Manners, who played Harker in "Dracula") and Joan (Julie Bishop, billed as Jacqueline Wells, who appeared in "The Bohemian Girl" (1936) with Laurel & Hardy). This nice American couple is taken to Poelzig's home by Dr. Werdegast (Lugosi), a psychiatrist who fought in World War I and for the last 15 years was in a prison camp. He now vows revenge on his old commanding officer, Poelzig, who the doctor believes was in love with his wife and told her the doctor had died. Now this innocent couple will be caught in the middle of their feud.

We discover Poelzig married Werdegast's wife, who is now dead, and has kept her body in his basement along with several other women. Why? Who are these other women? The movie doesn't explain any of it. We further learn after his wife died Poelzig then married Werdegast's daughter. This is too much even for Freud. You couldn't get away with this once the production code was being strictly enforced.

The movie also has nothing in common with Poe's story, "The Black Cat", other than the appearance of a black cat. Poe's story was about guilt associated with murder. This movie is about revenge and a man that collects dead bodies and makes questionable marriage choices.

To say "The Black Cat" is an oddity is putting it nicely. The movie does have bizarre startling images, the dead women in glass cases and a Satanic ritual. There is a scene where Werdegast and Poelzig play a game of chess to determine the fate of the young married couple, which adds no dramatic impact at all. We don't even get to see the moves they are making.

Some have suggested the movie can even be interpreted as a commentary on the effects of World War I and the rise of Hitler in Germany. Prior to their accident, the young couple was on their way to the town of Gombos, which as a Hungarian myself, I never heard of. Gombos was however the name of the Prime Minister of Hungary, who was one of the first foreign heads of state to meet with Hitler. Geographically the only Gombos I know of is a river in Romania.

"The Black Cat" lacks thrills but does make an effort. I just don't understand the praise that has been thrown at this movie. A minor effort.

Film Review: Psycho

"Psycho"
**** (out of ****)

It's all about a mother's love in Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960)

"Psycho" is generally regarded as Alfred Hitchcock's greatest film, his crowning achievement. It is without question a well made film featuring two magnificent performances from Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh at its center. This is not to mention the iconic score composed by Bernard Herrmann, which has become something of the quintessential slasher movie theme.

But, as many times as I have seen it, I simply can't avoid the fact I am ahead of the characters. I know exactly where it will lead. I know all the masterful twist and turns Hitchcock has in store for the audience. And that doesn't keep "Psycho" "fresh" in my opinion.

I can, as most film lovers do, watch movies over and over again, even some of Hitchcock's. I love "Rear Window" (1954) and "Vertigo" (1958). Naturally I know how those movies end as well yet I am involved in their story and the characters. "Psycho" by comparison seems so reliant on its twist ending that once you know the secret it can never grip you with suspense as it did the first time you saw it. I cannot think of many modern movies that I feel fall into the same category. Maybe "The Sixth Sense" (1999) which is another movie where it all leads up to a twist ending.

"Psycho" has become such a major part of popular culture it is difficult to find someone that doesn't know anything about it. If you have never seen the movie before I bet you know about the shower scene. We associate the very name Norman Bates with a crazy person. How can someone have a "pure" movie going experience and walk into the movie cold? I wish I could.

This may make it sound to some like I don't like "Psycho". Not true. But my reaction to the film will never be what it was the first time I saw it. I can only imagine the thrill audiences in 1960 must have experienced when they first saw the film.

"Psycho" is unique. Hitchcock does do something amazing with this movie. Hitchcock proves that he was not only the master of suspense but a master manipulator as well. "Psycho" doesn't just play with our emotions, the way all films do, but it also plays with our expectations of what movies are and how they function. It is a well told story, "Psycho" changed movie going habits. Hitchcock warned audiences they must see "Psycho" from the beginning otherwise they would not be admitted into the theater.

For me "Psycho" is all about the manipulation. I can think of no other American movie that does what it does. It establishes a character that we think will be the star of the movie only to kill that character less than half-way through the movie. The movie is about two crimes only one of which is resolved.

Hitchcock didn't want "Psycho" to be like his other movies. This one looks different. It wasn't made with his usual crew. It is in black & white. It looks like a cheap exploitative movie with a plot that matches it. In the end it beat the odds and became something special. A work of art to some.

As "Psycho" begins, we are in a hotel room. We see Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) in her white bra as she is getting dressed after spending her lunch hour with her boyfriend, Sam (John Gavin). It is not the only time we see Marion in her bra getting dressed. It happens one more time, this time she is wearing a black bra, meant to signify "good" (white) and "bad" (black), before we see a famous scene of Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) peeping through a hole into her hotel room as she undresses before taking a shower. Here we are all voyeurs staring at a woman getting dressed. It is only when we are watching someone else watch the woman do we feel the act of watching is cheap.

Marion and Sam are talking about their future together. Sam is divorced and paying alimony. He has nothing to offer Marion. Marion feels cheap meeting Sam in hotel rooms and wants a "respectable" relationship. Money is the cause of their problems.

Through a strange coincidence Marion finds an opportunity to solve the money problem. It won't be legal but it will achieve the desired result. She will steal $40,000, that was part of a real estate transaction, and split the money with Sam so they may start a life together.

She drives from Arizona to California to meet Sam. Along the way however, after causing some suspicion and tired from the long drive, she pulls off the road to spend the night at a motel, the Bates Motel. There she finds the lonely owner of the motel, Norman, a young man who finds himself instantly attracted to Marion.

In desperate need of the company, Norman asks Marion if she would like to have dinner with him. She agrees. The two eat in his parlor, where Norman, who has an interest in taxidermy, has a collection of stuffed birds. They talk about Norman and his mother, whom Marion overheard arguing with Norman. Norman implies his mother is ill and belittles him. Marion defends Norman and tells him he should put his mother in an institution. This upsets Norman greatly.

What is interesting about the way this scene is shot is at one point the camera is placed near the floor, looking up at Norman, sitting in his chair. In the background is one of the stuffed birds with its wings spread out. It looks like it is about to swoop down on Norman as if he is prey. And Norman is his mother's prey, just as Marion turns out to be prey for Norman.

After this scene comes the famous shower scene. For a slasher movie what is interesting is we never see the knife touch Marion's body and never see full frontal nudity. The amount of blood is limited. This is in complete contrast to today's slasher movies which seem to almost pride themselves on trying to disgust the audience. Again, Hitchcock is manipulating the audience. He isn't going to give us what we expect.

Many have commented on Norman's actions after the shower scene, where he cleans up after his mother's murder, disposing of Marion's body. Some have suggested in this scene Norman is actually sympathetic, playing the role of the good son, protecting his mother. I can't say I had the same reaction. Maybe because I know the truth but Norman's behavior is very mechanical in this scene. He appears to be acting out a familiar scene. He never flinches when he sees the body and knows exactly what to do. It is also difficult to sympathize with someone covering up a murder, no matter what his motive is.

Hitchcock has a little fun at one point in the movie creating suspense as Norman tries to sink Marion's car in a swamp. At one point it looks as if the car won't. What will happen if the car doesn't sink? What will Norman do? It has been suggested again the audience is to sympathize with Norman and we want the car to sink. Again, that wasn't my reaction. It just felt like a moment of black humor to me. 

If there is one scene audiences agree seems a little out of place it is an explanation scene at the end describing Norman's personality and behavior. It goes on a bit too long and become redundant. It wants to perfectly wrap everything up with a bow, just to make sure everyone in the audience perfectly understands what they have just seen.

Watching "Psycho" again I thought of a movie directed by the great Italian filmmaker Michelangelo Antonioni, "L'Avventura" (1960). Ironically both movies were released in the same year and have a similar structure in the sense both manipulate our expectations. In "L'Avventura" a woman disappears during a boat trip. We suspect the movie will be about her recovery and rescue. It isn't.

Even though "Psycho" doesn't shock me as it once did there is no denying the movie is one of Hitchcock's signature films and perhaps the last one he made to make a mark on pop culture, though "The Birds" (1963) may also be a contender. If you've never seen the movie before, you truly are in store for a treat. And remember, be good to your mother, she's been good to you.

Film Review: Images

"Images"
**** (out of ****)

Watching Robert Altman's "Images" (1972) you never know what is real and what isn't. That is mostly because the lead character doesn't know what is reality and fantasy.

I must be honest and fully disclose, I cannot with any confidence state I know what "Images" is about. I'm not sure I am able to "read" the movie and "decode" it. But, that is what makes the movie so enjoyable to me. It is one hell of a ride. Some of the fun watching it, is trying to figure it all out.

"Images" was released at a time when the public was just starting to notice Robert Altman. By 1972 Altman had completed "M*A*S*H" (1970) and "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" (1971), two hallmarks of the 70s. But "Images" was dismissed by much of the public upon its initial release and today is a lesser known Altman movie that gets lost in the shuffle of what was clearly a decade when Altman was at his creative peak. Although Susannah York won a best actress award at the Cannes Film Festival for her performance.

In the wonderful book by David Thompson, "Altman on Altman", the two men discuss Altman's career film by film, ending with the television series, "Tanner on Tanner" (2004). Altman says the idea for "Images" was one that had been floating around in his head since 1968 and he originally wanted Sandy Dennis for the lead. Over the years, other actresses considered for the role were Julie Christie and Sophia Loren.

It is no accident Altman conceived the idea of the movie after Ingmar Bergman's "Persona" (1967) was released in America. Altman admits in the book "Persona" was an influence stating the movie impressed him a lot. "I'm sure that film was largely responsible for Images and 3 Women. There was a power in Persona". And like "Persona", I believe "Images" is largely about a traumatic sexual experience. For me, "Persona" is about guilt associated with a woman's choice to have an abortion. In "Images" there is talk about a woman wanting to have children and it is hinted at she may have had a daughter outside of her marriage. At the very least "Images" is a story about a woman's guilt in having an extramarital affair.

Altman presents these ideas within the confines of a psychological suspense film as we follow Cathryn (York) a middle-aged woman who seems to be spiraling into madness. It all begins late one night when she is home alone. The telephone rings and another woman is on the other line. The woman implies Cathryn's husband, Hugh (Rene Auberjonois) is cheating on her.

From this moment on the movie begins its descent into Cathryn's disturbed mind as she and Hugh head for their secluded cabin where Cathryn can finish a children's book she is writing and rest. Characters are introduced to the story that we are never sure if they are real or not. One is supposed to be a dead lover, Rene (Marcel Bozzuffi) and the other a friend of the couple, who it is implied had an affair with Cathryn, Marcel (Hugh Millais). Do you see how Altman is adding to the confusion naming characters after the actors? Cathryn even sees her own doppelganger, who at one point in the movie we follow and switch point of view.

What is so impressive about Ms. York's performance is we can see the terror and confusion on her face as she struggles to determine what is real and what isn't. Many times while talking to her husband his appearance will change into one of the other men causing her to scream in horror. This is a demanding role which is tricky to play because so much of the movie is about the character's mind and her psychology. That is not always easy to translate on the screen.

This leads to some very suspenseful sequences. In one scene Cathryn kills Marcel, or at least his apparition, late at night after Marcel makes sexual advances at her. The next morning we see Marcel's bloody body lying on the floor. Did she really kill Marcel? We know Cathryn can see Marcel's body, as she walks over him to get to the kitchen to make her morning tea, but she is purposely avoiding the body. Soon people approach the home, a local elderly man and his dog and Marcel's teen daughter, Susannah (Cathryn Harrison). Cathryn invites them all inside for a drink. We sit in anticipation. What is Cathryn doing? She is going to be discovered. She killed a man.

Altman throws visual clues and metaphors at us, one of which is a puzzle, what is exactly what this movie is. Some of the characters try to put together a puzzle they have found in the cabin. The puzzle represents Cathryn, something that is fragmented and needs to be arranged in order to create an coherent image. Before the puzzle is assembled it is disjointed pieces, just like Cathryn's mind and the pieces are the characters in her head.

The fragmented quality is also present in the Oscar nominated score by John Williams which isn't melodic and lyrical but rather the score is comprised of  fragmented "sounds" and sound effects. The score really heightens our suspense and involvement in the movie.

It should be rather obvious but this is not your typical Robert Altman picture. It doesn't have a large ensemble cast. It doesn't have that wonderful overlapping, seemingly improvised dialogue. And it isn't the antithesis of its genre the way "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" was to the western or "Popeye" (1980) the musical. "Images" works rather well in the thriller / suspense genre.

"Images" is better, much better than the movie going public will have you believe. It doesn't deserve to be seen as a "lesser" Robert Altman movie. You can't even buy a new copy of it on amazon. You can't rent it on Netflix and it is not streaming on their site. "Images" is a bit of a challenging movie but that shouldn't scare an audience away. This is a well made, wonderfully acted and photographed movie. This is first-rate filmmaking. For me, it is one of Altman's best. Try and find a copy of it.

Film Review: The Vampire Bat

"The Vampire Bat"
*** (out of ****)

Don't go batty watching "The Vampire Bat" (1933).

Made at the low-rent movie studio, Majestic Pictures, "The Vampire Bat" has a classic mainstream Hollywood horror feel to it comparable to what was being made at Universal Pictures. In fact, I prefer "The Vampire Bat" over many of the movies Universal was releasing after its first major monster movies of the 1930s such as "Dracula" (1931) and "Frankenstein" (1931).

Speaking of "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" it is these two movies that "The Vampire Bat" seems most inspired by but in no way should you believe the movie is a cheap imitator.

We are in the small European town of Kleinschloss. Many deaths have been reported. Although there are no clues or evidence, the police believe the deaths were all the result of murders. Each victim had the same two small punctured marks on their neck, which drained the bodies of all their blood. The townsfolk believe it is the work of a vampire terrorizing the town.

One of the police inspectors, Karl (Melvyn Douglas) however simply cannot believe in such superstitions. There are no such thing as vampires. But what is causing the murders? Karl can't explain the loss of blood from the bodies and no a trace of it is found at the murder scenes. But, vampires can't be the answer.

Naturally this part of the story will make some think of "Dracula". Is Karl wrong? Is there really a vampire sucking the blood from the townsfolk? Of course we could also compare it to the silent movie, 'The Bat" about a serial killer that dresses like a bat.

Although he doesn't receive top billing (Lionel Atwill does!) Melvyn Douglas is the hero of the story and gives the best performance in the movie. Mr. Douglas' interpretation of the character is so good I can't think of another actor, during this time period, playing it as well. To me the tonspeople give off an old European 19th century vibe that clashes with Mr. Douglas who plays a young, modern, metropolitan character that has a sarcastic side to him. As the inspector, Karl repeatedly makes remarks about the belief in vampires as ridiculous and sometimes plays along with the townspeople just to get them worked up and scared.

The only two sensible people in the town, according to Karl, are Dr. Niemann (Atwill), who wants to help Karl solve the case and eventually tries to get him to accept the theory a vampire is the cause of the deaths, and Ruth (Fay Wray), Karl's girlfriend and is something of Dr. Niemann's assistant.

Unable to explain the deaths, the townspeople become anxious and start to suspect Herman (Dwight Frye, who was Dr. Frankenstein's assistant in the original movie and Renfield in the original Dracula). Herman is mentally challenged and keeps bats as pets. Mr. Frye plays Herman in the same way he played Renfield, with a certain deranged, lunatic quality.

"The Vampire Bat" is also able to inject a lot of humor in its story though I wouldn't refer to this as a comedy / horror. The humor comes from Karl's remarks about vampires and a character that is a hypochondriac and amateur doctor that believes she has every disease she reads about in medical books.

As much as I like many elements of "The Vampire Bat" there some shortfalls to the movie. One of the issues is the movie's running time. The total running time is approximately 60 minutes. This is essentially a "B" movie and the running time is average for such movies however what was edited out? There is a lot of story here that a longer running time could have benefited. That leads to the second issue with the movie. There are no death scenes. Not to sound morbid but a good horror movie needs a death scene. We never see any characters get killed. All violence is off screen.

Imagine scenes where the victims sees a menacing shadow, we see fear in the eyes of the victims. Music swells to a high pitch. We see the eyes of the murderer and the beginning of the attack while the camera pulls back. It may sound cliche but that's what you see in horror movies. Scenes like this create suspense. Although I have no proof, I'm willing to bet scenes like this were filmed but due to pressures to keep the running time at a particular length were left on the cutting room floor. If true, that would be unfortunate.

What "The Vampire Bat" does right is create a nice sense of community. It has interesting characters played by a fine cast of actors, who give very good performances. The story-line is interesting although its conclusion feels a little rushed and I felt could use more explanation. The villain's motivates will remind you of Dr. Frankenstein's motivates. It leaves us with the same theme as Universal's horror movies, the dangers of science and the far reaching ambitions of scientist.

For years only public domain copies existed of "The Vampire Bat" but thanks to the UCLA a restored version has been released on DVD and Blu-ray. I have not seen this restored version but can only assume it has a better print quality than the version I am familiar with.

"The Vampire Bat" did not reach the level of cultural influence the Universal horror movies during the same period did but this a very good movie that deserves an audience. Interestingly the director, Frank R. Strayer, directed the Blondie and Dagwood movie adaptations of the popular comic strip.

Film Reviews: Haunted Spooks, The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case & If A Body Meets A Body

"Haunted Spooks"   ** (out of ****)

It is a dark and stormy night. There is an old mansion. A dead body. A family gathering for a reading of a will. Yes, it sounds like the makings of a horror movie but it actually is the set-up for a comedy.

As this collection of two and three reeler comedies reveal, there has long been an attempt to combine comedy and horror, often placing a comedian or comedy team in cliche horror situations and finding ways to spoof the genre. It leads one to wonder, what exactly is the line that separates our reaction to laugh at something or scream? On its face you wouldn't think horror could lend itself to comedy. Their objectives are drastically different and perhaps that's why it is so fun to watch and why so many great comedians have starred in comedy / horror movies. It is also why not all attempts work. It is a difficult balancing act.

Take for example the Harold Lloyd comedy short, "Haunted Spooks" (1920). At its heart, despite its title, "Haunted Spooks" wants to be a love story, a romantic comedy. With a running time of 25 minutes, the majority of the comedy serves as a set-up to get the boy and girl together and spends little time spoofing the horror genre.

Now that's not to say "Haunted Spooks" doesn't have its fair share of laughs. It does. Portions of the the comedy resembles "Never Weaken" (1921), one of Lloyd's best comedy shorts, where Lloyd played a lovelorn young man who has been rejected by the woman he loves. In his despair he decides to kill himself. In "Haunted Spooks" it creates some really good visual gags with each suicide attempt failing. As shown in the case of "Never Weaken" that set-up alone is enough to make a memorable comedy. But "Haunted Spooks" quickly moves on from this premise to get Lloyd in the scary old mansion.

Mildred (Mildred Davis) learns she has inherited an old family mansion, provided she and her husband live in the mansion for one year. If Mildred fails to do this then her uncle (Wallace Howe) will be the sole heir. The problem is Mildred is not married. Her lawyer tells her not to worry. He will find her a husband, enter lovelorn Lloyd. The next obstacle is the uncle wants the mansion. If he can scare Mildred into believing the mansion is haunted she won't last a year.

If given more time to develop the story, it could have served as an enjoyable feature-length comedy and could have been one more title in a list of haunted house movies made in the 1920s & 30s such as "The Cat and the Canary" (1927), "The Bat" (1926) and "The Old Dark House" (1932). However, given its current running time, the entire sub-plot of Lloyd being rejected by the woman he loves and wanting to kill himself should have been abandoned. The comedy should have started off with Lloyd and Davis married which would then give us more time in the mansion creating more comic set-ups. The movie does have a classic visual gag that normally I wouldn't want to spoil but it has become such an iconic image you've probably seen it. It involves Lloyd's hair.

If you have only seen Harold Lloyd's feature-length comedies, you should definitely do yourself a favor and see his two and three reel comedies. He helped establish the romantic comedy as we know it today. As an example of comedy / horror however, "Haunted Spooks" isn't a good example of the genre at its best although there are good visual gags.

"The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case"  *** (out of ****)

Like Harold Lloyd the comedy team Laurel & Hardy were not known for comedy / horror however of the three comedy shorts reviewed it is "The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case" (1930) that is the best example. Unlike "Haunted Spooks", Stan & Ollie waste no time with a romantic sub-plot and spend more time on creating comedy within a horror situation.

This time around it is Stan Laurel that may have inherited a family fortune when Oliver Hardy reads in the newspaper a reading of a will for the late Ebeneezer Laurel, who Stan may or may not be related to. Oliver assures him, if he just leaves everything to him, the money will be theirs.

Prior to their arrival a detective (Fred Kelsey) reveals Ebeneezer did not die of natural causes but was murdered. There will be no reading of a will and the entire roomful of relatives are suspects. No one is allowed to leave. It is at this moment, with their usual good luck, Laurel & Hardy arrive.

Forced to spend the night at the old mansion, the boys share a bedroom and their imagination gets the best of them as they hear noises, see scary shadows and encounter a bat (undoubtedly the best gag in the short).

"The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case" understands how a comedy / horror movie is supposed to work. You create a believable scary situation and then allow the laughs to naturally emerge from the scenario. If the scary stuff isn't scary and treated in a serious manner, the movie won't work. Then it is all just one big silly movie. The humor stems from seeing the comedians react to the horror. Their exaggerated reaction is what will be funny.

If you aren't familiar with the comedy team the boys play the same characters they always play and you will quickly understand their relationship. Oliver Hardy is the leader of the team. He is supposed to be the brains. Stan Laurel is his faithful friend. If Oliver is really dumb, Stan is dumber because he thinks Oliver is smart and allows him to be the brains.

There is one downside to "The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case" and that is the ending. It isn't really satisfactory and kind of feels like the writers didn't know how to end it and settled on a cop out. Still, there are a lot of big laughs here and it is always fun watching Laurel & Hardy.

"If A Body Meets A Body"  ** (out of ****)

The Three Stooges' comedy "If A Body Meets A Body" (1945) is almost a remake of "The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case". In fact Fred Kelsey plays the same character in both, a detective investigating a murder.

As in the Laurel & Hardy comedy, one of the stooges, Curly, may have inherited a family fortune. Moe and Larry sensing a small fortune to be gained, take Curly to the reading of the family will. At the reading it is revealed Curly's uncle, Bob O. Link was murdered and everyone is a suspect.

Forced to spend the night at an old mansion, the stooges share a bedroom (are you starting to see the similarity?). They can't sleep after they learn they are in the same room Bob O. Link died in. The main visual gag of the comedy short involves a walking skeleton skull (which a bird has managed to get inside of) that scares Curly and Larry.

The problem with "If A Body Meets A Body" and really any Three Stooges' comedy is there is too much fighting, at least for my taste. The skull gag is good but there is little else that emphasizes the horror part of the comedy / horror. It doesn't do enough to create a scary atmosphere.

The Stooges actually appeared in a few comedy / horror shorts. Released two years prior was "Spook Louder" (1943). There was "The Ghost Talks" (1949) with Shemp as the third stooge which was remade as "Creeps" (1956).

This actually could have been a good comedy / horror short if it would have tried a little harder. "The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case" even had a soundtrack with a thunderstorm throughout. "If A Body Meets A Body" can't even do that. If you are a stooge fan you will probably like it and find it funny but in the context of comedy / horror movies there are much better examples.

Film Review: Four Flies on Grey Velvet

"Four Flies on Grey Velvet"  **** (out of ****)

There are three scenes in the Italian horror movie "Four Flies on Grey Velvet" (1972) worth discussing.

In the first scene, it is late a night. A man is home sleeping but suddenly hears a noise in another room of the house. He gets up to investigate. The house is pitch black. The lights are out. The man can barely see his hand in front of him. Someone grabs him and suddenly the man is being strangled with a wire. The strangler says he can kill the man but won't.

The second scene takes place at a park. A woman is sitting on a bench waiting for someone. The time passes and soon it is late and the woman is all alone. The park closes. The woman hears something and starts to run. She is caught in a maze. As is typical in horror movies, the audience cannot see the killer and neither can the victim. No matter how fast the woman runs it is not fast enough. Eventually she comes to a wall. She is trapped. She calls out for help. A man on the other side of the wall hears her and says he is going to help. But it is too late. We hear the woman scream. She is dead.

Finally, in the third scene a different man is walking into his apartment, speaking to someone the audience cannot see. The man is going to expose the off-camera person's scheme. Soon the man is hit with a bottle multiple times. His face is covered with blood. He too is strangled with a wire.

What is remarkable about the first two scenes is they were directed by Dario Argento, the famed Italian horror filmmaker known for making ultra gory movies where his camera lingers on blood like a animal going after its prey. Argento almost has a fetish for blood. This time however the violence is off-screen.

But then there is the third scene. This time the audience must confront the violence. "Four Flies on Grey Velvet" was the third movie directed by Argento and is in a way the bridge between his two styles. In his first two movies Argento largely kept violence off the screen. By his fourth movie, "Deep Red" (1975) Argento becomes the filmmaker we known him as today. The man who directs elaborate death scenes.

Also unique about "Four Flies on Grey Velvet" is the amount of humor Argento injects into the story. Borrowing from Alfred Hitchcock, Argento would sometimes breaks tension in his movies to add humor, "Cat O' Nine Tails" (1971) is an excellent example but "Four Flies" takes it a step further. One character is named Godfrey (Bud Spencer) whom everyone calls God for short. Another character, Gianni (Jean-Pierre Marielle) is a private detective however the character is portrayed as a homosexual. This is meant to gets laughs as it suggest how tough can this detective be? And Mr. Marielle really goes all out giving us the usual exaggerated, stereotypical interpretation of a gay man with all the wild hand throwing gestures and delicate feminine voice.

Not so unique however is the story-line, which Argento had done some variation on in his first two movies and "Deep Red"; an innocent man who observes a murder and is stalked by a serial killer who happens to see him at the scene of the crime. This time we follow Roberto (Michael Brandon), a drummer in a rock band, who notices a man has been following him for a week. Finally fed-up, Roberto decides to confront the man and chases after him, when he sees the man lurking around a corner.

Their chase ends inside an empty theatre. The man denies ever following Roberto and demands to be left alone but Roberto refuses he let him off that easy and is relentless in his pursuit for an answer. The man pulls out a knife on Roberto and in a struggle Roberto accidentally kills the man. If that weren't bad enough, a mysterious person wearing a mask, standing in the balcony, is taking pictures of Roberto.

Now photographs of the dead man are being mailed to Roberto's home. The phone rings late at late with no answer on the  the other end. Photos of Roberto with the knife in his hand are discovered in his home. Who is doing this? What does the person want?

Argento takes these scenes and cuts to flashbacks of an insane asylum. We see a room with rubber walls as a strong male voice is heard speaking sternly telling a young boy he must learn to be tough and how disappointed he is to be the boy's father.

This leads us to one of the theme's in the movie, masculinity. We assume the boy being verbally abused by his father has grown up to become the murderer and the one stalking Roberto. Is this his way to prove he is a man and tough? Is that why Argento created the homosexual detective? Is that a comment on masculinity as well? What defines a man?

It is usually a disturbed childhood that leads individuals to become murderers in a Dario Argento movie and "Four Flies on Grey Velvet" is no exception. Freud would be proud.

For his third movie Argento demonstrates he is a filmmaker confident in his story telling ability and understanding of the horror genre. Despite some plot holes the movie genuinely intrigues me even after multiple viewings. The scene in the park exhibits Argento at his creative peak proving in horror films sometimes less is more, which builds suspense.

Argento also proves he is able to walk that fine line of suspense and dark humor, always finding the right moment to go for a laugh.

"Four Flies on Grey Velvet" is a good example of why Argento was often compared to Hitchcock in the early part of his career and called "the Italian Hitchcock". It is one of Argento's best movies, addressing themes he would touch on for nearly the rest of his career.

Film Review: Blair Witch

"Blair Witch"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

"The Blair Witch Project" (1999) engaged in one of the greatest marketing campaigns in the history of modern horror movies. Upon being released the movie was being marketed as based on a true story. Audiences would get to see found footage (the movie) recorded by three student filmmakers, who went Burkittsville, Maryland to make a documentary on a local legend known as the Blair Witch. The three students vanished. One year later someone had discovered one of the recordings. That recording was going to be released in theatres.

Saying this now, 18 years later, some readers might think to themselves, what was so great about this marketing campaign? I cannot tell you how many people, people I knew, friends, that actually believed the background story. The three main actors in the movie were unknowns, adding to the believability. They were prohibited by the filmmakers from doing publicity. There was even a television documentary filmed on the legend of the Blair Witch and the three students that filmed the story.

When I saw the movie in theatres in 1999, I summed it all up by writing the movie was nothing more than "watching trees for 90 minutes". The movie was a box-office hit and was shown much love by movie critics (sheep). The late Roger Ebert, of the Chicago Sun-Times, gave the movie four stars. After the first couple of weeks, word on the street was the movie was bad and the public quickly learned this was a "movie". There were complaints, due to the shaky hand-held camera work, audiences would leave the theatre, becoming dizzy.

Although I disliked the 1999 movie, I have to admit it was influential in the horror genre. Would we have "Paranormal Activity" (2009, which I prefer) if not for "The Blair Witch Project"? The movie inspired an unnecessary sequel, "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" (2000) and this unnecessary reboot / sequel.

"Blair Witch" (2016) takes place approximately 20 years after "The Blair Witch Project". James Donahue (James Allen McCune) is the brother of Heather, one of the student filmmakers from "The Blair Witch Project". He believes his sister may still be alive, trapped in a cabin in the woods. He along with some friends will make their own documentary about rescuing Heather. The footage we are about to watch...blah, blah, blah.

By and large "Blair Witch" is a duplicate, in style and tone, of "The Blair Witch Project". This is all presented as "real". We get the same crummy hand-held camera work and get to look at trees for 90 minutes.

Yes, there was great potential in this story-line but, I can't help it. Neither this movie or the original were scary to me. This is an example of great set-up but poor execution. The entire "found footage" concept with the hand-held camera work and first person point of view are more of a distraction than contribution.

Once again, as the terrified young adults, roam the forest, all we see are trees and leaves. The movie primarily takes place at night, in the pitch dark. I couldn't see anything! I understand how someone could write a nice thesis on how this is effective because it plays to our fears of the dark and "sounds that go bump in the night". Or how not seeing something is more scary because our imagination does all the work (a defense for the 1999 movie) but the camera moves so fast I couldn't register what I was seeing. And, did I mention everything takes place at night and I couldn't see anything!

"Blair Witch" reminds me of a television I used to watch occasionally called "Ghost Hunters". It was a show that followed two plumbers that double as paranormal investigators. They travel to various haunted locations to try and make contact with the spirit world. In the few episodes I have seen, NEVER have the two come face to face with a ghost. Instead the show would feature moments with the two men standing next to each other saying things like they feel a draft or heard a strange noise in the background. None of that is scary. And that's the "Blair Witch" - a group of people telling us they have bad feelings and running away from things, which we can't see because it is too dark.

The performances in the movie unfortunately don't amount to much either. These characters aren't presented as people but merely pawns for the story. Who are they? What are their motivations? We understand James' motivations but never emotionally open up to any of the characters. Everyone, I suppose, is doing the best they can with the script they were given but nothing is fleshed out. Having said that however the performances in this movie are actually better than the 1999 movie, which made no attempt to distinguish its characters. Here we can say the same thing here though. We have the two pretty girls, you always need a damsel in distress. The misunderstood loner, who knows all the town secrets but everyone thinks is a quack, the token black best friend, who isn't good at camping and putting together a tent, and the brave, noble male hero. Outside of the cliches there is nothing here.

What was the purpose of "Blair Witch"? Why make another sequel 17 years after the original and 16 after the last sequel? Do we really need a franchise series of the "Blair Witch"? Given all the new technology since 1999 did a studio head believe today they could do so much more with the story with smart phones and drones? Was it all an attempt to introduce a new generation to this story? Was this all just a sell-out attempt to make money?

"Blair Witch" may scare some audience members but given the reaction the public had to the first movie, I can't imagine a large portion of the audience responding positive to this movie either. It's a copycat. If the first movie gave you motion sickness, so will this one. If the hand-held camera work bothered you the first time around, it will this time too.

"Blair Witch" doesn't feel like a complete movie. There is no sense of a resolution, only a hint at another sequel (!). It becomes more of an experience than a movie. You sit down watching this movie and in the end nothing happens. Maybe one day they will find the footage that had the story.

Film Review: Tales of Terror

"Tales of Terror"
*** (out of ****)

"It is with death and dying that we concern ourselves with."
Vincent Price (voice-over narration)

"Tales of Terror" (1962) was directed by Roger Corman, based on the short stories of Edgar Allan Poe. It was the fourth entry into the "Poe Series" of movies directed by Mr. Corman adapted from Poe stories. There were eight movies in total with "Tales of Terror" coming after "House of Usher" (1960) and "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1962), both starring Vincent Price. In fact Mr. Price starred in all of the Poe adaptations with the exception of one, "The Premature Burial" (1962) which starred Ray Milland and was third in the series.

At this point in the Poe series Mr. Corman tried something different. First, "Tales of Terror", as the title may suggest, is based on several stories, using an anthology format consisting of three stories; "Morella", "The Black Cat" (which is largely based on Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado") and "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdeman". Secondly, as is the case in "The Black Cat", Mr. Corman incorporates humor into the story. Perhaps pleased by the result, in Mr. Corman's next Poe adaptation, "The Raven" (1963), the entire movie would take a comical approach to Poe's writing. However some may claim there was always a level of camp in Mr. Corman's movies making them humorous.

With the theme of death and dying linking the stories together, "Tales of Terror" cuts between the stories to Mr. Price's voice-over narration, over a predominately black screen while the sound of a beating heart is heard, making us think of another of Poe's short stories, "Tell-Tale Heart". If it matters to anyone, that is actually my favorite of Poe's stories. The stories try to explain what happens after death to a person that didn't want to die, what leads to death and finally how to prolong avoiding death.

"Morella"

The first story in the anthology is "Morella". Here we met Lenora (Maggie Pierce), who travels from Boston to meet her estranged father, Locke (Mr. Price), whom she has not seen in for more than 20 years. Locke and his now deceased wife, Morella (Leona Gage), blamed Lenora for her death. Morella died a few months after giving birth to Lenora, causing Locke to sink into a deep depression, which is supposed to be made evident to the viewer by the cob-webs found on the walls and furniture. Locke lives alone and spends his time drinking while his dead wife remains in their home, rotting in her bedroom.

Locke and Lenora initially have a contentious relationship with Lenora unaware her parents blamed her for her mother's death. Their relationship changes when Locke learns Lenora is terminally ill. This scene is so poorly constructed as the emotions swings back and forth with each new line of dialogue. Locke goes from being indifferent and cruel to Lenora to quickly showing sympathy back to anger and once more back to kindness.

The entire story is shot a little too "pretty" for my taste, not making use of shadows and darkness. The sequence with Lenora arriving to the empty home, should have taken place at night, creating more atmosphere in the cob-web ridden mansion. Instead it is morning and brightly lit.

The conclusion to the story happens a bit too quickly with again Locke's emotions swinging back and forth and remains unclear not fully explaining what we have just seen.

Still Ms. Pierce is decent in the role, playing the sweet unsuspecting innocent daughter and despite some dialogue issues, Mr. Price is well suited for the role, swinging for the fences, as he usually did. There was something about him though, I guess a natural screen presence, where no matter how campy the material and / or performance, Mr. Price was always watchable.

"The Black Cat"

Peter Lorre is Montresor Herringbone, a drunkard married to Annabelle (Joyce Jameson), who absolutely hates her black cat. The love in their marriage is gone with Montresor preferring to spend his time drinking wine at the local pub. One night, after spending all of his wife's savings, he stumbles into a merchants wine tasting gathering, challenging the guest of honor Fortunato Luchresi (Vincet Price), the foremost wine tasting expert. Although merely looking for free drinks, Monstresor surprises the group by actually knowing the various vintages of wine before passing out, forcing Fortunato to accompany Montresor home, where he becomes enchanted by Annabelle and even likes her black cat.

Discovering Annebelle is in love with Fortunato, Montresor plans his revenge by drugging his wife and her lover, changing them to a basement wall, where he plans to leave them there to die while he entombs by building another brick wall. Will the police discover his devious act? Will Montresor be haunted by the sounds of Annabelle and Fortunato's voices?

As a dark comedy the story is mildly successful with the two veteran actors, Mr. Lorre and Mr. Price, doing exactly what is expected of them. Never really winking at the camera, they know how to play up the comedy without tripping over the line into camp but they are clearly having fun. Of course, I say that even though there is a sequence where Annabelle and Fortunato rip Montresor's head off and toss it between each other while Montresor's headless body chases his head back and forth.

"The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar"

M. Valdemar (Price again) is dying but with the help of a hypnotist, Mr. Carmichael (Basil Rathbone), can be put into a trance to ease his suffering. Valdemar's wife, Helene (Debra Paget) and his doctor (David Frankham) remain suspicious of Mr. Carmichael's methods and motives.

Mr. Carmichael and Valdemar reveal their true intent, which is to prolong death through hypnoses. Can Mr. Carmichael delay death by putting Valdemar in a trance before the fatal moment? What would the consequences be for Valdemar?

Tone wise, this finally story has more in common with "Morella". Of the three stories "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar' may be the one trying to be the most dramatic. It may try a little too hard and like "Morella" rushes its conclusion. Once again it is too nicely lit as well. Mr. Corman seems to resist the temptation to provoke an eerie atmosphere through lighting and shadows.

As an entire viewing experience "Tales of Terror" is entertaining despite some flaws and a less serious interpretation of Poe's writing. You must consider the source and remember this is a Roger Corman movie. Mr. Corman may be thought of by some as a hackneyed filmmaker but I don't judge him so harshly. I admire the independent spirit of American filmmaking I believe he represents. Yes, you can make an argument because of Mr. Corman's influence the world has been given the "Sharknado" series, I can also argue the Poe movies are Mr. Corman's most accomplished movies of his career. On the occasions I have reviewed Mr. Corman's movies, it has only been his Poe adaptations.

Essentially "Tales of Terror" is a "B" movie but it looks better than "B" movies made in the 40s at Universal. Before dismissing Mr. Corman, I would recommend at least watching his Poe adaptations. "Tales of Terror" isn't the best among them but its almost simplistic nature is still charming, in its own way, and entertaining, whether or not you want to view it as pure camp or not.

Film Review: Son of Dracula

"Son of Dracula"
*** (out of ****)

Like father, like son.

Universal Pictures' "Son of Dracula" (1943), like "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), was another unnecessary sequel to the original "Dracula" (1931).

"Son of Dracula" bears a distinction from the previous two movies. In this movie Dracula finds his way in America, at a small southern plantation. Given that the movie was released in 1943, during World War II, there is part of me that believes this was a commentary on the war and the threat of foreign invaders entering the country. Remember, the "official" position of the U.S. government was the war was considered a war of ideology. Americans were fighting the spread of Fascism. We had to "fight them over there" so they don't enter America. It also "helps" that much is made of Dracula being Hungarian. Again, remember, Hungary fought against America (sadly) during the war. They were "the enemy".

It would be a mistake to compare "Son of Dracula" to "Dracula". This sequel would be on the losing end of that comparison. I'm willing to bet a majority of movie fans would agree. As its "own" movie, it is somewhat successful. It fares much better than "Dracula's Daughter" but doesn't provide enough, if any, scares. It does a decent job making an effort to create atmosphere however. There is also the issue of the "B" movie production values. A little more money spent on production designs would have greatly improved the movie.

But, I suppose the biggest problem with "Son of Dracula" is the casting of Lon Chaney Jr. (billed as Lon Chaney) in the title role. Lon Chaney Jr. could be a bit of a ham. He does give a good performance in "The Wolf Man" (1941) and believe it or not "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (1943) but here he is a bit stiff. He doesn't portray Dracula as a menacing figure. Given that Dracula is supposed to be Hungarian, Chaney doesn't even go to the trouble to speak with a Hungarian accent, instead using his natural voice. What is interesting to note is Lon Chaney (the father) was reportedly considered to originally play Dracula instead of Bela Lugosi. It also makes Lon Chaney Jr. one of the few actors that can say he played Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Mummy and Frankenstein's Monster.

In "Son of Dracula" we follow the Hungarian Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards, played by Lon Chaney, Jr.). He has arrived in America, New Orleans to be exact, to meet Katherine, (Louise Allbritton), the daughter of the wealthy plantation owner, Colonel Caldwell (George Irving). Katherine met the Count in Budapest and it appears has fallen in love with him. At least that is what Katherine's childhood sweetheart Frank (Robert Paige) believes and fears she will call off their wedding. In seems ever since she visited Budapest she has developed a morbid personality and interest in the occult (as a Hungarian, thanks a lot!), which may have led to her fascination with Count Alucard.

Lacking a Van Helsing character, the local doctor and friend of the Caldwell family, Dr. Brewster (Frank Craven) becomes suspicious of Count Alucard when he discovers the Count's name is Dracula spelled backwards. The good doctor contacts a Hungarian professor living in Memphis (!) Prof. Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg, who was actually born in Romania, in the town now known as Timisoara). Also worth mentioning is Lazlo is not a common surname in Hungarian culture. It is more commonly used as a first name. Prof. Lazlo informs Dr. Brewster about Dracula and vampires in general. The two team up to reveal Alucard's true identity and ultimately destroy him.

On a few occasions it is mentioned Dracula's homeland is a country of dry soil, filled with the blood of 100 nations. Dracula has decided to come to a "younger" country, one more "powerful" and "virile". Hence my belief this all has something to do with WW2 and America being a powerful country capable of fighting enemies abroad. Frank also tells Katherine that she is foolish to believe superstitions of foreign countries. Americans are much smarter and pay no attention to such nonsense. This is similar to a theme found in the classic horror movie, "The Cat People" (1942).

There is also never any mention of Count Alucard being the son of Dracula but rather Dracula himself. Prof. Lazlo states the last known Dracula was believed to have died in the 19th century but none of the characters in the move ever come to the conclusion they are fighting Dracula's son.

The movie was directed by Robert Siodmak, who was nominated for a best director Academy Award for his direction of "The Killers" (1946) and was also behind "The Spiral Staircase" (1946) and "Criss Cross" (1949), from a story by Robert's brother, Curt, who wrote several horror films, including "I Walked With A Zombie" (1943). Robert really makes the most out of what he has been given. Despite the small budget he is able to maximize the surrounding production values and create some atmosphere in ways I can't say other Universal horror movies of the 40s did.

Of course the original "Dracula" was directed by Tod Browning (a well established filmmaker in silent era, known for a thematic interest in the macabre) and inspired by German Expressionism, which makes it a more ambitious movie and more influential. It demonstrates what "Son of Dracula" could have been, under the right circumstances.

"Son of Dracula" is not a bad movie but far from a classic. At its root, it is a good "B" movie with a stiff performance from Chaney but makes modest attempts at creating an eerie atmosphere. It's conflict between Dracula and Katherine isn't played out completely, leaving some questions to be answered, but, what it does it does well within its limited scope.