Film Review: Haunted Honeymoon

"Haunted Honeymoon"  *** (out of ****)

Gene Wilder's "Haunted Honeymoon" (1986) is both a homage to classic comedy / horror movies like "The Cat and the Canary" (1939) with Bob Hope and a love letter to his wife Gilda Radner, in the last movie the two starred in together.

Wilder, who co-wrote the comedy "Young Frankenstein" (1974) with director Mel Brooks, perhaps wanted to repeat his success as Brooks tried later with "Dracula: Dead & Loving It" (1995). Although the bar isn't set very high, Wilder's comedy may come off slightly better than Brooks' Dracula effort.

Wilder understands a comedy / horror movies needs atmosphere. You need to treat the material as two separate movies. Take your horror portion seriously. "Haunted Honeymoon" takes place in an old, scary looking mansion. As the opening credits play we see someone has been stabbed.

Pay attention to this scene. It establishes Gene Wilder's philosophy of comedy. You give the audience the required information it needs to advance the plot and then you hit them with a joke. It is the opposite of his buddy Mel Brooks who tries to put in a joke before, during and after the set-up.

Speaking of Mel Brooks, Wilder also uses composer John Morris, who scored nearly all of Brooks' comedies. Morris, as usual, creates a terrific score, capturing the mood of those classic horror movies of the 1930s and 40s. Another example of taking the time to treat the horror portion seriously.

For the comedy, Wilder and co-writer Terence Marsh, have come up with a pretty good scenario. Radio actor Larry Abbot (Wilder. Sounds a lot like Larry Talbot, the Wolf Man, doesn't it?) is engaged to his co-star Vickie Pearle (Radner). This has triggered a deep rooted fear in Larry, causing him to have momentary blackouts, which upsets the sponsor of his radio show. Larry's uncle, Dr. Paul Abbot (Paul L. Smith), has studied Larry's case and believes he has a cure.  Larry needs to be scared to death. A perfect opportunity arises when Larry and Vickie go back to his childhood home, the old mansion, to celebrate their engagement.

The setting and the premise lend themselves naturally to create comedy within a horror atmosphere. Wilder and Marsh, as a result, don't have to write random comedy sequences, breaking away from the horror premise. The comedy is a result of the horror due to Larry's reaction to his family's attempts to scare him to death. That is how comedy / horror is suppose to work.

Take a scene where Larry, about to go to sleep, notices a monster walking down towards him, from the ceiling. Larry is terrified. He tries to alleviate  his fear by convincing himself the monster isn't real. To demonstrate his point he reaches out to touch the monster's face and slowly begins to realize the monster is indeed real. You have a scary set-up and humor that blends with the situation.

Another sequence doesn't lend itself so easily to both genres and feels a bit contrived. It feels like a comedy sequence randomly created. Larry gets into a fight with the butler, Pfister (Bryan Pringle) and knocks him out. Police are investigating the property and Larry must hide Pfister's body. I won't reveal the punchline, because it is funny, but here is an example of the horror not naturally lending itself to comedy.

But this has nothing on a sequence where Aunt Kate (Dom DeLuise in drag) performs a rousing rendition of the old jazz standard "Ballin' the Jack" with Vickie. Like a Brooks comedy, Wilder throws in a musical number that serves no purpose to the rest of the movie.

On average the performances are good with Wilder and Radner displaying a good amount of chemistry between them. I don't think this showcases Radner at the top of her game though it does have some nice moments and she has good banter with Wilder's character. Dom DeLuise on the other hand doesn't come out looking so good. This isn't a performance to take serious. It is a caricature. And worst of all, it isn't funny. It doesn't seem like much thought and care went into this character.

What I appreciate most about "Haunted Honeymoon" however are the nods to earlier movies. There is a werewolf character that looks an awful lot like the one in "The Undying Monster" (1942). That couldn't have been a coincidence. Being that the movie centers on radio actors and mystery and death, it makes me personally recall titles like "Whistling in the Dark" (1941) with Red Skelton and "The Cat and the Canary".

Whatever there is to admire however ultimately "Haunted Honeymoon" lacks in the big laughs department. That may explain why the movie was a box-office flop. It hasn't aged well either. Only recently has it been put on  DVD. You won't hear many praise the movie. The studio didn't even provide critics an advance screening. Imagine if Siskel & Ebert had given it two thumbs up. It might have added to the box-office. Or not, if they didn't like it.

While the big laughs may not be there, I do like what "Haunted Honeymoon" is trying to accomplish. I like its old-fashion spirit. I find Wilder and Radner to be likable actors. I appreciate the costume and production design. I like the musical score. "Haunted Honeymoon" does a lot of technical things right. Without revealing plot points, it could have used a rewrite or a different editor, who may have cut essential scenes.

Unfortunately after this movie's release Radner and Wilder would never appear again in a movie together. Radner died of cancer at the age of 42 in 1989. "Haunted Honeymoon" was the last feature length movie she appeared in. Wilder considerably slowed down after her death. He appeared in two movies with Richard Pryor; "See No Evil, Hear No  Evil" (1989) and "Another You" (1991). Gene Wilder died in 2016 at 83. He only directed four movies and "Haunted Honeymoon" is not the best of them. Most would say that honor belongs to "The Woman in Red" (1984), which co-starred Radner and was a remake of the French comedy, "Pardon Mon Affaire" (1976).

"Haunted Honeymoon" is a bit of an uneven comedy. It creates a nice atmosphere and does a lot of things right. It lacks some big laughs and doesn't develop its supporting characters. Wilder and Radner are fun to watch but neither is at the top of their game. It might be worth watching if you like comedy / horror movies of the 1930s and 40s.

Film Review: Friday the 13th

"Friday the 13th"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

As odd as this may seem, for someone that devotes the month of October to horror movies, I never saw "Friday the 13th" (1980) until recently. Naturally I heard of it and am aware of the numerous sequels that followed and the 2009 reboot but I never sat down and watched the movie.

My understanding is "Friday the 13th" was inspired by John Carpenter's "Halloween" (1978), which I consider one of the greatest horror movies of all-time. "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" are considered to have begun the slasher horror genre and the depiction of gruesome violence against teenagers (in particular females). Minus the teenager part, I'm not comfortable stating these two movies established the slasher genre. What about the films directed by Italian filmmakers Dario Argento and Mario Bava for example? Did "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" popularize the genre for American audiences? Maybe. I'm more willing to make that statement.

Watching "Friday the 13th" stirred conflicted feelings within me. On one hand this story of a group of teenagers working at Camp Crystal Lake and a supposed "death curse" placed on it, does all the things you hate about horror movies. For one thing, it is gory for the sake of being gory. Some wisenheimer will say the violence depicted here is tame compared to today's standards (Great! Our standards have lowered!). But "Friday the 13th" does something far worst than that. It doesn't take time to create distinguishable, interesting characters. The audience doesn't come to have any relationship with these people on screen. Who are they and why are we watching them? Other than hair color what separates one character from the other? For all those that love this movie, explain to me (without the use of google) the difference between Alice (Adrienne King) and Marcie (Jeannine Taylor)? Or how about Jack (Kevin Bacon) and Ned (Mark Nelson)? All "Friday the 13th" does is create pretty young characters for us to watch die one by one. You can make the agruement so do a lot of other horror movies. True. But one of the things that separates the good movies from the bad is the characters. Do we have compelling, interesting characters? People that we feel we know and like.

Once that became apparent to me "Friday the 13th" was an exercise in patience. How long do I have to sit down and wait for the movie to be over?

I don't want to come off sounding like a pretentious, high affluent movie critic either. "Friday the 13th" does some interesting things. I like the fact the killer is never shown on screen. Every time the killer appears, it is shot in a POV style with the audience in the shoes of the killer. This is interesting because it provides a voyeuristic quality. Voyeurism plays a big part in this movie. That leads to a comparison to Alfred Hitchcock. While "Halloween" may have influence the release of this movie, "Friday the 13th" owes much to Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960).

For one thing, listen to the score composed by Harry Manfredini. It "burrows" heavily from Bernard Herrmann's theme for Hitchcock's iconic film. If possible, I would suggest listening to each theme side by side. Without revealing the ending of the movie, both come to very similar conclusions, only from reverse perspectives.

There are some scares in the movie and some intense moments to keep you in suspense. That may contradict my statement that the movie was an exercise in my patience but I admit it is suspenseful to see someone about to be killed. Then that suspense turns to disgust when we have scenes where the killer takes an ax and sticks it in someone's head. So, all statements are true. There is suspense, there is unnecessary gory violence, and the characters are simply pawns created to be killed off one by one, making it an exercise in my patience.

When the movie begins we are told it is 1958. We are at Camp Crystal Lake where two teenagers excuse themselves from a larger group so they may find a place to make out. As this is happening we are put in the shoes of the killer and see the two teenagers about to die. Then the movie jumps forward to the present day. We learn the camp has been closed all this time and is about to reopen. We learn, through dialogue, that there was another incident involving someone being killed the prior year in 1957. My question is, why couldn't the movie start with that scene? The larger point is, I don't like the way "Friday the 13th" handles its origin story and the incredibly slow way it goes about finally revealing everything to us.

Understanding a bit more about who could be the potential killer would have created more suspense, kept us involved more in a story, and allow the characters to have more to do than wait to die. They could have been playing amateur detectives, piecing together clues.

By the time the movie does reveal the killer to us, it goes on way too long before everything is resolved. First the movie doesn't show the killer then it shows too much of the killer.

"Friday the 13th" was definitely an influential movie in its own right. Though I hadn't seen the movie before, the character Jason Voorhees, with his hockey mask is an iconic image. The character Jason has become representative of Halloween. A slew of slasher movies emerged in the 1980s and were reborn again in the mid 90s with pretty young teenagers meeting grisly deaths.

I don't like that the characters weren't developed but admit there are some suspenseful moments and I like the musical score and nods to "Psycho". So, I decided to split the difference with my rating. Not an awful movie but not a great horror movie either. You'd be better off watching "Halloween" or "Psycho" instead.

Film Review: Child's Play

"Child's Play"
*** (out of ****)

"Child's Play" (1988), its a toy story!

There has always been this strange, twisted desire in people to take something innocent and turn it upside down and inject some darker sinister side to it. Think along the lines of having horror movies take place around Christmas; "Black Christmas" (1974), the origin of Krampus and movies revolved around it. Or how about puppets speaking in an adult manner, using four letter words - the stage show "Avenue Q" or the recent movie "Happytime Murders" (2018). It seems to me "Child's Play" is one more example of this. Taking the innocent - children's toys and twisting our perception of it.

When I was growing up my parents bought me ventriloquist dolls - Howdy Doody, Charlie McCarthy, Mortimer Snerd and Bozo the clown. As much as I hounded my parents to buy me them, I always had a sinking suspicion they were up to no good. It would freak me out if any of the dolls were facing me as I went to sleep. And then "Child's Play" was released. Guess what movie I didn't want to see?

I reveal that embarrassing story to serve as a reference that on some level "Child's Play" plays to our secret fears. For as ridiculous as the plot is an audience can buy into the premise and become lost in the story. In movie terms it offers a reasonable explanation for the doll's origin and we don't question it. That, and we know the doll would be alive anyway. All dolls are alive.

The doll, Chucky, has become an iconic horror figure, to my generation, alongside Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, and Michael Myers, replacing (sadly) figures like "Dracula", "Frankenstein's Monster" and "The Wolf Man". "Child's Play" has lived on and endures as something of a modern cult classic horror move. Screenwriter, Don Mancini, has made a nice living writing and eventually directing several sequels to the series under the titles of either "Child's Play" or "Chucky". There is even a reboot set for release and according to the website IMDb a television series is in development. No one is willing to take the batteries out of Chucky. As long as they release movies, audiences will seek them out.

It is Chicago 1988. Six year old Andy (Alex Vincent) has a birthday coming up. What he wants most of all is a Good Guy talking doll. It is the hottest toy on the market costing $100 (that's more than $213 adjusted for inflation, per the website dollartimes). That's a bit too much for Andy's mom, Karen (Catherine Hicks), who works as a jewelry clerk at the department store Carson's. Luck (?) strikes when Karen buys the doll from a peddler, hanging around the back of the store, for half the price.

What Karen, the peddler and Andy don't know is on the night before, the Lake Shore strangler, Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) transferred his soul into the doll after being chased and shot by police officer Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon, at one time married to Susan). Now the doll Chucky would like get his revenge against his partner, Eddie, who left him to die, and officer Norris.

In order to make that happen Chucky must befriend Andy, whom he tells he was sent by his father in heaven. Disturbing events begin to occur and the death count starts piling up. First Andy's babysitter and then Eddie. Both times Andy was the only other person nearby. Could Andy be the one responsible for the murders? Is Andy a bad seed? Andy tells his mother and the police Chucky is the one responsible. But who is going to believe a toy doll is alive, killing people?

To the movie's credit it delays physically revealing Chucky is alive but the audience is two steps ahead of the other characters, which takes away suspense. We don't question whether or not Chucky is alive because we saw what Charles Lee Ray did. Imagine if we hadn't and it was revealed later in the movie through a flashback? Then we'd be just as confused as Karen and Norris, adding a psychological element to the plot. Could a sweet, innocent child (again playing with the notion of a twisted perception of something innocent) be a murderer? "Child's Play" wants to have it both ways. It can't. 

"Child's Play" is still capable of creating suspenseful moments and keeping the audience on edge. For one thing, we are in suspense as to when will Chucky reveal himself? 

What becomes unfortunate is for as cautious as the movie is to reveal Chucky it goes into overload by the third act having Chucky walking around with knife in hand a bit too often. I, for one, prefer it when the villain doesn't have too much screen time and the anticipation of their appearance serves as a threat looming over the characters. By the end of the movie "Child's Play" becomes a typical serial killer / slasher movie. "Child's Play" has to walk a delicate balance since the villain is a doll. The sight of a diminutive toy chasing after full grown adults could result in unintended humor. That's why less of Chucky would have been better. 

Credit must be given to the special effects team and the animatronics used to create Chucky. They do manage to give Chucky personality and to the best of their ability try to make Chucky a threatening figure.

The human performances are effective as well. Catherine Hicks delivers the best one. Alex Vincent is a cute kid but sometimes I felt he was told by the director, Tom Holland, to delivery his lines in an overly cutesy way. Chris Sarandon on the other hand seems a little bland. Brad Dourif however does excellent voice work.

"Child's Play" is a good horror movie playing on our fears of dolls. It is probably the best movie in the Child's Play / Chucky franchise. It plays its story straight with effective performances bringing about lots of scares.

PS - Although I am not the first one to point this out it should not go unmentioned how people noticed Andy was not only the name of the boy in this movie but also the name of the boy in Pixar's "Toy Story" (1995), also a story about toys coming to life. I find it very hard to believe the selection of the name Andy was not intentional on Pixar's part.

Film Review: Black Sabbath

"Black Sabbath"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

[Note: This review is in reference to the original Italian language version with English subtitles]

Italian horror maestro Mario Bava's "Black Sabbath" (1963) begins with Boris Karloff addressing the audience preparing us for three tales "of terror and the supernatural". However that is not the common link of this anthology movie. Each tale actually deals with revenge.

When mainstream American movie fans think of Italian horror movies (which probably seldom happens) the name that most often comes to mind is Dario Argento. Argento wasn't the only filmmaker working within this genre that garnered respect and cross-over appeal with Americans audiences. There was also Mario Bava.

Bava was instrumental in the development of giallo, directing what most film historians agree was one of the earliest examples of the genre, "The Girl Who Knew Too Much" (1963). By the end of his career he directed more than 30 movies including "Black Sunday" (1960), "Blood and Black Lace" (1964), "Kill, Baby, Kill" (1966) and his final movie, "Shock" (1977). His influence is said to have been seen in the films of Martin Scorsese, who championed Bava's use of colors, Quentin Tarantino and Tim Burton, who said of Bava's work "they are like dreams. They just stay with you." His "Planet of the Vampires" (1965) is believed to have inspired Ridley Scott's "Alien" (1979).

Fans of Bava's work will usually rank "Black Sabbath" high on their list of his best films. I once read, but have not been able to confirm, "Black Sabbath" was Bava's favorite of his own movies.

In the first story of this anthology, "Telephone", we meet the blindingly beautiful Rosy (Michele Mercier). Arriving home one night, she begins to receive phone calls from a disguised voice, telling her she will die. Not only that, but the caller also seems to be spying on her, as he comments on her every action. Eventually we learn the name calling her is named Frank. He has escaped from prison and tells Rosy he is going to get revenge against her for the way she treated him.

Seeking protection, Rosy calls her friend Mary (Lydia Alfonsi) and asks her if she would spend the night. It is more than implied these two had a sexual relationship. Frank may have believed Mary is what came between Rosy and him.

Watching "Telephone" it was difficult for me not to think of the opening sequence in Wes Craven's "Scream" (1996) with Drew Barrymore. She is also home alone and receives phone calls from an unknown person, who makes threats of killing her. "Telephone" must have been a source of inspiration.

Some may argue this is the weakest of the three stories but I feel it is a very good short story that doesn't over stay its welcome. It has a good suspenseful scenario that tries to offer a few twists. Not to mention a good performance given by Michele Mercier.

The next tale of revenge is called "The Wurdalak". It stars Boris Karloff as Gorca. He has went off to fight and kill a wurdalak, a vampire for the rest of us. Leaving behind his two sons; Giorgio (Glauco Onorato) and Pietro (Massimo Righi) as well as Giorgio's wife (Rika Dialina) and son Ivan. If Gorca does not return in five days, his family believes he was not able to stop the wudalak and has turned into one himself.

The situation becomes a bit more complicated when a stranger, Vladimir (Mmark Damon) finds a dead body and a knife stuck in it. Vladimir makes his way to Gorca's home where he explains his discovery. The knife belongs to Gorca but was the body that of the wurdalak? It is hard to say since the head was removed.

For me is the weakest of the three stories but it does build anticipation to whether or not Gorca has been turned into a vampire and is his family at risk. To be honest though, it is predictable.

Karloff is dancing around giving a campy performance but I did find it effective. Throughout the story he had a "mad" expression on his face. It kind of tips you off but it looks like Karloff is having a good time.

Ending this "trilogy of terror" is "A Drop of Water", perhaps the best of the three tales and one that features the most memorable images. It is the most scary, even with its cheap special effects.

Helen Corey (Jacqueline Pierreux) is a personal nurse to an ederly woman that has passed away. She learns the woman died during a seance and has, to put nicely, a ghastly expression on her face. She may have died of fright.

As troubling as that may seem it is not what grabs Helen's attention. Instead she is focused on an expensive ring the woman is wearing and decides to steal it.

This turns out to be a poor life decision. When Helen arrives home she mysteriously hears water dripping and visions of the dead woman throughout her home. It all cumulates to a chilling climax.

"Black Sabbath" does create some great color schemes and knows how to effectively generate atmosphere. The performances across the board are good. If there is a criticism it is that this feels like three separate stories that don't come together as part of a greater whole. 

The best of the pack is "A Drop of Water" which should be watched at night, in the darkest room in your home, when you are all alone.

Film Review: The Mummy

"The Mummy"
*** (out of ****)

For love or mummy, that is the question in the Hammer horror film, "The Mummy" (1959).

One of the most terrifying moments of my childhood, besides having to speak to my sister, was when I first saw "The Mummy" (1932). I vividly recall the fear that struck my heart when I saw Boris Karloff buried alive.

I grew up watching the classic horror movies of the 1930s and 40s. It wasn't until I was older, looking back on them, I realized outside of "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Wolf Man" (1941) and "The Mummy" quality quickly went south for these movies at Universal. The public lost interest and Universal demoted the movies to their "B" movie department.

What infuriates me most of all was Universal's treatment of The Mummy. In the 1940s Universal created a reboot of the franchise. It seemed like they wanted to erase from memory the Karloff version and released "The Mummy's Hand" (1940). This created a new origin story and a new mummy character. The movie was a failure in my mind as it incorporates too much humor (!) in the story. Why would Universal even bother with this reboot if horror movies had fallen out of fashion? Three sequels followed and it seems when movie fans today think of The Mummy origin it is the reboot movies they are thinking of, not the original version with Boris Karloff.

This leads us to this version of "The Mummy", which was part of the famed Hammer horror films of the 1950s.

Hammer Film Productions was a London based company started in the 1930s. They regained a great deal of popularity in the 1950s, releasing horror movies based on characters introduced in American films of the 1930s released by Universal. These films were known for starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. They were also memorable for their visual style and later on graphic violence.

Watching "The Mummy" part of me wonders why couldn't Universal Pictures treat their Mummy franchise with this amount of respect. Here is a movie that takes its mummy story serious and tries to elicit scares from the audience.

This version of "The Mummy" takes elements of the 1932 version and the reboots of the 1940s. This time around we follow a British archaeologist father and son team; Stephen (Felix Aylmer) and John Banning (Peter Cushing) in Egypt. If you recall in "The Mummy's Hand" the last name Banning was also the character's surname. They have been searching for the tomb of Princess Ananka (also introduced in "The Mummy's Hand. In the original version it was Princess Ankh-es-en-amon). While not shown on-screen, during the search John has managed to have broken his leg. He refuses to desert the expedition and seek proper care. Although, you may suspect the father, Stephen, doesn't want to his son to leave and may not care about his son's health as the discovery of the tomb is of far greater importance. John may also have a bit of hero-worship towards his father and doesn't want to disappoint him.

And so we have established the greed of the Westerner and their meddling of ancient culture as the princess' tomb is discovered. An Egyptian, Mehemet Bey (George Pastell. This name was also used in "The Mummy's Hand" changed from Ardeth Bay in the original) warns the expedition team not to enter the tomb. They do not heed his warning and inadvertently bring back to life a mummy named Kharis, after Stephen reads aloud words from the Scroll of Life. Alone in the tomb with the mummy, Stephen is sent into a severe shock and hospitalized for three years, with no hope of recovery.

It takes Mehemet Bey three years to travel to Engand (it must have been a long walk) and with him he brings the mummy, Kharis (Christopher Lee). Hoping to avenge the God Karnak, Bey will use Kharis to kill those involved in the expedition that desecrated the tomb of Princess Ananka. This all comes from "The Mummy's Tomb" (1942), the first of the three following sequels.

As in "The Mummy's Hand" this movie also finds time for humor. To be fair, many horror movies do, as a way to break tension. In this version of "The Mummy" it is at a much more "acceptable" level. Two drunk carriage drivers (Harold Goodwin and Denis Shaw) are given the task of delivering a large crate to the residence of Bey. The bumpy roads (and their drunkenness) cause the crate to fall off of the carriage and into a swamp. While the two drivers don't know what is in the crate, obviously the audience does.

Thematically there isn't anything new in "The Mummy" but the major contribution to this version may be that it was filmed in Technicolor. Much of the production designs still look like "B" movie quality to my eyes however. Still there is a slickness to this production that leads me to prefer it to "The Mummy's Hand".

Of all the horror movies of the 1930s and 40s that I have seen, each with a strong anti-science message, "The Mummy" is the only one I can readily recall that so directly comments on this theme as well as commenting on the lack of respect Westerners show towards other cultures. One of the most fascinating scenes in the movie isn't a horror sequence but a discussion between Bey and John regarding these issues.

As in other "B" movies the acting is at times a bit wooden. Cushing in particular on one hand has that stuffy British mien that Americans attribute to the British but it seems to go beyond that. The audience doesn't really believe in these performances. Everyone is simply playing their part not fleshing the characters out.

One other improvement this movie makes over the 1940 version is the atmosphere created. "The Mummy" has some good sequences playing around with lighting. Even the comedic scene with the carriage establishes the proper mood creating suspense. Will the mummy Kharis kill these two men? And the scene where Bey brings Kharis to life, out of the swamp is very well done, despite how fake the location looks.

The movie was directed by Terence Fisher, whose works has been closely associated with Hammer films. He directed "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957), "Dracula" (1958), featuring Christopher Lee's first foray as the distinguished count, and "The Hounds of the Baskervilles" (1959) . He is often credited as doing much for Gothic horror films by adding elements of sexuality and morality into the stories.

Not without its own flaws "The Mummy" is still a vast improvement over Universal's destruction of its mummy character. Nice atmosphere, good cinematography,  and an effective musical score make "The Mummy" worth watching.

Film Review: Nosferatu the Vampyre

"Nosferatu the Vampyre"  *** (out of ****)

It is a rather audacious act for a filmmaker to remake a movie that is generally considered a classic. F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror" (1922) is recognized as a masterpiece of silent cinema, a masterpiece of the horror genre, and one of Murnau's finest achievements. To take on a project with this reputation you better bring something special to the table.

This leads us to Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu the Vampyre" (1979). A movie ultimately I can't say gives audiences a fresh perspective on this existing material. Yes, Werner Herzog is a great filmmaker. And, yes this remake of "Nosferatu" is well made but I must conclude it is an unnecessary exercise. Some call this movie an affectionate homage to the original and to Murnau. That all may be true but it isn't a good enough reason to touch a classic despite what ever best intention's Herzog had.

The fundamental flaw in Herzog's version of this material is the filmmaker's interpretation of Murnau's film. "Nosferatu", in the hands of Murnau, was not merely a "vampire movie". I understand the lead character was a vampire but I suggest re-watching the movie. There is a theme of the constant battle between good versus evil in nature. Herzog, ever so delicately, touches upon this theme but ultimately I feel Herzog has given us a straight forward vampire movie. Look at the remaking of the title as an example.

There is nothing wrong with making a vampire movie. The question is, why remake Murnau's movie if you are not going to elevate the material. For me, Herzog has taken what made that movie unique from other vampire movies and has given us something, in theme, more routine.

Many may know the circumstances surrounding Murnau's "Nosferatu". It was an unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula". Murnau was not able to secure the rights to the novel and thus changed the names of characters. The vampire for example is called Count Orlok.. Still, the estate of the Stoker family sued and won their case. All copies of "Nosferatu" were thought to have been destroyed. Herzog however is able to call the characters by their originally intended names since the novel is now in the public domain.

And so we get Jonathan Harker (Bruno Ganz) a newly wed real estate agent sent to Translyvania to meet with Count Dracula (Klaus Kinski), who wants to buy an estate in the same town as Harker, Wismar. According to Harker's boss, Renfield (Roland Topor) there will be a large commission to be had if Harker can seal the deal. This is all the incentive Harker needs. Finally, he believes, he will be able to afford a proper home for his wife, Lucy (Isabelle Ajani).

Lucy has been having nightmares and a daily nightly appearance of a bat flying into her bedroom (why she doesn't shut the windows is beyond me) makes her believe Harker should not travel to meet with Dracula. She senses an evil force. Harker doesn't heed her advice and begins his journey. He learns the townspeople fear Dracula's castle and plead with him not to travel any further. Harker ignores their advice as well.

If you knew nothing of vampire movies, this may have been an effective tool to create suspense. Are the townspeople right? Is Dracula an evil figure? What could he possibly look like? But, we have seen vampire movies before from "Dracula" (1931) to "Nosferatu". Therefore this all feels routine in its set-up and delays the inevitable payoff.

Since no one dare approach the castle, Harker must travel by foot. Here is where Herzog lightly broaches the theme of good and evil in nature. Before Harker leaves, Lucy wants them to spend some time by the sea. It all seems peaceful. The two lead a simple life. This is contrasted with Harker's journey. The skies look violent. Nature isn't so kind and peaceful. Trouble seems to be in the air. In the end though it becomes a foreshadowing of Dracula and not part of a larger social commentary.

When we see Dracula, those of us that have seen the original, will marvel at the attention to detail in makeup. Kinski looks identical to Max Schreck.

And it must be said, this is not a "gimmick" movie. Herzog and Kinski handle this material with sincerity. Kinski is not giving an impersonation of Max Schreck. Kinski makes the character his own. Herzog doesn't want the audience to bask in nostalgia for the original. If you have seen the silent version, naturally in your mind you will make comparisons. The problem is the original looms over this remake.

From the meeting between Harker and Dracula we go into the familiar story. Harker becomes a victim of Dracula, who and travels to Wismar with great haste upon the site of Lucy. The movie suggest an almost telepathic ability the two have to communicate with each other. Eventually leading to a showdown between the two. Dracula represents evil and Lucy represents purity.

Some have suggested Herzog does add something new to this material. They claim this version of "Nosferatu" explores Dracula's loneliness. I admit there is a scene where Lucy is face to face with Dracula and the two discuss her love for Jonathan and death. In this scene the viewer may pick up on the despair in Dracula however to suggest this movie fully explores such a theme is to really over play your hand.

Defenders of this movie will advise others to pretend they never saw the original and to judge this movie on it own merits. In theory it is wonderful advice. In practicality however it is nearly impossible. One can't undo their life experiences. So, we must ask the question, what separates this version of Dracula from other versions? There is a greater sense of dread among the inhabitants of the town upon Dracula's arrival. Herzog is a talented visual filmmaker and can compose arresting compositions. Pay attention to the lighting in relation to Dracula. Because of the makeup, the black costume Dracula wears, and the bald head up against the black background Dracula's head is luminous. It creates an interesting effect.

Herzog's other big contribution to the movie is the visual of hundreds of rats roaming around the city. It is a metaphor for something. What I am not sure. Disease / evil spreading across the town? Herzog shows a bit of dark humor as a group of people try to have supper outside while the rats surround them. Does this show how people adapt and conform to trouble around them? The image recalls one from Herzog's "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972) and a scene with monkeys.

One couldn't say Herzog's "Nosferatu" isn't well made. You can certainly admire the performance by Kinski and some of the visuals as well but the movie is stuck in the shadows of the original. Where Murnau's version is regarded as a horror masterpiece, Herzog's version isn't even scary and takes on a more somber tone (which is not necessarily a flaw, just an accurate observation).

There is definitely an audience for "Nosferatu the Vampyre", especially among those that have never seen the original. I am sure they will enjoy this. If you have seen the original and this remake, it would be fun to watch "Shadow of the Vampire" (2000) the fictitious story of the making of "Nosferatu".

Film Review: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage

"The Bird with the Crystal Plumage"
**** (out of ****)

Dario Argento gives us a bird's eye view of murder in "The Bird with the Crystal Plumage" (1970).

"The Bird with the Crystal  Plumage" marked the directorial debut of the famed Italian horror filmmaker, Dario Argento. Perhaps the greatest Italian filmmaker working in the giallo sub-genre of horror. It was also the beginning of what some refer to as his "animal trilogy". The first three movies Argento directed had animals in their titles.

If you are a fan of Argento's work but haven't seen his films in chronological order, "The Bird with the Crystal  Plumage" will feel a bit familiar. It's story-line is somewhat similar to "Deep Red" (1975). An innocent man witnesses a murder and begins to play detective to solve the crime. In the process he becomes a "man who knows too much" as the killer knows his identity and tries to prevent him from learning too much.

At the same time "The Bird with the Crystal Plumage" won't feel like an Argento movie. It lacks the grisly death scenes we expect and the fetish appetite for blood Argento delights in. It is however one of his most classically structured movies and one of his best.

Sam (Tony Musante), is an American novelist, who has not written anything in the last two years. At the suggestion of a friend he travels to Italy, with his girlfriend, Julia (Suzy Kendall), where the scenery should provide inspiration. It doesn't. However, Sam lucks into a job writing a manual on the preservation of rare birds, thanks to a friend, Garullo (Gildo Di Marco). The job gives Sam, enough money to head back home to America. While things are starting to look up for him, this is where his troubles begin.

Walking home, late at night, Sam notices an art gallery from across the street. The lights are still on and two figures (a woman and a man) are visible. They seem in be in struggle. Sam crosses the street, wanting to enter the gallery. He is not able to make it inside and sees the woman has been stabbed by a knife. The man, wearing a black trench coat and hat, has escaped.

We learn from the police in the last month three murders have occurred. All the victims were women. No clues are ever left behind. Although the woman Sam saw, Monica (Eva Renzi), did not die, Sam remains the best lead police have in trying to identify the murderer. Unfortunately, Sam never got a good look at the man.

"The Bird with the Crystal Plumage" is a blend of eroticism and darkness, literal darkness. The fact that Argento makes each victim a woman, would lead some to say there is also misogyny in the story.

Two death scenes really stand out in the movie with each emphasizes the erotic nature of the movie and the choice of filming scenes in the dark.

In the first scene, an exceptionally beautiful woman (Rosita Torosh) is being stalked by the killer. It is filmed from the perspective of the kiler as he is taking photos of the woman. She walks home and gets ready for bed. She is wearing a see-through piece of lingerie and no bra. While in bed, we see the killer standing in doorway. Holding a knife he makes his way to the bed and gets on top of the woman. With the blade of the knife he cuts her lingerie, which ever so slightly covers her nipples. He then proceeds towards her panties and cuts them off.

While the scene is meant to be scary and build suspense in anticipation of the cruel fate of the woman, there is still an erotic quality to the scene with the man on top of the woman and the phallic symbol of the knife. Did the killer really need to cut her panties in order to kill her? Watching this scene I was reminded of another giallo movie, "What Have You Done To Solange?" (1972) where the murderer inserts a knife in a woman's vagina. The sexual connection should be obvious.

Also adding to the erotic nature of the movie is the soundtrack. A woman's voice can be heard. She is moaning. On one level we can associate the moaning with that of fear as the woman confront the killer and try to fight him off. But, listening to the soundtrack with your eyes closed. Now that you have divorced the sound from the image, it sounds like a woman having sex. Just listening to the soundtrack, with your eyes closed, you would think pornography was on. This is especially apparent in the movie's climax (a deliberate word choice).

In the second death sequence, another attractive woman is walking into her apartment building and up a spiral stairwell. The lights are out and the woman lights a match. The sequence is so dark at times we can see nothing in the background, only the woman's face in the forefront.

Argento films a couple of other scenes in the same darkness. The entire frame of a shot is black. One interesting scene has only light coming from the background of an open door. A character walks to the fore and is invisible in the blackness.

I can only suspect this was done as a variation on "are you afraid of the dark"? Night and dark rooms can be scary. Terrible things can happen in the shadows of the night. Argento plays with our fear of the dark in this movie.

For a movie about a murderer there is actually little violence seen on-screen. Today we think of Dario Argento as a master of gore but in his early days his movies showed were restrained. In he second murder scene I outlined, once the killer catches up with the woman, he attacks her with a switch blade, hacking at her. The camera shows the blade and cuts to the woman screaming. While we see blood on the wall we never actually see the blade touch the woman. This should make some recall the famous shower scene from "Psycho" (1960). I would be very surprised if Argento was not inspired by that scene. Keep in mind, with the release of this movie and his next two pictures, Argento was referred to as "the Italian Hitchcock". And, as in "Psycho" we also end the movie with psychiatrist giving us a psychological explanation of the killer and motive.

As in Hitchcock movies as well, Argento adds humor to his story. The recent murders are what end up inspiring Sam, not the beautiful Italian landscape. Sam, during his investigation, encounters a colorful cast of characters from a homosexual antique dealer, who has a crush on Sam, a pimp with a stuttering problem, and an eccentric painter, who has a lot of pet cats, for reasons I won't reveal.

"The Bird with the Crystal Plumage" (the title still doesn't make sense to me) displays what a talent Argento was at one time. He isn't working at the top of his game but there is more than enough to show us what lies ahead. Some may call this movie "conventional". I believe it is a great work by a great filmmaker. Now if only they could have improved on the audio, which isn't properly synced.

Film Review: The Haunted Palace

"The Haunted Palace"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

The events of the past haunt the present in "The Haunted Palace" (1963).

Although the movie's opening credits acknowledge Charles Beaumont's screenplay is from a poem by Edgar Allan Poe (whose name is misspelled twice in the credits as "Allen") and a story by H.P. Llovecraft, the movie is often lumped with Corman's series of Edgar Allan Poe adaptations.

Taking Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward", the movie does have a visual aesthetic similar to Corman's Poe movies and could be compared to "The Fall of the House of Usher", which Corman did adapt. It was the first of the Poe series.

"The Haunted Palace" begins in 1765 in the fictitious town of Arkham, located in Massachusetts. It is a dark and stormy night (what did you expect?). One of the townsmen, Ezra Weeden (Leo Gordon) seems on edge. He anxiously stares out of the window at a local tavern. His friend, Micah (Elisha Cook Jr.), tries to calm his nervous and asks him to have a drink with him. Nothing doing. Ezra is intently focused on staring out into the stormy night. Suddenly it happens. A figure is seen walking, a young woman. Erza and Micah follow. The woman walks through a cemetery to the home (or palace) of Joseph Curwen (Vincent Price).

Before going any further lets take a moment to appreciate this sequence. Roger Corman has acquired a reputation for making schlock. It is not necessarily unearned on Corman's part however when working with good material Corman can give us something to admire. The sequence is filmed in a blue / grayish hue. There is a mist in the air. The sound of thunder and lightening fills the soundtrack. This is how you create atmosphere. Pay attention to all the trees with crooked and twisted branches. They create obstacles for Ezra and Micah to maneuver through. Corman and cinematographer Floyd Crosby shoot the sequence using different angles and shots going from long shots to over head angles. It is all done to create distance.

When inside Curwen's palace we can see the woman's face. Her expression implies she is in a trance. Joseph leads the woman through a secret door to the basement where a satanic (?) ritual will take place. The woman is being sacrificed to, as far as we can tell, a creature. The appearance of which snaps the woman out of her trance as she bellows in horror.

Erza and Micah have gathered more townsfolk, yes with burning torches in hand, to the Curwen palace. They believe Curwen has put a spell on the woman and have decided to burn Curwen at the stake after declaring him a warlock. Before meeting his untimely death Curwen warns the town he will rise from the dead and exact his revenge.

The movie jumps to 110 years later when the great great grandson of Curwen, Charles Dexter (Price) arrives in Arkham, which is still covered in fog. Charles and is wife Anne (Debra Paget) are greeted coldly by the town when is it revealed who Dexter is related to. He is advised it would be best if he and his wife leave.

It is befitting Price would play duel roles.Charles is supposed to look like Curwen which adds to the town's fear that Curwen has come back to life to get revenge. However every other actor plays duel roles. This was not a good idea as it causes confusion. The characters don't speak as if they are descendants of those that burned Curwen alive but as if they were the ones responsible. They speak in intimate terms of what happened that fateful night. Even their age hasn't changed.

As in "The Haunting" (1963) and "The Shining" (1980) it is suggested Charles is being possessed by the palace. The spirit of Curwen is trying to take over his body. Upon first entry into the house Charles seems to know his way around. Charles becomes dismissive with Anne and tries multiple times to get her to go home. He has momentary blackouts. Also living in the palace is Simon (Lon Chaney Jr.), a caretaker, who has anticipated the arrival of Charles and Anne. He seems to have a knack for showing up at the right moment to startle Charles and Anne.

Lon Chaney Jr. and Vincent Price had never acted in a movie together prior to this. Although the roles aren't demanding and require a versatile display of emotions, they are the highlights of the movie. Just being able to see them stand side by side should put a face on your face. Here are two legends of the horror genre. Like other actors before Chaney known in the horror genre, he sometimes took on roles parodying his iconic characters (The Wolf Man) here though Chaney is given a decent character to play.

The question is, is the palace and the spirit of Curwen trying to possess Charles? The answer is rather obvious but I won't reveal it here. The other question is, what does this all lead up to? What is "The Haunted Palace" about? Is there any deeper meaning to what is on the surface? There doesn't seem to be. This is a tale of revenge.

Where "The Haunted Palace" goes wrong is it is all set-up and no execution.

SPOILER ALERT

It is true Curwen is trying to take over Charles' body. By the time he does, nearly 45 minutes have expired in this 87 minute movie. Curwen doesn't seem to have a well worked out plan for revenge. You would think he would after 110 years of planning. The movie needed to focus on Curwen's revenge in the second half of the movie and fully explain what that plan is. And a couple of scenes showing him exacting his revenge against the townspeople wouldn't hurt either, despite the ones we do see.

END SPOILER

There is however much to enjoy watching "The Haunted Palace", the production design, a terrific musical score by Ronald Stein, and the performances by Price and Chaney. But ultimately the movie doesn't effectively lead up to anything. It does such a good job creating atmosphere and setting up the premise that it forgets to do anything with it.

By the end of the movie we are left with something that might recall "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and every 1930s and 40s horror movie we have seen with the villagers storming to the palace with torches in hand. But it doesn't leave us with a satisfactory ending. It settles for a teaser ending which doesn't feel earned.

"The Haunted Palace" shouldn't necessarily be avoided but the other entries in the Poe series are better. Don't start with this one.

Film Review: Whispering Ghosts

"Whispering Ghosts"  *** (out of ****)

Milton Berle has a ghoulish time in "Whispering Ghosts" (1942).

"Whispering Ghosts" is a variation of the haunted house movie, where a cast of characters are assembled on a dark and stormy night in an old mansion for a reading of a will. The difference this time around is the main location isn't a mansion but a ship, known as the Black Joker, where a murder happened many years ago. According to some, there is a treasure on board.

Berle plays H.H. Van Buren, a radio actor known as "the man who lifts the veil". He has been able to solve 12 murders the police were not able to. But it is his 13th case which is getting him into the most trouble, solving the death of Captain Eli Weatherby. The case is ten years old but Van Buren believes he has solved it and will reveal the name of the killer on his radio program.

Not wanting to wait for the big announcement on the radio, Inspector Norris (Arthur Hohl) informs Van Buren he will arrest him for obstruction of justice if he doesn't reveal the name of the killer. It turns out Van Buren hasn't solved the case and has been following the wrong suspect. Wanting to save face in front of his radio audience, Van Buren and his valet, Euclid (Willie Best), head out to the ship to search for missing clues.

While on the ship Van Buren meets the great niece of Capt. Weatherby, Elizabeth (Brenda Joyce, "Jane" in a couple of Tarzan movies) who has inherited the ship. She has faith in Van Buren's ability to solve the case while her fiance, David (John Shelton) thinks Van Buren is a phony.

Directed by 20th Century Fox studio director Alfred Werker, "Whispering Ghosts" is a moderately successful entry into the comedy / horror sub genre. It understands the basic concept of what makes this sub genre work. We have two movies in one. In order for the movie to work it must create a believable scenario for the horror to take place so the jokes may be a natural extension of the material instead of forced comedy routines. "Whispering Ghosts" does a good job establishing the background story and creating an excuse to get all the characters on the ship.

The movie also works because of Milton Berle, who has a great screen presence, and is given the chance to shoot off a lot of one-liners. Berle hadn't appeared in many staring roles prior to "Whispering Ghosts", though was very funny in a supporting role in the Sonja Henie musical, "Sun Valley Serenade" (1941). That makes this movie something of a curiosity piece, giving movie fans a chance to see Berle in action before he found real stardom in television.

Berle has a rather stereotypical comedic persona. A well meaning guy, who acts brave but when faced with adversity becomes cowardly. He is quick with the one-liners, often using humor as a defense mechanism when fear takes over him. He also tries to exert himself in an authoritarian role in his relationship with Euclid by hiding his fear and asking Euclid to do what he is too afraid to do himself. Berle and Best have a nice rapport with one another allowing Best to be a good punchline for Berle's jokes.

If you have memories of Berle on TV or have come across clips, you may think of Berle as being a bit of a ham actor and / or "the thief of bad gags". As far as the jokes go, there will be many that find the  humor corny and dated. Others may call it racist, though that charge puzzles me. Some feel because Willie Best (whom if you didn't know was black) is presented as a coward and the fact he was black, adds a racist component. That Best's character acts cowardly is just standard operating procedure for a comedian. Especially in the context of a comedy / horror movie. The comedian is supposed to act scared. That is where the jokes come into play. Berle's character also has cowardly moments. I will however admit some of Berle's jokes make reference to Best being black. To me, the jokes come off in bad taste in today's modern society.

What is also noticeable is throughout the movie Berle has a smile on his face, almost to the point of laughing, as he delivers his lines. I honestly couldn't tell if this was intentional or not. Was Berle, the actor, having a good time or was he trying to have his character appear as a carefree fellow, always smiling and joking around?

For the modest success "Whispering Ghosts" has in the comedy / horror genre, it is still a routine picture and not exactly original. Other movies have been made with similar plots. In "Whistling in the Dark" (1941) Red Skelton played a radio actor known for solving crimes. Then there was Bob Hope in the slightly better "The Ghost Breakers" (1940), which Willie Best co-starred in as well.

Unlike those two other comedies, "Whispering Ghosts" doesn't have a love interest for Berle's character. For better or worst, "Whispering Ghosts" is not interested in a romantic sub-plot and focuses primarily on jokes. It makes a mistake though in having Berle's character figure out other characters' motives a little too early in the movie, which eventually denies the viewer more comedy set-ups. It also needed a stronger adversary for Berle's character. This would have been perfect for the David character, since it is established he thinks Berle is a phony. But David gets lost in the shuffle of characters. The screenplay was by Lou Breslow, who wrote two Laurel & Hardy comedies at Fox; "Great Guns" (1941) and "A-Haunting We Will Go" (1942) as well as "Abbott & Costello in Hollywood" (1945) and the Red Skelton comedy "Merton of the Movies" (1947).

"Whispering Ghosts" could have been a truly effective comedy / horror movie if it would have attempted to establish more atmosphere to play up the horror portion of the story. We needed lots of shadows, lightning, and eerie music. It also wouldn't hurt if there was one or two truly scary scenes.

Let "Whispering Ghosts" be a reminder that comedy / horror isn't an easy genre to tackle. One can watch this after they have seen Abbott & Costello's encounters with Universal Monsters and Bob Hope in "Ghost Breakers" and "The Cat and the Canary" (1939).

Film Review: The Tingler

"The Tingler"
*** (out of ****)

Beware! Your spine will start to tingle as you watch "The Tingler" (1959)!

"The Tingler" opens with an appearance from the movie's director, William Castle,  who offers a warning to the "sensitive people" about to watch the movie. They may feel what the actors on-screen are feeling. As a defense, Castle informs the audience, they must scream in order to gain relief. "A scream at the right time may save your life" he declares.

This of course sets up anticipation for "percepto", perhaps the greatest marketing gimmick in the history of motion pictures. An electrical buzzer attached to random seats in a movie theatre, that at the right cue, would cause the seat to vibrate, creating the sensation they also have a "tingler" inside them.

That should tell you everything you need to know about this movie. "The Tingler" and William Castle don't have high ambitions. Castle is more interested in cheap, sensationalist entertainment. This is not a movie to be taken seriously. Some may counter argue, can you really take a plot like this serious? The answer is yes. I'm of the opinion most subject matters can be made into good movies, if you treat the story in a thoughtful manner and film it according to its plot (i.e. if it is a horror movie, create atmosphere, play with lighting and shadows).

As such we have to put our lofty ideas aside of what might have been and focus on what is. To that extent "The Tingler" works within the parameters it has established. This is a "fun campy movie". It sets the bar low enough where adequacy is elevated. In other words, if Ingmar Bergman had directed this, we'd have laughed him out of Sweden.

Vincent Price stars as Dr. Warren Chapin. A pathologist who works at a state prison, performing autopsies on convicts sent to the electric chair. During one autopsy, a relative of the deceased is present. Chapin notices the convict's spine is crushed and begins to explain his ideas of fear's impact on the body. Having spent much time researching the topic, Chapin believes a parasite exists inside our bodies that literally takes hold of our spine when we are in a state of fear. This would explain the condition of the spine.

Chapin ends up befriending the relative, Ollie Higgins (Philip Coolidge), and drives him home. There he learns Ollie runs a movie theatre, that only screens silent movies, along with this wife, Martha (Judith Evelyn), who is deaf and mute. Martha is of great interest to Chapin because of her inability to scream. How is she able to release her fear? The parasite, the tingler, physically grows when we are afraid and weakens when we scream. If only Martha would die of fright, Chapin could perform an autopsy on her to prove his theory.

Because of his research, Chapin is a neglectful husband and is in a loveless marriage with Isabel (Patricia Cutts). She has taken on lovers and does a poor job of hiding it from Chapin, who doesn't really seem fazed at all. Living with them is Isabel's younger sister, Lucy (Pamela Lincoln), who is in love with Chapin's partner, Dave (Darryl Hickman).

Through circumstances better left unexplained, Chapin is able to prove his theory of the existence of a "tingler", which looks like a giant centipede.

The campy nature of the movie really kicks into high gear during a sequence in a movie theatre as the tingler roams free. The movie fades to black at times as Price does a narration trying to soothe the audience (the ones in the movie as well as those watching in a theatre) to remain calm. At other times he orders the audience to scream. It will be the only way to weaken the tingler and capture it. One can imagine this is the sequence where the vibrating seats came into play.

Having proved there is a tingler, we must ask, what is this movie trying to tell us? Because of the unintended consequences of this discovery, the movie makes an anti-science commentary. Chapin is willing to engage in questionable acts in the name of science. Horror movies of the 1930s offered similar warnings against science and the commentary emerged once again in the aftermath of WWII and sci-fi of the 1950s. Price even starred in one of these movies, "The Fly" (1958). Science meddles too much in society, dangerously seeking to answer questions which should be left alone. Curiosity is not a good thing.

The two marriages shown in the movie aren't happy ones and end in ways we wouldn't expect the production code would allow. What impression does that leave us with? Is this a rebuke of 1950s domestic tranquility?

It is not a comical coincidence that one of the owners of the movie theatre, showing only silent movies, is silent herself. It also doesn't escape our attention that her wardrobe and the wallop of white pancake makeup applied to her face, makes her look like a silent screen movie star. She resembles Nora Desmond, who lived in a world of silent movies when everyone else watched "talkies".

For a campy movie a lot of the performances are good. The weakest performance may belong to Darryl Hickman and Pamela Lincoln may have been given the worst dialogue. Vincent Price on the other hand, as usual, is immensely entertaining and watchable. Sometimes you get the impression Price believes he is doing Shakespeare. He is so committed to the character. Other times he is over acting, putting on a performance for those sitting in the balcony.

Although today audiences may think of Price as a ham actor starring in horror movies from the 1950s and 60s, he started his career as a serious actor appearing in well respected movies; "The Song of Bernadette" (1943), "Leave Her To Heaven" (1945) and "Shock" (1946).

William Castle on the other hand had always been associated with "B" movies and always invented a gimmick for each movie. He primarily worked in the thriller and horror genre. "The Tingler" and "House on Haunted Hill" (1959), which Price also stars in, are probably his best known movies.

"The Tingler" can be fun to watch, if you are in the right mood. It may not scare you but there will most likely be some unintended laughs. I can only imagine how teenagers will react to the scene where Price drops acid (!). If you enjoy this, check out "House on Haunted Hill", which I prefer.

Film Review: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"

**** (out of ****)

When we see him, he is playing the organ. To some people knowing how to play a musical instrument represents culture. He is playing a piece by  Bach. That means refinement. He has a butler, that's wealth. He is going to be late for his lecture. He must be important if people want to hear what he has to say.

We already know so much about him within the first few minutes of the movie without much being said. The man is Dr. Jekyll (Fredric March) and he is all the things we suspect; cultured. refine, wealthy, respected, kind, and noble. This sequence is done in a spectacular POV shot from Jekyll's perspective.

His lecture will be about the duality of man. He speaks of man's soul. Man is not one he states but two. One half "strives for the nobilities of life" the other "seeks an expression of impulses that bind him to some dim animal relation with the earth." This results in a struggle bringing about repression to one half and remorse to the other. But Jekyll believes these two could be separated from each other, freeing our noble half to achieve great things.

While the lecture is controversial, with the old guard laughing at the theory, the movie tries to re-enforce Dr. Jekyll's noble half we then see him care for patients in a hospital's charity ward. He does this even if it means missing a high society party given by his future father-in-law, General Carew (Halliwell Hobbes) and disappointing his fiancee Muriel (Rose Hobart).We can assume however we will see his more primitive half by the end of the movie.

And, as in most cases, the primitive half of man is brought out by a woman. Just as there is a duality in man, so shall we see two types of women, each inspiring men in different ways. When Dr. Jekyll is with Muriel, his nobler self is present. He loves her madly and wants to marry her immediately. Dr. Jekyll describes his love to Muriel by saying he loves her "gaily, happily, high heartedly".

This sequence is filmed by shooting close-ups of Jekyll's and Muriel's face. As Jekyll speaks of Muriel, we get a close-up of her face as it then switches to a close-up on Jekyll's face and back to a close-up of Muriel's eyes. There is a sensuality gleaming from her glance as we hear her say she loves Dr. Jekyll.

Contrasting this innocent love scene the movie introduces Dr. Jekyll to Ivy (Miriam Hopkins) a woman of lower social standing to Muriel, who brings out the animal impulses in men. Their meeting oozes sexuality (you instantly recognize why this is a pre-code movie) as Dr. Jekyll comes to Ivy's rescue after he has an altercation with a drunken man who hit her. Dr. Jekyll carried her to her apartment and places her on her bed. All the while she has not noticed Dr. Jekyll's face but when she does, she finds him to be quite handsome. She coyly shows him a bruise on her thigh, lifting her dress and revealing her high stockings. She evens tells him "you're the kind a woman would do something for". Gee, if we only knew what she meant to imply! After suggesting Ivy get some rest, the camera gets a long shot of her, as she sits up on her bed. She lifts up her dress, revealing her legs and removes her stockings, throwing her garter at the camera.

The scene serves for giving us our first glimpse into Dr. Jekyll's other half. Yes, there was a sexual connotation to his scene with Muriel, there was also restrictions due to their environment, stepping outside of Muriel's house in her garden. With Ivy, they are in the seclusion of her bedroom where anything can happen. Here there is no talk of love, there is only lust in the air. Interestingly, each scene ends with Dr. Jekyll interrupted by a third party. It is so easy to give in to temptation yet there is always someone around to stop us.

Of course, Dr. Jekyll does become able to create a potion that will free his other half and turn him into, who he calls, Mr. Hyde. The transformation scenes are still astounding to watch today, in our world of CGI. Initially the camera stays on Jekyll's face as we see his skin color and hair change. Then the camera breaks away and when it returns the transformation is complete. These scenes rival those in "The Wolf Man" (1941). Although I must admit I don't particularly care for the way they made Mr. Hyde look. To me it is a cross between Bela Lugosi in "The Ape Man" (1943) and Jerry Lewis as Professor Kelp from "The Nutty Professor" (1963).

When Mr. Hyde is released he finds Ivy, who works as a singer in a saloon. Hyde, essentially, represents the sexual repression of Dr. Jekyll. As Dr. Jekyll he found Ivy attractive and was aroused by her. As Mr. Hyde there will be no restrictions. But, Mr. Hyde doesn't look like Dr. Jekyll and Ivy doesn't find him attractive. The third time we get a close-up of a woman's face it is of Ivy staring at Mr. Hyde. There is nothing sensual in her look or flirtatious. It is fear.

If we were to look at the story of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" as a story of good versus evil, we are left with a message that in such a world if we allow evil an entrance it will overtake us. There is no way to balance them. Eventually evil becomes the stronger of the two. If we look at this story as one of a mad scientist, it is a story fitting for the period as there was a strong anti-science sentiment in movies of the 1930s. Dr. Jekyll is a scientist and like all scientist he wants to play God. For that he will suffer. I sincerely wish I knew what was going on in society in the 1930s to inspire such stories.Sadly, as with all things, we have come full circle and once again live in a time where science is suspect.

The movie, based on Robert Louis Stevenson's novella, "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", was directed by Rouben Mamoulian and nominated for three Academy Awards, winning one for March's performance. The movie was remade 10 years later with Spencer Tracy in the lead and is generally dismissed as inferior to this version. I, however, very much like both versions. There is also a silent version starring John Barrymore released in 1920. That too is a masterpiece, emphasizing the religious aspects of the story.

"Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde" is a beautifully stylized movie with great cinematography. The performances all around are effective and the make-up work very impressive. Sadly the movie has not been properly released on DVD and is very difficult to come by (at one time it was thought to be a lost movie after MGM bought the rights to it). If you can find it, it is well worth watching.

Film Review: The Mummy's Ghost

"The Mummy's Ghost"  *** (out of ****)

The Mummy gets wrapped up in another story in Universal's "The Mummy's Ghost" (1944).

"The Mummy's Ghost" was the third movie in Universal's series to reboot The Mummy franchise and was the best of the pack.

Taking place 30 years after the events occurred in "The Mummy's Hand" (1940) and the awakening of the mummy Kharis (Lon Chaney Jr.). Several people have died at the hands of Kharis. Many townsfolk recall the grisly deaths and attest to the fact it was a mummy responsible for them. The story of a curse placed on those that entered to tomb of Princess Ananka has become folklore, as Kharis, the love of the princess, exacts revenge.

It is also believed Kharis has been brought to an end due to the events of "The Mummy's Tomb" (1942) where the character was trapped in a burning house.

We discover the "guardian" of Kharis, Mehemet Bey (seen in the first two movies) had a son, Yousef (David Carradine), who will take over responsibility of Kharis, after the death of his father. Yousef  hopes to bring Kharis and Princess Ananka back to Egypt.

Kharis, we discover, did not die in the fire (it is never explained how he managed to escape) and can be summoned whenever nine tana leaves are brewed during the cycle of a full moon. He begins to go on a killing spree until he and Yousef are able to reunite with the princess.

A possible interference with this plan may be Tom (Robert Lowery), an American college student. He has been dating an Egyptian girl Amina (Ramsey Ames). She becomes mixed-up in a police investigation of the death of one of Tom's professors (Frank Reicher). She was found unconscious outside the home of the professor. Although she is never treated as a suspect, police do want to question her and find out why she was at the scene of the crime.

We are also lead to believe because of Amina's Egyptian heritage she will serve as a link to Kharis, Yousef and Tom.

"The Mummy's Ghost" corrects the problems of "The Mummy's Hand" by eliminating all the humor from the story. Like "The Mummy's Tomb" the movie almost works as a zombie movie with Kharis slowly walking through neighborhoods, with one of his feet dragging, towards his victim. Like a zombie, Kharis only seems to know how to go in a forward direction and never moves out of the way from on coming obstacles. Of course the sight of a mummy walking freely in an American city (we are suppose to be in Massachusetts) can be funny.

My issue with Universal's reboot of The Mummy is first of all it was not necessary. Secondly, they did nothing to improve upon the original. All of the 1940s Mummy movies are "B" movies, as were most of the horror movies coming out of Universal at the time. The movies are too short. "The Mummy's Ghost" is less than 60 minutes. No story can be fully expanded on within that time. Each of the following sequels waste time by inserting recaps of the first movie, so the audience is familiar with the origin story. None of the movies create atmosphere, playing with lighting and shadows and really build suspense.

"The Mummy's Ghost" in some ways plays as a police investigation. An inspector character, who knows nothing of ancient Egypt, tries to create a trap for Kharis at the professor's home, believing the guilty always return to the scene of the crime.

Instead of erasing the memory of "The Mummy" (1932) Universal should have burrowed elements from it. Why isn't there an expert on ancient Egypt fully utilized in the movie? The movie needs a Van Helsing character to guide everyone. Someone to inform them what the mummy is after and how to stop it. And how about truly making Kharis scary. A soulless, evil figure bent on destruction, seething with hatred. And would it have killed someone to give Yousef a bit of a personality? He could be suave and charming on the outside while he instructs Kharis to kill. Yousef could mingle among the townspeople discovering where the intended victims live. Which leads to the point, how does Kharis know his way around Massachusetts so well? He should get a job with Uber.

There are some continuity issues as well. The time of day keeps shifting within the same sequence. Some scenes are at night while others have light in them. And the scenes with light are always with Kharis. He should only be roaming Massachusetts at night, like other violent people.

This marked Lon Chaney Jr.'s second time playing Kharis and in many ways it is a thankless role. Under the make-up and bandages you can't even tell it is Lon Chaney Jr. and their is no dialogue for the character (and there shouldn't have been). You could make the comparison between this character and Frankenstein's Monster. Boris Karloff had to contend with many of the same issues, make-up, no dialogue, stiff movement, yet Karloff was able to make the character distinct and gave it personality. Perhaps because all of Karloff's face wasn't covered. There are times though Kharis is a bit like The Monster. Both did the bidding of others and were used as tools. You may also find it interesting that at one time Chaney played Dracula, The Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Monster and a mummy. The only actor to do so in Universal's movies.

While I may seem overly critical of "The Mummy's Ghost", in its cheap, exceptionally modest way, it works. It is far superior than any of the other movies in the series. I don't think of "The Mummy's Ghost" as a mummy movie but a zombie movie. This could have been more effective if Universal was willing to throw more money at the production and there was better cinematography.

Here is another interesting fact. If we follow the time line established in these movies, it is 1942 in "The Mummy's Tomb" because the character is drafted in the the war. "The Mummy's Ghost" takes place 30 years after that movie making it 1972. "The Mummy's Curse" (1944) takes place 25 years later, making it 1997. Amazingly, it all still looks like the 1940s. Notice though how they try to hide the identity of the time period. There is no emphasis placed on cars or city life. Rarely do we see streets and restaurants. Still, you can't hide the clothes.