Don't watch alone...2009

[Wayne]

Yay! No time to read this at the mo Wayne but I think I'd defo like to check it out! 7+ is always good on the Waynescale

No probs Ralph.

[Ralph]

Just scanned you review there Wayne so as I don't get too much detail in advance but I must say it sounds really good so thanks for lending, I'm looking forward to this one

[Wayne]

Just scanned your review there Wayne so as I don't get too much detail in advance

Totally fair enough. I think you'll enjoy this one.

It doesn't seem to be a commonly known film. I've only ever seen in on tv once, & that was over 25yrs ago!

[Ralph]

Yes I've never heard of it, it's funny sometimes how entertaining movies can get lost in the mists of time

I was just thinking of a film I once saw, I think it was French with subtitles and it was about a guy that gets trapped in a telephone box and then a truck picks it up and there's a collection point full of trapped victims. It was really entertaining and the last time I saw it must be about 25 years ago.. does it ring any bells?

[Wayne]

I was just thinking of a film I once saw, I think it was French with subtitles and it was about a guy that gets trapped in a telephone box and then a truck picks it up and there's a collection point full of trapped victims. It was really entertaining and the last time I saw it must be about 25 years ago.. does it ring any bells?

Yes! I remember that! Wasn't it just called 'The Phone Box' or something? Just a short film, but really weird! Great ending!

[Ralph]

Yeah thats the one!

[Dirk Gently]

Just to add my five pence worth...

The Car. I remember seeing this at least 3 times in the past, it's a good film & I would recomemd anyone seeing it. Yes it's OTT but to be honest that's forgivable. Jaws is OTT but that's a good film.

[Dirk Gently]

Oh, and yes. I've also seen that 'Phone Box' mini movie(?) In the end doesn't the chap find himself in a warehouse with other people also trapped in phone boxes & as the camera pulls back you see other people trying to get out & also Skeletons of still more still trapped. Quite un-nerving if you use them regularly.

[Wayne]

Yes it's OTT but to be honest that's forgivable. Jaws is OTT but that's a good film.

Agreed! I like 'Jaws' as well.

[Alex]

I Am Legend

Spoilers Below

After Emma Thompson cures Cancer, the cure mutates and turns almost everyone in to a vampire-ish creature. Will Smith's the only man left in New York, possibly the world, and he's desperately trying to come up with a cure to save the world...

I did have slight mixed feelings when it came to this, mainly because I'd accidentally read spoilers that revealed that Will wasn't alone in the world, and that the vampirey creatures were the film's main threat. So I was relieved that this information was revealed within about 30 minutes and so I could watch the rest of the film without knowing what was going to happen.

I thought Will Smith was really fantastic in it, and I was surprised at the big Willy bashing that went on elsewhere (I can't remember the thread) as I think he's a really great actor, just quite poor at choosing roles sometimes. But here he really convinced as a man struggling to retain his sanity in a world that's literally gone to hell. The big emotional moment is of course when he has to kill his pet dog, but I'd seen this coming for a long time so wasn't too upset by it, even though the actual moment was heart wrenching admittedly.

The film's big mistake in my mind is the use of cgi creatures in it, it suffered from a case of the "Van Helsing's" in that they didn't look real to me at all, which I thought was a real shame as it made the film less scary. That said, the big set pieces - Smith searching for Sam in a dark building, the dog's attacking him, and the final big fight - were really gripping, and I found myself fascinated throughout the film.

I found the bleakness of the film really interesting for a major hollywood film (even if there is a ray of light at the end), and that there was so many intriguing moments in the film - and the empty city was incredibly haunting. I'd give it 7.5 / 10 overall, if only they'd not used cgi bad guys it would have gained an extra point.

[Dirk Gently]

This film actually sounds interesting now. I'll have to check it out.

[Wayne]

Today's randomly selcted triple bill consisted of:

CAT GIRL (1957)
THE ASPHYX (Uncut) (1973)
BIZARRE (aka SECRETS OF SEX!) (1970)

Some Spoilers

Cat Girl

"A young woman inherits a family curse that turns her into a murderous feline when she is angered."

Notable for being the first film to feature future Hammer starlet Barbara Shelley in a starring role, 'Cat Girl' isn't a bad film for it's day, but it's no lost classic either. It's easy to see why the early Hammer films had such a big impact on the horror genre at that time, because 'Curse of Frankenstein' made the same year, makes films like this one seemed rather old fashioned by comparison.
It's a fairly slow burner - the story takes quite a while to develop, & it's a bit confused. On the one hand it seems to be saying that Shelley's character Leonora physically turns into a wild animal, & although the actual transformation is never seen in full, we see her holding her hands up to her face as they turn into claws. Then on the other hand it seems to be suggesting that Leonora's soul is projected into an actual Leopard that's conveniently on the loose, & indeed Leonora is seems to be urging the leopard on saying 'Kill Kill Kill', each time she wants to dispatch one of her intended victims.
On top of that, it's heavily suggested that it's all down to mental illness, & she's placed under the care of her old flame who happens to be a psychiatrist, & we only ever see the transformations through Leonora's eyes. But basically, it's a varation on the werewolf theme, & Leonora herself mysteriously dies when the leopard is hity by a car at the end of the film.
There's not that much to the story, which is basically a muderous spree perpetrated by Leonora against various people out of jealousy & revenge, & the viewers are left top make their own minds on how ultimately this is acheived. I'd say it's a pretty average film overall. I've seen a lot worse, but i've seen a lot better. It does quite well on atmosphere, but it's ultimitely Barbara Shelley's smouldering performance that just tips this film on the good side of average. It's a shame her co-star Robert Ayres is so wooden, but Shelley's portrayal of Leonora was enough to keep me interested in the film. And i must say, she does look quite eye catching at 25yrs old as she was then.
All things considered, i think 5.5/10 is a fair score for this one.

The Asphyx (1973)

"English country squire Sir Hugo Cunningham searches for immortality by literally 'bottling up' the Spirit of the Dead, or Asphyx."

I remember from the old forum that Matt's keen on this one, & i picked it up cheap after he recommended it. At that time i thought wasn't bad, but i was probably more picky back then, & i sold it on eBay. But when the oppurtunity came up to get a copy of this apparently uncut Australian dvd release, i thought it would a good oppurtunity to give the film another go.
After a second viewing i must admit i feel perhaps a shade more positive, but ultimately pretty much the same about it. It's major drawback is that it's quite slow going, but it does have some very distinctive scenes & the overall idea behind it is intriguing if slightly odd, & perhaps a bit woolly.
It has an overall visual look of a Hammer film. The sets are quite lush, & it's nicely photographed. It also has a quite a gothic feel to it with the late Victorian setting (aside from the rather clever contemporary book-ending) , & i couldn't help but feel that Peter Cushing was somehow missing from this film. Not that the performance's of Robert Stephens & Robert Powell were poor - quite the opposite, but i think the film would've benefited even more from a bit of star quality casting. However, Robert Stephens portrays his character's anguish particularly well, especially towards the end, & Robert Powell's remorse & grief was also well done.
It gets a bit talky at times, but the experiments involving the Asphyx itself are quite hair raising! That tortured screeching is very effective, & you almost find yourself wincing in sympathy. The incidental music & the direction also helps to make these sequences more eerie & unsettling. But you can't help but wonder if all the equipment that they've got seems a bit advanced for Victorian times.
All in all, it's not a bad film. A bit slow, but i like the concept & the overall feel of it. I can't say as i noticed any extra bits, seeing it how this is supposed to be 'uncut', but in all honesty i don't know the film well enough, as i only watched it the once. I'd have to see the British release again. The only other thing i didn't like about this version is the slitty letterbox aspect ratio thingy. Even when you change to what i think of as 'normal' (16:9) widescreen, it doesn't look right.
Anyway all things considered, i'd give 'The Asphyx' 6/10.

BIZARRE (aka SECRETS OF SEX!) (1970) - oh my! described as a brainy sex flick on IMDB

I'll leave my thoughts on this one until tomorrow. It's too late now & in all honesty i'm still not sure what to make of it! It's definitely different.
It's a British film originally released here as 'Secrets of Sex', but the title of 'Bizarre' that the Americans changed it to for their market is much more apt! It's perhaps telling that it's only been released on dvd in the USA.
But until tomorrow......

[Dirk Gently]

The Asphyx (1973)

"English country squire Sir Hugo Cunningham searches for immortality by literally 'bottling up' the Spirit of the Dead, or Asphyx."

I remember from the old forum that Matt's keen on this one, & i picked it up cheap after he recommended it. At that time i thought wasn't bad, but i was probably more picky back then, & i sold it on eBay. But when the oppurtunity came up to get a copy of this apparently uncut Australian dvd release, i thought it would a good oppurtunity to give the film another go.
After a second viewing i must admit i feel perhaps a shade more positive, but ultimately pretty much the same about it. It's major drawback is that it's quite slow going, but it does have some very distinctive scenes & the overall idea behind it is intriguing if slightly odd, & perhaps a bit woolly.
It has an overall visual look of a Hammer film. The sets are quite lush, & it's nicely photographed. It also has a quite a gothic feel to it with the late Victorian setting (aside from the rather clever contemporary book-ending) , & i couldn't help but feel that Peter Cushing was somehow missing from this film. Not that the performance's of Robert Stephens & Robert Powell were poor - quite the opposite, but i think the film would've benefited even more from a bit of star quality casting. However, Robert Stephens portrays his character's anguish particularly well, especially towards the end, & Robert Powell's remorse & grief was also well done.
It gets a bit talky at times, but the experiments involving the Asphyx itself are quite hair raising! That tortured screeching is very effective, & you almost find yourself wincing in sympathy. The incidental music & the direction also helps to make these sequences more eerie & unsettling. But you can't help but wonder if all the equipment that they've got seems a bit advanced for Victorian times.
All in all, it's not a bad film. A bit slow, but i like the concept & the overall feel of it. I can't say as i noticed any extra bits, seeing it how this is supposed to be 'uncut', but in all honesty i don't know the film well enough, as i only watched it the once. I'd have to see the British release again. The only other thing i didn't like about this version is the slitty letterbox aspect ratio thingy. Even when you change to what i think of as 'normal' (16:9) widescreen, it doesn't look right.
Anyway all things considered, i'd give 'The Asphyx' 6/10.

Nice review, Wayne. I remember this film. I thought it was really good. The concept is intriguing; the search for immortality has always fascinated man from time immemorial.
And the suggestion at the end that immortality is a curse not a blessing is a good one.
He can’t die because his ‘spirit, aura, asphyx’, whatever it’s called, is tapped under the remains of his house means that he can never die. And so long as you don’t start thinking about why he never spent the intervening years digging out his lab then it’s a good ending.

From memory I’d give it 7/10.

[Wayne]

Thanks Tim!

BIZARRE (aka SECRETS OF SEX!) (1970)

I'll leave my thoughts on this one until tomorrow. It's too late now & in all honesty i'm still not sure what to make of it! It's definitely different.
It's a British film originally released here as 'Secrets of Sex', but the title of 'Bizarre' that the Americans changed it to for their market is much more apt! It's perhaps telling that it's only been released on dvd in the USA.
But until tomorrow......

As i was saying.......

Ok, i'll cut to the chase - It's rubbish! Memorable rubbish i'll grant you, on the grounds that it's just such an oddity.
It's basically 6 short stories presented as an Amicus style anthology, & the stories are all linked to together & told by a 3000 year old Mummy, voiced by Valentine Dyall, who was buried alive by the jealous husband of his lover centuries ago. The stories supposedly relate examples of 'the age old battle of the sexes'. Apparently.
The film's 6 disjointed segments have more in common with soft core porn than horror, & although there is a macabre slant to some of them, others just left me thinking: 'What was that supposed be?"
So i'm going to cheat a little here, & paste the story outlines (such as they are) from the 'A to Z film guide from the British Horror Forum', & give my brief reaction & rating.

Story 1
"A kinky photographer gets her model to straddle a razor sharp “Spanish horse” torture device (“Come on, don’t hang about…” he complains. “This is torture!”) before attaching weights to his legs and then leaving him alone to die."

The final shot would make any bloke wince, but it's a dull 15mins getting there. 1/10

Story 2
"Mary Claire is a scientist, and Sascha is her rich lover. He wants a kid, she gives him one. But she’s not mentioned the congenital birth defect she’s carrying, and he ends up with a monster for a child."

We only get the briefest of glimpse of the deformed monstrosity that she's given birth to. Shame because it's probably the most effective 'horror' moment in the whole film. Probably the only one in fact. Shame about the wooden acting during the 10mins getting there. 2/10

Story 3
"A man catches a burglar in his home, and rips off their mask to reveal… “Christ! A bird!”
She replies to his incredulity with: “Just a minute… you can deal with a girl, can’t you?” before peeling off her PVC catsuit and going for a shower with her pants on. The story deteriorates into what appears to be an advert for lemon and cucumber soap, with him joining her in the shower, & eventually to bed where the pants finally come off for sex, & leads to some interesting ideas of what to do with a telephone receiver, before a vague “twist” at the end."

Twist? Call that a twist?
This segment is just a complete excuse for titilation. (for want of a more appropriate word) There's not even any 'horror' aspect to it at all. Not in the slightest. It doesn't even try.
I shouldn't really be giving it any points, but although this film packed to the gills with sexy women, the actress in this segment, (Cathy Howard, who appears briefly in Hammer's 'Twins of Evil') really is the best thing in the film from the eye candy point of view. So i'll give Cathy one. (as it were) 1/10

Story 4
"Lindy Leigh is Special Agent 28, whose main talent appears to be the ability to “accidentally” shed her clothes at inopportune moments. The previous segment may have been slightly pathetic, but this looks like it was written and directed by a couple of 13-year-old boys with their hands down their trousers the entire time. The only possible saving grace for the whole embarrassing segment is that it contains the strangest “film within a film within a film” I’ve ever seen."

This segement is clearly played for comedy, but it's just not funny. At all. Once again, there's no 'horror' element to this one whatsoever. No effort made in that direction at all, & the "twist" is even more pathetic than the last one. 0.5/10

Story 5
"A man phones for a call girl: “When do I want her? Right now!”
His chubby escort arrives, and after squeezing her ample frame into his hotel room, he murmurs to her: “It’s very fashionable, and it’s very, very in today!”
He shows her something, and she screams. “You’re out of your mind… no-one with any sense would go anywhere near that thing!”
I’ll leave it to you to find out what “that thing” is, but it’s probably not what you’re expecting."

This one was just absolute pants, & by now the film was starting to lose any credibility as i'd become really disinterested by this point. Again, no horror quotient at all, it was just literally 'Bizarre'. But still not any good. I can't even bring myself to five a point for the busty, leggy blonde. Just utter rubbish. 0/10

Story 6
"A woman who keeps flowers in a greenhouse is ruminating about her years in Monte Carlo to her new butler: “I ruined 17 men at those tables… and not one of them knew…. At least, not until it was too late.
“And now I’ve got them exactly where I want them!” she adds, indicating the flowers she’s watering.
Jeeves isn’t impressed, however: “You filthy alien garbage heap!” he rather improbably interjects. “Misappropriation of men’s souls is a very serious crime!”

After this segment i was just thinking 'wtf??' Just garbage. 0/10

The latter half of this film is just a complete waste of time, & the film finishes with an acid influenced group sex scene as Valantine Dyall's 3000 year old Mummy intones: “And the battle goes on…”

What kept me watching to the end was a kind of 'Just how much worse can this film possibly get' kind of thing. Well that & the totty & the sheer strangeness of it all. It's got to be the worst film i've ever reviewed on any thread, but i can't give it a no score, because in spite of it all, it's not a film that you're likely to forget after having seen it. You will remember it, even if it's just for the dubious honour of being the worst film on the thread.
In fact, i think i'd rather watch it again because of that, in preference to something like the banal 'Burke & Hare' that i watched a few nights back. So i'm going to go mad, & give it 2/10. Even if one of thiose points is entirely for Cathy Howard.

Edited to add: Apparently this film was a very successful one of it's type, in that it played Soho cimemas for years!

[Ralph]

A bit of a mixed bag there Wayne with nothing particularly special...if it gets less than a 7 it doesn't make the Wayne shelf...

Unlike myself you have a good ability to still do a review when it's been a disappointment. I find it tough to make the effort in these cases

[Wayne]

A bit of a mixed bag there Wayne with nothing particularly special...if it gets less than a 7 it doesn't make the Wayne shelf...

Ah but i'm especially partial to my horror films, so whilst it might be a more strict 7 for westerns & such like, A 6/10 horror is in with a chance of making it onto my shelves. Especially the ones that are a solid 6, rather than those which just shade a 6, if you know what i mean.
Even so, those right down to 5, or even 4/10 in some cases, i'll hang onto in CD/DVD carry cases. I've got 1 that holds 240 discs that's full of Who related stuff, like spin-offs, Confidentials, & the like, & also Prisoner Cell Block H. And another one that holds 400 discs that's almost entirely full now, of various films a tv stuff that's not that bad, but has not actually made it onto the 'proper' shelves as such. Things like 'New Avengers' & 'Twilight Zone' & 'Outer Limits' re-makes, & hoardes of various films.
Anything below a 4 usually gets passed on to other folks, but i might make an exception for Cathy Howard.

Unlike myself you have a good ability to still do a review when it's been a disappointment. I find it tough to make the effort in these cases

More so with horror films probably so, yes. It's pretty much my favourite genre. Even above Sci-Fi these days.

[Ralph]

Well on my scoring, anything of a 6 or above I aim to hold onto whatever the genre but generally anything 5 or below I probably wouldn't want to see again

[Wayne]

NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957)
VAMPYRES (1974)

As well as the Western, i managed a horror double bill of 2 more random choices today. I've just finished the 2nd one, & i'm too knackered to write reviews tonight, so i'll do it tomorow.
I'll just say that one of them was was good, & one of them wasn't.

[Ralph]

I watched The Sorcerers and well I think it was OK but I wouldn't be fussed to see it again.... more tommorow

[Wayne]

Intriguing..... I might be tempted to move that one up the list then.

[Wayne]

As well as the Western, i managed a horror double bill of 2 more random choices today. I've just finished the 2nd one, & i'm too knackered to write reviews tonight, so i'll do it tomorow.
I'll just say that one of them was was good, & one of them wasn't.

Night of the Demon (1957)

"Dr. John Holden ventures to London to attend a paranormal psychology symposium with the intention to expose devil cult leader, Julian Karswell. Holden is a skeptic and does not believe in Karswell's power. Nonetheless, he accepts an invitation to stay at Karswell's estate, along with Joanna Harrington, niece of Holden's confidant who was electrocuted in a bizarre automobile accident. Karswell secretly slips a parchment into Holden's papers that might possibly be a death curse. Recurring strange events finally strike fear into Holden, who believes that his only hope is to pass the parchment back to Karswell to break the demonic curse."

I'd heard about this film before, (i think Nathan mentioned it on the old thread) & after reading that it's generally considered a genuine high point of British Horror cinema, & after some confusion on my part owing to the fact that it was re-cut & released in the States as 'Curse of the Demon', i eventually tracked it down, & it was well worth it.
Ok, by the standards set that year by Hammer's 'Curse of Frankenstein', it admittedly still feels a tad old fashioned, & it has to be said that the demon itself doesn't look great by today's standards. You have to put yourself in 'Aggedor' mode.
But this film absolutely steeped in atmosphere. It looks good, as it's a relatively late black & white movie, so it's nice & sharp. The direction is good, the performances are solid, if not outstanding, & the story is well paced.
American actor Dana(??) Andrews plays the psychologist Holden, & he does indeed start off solidly sceptical & disbelieving in any notions of demons, black magic, & the supernatural, but Karswell is an experienced & powerful practitional of the black arts, & gradually wears down Holden's scepticism. Admittedly, one particular scene where Karswell's pet cat become large black ferocious feline that attacks Holden, does require ask a lot of the viewer in terms suspension of disbelief, because despite the quite valiant efforts of the director, it's quite obvious that Holden is fighting with a rag doll version of the animal. Still, as a Dr.Who fan, i'm used to these things. Andrews' performance as Holden is a bit stiff, but solid.
Karswell himself is played by Niall MacGinnis, & who puts in a charismatic but vaguely old fashioned performance. His best scenes are towards the end when he's trying to prevent Holden from giving him back the parchment, but ultimately fails after Holden manages to trick him into taking it back, with only minutes to go before the demon must appear to claim the life of the holder of the parchment. His abject fear after he realizes he's been tricked, & the demon starts to appear, is well played. It's quite a clever way of ending the story in such a way that paranormal events or activities aren't suspected, except by those in the know.......
Despite a few visual weaknesses, this is indeed a great example of British cinema of the period, despite being somewhat eclipsed at the time, by the rise of Hammer films. Hugely atmospheric, & in spite of everything, quite unnerving & realistic in the sense that you really believe that these events could possibly actually happen. In that sense it reminds me of Hammer's: 'The Devil Rides Out'.
Oh, & lookout for a superb early cameo apperance from Brian Wilde, (later of 'Porridge' fame) who gives a very convincing performance of a man who's involvement in events has clearly unhinged him. A fear that resembles, & possibly even outmatches Denholm Elliot's similar role in Hammer's: 'To the Devil a Daughter'.
So all in all, 'Night of the Demon' is a worthy 7/10.

Vampyres (1974)

"A lesbian vampire couple waylay and abduct various passer-byes, both male and female, to hold them captive at their rural manor in the English countryside in order to kill and feed on them to satisfy their insatiable thirst for blood."

Hmmmm....... I'd heard about this one, & i had my suspicions that it wouldn't be all that much cop, & i was right. But i wanted to be sure.
As i'd heard, it seems that the appeal of this film comes largely from having it's 2 lead females Marianne Morris & Anulka Dziubinska romping around naked & indulging in lots of lesbian snogging. And if that's what you want, then sure enough they don't hold back. In fact it opens up with it all going on. or off, should i say. But much as i may be partial to such spice, it must only be part of the trimmings as it were. It if's not a good film in other ways, then i'm not really interested, & i doubt if i'll be coming back to this film for a second viewing.
Ok, it's not quite as poor an effort as the similar lesbian vampire themed 'Daughters of Darkness' which i reviewed on the old thread, (3/10) & it's certainly not as bad as 'Embrace of the Vampire', (2/10) But it's still not great. Ok, it does have a bit of atmosphere, most notably when the male victim (& later the woman from the caravan) is wandering around in the cellars of the house in the dark, but for the most part it struggles to have a genuine horror film ambiance.
The other problem is that save for for ongoing plight of the initial male victim, there's no real advancing storyline. There are several victims throughout, & repeated bloodlettings with more sex in between. And the film contradicts itself by showing them moving around in the daylight, & then later saying that they sleep all day in the cellars of the house.
It's obvious that the makers of this film tried to re-create the ambiance of Hammer's 'The Vampire Lovers' during the lesbian intimacy. It's mainly given away by the incidental music which strikes a very similar theme, & using a lush string section instrumentation. But they've completely failed to realize that Ingrid Pitt's seduction of Madeline Smith is only a very small part of 'The Vampire Lovers', (about 2 minutes) & this film simply relies on the lesbian aspect far too much. It you want to market it as soft core porn then fair enough, no problem. But a great horror film it does not make.
However, at least the girls' vampire make-up looks good, & the scenes of the feeding from the male victim are very remeniscent of the classic 'Brides' of Dracula. There is some attempt at atmosphere, & sensuality rather than sex, but ultimately not enough, & overall it's not successful enough at it.
All in all i've seen worse, but this one just scrapes a 4/10.

[Ralph]

The Sorcerers (1967)

Plot:
"The Sorcerers is set in 1960's swinging London where one night Mike Roscoe (Ian Ogilvy) decides he is bored, Professor Marcus Monserrat (an ancient looking Boris Karloff) approaches Mike and promises to give him a new kind of experience he'll never forget. Mike accepts & follows the Prof. back to his house where he & his bitter wife Estelle (Catherine Lacey) plug Mike into an electronic device which hypnotises him & lets both the Prof. & his wife feel what Mike feels & experience what he experiences as well as being able to control his mind. At first they enjoy the sensations Mike gives them but Estelle's motives take a sinister turn as she makes Mike steal for her as well as commit murder just for kicks..."
.

I’m not overly keen on Ian Ogilvy and I think his performance is fairly wooden here but then again I suppose he is supposed to be a zombie. Karloff’s performance is strengthened by the fact that his character finds himself in conflict with his evil wife and so strengthens the film a bit more. This is one of three films Michael Reeves directed before his early death. The best of the bunch I’d say is Witchfinder General because of it’s strong atmosphere and unsettling subject matter. This one feels very much like a b movie. The strong swinging 60s element of the movie heavily dates it. Once Karloff ‘s character and his wife take control of Ogilvy and the evil element takes over the plot gets fairly predictable. For me it just felt pretty bland. The eye candy factor is good with short skirts and so forth and the fact that I found that more appealing than the plot, well what can I say.

Worth a one off watch but ultimately “disposable” . It’s a 5.5/10

Anyway thanks for lending me this one Wayne - I was curious to see what Michael Reeves' other films were like

[Wayne]

Interesting thoughts. I've just got in, so i haven't made my mind up which one(s) i fancy tonight, but i've got a few others i'm curious about besides that one.

[Ralph]

Well I'm in the mood for some Cushing so I think I'll give Corruption a spin

[Wayne]

I think i've decided on:

THE INNOCENTS (1961)
THE MASKS OF DEATH (1984)

(& possibly a 3rd choice if i go for a late triple bill)

'The Masks of Death' is also Cushing.