Don't watch alone...2009

[Ralph]

No triple bills here - some of us have to get up in the morning

[Alex]

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

I saw that by chance at the end of last year, when it was on BBC2 late one night. I went in with no expectations and quite enjoyed it, though it isn't that scary - I just saw it in some ways as a fascinating look at sixties culture. I thought the elements with Ian Ogilvy's character where he's socialising with friends were really interesting, indeed it's the 'sci-fi' element which felt dated for me personally. I did like the ending though, especially with the power struggle between Karloff and his wife, and from memory rate it around 6 or 7 / 10, it's no classic but I'm glad I've seen it.

I tried to go and see Sweeney Todd today but it was only on in one cinema in the west end, and the timing didn't suit me. Which is all a bit of a shame as I've heard a lot of good things about it, and I think I'm definitely going to try and see it during the week.

[Ralph]

Corruption (1968)

Plot: “A top surgeon (Peter Cushing) who injures his fiancee (Sue Lloyd) during a violent argument. Her face is permanently scarred as a result and Cushing feels terrible about what he has done to her. However, since he's a surgeon, he decides that he might be able to help her.”

Peter Cushing gives a great performance as always, you really feel his torment and his conscience troubles him deeply as the film progresses. The close up shots and pacing make his performance frantic at times and it’s a more physical and violent than usual. Some of the photography and editing is a bit unusual with the use of distortion – I’m not sure if this adds to or detracts from Cushing’s performance – I think he’s good enough without this. Sue Lloyd, who I recognised as “Courtney” from “The Ipcress File” plays the part of his wife to be, very convincingly.

Cushing and Lloyd really make the film feel much classier, without them it would be poor horror 60s fodder. The performances of the actors who appear later in the film as it draws to the finale are pretty wooden and in my view take away from the credibility of the film.

There’s good pacing throughout the film, it never slows up but perhaps there could have been sharper editing in the likes of the beach pursuit scenes.

I found the incidental music very odd at times, it’s a jazz style which I guess was in films of this era. While elements of it help a bit with the suspense this is a major part of the film I would change and I think it would make a considerable improvement to have a more appropriate style to fit the mood better.

The film could benefit greatly from being upgraded to DVD and being shown in it’s proper widescreen format. This copy is a transfer from a VHS tape on 4:3 format.

Finally then I’d give this 6.5/10 for the performances of Cushing and Lloyd which are worth checking out. Cushing fans will not be disappointed

[Wayne]

Interesting to get your thoughts on these Ralph. I'll come back with more comments once i get round to watching them myself. Which won't take me long at the rate of 3 a day. (or 2 & a western)

Tonight's triple bill will finish about 2/2.30am.

[Ralph]

Ok see you tommorow to check out the thoughts on "The Innocents" and see if Carol's rave review is matched. I have a suspicion you'll rate it alonside "The Haunting" of the same era

Nite!

[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.

I hadn't actually realized that 'The Masks of Death' wasn't a horror, but merely a Sherlock Holmes adapation. Whilst it boasts a strong cast of Peter Cushing as Holmes, John Mills as Dr.Watson alongside the likes of Anton Differing, & Ray Milland, Sherlock Holmes stuff just doesn't do it for me. I did give it a try, but although Cushing does as well as ever, after 20mins i was bored. I just find that 'Elementary my dear Watson' stuff all so cheesy, so i moved on to 'The Innocents', & finished off with the famous 1941 version of 'Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde'.

Ok see you tommorow to check out the thoughts on "The Innocents" and see if Carol's rave review is matched. I have a suspicion you'll rate it alonside "The Haunting" of the same era

The Innocents (1961)

Contains some Spoilers

I must admit that at this time of night, i couldn't be arsed to go searching for Carol's review that's on the old thread, but i do remember that she rated it very highly. As to Ralph's supposition above, i do remember that 'The Haunting' didn't really grab me, but i would say that my overall opinion of 'The Innocents' if anything, is bit closer to Carol's, partly because 'The Innocents' is actually quite a different animal in many respects, to 'The Haunting', despite being similar in others. But just because they're both 'ghost stories' made within 2 years of each other, it doesn't mean that they can be tarred with the same brush.
'The Innocents' came over as more memorable to me, largely because of the more powerful performances, & the more (albiet subtle) surreal quality. The eerie moments are less 'in your face' than even 'The Haunting', but they are more powerful to me because there's a more dream like, or perhaps i should say nightmare-ish quality to them, & also the film cleverly avoids stating explicitly that what Miss Giddens is actually seeing are ghosts. In fact there are several suggestive scenes, particularly with regard to her restless nights, & tiredness because of her bad dreams, that this might be helping a deep seated psychosis to manifest itself.
It is quite slow burner, it spends a full half hour setting the scene, & for a long time there's only the merest hint that something is amiss. I must admit that by the time it got to about 40mins in, it was make or break as to whether i was going to let this film play out 'in the background', as it were. But just at that crucial point is when the film started to get more interesting.
The concept of these 'ghosts', who are previous occupants of the house, trying to perpetuate their relationship in some way, by possessing the two children is also an unusual & more interesting slant on the 'ghost story' theme than that of 'The Haunting'. What's even more intriguing is whether the controling & manipulative personality of Quint is actually possessing Miles in some way? It would certainly explain the completely unexpected & slightly disurbing 'kiss' on the lips between Miss Giddens & the young boy, which lasts a few seconds. But once again, nothing is made explicit. Miss Giddens herself makes no attempt to break off this 'kiss', so that it's just a half a second long 'peck', as you would normally expect between an adult & child, which raises lots of questions in the viewers mind, because this is a seemingly lonely woman from a strong religious background who has no children of her own. Or perhaps in her possibly unbalanced psycological state, she actually imagines she's being kissed by Quint?
Whatever the answer, it's another example, albeit the most disquieting example in the film, of things being left totally open to the viewer to decide. That, along with some surreal imagery that effectively underscores the most eerie moments of Miss Gidden's experiences, all makes for some subtley thought provoking stuff.
The remaining element of what makes the film stand out more is the strength of the performances. IMO, Deborah Kerr is a little bit 'over-acty' at times, but strangely enough, never on the spooky bits where you'd expect her to be. In fact, i'd say for the most part she does a fine job. There's just the odd moment when she seems a bit 'stagey'. Or perhaps it's because Meg Jenkins who plays Mrs Grose is so convincing in a solid, down to earth way. The child actors are both very good, but has to be said that Martin Stephens, who appeared in many films of the period, including the landmark 'Village of the Damned', where he almost stole the film from his adult co-stars, turns in a remarkable performance for a child actor, especially towards the the end.
All in all, what's makes this film memorable is that it got me thinking. Something which 'The Haunting' didn't manage for whatever reason. Although, i'm strongly tempted now to go back & give it another go at some point. The downside of the film is undoubtedly the pacing. It is a slow burner, particularly in the first half, & the most memorable scenes feel quite spaced out. I must admit, i was touch & go there with it for a while, But it does build into an very thought proking movie with a slightly surreal eerieness to it that appealed to my imagination throughout the latter half.
Quite difficult to rate this one, but it is bit on the slow side, which does did impact on my overall enjoyability factor, even if it was mostly the first half. So i'm giving it 6.5/10, in comparison to 4.5/10 for 'The Haunting', which i will re-appraise again at some point.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

After gaining a new appreciation for some of the old Universal classics recently, & also reasonably enjoying the BBC's 1981 adaptation of the story, i decided to give this one a shot. Although not actually a Universal film, it's of that era, & it does have quite a high reputation for it's time, & stars Spencer Tracy, who is one of those old classsic actors like James Stewart, that i've always thought had something.
But the brutal truth is that i didn't enjoy it as much as i was expecting. I was prepared for the more old fashioned style of a movie of this time, but it's still a bit of a culture shock when you haven't watched a 30'/'40s movie for a while. To be fair, i didn't think Spencer Tracy's performance suffered that much in this respect, but i can't say the same for his co-stars Ingrid Bergman & Lana Turner, who both seemed a bit old fashioned. Especially Lana Turner. I found Ingrid Bergman's performance more convincing than Lana's, because i felt that she was so much better at the emotional stuff, but ironically, the role of her character called for lighter approach for quite a lot of the time, & it's that that came across more old fashioned, although she was very good in certain scenes that required intensity.
Spencer Tracey does a good job of both roles, but you have to bear in mind that the transformation shots are a bit static. After all, it's only 1941. But the make-up job isn't too bad, & he looks quite good as Mr Hyde, considering.
The main problem for me with this film was that it felt horrendously slow. For an earlier movie, i wasn't expecting it to be quite so long, but at only 10mins or so short of 2hrs, it really did seem to drag.
On the plus side, i get the impression that this was a high budget movie of the day, because visually it looks pretty damn good for it's time. There's some nice sets, & the cinematograhy is beautifully atmospheric. The most memorable bits were the surreal imagery of Bergman & Turner that accompanied the initial transformation, that seemed to represent the conflict of sexual interests for Jekyll, who was to marry his fianceé Turner, but was clearly attracted to the flighty Bergman. Also, Hyde's sheer mental bullying of Bergman's character was very well represented, & quite dark & disturbing.
But aside from looking nice, & having a few scenes that stand up comparitively well, it was just too slow paced for me. The first transformation scene doesn't even take place 'til over half hour in, & at the end of day, there's no getting round the fact that i found it very difficult to stay interested in the film, overall.
So based ultimately on the overall enjoyment factor, i can only give this one 3.5/10, compared to 6/10 for the 1981 BBC version.

[Ralph]

I'm checking out "The Innocents" tonight, back on the Western trail tommorow night

[Wayne]

I haven't fully decided yet, but i reckon i'll manage another triple bill, or at least a double bill. One of 'em will probably be 'The Sorcerers', & i'm also curious about 'Black Sabbath'

[Ralph]

From Page 18 of the old thread it's a Baynes special complete with smilies for Wayne

Right, house lights down for.....The Innocents (1961)

Wayne might like to know that during the cursed video in The Ring (2002), about 25 seconds in, a young boy's muffled singing can faintly be heard. This audio track is taken from The Innocents.

As for The Innocents itself, I can think of no better example of the less is more ethic. Because of this the film is rightly regarded as one of British cinemas finest ghost stories. The Innocents is extremely creepy because half the time you dont see anything- its all suggestion. Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr), a Victorian governess, is appointed to a lonely house in the country to look after two children, Flora (Pamela Franklin) and Miles (Martin Stephens). To begin with the children seem like butter wouldnt melt in their mouths, but things start to take a subtle but sinister turn

Director Jack Clayton uses some extremely innovative techniques to sustain the ghostly atmosphere of dread, which weaves its way through the whole film. The script by William Archibald and Truman Capote (yes, that Truman Capote) won awards, and quite rightly too. The film is based on Henry James classic The turning of the screw and is a fairly faithful adaptation. Like the book, the ambiguity remains about whether the ghosts are real or the product of the governess fevered imagination. Deborah Kerr, in the lead role, is outstanding, her performance veering on the edge of insanity at some points, the character totally convinced of the evil surrounding the house and threatening to taint the children in her care. The two children sometimes overact, but their performances are generally very strong. This is especially true for Martin Stephens as Miles, who turns in a powerfully creepy appearance.
What is even more disturbing, and a theme not often discussed, is how the ambiguity stretches to the relationship between Miss Giddens and the young boy Miles. The scene where Miles asks to kiss her good night and holds himself to her lips for perhaps too long is quite shocking as it is unexpected. This indecent aspect returns briefly and subtly at the films end. What this suggests is left to the viewers imagination, as is much in the film.

Too many modern films would throw in some clever CGI and blind us with visual explanations. Here, the black and white palette makes us work harder at watching the film, especially in the scene where Miss Giddens sees the figure in the lake in a panoramic shot that forces us to peer into the screen and through the rain to see if the figure is really there or not. Touches like that make the film creepier as you feel more involved in the 'haunting'.
This is truly a film that will not appeal to anyone who doesnt appreciate a great story well told, with some beautiful direction and cinematography. The Innocents is not a blood splattered gore fest or a cheesy computer generated bore. But it is a fantastically atmospheric ghost story, and a true British classic.

A Baynes recomendation!

It has much in common with Robert Wise's "The Haunting", but I noticed some of you don't rate it too much.

[Wayne]

Obviously i can relate to Carol's excellent review a lot more now that i've actually seen the film, & i'll await with interest to see what you're thoughts on in are, Ralph.

[Ralph]

The Innocents (1961)

Well I've just watched this and read the two reviews. I'm afraid I was disappointed, I honestly gave it a chance but it so slow burning that the flame barely lights at all for me. There's no doubting it's a subtle movie and I'm not into gorefests or modern CGI in your face stuff...

I consider "The Others" and "The Shining" excellent examples of ghostly films that create a fabulous atmosphere that genuinely I feel is foreboding and creepy. It's not just the era it's made in as I genuinely found "Curse of Frankenstein" made 4 years earlier a creepy movie.

For me I thought it very similar to The Haunting in style and I preference I would say I found that better as it held my attention more.

There's some good performances here and I don't really want to knock it as others have clearly seen more in this film than I have but it'd really not my kind of movie at all

I did like the eery sound effect music which reminded me of an effect used in a much later sci-fi series to good effect.

I always judge a movie ultimately on it's entertainment value. On this one the best scoring I can muster is a 4/10 for the performances of all concerned which on the most part is a good effort.

Sorry I can't see what Wayne and particularly Carol seem to appreciate in this one

[Wayne]

Why am i not surprised.

Fair enough Ralph. Although i think my score reflects the fact that i didn't find it a fantastic movie, but definitely a good one.
Your stance on the 'entertainment factor' can sound a bit limiting. I know what you mean - For me too, there has to be what in my terms i describe as 'overall enjoyability', & i suppose we basically mean the same thing. But i personally feel that i can enjoy different things in a movie, without it neccesarily being seen as 'entertaining', which more suggests that a film has no value on any other level but that. But Personally, i think some movies can be just as enjoyable in a different way, without neccesarily being 'entertaining'.

As for me, my reviews of tonight's viewing will be at a late hour again, i'm afraid. But the triple bill selected was:

BLACK SABBATH (1963)
THE TELL TALE HEART (1960)
THE SORCERERS (1967)

I'm just on my 12.00 intermission.

[Ralph]

Your stance on the 'entertainment factor' can sound a bit limiting. I know what you mean - For me too, there has to be what in my terms i describe as 'overall enjoyability', & i suppose we basically mean the same thing. But i personally feel that i can enjoy different things in a movie, without it neccesarily being seen as 'entertaining', which more suggests that a film has no value on any other level but that. But Personally, i think some movies can be just as enjoyable in a different way, without neccesarily being 'entertaining'.

perhaps entertaining isn't the right word but if a film in my view is good it gets you emotionally involved - that could be laughter, sadness, inspirational, moving, engaging, aborbing, exciting, thought provoking and so forth.... but if I'm bored then it's a low score!!

[Wayne]

perhaps entertaining isn't the right word but if a film in my view is good it gets you emotionally involved - that could be laughter, sadness, inspirational, moving, engaging, thought provoking and so forth.... .... but if I'm bored then it's a low score!!

Fair enough. I thought that's what you meant. It's just terminolgy really.
As an example, i see a big difference between say a musician & an 'entertainer'. It's the difference between say Kate Bush (even though i'm not fan, she's still a musician) & Kylie Minogue.
Same as there's a difference between actors & entertainters. It's the difference between say Richard Burton & Julie Andrews.
Ultimately, all forms of performance be they musical or on the screen, must be entertaining on some level, but to speak of good artistic music or films as merely 'entertainment' doesn't always do justice to what i consider to be more worthy work.
But it's just semantics really. I suppose being into serious music makes me a bit of a 'snob' in some people's eyes because i see serious music as a form of 'art' more than anything else. And i feel the same about films.

[Wayne]

Black Sabbath Aka: I Tre volti della paura. (Three Faces of Fear) (1963)

Until this evening i knew nothing about this film beyond the fact that it was apparently the inspiration for the name behind 'Black Sabbath' the rock band. I hadn't even realized until i put it on that it was an Italian film, & that 'Black Sabbath' was the US/English title, although not the literal translation. I'd always assumed that with Boris Karloff being in the film, that it must've been American or English. Imagine my surprise to find that his voice was dubbed in Italian!
The movie consists of an anthology of 3 tales approx 30mins each in length:
The Telephone
This first tale concerns a young woman being terrorized over the telephone by what she thinks is her ex-lover who has escaped from prison, & is watching her, & is on his way to kill her.
Unfortunately, this segement is easily the weakest. This could easily've been a quick 15 minute teaser, as it didn't really go anywhere, & didn't even have much of twist at the end. But it did set off quite a good ambiance, helped by the eerie music, & also had the bonus of featuring some serious eye candy from French actress Michèle Mercier. 3.5/10
The Wurdalak
This is the segment featuring Boris Karloff, & it's easily the most atmospheric segment of the three. The cinematography here is splendid. Vivid & colourful, it really does have marvelously creepy look & feel to it. It's basically a slant on the vampire mythos, & Karloff's makeup job is highly effective. Even though it's criminal to hear the dubbed voice, he's still very striking as the bloodsucking 'wurdalak' who tricks his way into the family home. Even a young boy falls prey to the curse, & it looks particularly ghoulish, & made me think of the young boy who floats up to the window in one of my favourite scenes from 'Salem's Lot'. I enjoyed this segment. 7/10.
The Drop of Water
I liked this one as well. This was certainly the freakiest segment for it's strange, macabre slant, though not as visually effective as the previous segment. This is a chilling little tale concerning a nurse called to the deathbed of a psychic medium. Very strange things start happening to her after she steals an valuable bejewelled ring from the finger of the corpse. This is a really weird & unnerving segment with a very convincing performance from Jacqueline Pierreux. Another 7/10.
This was a genuine surprise. More of a moody, atmospheric chiller than a full on horror, but very effective indeed for it's time. An unusual & memorable style that stands out as a bit different. I enjoyed it, but mainly the two last segements Shame it's let down by that poor first story which wasn't of the same calibre as the last two. That makes it a bit difficult to rate because that first one drags it down a bit, so i think it has to be 6.5/10.

The Tell-Tale Heart (1960)

Like 'The Inocents', some spoilers are neccesary to dicuss it proerly.

Back to black & white for this one, & unfortunately it's obviously an unrestored print, which is of a similar relatively poor quality to that of 'Crypt of the Vampire', which i reviewed on the old thread. I can't help but feel in this case that if it was of similar visual quality to 'The Innocents' or 'Night of the Demon', it would've done this film far more justice.
Based on an Edgar Allen Poe story, this is the tale of a shy & awkward character called Edgar Marsh, who's had little experience with women, & falls for the new girl in town, Betty Clare, played by a young Adrienne Corri. (Even more reason to bemoan it's poor quality & monochrome 'colour')
Betty is basically a kind soul who takes pity on the naive Edgar, & agrees to date him. But unfortunately for Edgar, she falls for his more experienced, 'man about town friend', Carl. To his credit, Carl intially tries to keep a distance, but eventually can't contain his mutual attraction to Betty, & they meet later to make love. And this is witnessed by the mentally frail Edgar, who bludgeons his friend to death in a fit of jealousy.
This is really where the story starts, but the reason i've gone into such detail about the build up is because there's a lot of subtext going on which gives a depth of insight into the characters. Especially Edgar. Betty has moved in opposite across the street from him, & he accidentally spies her stripping off down to a basque & stockings. The sexual repression in Edgar is rife. He glances guiltily up to his (presumably dead) mother's portrait, clearly feeling guilty because of the sexual thrill in voyeuristically (albeit accidentally) seeing Betty in a state of undress. He has to seek Carl's advice in how to approach her, & he just about manages to ask her out to dinner. He soon becomes completely besotted with her, & Carl does his best to warn him not try not to get too attached, as he is clearly aware the his friend's feelings aren't reciprocated.
The portrayals of all 3 characters are handled really well, but it's Laurence Payne's oh so earnest Edgar that really stands out. It's a great performance of a fragile man who is trying oh so hard. But too hard. You really feel for him. The great thing is that like 'The Innocents', much of the sexual undercurrent is not made explicit at all. It's just all there in the subtext.
The story gets into 'scary movie' gear with the murder of Carl. Edgar simply can't handle what he's done. And like 'The Innocents', the quandry is whether the ghost of Carl is haunting him, or has his guilt finally sent his fragile mind over the edge? And although it's never stated for a fact, i think it's clear that rather than this being a case of a genuine haunting by the dead Carl, it's actually Edgar that's gone literally insane with remorse.
It begins with the sound of Carl's heart constantly beating, & echoing round the room from under the floor where Edgar has hidden him. There's some poultergeist style activity going on, but the best scene is where Edgar retreives Carl's corpse, & actually cuts out the heart of the dead man in order to try & stop the constant beating. In quite a good visual effect for the time, the ripped out heart is still seen beating in Edgar's hands......
Inevitably it all leads to a tragic ending, when Betty manages to arouse the suspicions of the police, over Carl's disappearance. (Note the police inspector played by John Scott Martin)
In spite of everything i've said, i think this is a very character based film, & if you don't enjoy the chracterizations, then you probably won't get as much out of the film. Also, like 'The Inoocents', this is not a fast paced movie by any means, & futhermore, i think it's the kind film you have to be in the mood for, & to a certain extent, be prepared for something more that operates on a different level to a lot of 'horror' films. I don't think it's quite as classy as 'The Innocents', & in many ways it's much more like play than a film. The 'main event' if you like, doesn't happen 'til half way through the film, & it's only after that that the spooky stuff starts to kick in, & if you don't get into the characters or have an appreciation for what Edgar is about, then it could easily just seem like a whole load of build up, before the film takes off. For these reasons, i'm scoring it 6/10, but i'd say it's worth seeing. In Dr.Who terms, it's got a similar feel to 'The Edge of Destruction', if that helps. Pity they couldn't vidfire this.
To be perfectly honest Ralph, On the basis of your reaction to 'The Innocents', i don't think this film would be your cup of tea.

The Sorcerers (1967)

Like 'The Innocents', this was a bit bit touch & go for the first 20mins or so, but just at the point when i was getting ready to put it down as a disappointment, it suddenly took a darker & more intereting turn. Namely, at the point where Estelle (Karloff's wife) starts to turn from an inoffensive, 'nice old lady' into this power crazed meglomanic!
I enjoyed Karloff's performance, as he's always been a favourite of mine, but on this occasion he was a eclipsed for me by Catherine Lacey's marevelous performance as Estelle, which was made even more enjoyable because you could see that she played the part with such obvious relish! And who could blame her! Estelle turned into a helluva character!
For me, once the power struggle started, the film just went into gear big style, as Estelle gradually got more greedy for the experience of inhabiting Mike's body, & more & more controlling & dominant, as she became drunk with with power. I really liked it!
I must admit that i've never been keen on Ian Oglivy, & i was fairly indifferent to the character of Mike, who i felt could've been played by anyone. Elizabeth Ercy as Nicole was a bit better i thought, & she looked nice. (Although not as nice as Susan George's cameo. I nearly popped my cork)
It's interesting that you thought that the 60's era heavily dated the film, Ralph. It's fair comment, but i would say the same about 'Dirty Harry' being heavily dated to it's era. As many films are.
But after a bit of slow start, i ended up liking this more than i thought i was going to. I agree with Alex. 7/10

[Ralph]

To be perfectly honest Ralph, On the basis of your reaction to 'The Innocents', i don't think this film would be your cup of tea.

Ok thanks for sparing me!

The Sorcerers (1967)
It's interesting that you thought that the 60's era heavily dated the film, Ralph. It's fair comment, but i would say the same about 'Dirty Harry' being heavily dated to it's era. As many films are.
But after a bit of slow start, i ended up liking this more than i thought i was going to. I agree with Alex. 7/10

Well in this case I'm convinced it was probably cheesy on release in '67 re the dating whereas DH seems more like just normal for 1971. There's no comparison anyway between a cinematic milestone like this and er Sorcerers

It probably helps to like Karloff's style

[Wayne]

Well in this case I'm convinced it was probably cheesy on release in '67 re the dating whereas DH seems more like just normal for 1971.

If that's what you want to believe.

[Ralph]

If that's what you want to believe.

Indeed I do!

[Wayne]

Today's triple bill.

PANíS LABYRINTH (2006)
THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE (1973)
HORROR HOSPITAL (1973)

Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto del fauno) (2006)

"In the fascist Spain of 1944, the bookish young stepdaughter of a sadistic army officer escapes into an eerie but captivating fantasy world."

First of all, i don't really consider this a 'horror film. Yes, it has horror overtones, but if anything i'd call it a 'fantasy' film.
Now i've heard a lot about this film, & whilst enjoyed it, i don't think it quite lives up to some of the hype. Yes the fantasy sequences look fantastic. It's definitely a film of visual splendour. But it was a bit like 2 different films rolled into one, & for my money the drama of the 'reality' side of the film had a lot more impact than the 'fantasy' side. Yes, we had that freaky, cannibalistic creature with eyes that fitted into it's palms, & it was pretty damn effective, but the sheer brutality of Captain Vidal was even more scary if anything.
The story of what was going on there was compelling viewing, & emotionally involving to the point where the 'fantasy' sequences felt like someone had changed channels in the middle of the film.
It's definitely a film worth checking out, & there are some superb performances in the 'reality' side of the film. Especially Sergi López as Vidal, & Maribel Verdú as Mercedes. The 'fantasy' side of the film was good, & in the end, a lovely idea for the character of the child, but the 'reality' side of the film would've made a great movie in itself. 7.5/10

PANíS LABYRINTH (2006) - a friend tells me this is definitely worth checking out.

I agree with your friend Ralph, & i'll be laoning you a copy as requested, but given your dislike of the fantasy genre, i'm not sure how much you'll like it.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)

"A team consisting of a physicist, his wife, a young female psychic and the only survivor of the previous visit are sent to the notorious Hell House to prove/disprove survival after death. Previous visitors have either been killed or gone mad, and it is up to the team to survive a full week in isolation, and solve the mystery of the Hell House."

Personal nostalgia plays a part here, because this is one i remember seeing when i was in my early teens. I loved it at the time, & have never seen it since.
It's got all the ingredients of a supernatural horror, that starts first & foremost with a spooky setting, but whilst i think it still holds up as a good 'scary movie' of it's type, it does seem a formulaic in the way that it goes through the various set pieces, which are very slik & effective, in a way, nothing more than you'd expect from a film in this specific genre.
However, the array of shocks are done very well, & whilst it's still tame by 'The Exorcist' standards, which was released the same year, it does everything it's supposed to do, quite convincingly.
The conviction is backed up by some good performances. Rather than having an outstanding main performer, it's a team effort with made up of a solid ensemble cast. Roddy McDowell is probably the most well known name, but his performance is equally matched, if not bettered, by the likes of Clive Revill, & Gayle Hunnicut. But for me the star was Pamela Franklin, who along with Gayle Hunnicut provided some gorgeous eye candy, but she also put in the best, & most convincing performance, IMO.
Michael Gough's oddball cameo seemed somehow fitting to the rather bizarre ending, which was rather daft i must say, but didn't spoil what was an 'entertaining', ( @Ralph) if not ouststanding haunted house horror. 7/10.

Horror Hospital (1973)

"Dr.Storm plans to take over the world, but first needs to test his 'guinea pig' theory out on some unsuspecting humans who arrive at the 'Horror Hospital' thinking they are going to have a great time, due to the advert in the paper, 'Hairy Holidays'. When Jason and Janet arrive, they are suspicious from the start and try to escape, but Dr.Storm has other ideas!!!"

A film new to me, which seems to polarize views on the horror forum on which i post into 'love it' or 'hate it' factions. The 'love it' faction firmly believe that this is good, camp fun, or a tongue in cheek horror to be 'entertained' by. (There's that word again) The 'hate it' faction just think it's dire & verging on embarrassing.
My view is that this is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not quite the worst that i've ever seen either. Especially considering it was brought to us by the same man who gave us 'Bizarre'.
I can't help enjoy Michael Gough's rather camp performance as Dr.Storm. He's certainly more 'entertaining' in this type of more tongue in cheek approach, than he is when he's being dulll & serious (& wooden, like the Hammer Dracula). But when he's not on screen, we're unfortunately mostly in the hands of the quite awful Robin Askwith. A serious detriment to any film. Arguably worse still, is a terribly wooden supporting cast comprosing of California Redwoods like Vanessa Shaw, & the simply atrocious Kurt Christian, who makes John Wayne look like Richard Burton. As you might imagine, there's some nudity to spice things up, but nothing can really save this film, except the dubious saving grace that it's actually better than 'Bizarre' or 'Burke & Hare'. With a bit better cast it might've just scraped a 4/10, & put itself alongside similiar ranking films like 'Tower of Evil' & possibly 'The Flesh & Blood Show', but as it is, it's gonna have settle for a 3.5/10.

[SiHart]

Pan Labyrinth was a fine film. Both me and Steve really enjoyed it, but I agree, it's more a fantasy film than a horror film. The reality side was really quite nasty though wasn't it? It's not surprising Mercedes ultimately chose the fantasy side of her life.

Si xx

[Wayne]

The reality side was really quite nasty though wasn't it? It's not surprising Mercedes ultimately chose the fantasy side of her life.

Ofelia was the little girl. Mercedes was the Vidal's servant woman who was secretly part of the rebel group. But yes, the reality side was pretty nasty, & after losing her mother, any child would want to escape from that if possible. Especially being left with a pig like Vidal.

(*Spoilered for Ralph's benefit)

[Ralph]

I'll be happy to chip in once I've seen PL and Legend

[Alex]

I felt that Pan's Labyrinth was over-rated too, mainly as it was a film that people thought was astonishingly good and the best of the year, whereas I liked it but wasn't bowled over by it.

It could be partially because I felt like I'd been mis-sold it a bit too, as a lot of the reviews compared it to things like Mirrormask (and even Labyrinth, bizarrely), whereas the fantasy element makes up for a lot less of the film than it does in those two. I did enjoy it, but definitely wish there had been more of the fantasy side of things, and that the real life elements weren't quite so melodramatic at times.

[SiHart]

Ofelia was the little girl. Mercedes was the Vidal's servant woman

Oops. It's been several months since I saw it and the character names are a little hazy now.

Si xx

[Milky Tears]

Slightly OT...

Is Wayne aware that And Soon The Drakness has finally been released on shiny disc in Region 2? It was unleashed on Monday and I spotted it in HMV/Zavvi/Fopp/Borders (£11.99/£14.99/£11/Probably £19.99 ) yesterday.


Play and Amazon both have it for less than £8.



Sadly, it's missing the R1 commentary by Robert Fuest and Brian Clemens... but it does have Michele Dotrice and Pamela Franklin looing fine and Sandor "Paul Ross from Crossroads" Elès looking cool and awesome.

Haven't seen it on UK TV since it turned up post-midnight on Channel 4 about a decade ago.
It's worth a punt.