Howls of the Week (10/8/23 - 10/14/23)

This will probably be a new feature, similar to the old monthly LUNAR CYCLE I used to do. I figured I would just post quick thoughts on films I've recently seen, while giving bigger/solo spotlights to more popular/important films. Let's see how this goes.

TOTALLY KILLER (2023)

Directed By: Nahnatchka Khan

Starring: Kiernan Shipka, Olivia Holt, Julie Bowen, Charlie Gillepsie, Lochlyn Munro, Troy Leigh-Anne Johnson, Kimberly Huie, Randall Park

Genre: Horror/Science Fiction/Slasher

Running Time: 106 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987. Forced to navigate the unfamiliar culture, Jamie teams up with her teenage mother to take down the psycho once and for all.

Review: If you like FREAKY or HAPPY DEATH DAY, you'll get a kick out of Amazon's TOTALLY KILLER. While it should have used its BACK TO THE FUTURE premise better, I still had fun with it. The 80s needle drops are always welcomed, the characters were colorful and the mystery of the killer kept me guessing [decent twist at the end]. I wish Kiernan Shipka’s character didn't keep mentioning how things in the 80s were problematic like they are in 2023. Saying it once or twice is fine, but every five to ten minutes wasn’t necessary. I also wish the film was a bit funnier. Still, I didn’t feel like I wasted my time.

PET SEMATARY: BLOODLINES (2023)

Directed By: Lindsey Beer

Starring: Jackson White, Forest Goodluck, Jack Mulhurn, Henry Thomas, Natalie Anne Lynd, Isabella Star LeBlanc, Pam Grier, David Duchovny, Samantha Mathis

Genre: Horror/Science Fiction/Fantasy/Zombies

Running: 87 Minutes

Score: 1 Howl Outta 4 (3 out of 10)

Plot: In 1969, a young Jud Crandall has dreams of leaving his hometown of Ludlow, Maine behind, but soon discovers sinister secrets buried within and is forced to confront a dark family history that will forever keep him connected to Ludlow. 

Review: The less said about PET SEMATARY: BLOODLINES, the better. 87 minutes and felt longer than that, as I had to sit through multiple sittings just to get through this. Great actors [Pam Grier, Henry Thomas, Samantha Mathis, David Duchovny] were wasted in their roles. The story dragged towards an unsatisfying resolution. The novel and even the ‘89 version told this story in a more effective way in a much lesser time span. I wasn’t the biggest fan of the 2019 remake, but I thought maybe this prequel could have improved on that. The people behind this forced franchise should realize that sometimes, dead is better. 

SHE CAME FROM THE WOODS (2022)

Directed By: Erik Bloomquist 

Starring: Cara Buono, Clare Foley, Spencer List, William Sadler, Michael Park, Tyler Elliot Burke

Genre: Horror/Supernatural/Slasher

Running Time: 101 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: In 1987, a group of counselors accidentally unleashes a decades’ old evil on the last night of summer camp.

Review: Caught this modern slasher on Tubi before it left the service and I dug it quite a bit. Set in 1987 [besides the modern language and the appearance of an Apple Watch - whoops], this supernatural slasher involves a camp being terrorized by a watch who possesses children and campers after a ritual gone wrong. Good performances [Cara Buono and William Sadler especially], decent gore effects considering its small budget and a lore that’s nicely built but doesn’t end in a real satisfactory way makes this one worth looking for whenever it pops back up on Tubi or another streaming service. Recommended for FRIDAY THE 13TH, THE BURNING and MADMAN fans.

DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)

Directed By: Lambert Hillyer

Starring: Gloria Holden, Otto Kruger, Marguerite Churchill, Irving Pichel, Gilbert Emery, Edward Van Sloan

Genre: Horror/Drama/Fantasy/Vampires

Running Time: 71 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: A countess from Transylvania seeks a psychiatrist’s help to cure her vampiric cravings. 

Review: The first sequel to the immortal 1931 Universal Studios classic DRACULA, I slightly like this film more due to the filmmaking style. This feels more like a real movie than the stagey DRACULA does. The story with the Countess dealing with not wanting to be like her father, trying to find ways to stop being a vampire, was actually pretty interesting, Plus for a film from this era, having a lesbian angle was quite brave and surprising in a good way. I thought the performances were okay, with only Gloria Holden really standing out as the title character. And learning she hated being in this film because she thought she was above the material, it makes her performance stronger and more legit in my opinion. Plus, the film is short and sweet and doesn’t overstay its welcome.

BLOOD OF DRACULA (1957)

Directed By: Herbert L. Strock

Starring: Sandra Harrison, Louise Lewis, Gail Ganley, Mary Adams, Malcolm Afterbury, Barbara Wilson, Lynn Alden

Genre: Horror/Vampires

Running Time: 69 Minutes

Score: 2 Howls Outta 4 (5 out of 10)

Plot: A crazed teacher at a respectable girls’ school draws power from a medallion she has obtained from the Carpathian Mountains, and uses it to experiment telepathically on the school’s newest young pupil.

Review: Pretty much the same template as I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF, this “vampire” movie feels more like a teen drama with supernatural elements in it. Honestly, this film didn’t do a whole lot for me. It sort of meanders towards the finish line, with the main character being hypnotized and controlled by her teacher, for whatever reason, until we see the main reveal in the last moments of the movie. I thought the main character’s relationship with her father and her indifferent stepmother was interesting at the start, but it just felt flatter as the movie rolled on. Not bad, but nothing I would rush out to watch again.

THE VAMPIRE LOVERS (1970)

Directed By: Roy Ward Baker

Starring: Ingrid Pitt, Peter Cushing, George Cole, Kate O'Mara, Ferdy Mayne, Douglas Wilmer, Madeline Smith, Pippa Steel

Genre: Horror/Vampires

Running Time: 91 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)

Plot: In the heart of Styria the Karnstein Family, even after their mortal deaths, rise from their tombs spreading evil in the countryside in their lust for fresh blood. Baron Hartog whose family are all victims of Karnstein vampirism, opens their graves and drives a stake through their diabolical hearts. One grave he cannot locate is that of the legendary beautiful Mircalla Karnstein. Years of peace follow that grisly night until Mircalla reappears to avenge her family’s decimation and satisfy her desire for blood.

Review: Part of the Karnstein trilogy, this Hammer production is quite titillating with its lesbian undertones and an Ingrid Pitt performance that commands the spotlight and captivates the audience. Nicely paced, with a Gothic atmosphere and good performances that balance the horror with the melodrama. Probably not one of the best Hammer films out there, or even one I would think of whenever the studio is brought up. Yet, this one is definitely worth watching if you’re into sexy vampires.

TWINS OF EVIL (1971)

Directed By: John Hough

Starring: Peter Cushing, Dennis Price, Madeleine Collinson, Mary Collinson, Isobel Black, Kathleen Byron, David Warbeck

Genre: Horror/Vampires

Running Time: 87 Minutes

Score: 3 Howls Outta 4 (8 out of 10)

Plot: While dabbling in Satanism, Count Karstein resurrects Mircalla Karnstein who initiates him into vampirism. As a rash of deaths afflicts the village, Gustav the head of Puritan group leads his men to seek out and destroy the pestilence. One of his twin nieces has become inflicted with the witchcraft but Gustav’s zeal and venom has trapped the innocent Maria, threatening her with a tortuous execution, whilst Frieda remains free to continue her orgy of evil.

Review: The third film of Hammer’s Karnstein’s trilogy, I thought TWINS OF EVIL was a lot more fun to watch than THE VAMPIRE LOVERS. Better action. Better effects. More compelling performances, especially by Peter Cushing, David Warbeck and the Collinson twins. The title is misleading [only one evil twin really] and it isn’t as titillating as THE VAMPIRE LOVERS. But I liked this film quite a lot and would definitely watch this again.

SANTO VS. THE VAMPIRE WOMEN (1962)

Directed By: Alfonso Corona Blake

Starring: Santo, Lorena Velazquez, Maria Duval, Jaime Fernandez, Augusto Benedico, Ofelia Montesco, Xavier Loja

Genre: Horror/Action/Fantasy/Vampires/Werewolves

Running Time: 89 Minutes

Score: 2 Howls Outta 4 (5 out of 10)

Plot: A professor recruits a professional wrestler to protect his daughter from vampires intent on kidnapping her and marrying her to the devil.

Review: If you’ve ever watched a horror film starring Lucha Libre star Santo [or Samson in the English dubbing], you know exactly what you’re getting. Silly, campy and just oddball story and action involving a coven of female vampires and their male minions who want to kidnap the daughter of someone who escaped their grasp many years prior. The grandfather hires Santo to protect her, leading to many goofy action scenes, including a wrestling one involving a vampire/werewolf person(?). Considering this was an episode of MST3K, I don’t think the film is that bad that it earned that honor. While pretty dumb, the dubbing is actually funny and the action scenes are amusing. Plus I thought the final act was a lot of fun, especially with Santo driving that sweet convertible. Better than what its reputation would tell you, to be quite honest.

Midnight Confessions Ep. 102: "I Was A Teenage Podcast"

October has arrived and we're getting into the Halloween spirit with two b&w horror classics: I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF (1957) and I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN (1957). Plus we discuss the clown epidemic, Rob Zombie's 31, PHANTASM and Herschell Gordon Lewis. Music this week by: The Keytones, Lord Luther, Murderock, The Cramps, Alice Cooper and Big Bee Kornegay.



 

Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!

Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

Visit our archive stuff - MC_PodcastVault

We're now on Stitcher! - Stitcher Version

Midnight Confessions Ep. 76: "Classic black and white horror triple feature"

Our countdown to Halloween starts now and we're kicking it off with some classic horror. This episode we review THE BLACK CAT (1934), THE UNINVITED (1944) and NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957).







 

Like "Midnight Confessions" Facebook Page: Midnight Confessions Podcast

Follow us on Twitter @MC_Podcast!

Subscribe on iTunes! - Midnight Confessions

Visit our archive stuff - MC_PodcastVault

We're now on Stitcher! - Stitcher Version

Gojira (1954) & Godzilla: King of the Monsters! (1956)

DIRECTED BY
Ishiro Honda (both)
Terry O. Morse (G:KotM!)

STARRING
Akira Takarada - Hideto Ogata (both)
Momoko Kochi - Emiko Yamane (both)
Akihiko Hirata - Daisuke Serizawa (both)
Takashi Shimura - Dr. Kyohei Yamane (both)
Fuyuki Murakami - Dr. Tanabe (both)
Raymond Burr - Steve Martin (G:KotM!)
Frank Iwanaga - Tomo Iwanaga (G:KotM!)
Haruo Nakajima - Godzilla (both)

Genre - Science Fiction/Horror/Monsters

Running Time - 96 Minutes (1954)/ 80 Minutes (G:KotM!)

Sixty years have gone by, and the giant lizard creature known as Godzilla still captivates audiences stronger than ever. I'm not going to come out here and say I'm the biggest Godzilla fan and have seen every film this movie monster has starred in. But Godzilla was a pretty big part of my youth when it came to watching films, capturing my attention whenever he was battling some giant monsters - whether it was Mothra, Rodan, or even King Kong. When people think about monster movies, Godzilla is usually the first one that comes to mind. The creature has become a pop culture institution, his popularity growing not only in Japan, but all over the world. The fact that Hollywood has tried twice to reboot the franchise - first in the terrible 1998 version and now in, what seems to be, a very favorable installment that's being released this weekend - shows the power Godzilla and the franchise has on the public.

But before I can even discuss Godzilla's return to the big screen in a massive way - I think GODZILLA (2014) will be the movie of the summer - we must go back where it all started. So I decided to sit down and watch the original 1954 Japanese production, GOJIRA, and its 1956 American counterpart, GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS!. While both films are pretty much one and the same when it comes to the plot, both versions present the narrative in different ways. Is one better than the other? A better question is: Do these films still hold up sixty years later?

PLOT
In post-WWII Japan, something huge is causing havoc near the island of Odo - especially where it concerns the fishing boats. While many of the citizens are unsure what's going on, a village elder believes that the damage is being caused by a so-called sea monster known as Godzilla. While some are skeptical about some mythological creature, the citizens learn that the village elder was right in his assumptions - Godzilla does exist and has been set free due to a nuclear explosion. Can anyone stop this creature, or is Japan doomed?

In GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS!, the story is still the same. But this time, we watch the story through the eys of an American reporter, Steve Martin (Raymond Burr), as he investigates the situation on Odo Island.

REVIEW

GOJIRA, or GODZILLA (1954), is considered by many to be the best giant monster film ever made. It's definitely in the top three, next to the original 1933 KING KONG and 1953's THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS. GOJIRA is such an interesting film, mainly due to how it's told and the time period it's set in. Unlike the later films, in which campiness would set in and make Godzilla the film's focus, the original GOJIRA is a horror film that takes its subject matter and narrative very seriously. In fact, I think it's for that reason that GOJIRA remains the most timeless and relevant of all the GODZILLA films that have been made since.

Since this was released in 1954, GOJIRA is obviously a social commentary, or metaphor, on the events of the bombings that occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring an end to World War II. Odo Island is a place still trying to rebuild itself after those events, with Godzilla being a reminder of the same events. The way Godzilla attacks the boats in the beginning of the film resemble bomb attacks more than they do a giant creature destroying stuff. Godzilla also breathes radioactive fire, his spine glowing anytime he burns buildings or people. Godzilla is a creature that seems unstoppable - a growing epidemic that these people have no idea how to handle. Instead of focusing on the monster and what he can do, GOJIRA is more concerned with the emotions of the citizens who have to deal with the monster's wrath and destruction. I'm sure like after the destruction left by the atomic bombs that destroyed Japan in 1945, we watch as these people struggle with the destruction and chaos caused by Godzilla. We see their pain. We watch their confusion. We see them fear for their lives. The scene where Godzilla destroys Tokyo and leaves the city in ruins is still as powerful today as it probably was in 1954. It's as if director Ishiro Honda used GOJIRA to express the pain and fear he experienced as he watched the ruins of Japan, wondering if the country would ever be able to rebuild itself after the events of the Second World War. It's for this reason that GOJIRA remains to be powerful.

It's the human element that keeps audiences coming back for more. The characters feel genuine and real, reacting believably and living their lives normally within this chaotic time. Dr. Kyohei Yamane is an archeologist who investigates the monster attacks, realizing that the footprints are radioactive and some of the citizens may be suffering from some of this. When the monster appears and the citizens want to destroy it, Yamane wishes against it so he can study Godzilla and learn about him. In a Hollywood film at the time, this man would probably be some genius, mad scientist who wants to use Godzilla as a way to take over the world or something. But Dr. Yamane is just a curious scientist who wants to learn about this threat so history doesn't repeat itself. It's a refreshing portrayal of the horror scientist role, grounding it in reality.

Even the love triangle between Emiko, Hideto, and Daisuke is believable and grounded. Emiko has been arranged to be married to scientist Daisuke since they were kids, but she's in love with a ship captain named Hideto. In some parts of the world, Emiko would be portrayed as some sort of tramp - a woman who has loose morals because she's attached to two men. But Emiko is never leading the other on, totally determined to stop her arranged marriage plans to be with Hideto - even trying to tell Daisuke of her decision before things get deeper. The triangle never becomes volatile or tragic. All parties understand their place and treat the situation as reasonable adults. Yes, Emiko does end up with one man at the end due to tragedy, but it's not done to punish her for her actions. It's done in a heroic, positive matter that brings a bit of hope to the rest of Oda Island. Hollywood probably would have murdered her, or sent her to jail for her actions due to the Hays Code they had in place at the time. So it's nice to see complicated relationship handled in an adult, serious manner that I could buy.

Speaking of Daisuke, I really appreciated his character. He creates an Oxygen Destroyer, which pretty much disintegrates oxygen atoms, causing the organisms to die from asphyxiation while accidentally creating a new energy source. Daisuke keeps it a secret, even though he knows it can kill Godzilla and stop the destruction. You'd think he's a terrible person for doing that, but once he explains his actions, it makes him sympathetic. Daisuke is afraid that the wrong hands will use his weapon in a destructive way, repeating history and doing more harm to Japan than already necessary. Even though he does eventually agree to use it, Daisuke destroys the formula so no one can build a second one. It's a commentary on nuclear weapons and how the bombs destroyed the country, even though Japan was the one who initiated the attacks when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Daisuke is tired of the fighting and the destruction that comes with too powerful weapons. It's refreshing to see a character who is sensible about a dangerous situation and taking all precautions to make sure the weapon is used for the right reasons.

The special effects in GOJIRA still holds up very well today. Sure, we know Godzilla is really a dude in a monster suit, walking around model sets and smashing things. But how the effects are integrated into the rest of the film is pretty neat for its time. Even though we know better today, I can only imagine that audiences really believed that a monster was attacking Japan. The effects would get cheesier in later installments, but they're used in a subtle way here.

That's thanks to director Ishiro Honda, who manipulates the actors' footage with the special effects footage in a cool way to blend the two inside of one scene. The film is also well paced, well shot, well edited, and has a great atmosphere and dark mood. And how Honda shoots Godzilla is perfect. He lights the monster in such a way that Honda hides the flaws to the costume. Godzilla is mostly shot at night, or in shadows, giving him this image of evil and menace for the Japanese characters. I mean, he's not scary or anything. But the idea of Godzilla definitely is, and the visuals represent that well.

The acting is pretty great as well. Takashi Shimura and Momoko Kochi are the standouts as father-and-daughter Dr. Yamane and Emiko. But the actors convince you that real destruction is being caused by Godzilla through their body language, dialogue delivery, and even their screams and tears after Godzilla destroys Tokyo. The acting is effective and powerful in a subtle manner.

As for the American cut known as GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS!, most of the Japanese footage remains, but it's dubbed for American audiences. Since Hollywood knew that Americans probably wouldn't flock to a Japanese made film so soon after the events of World War II, it was pretty smart to add an American character who would be sort of a narrator and guide to explain the story of Godzilla. The Steve Martin character doesn't really add much in terms of substance to the original film, but it's an interesting counterpoint to see an American's perspective to an already well-told story. I thought it was quite amusing to see this Steve guy be so chummy with so many of the original characters, as if he had been there through this the entire time. But it's done well and having Steve around probably made GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS! more appealing to an American audience.

The American cut does have its positives and negatives. Like I already mentioned, the Steve Martin character is someone American audiences can relate to, in terms of feeling like an outsider in a foreign world. GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS! is also quicker paced and focuses more on the creature himself as more of a spectacle than a metaphor for the nuclear weapon threat. However, a lot of GOJIRA's identity is lost due to certain aspects either being shortened or edited out entirely. The love triangle aspect isn't given much focused, probably due to the arranged marriage deal that Americans probably wouldn't have understood all that much. And making the Japanese characters sympathetic probably would have been a tough pill to swallow at the time, which is why Steve was used to begin with. GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS! takes away the substance and identity GOJIRA proudly displayed, which is understandable.

The American scenes directed by Terry Morse do blend in well with the Ishiro Honda GOJIRA scenes. Nothing too exciting or special about these new scenes really. I do find it funny when body doubles are used for the original Japanese characters as they interact with Steve as if they have been friends for years. Still, I don't think Morse did a bad job or anything. It's just that all the good material was already shot two years prior in another country.

Speaking of Steve, Raymond Burr - the future Perry Mason - does a decent job in the role. Honestly, he doesn't do a whole lot. He just stands, looks, and chew on his pipe really. His voiceovers are done well though. Burr would later return in the same role in GODZILLA 1985, which was meant to be a sequel/reboot of sorts after all the campy sequels that were released after GOJIRA. It's a film I ought to rewatch, as I don't remember it being too bad honestly.

THE FINAL HOWL

GOJIRA, or GODZILLA (1954), is an absolute classic when it comes to science fiction and monster movie cinema. Unlike the campy pop culture icon most folks probably remember, the original film is deadly serious in its tone, as well as being haunting and smart in terms of its commentary on the dangers of nuclear weapons. The American Cut, 1956's GODZILLA: THE KING OF THE MONSTERS! is a fun watch and an interesting counterpart to the original Japanese version. But it sort of loses the identity and substance that makes GOJIRA a respected classic. If you had to watch one, definitely choose the original Japanese film as it still holds up very well today. Definitely in the top 3 of giant monster films of all time, in my opinion.




SCORE
GOJIRA/GODZILLA (1954)

4 Howls Outta 4


GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS!

3.5 Howls Outta 4



GOJIRA/GODZILLA (1954) Trailer


GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS! Trailer

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

DIRECTED BY
William Castle

STARRING
Vincent Price - Frederick Loren
Carol Ohmart - Annabelle Loren
Carolyn Craig - Nora Manning
Elisha Cook Jr. - Watson Pritchard
Richard Long - Lance Schroeder
Alan Marshal - Dr. David Trent
Julie Mitchum - Ruth Bridges

Genre - Horror/Suspense/Ghosts/Haunted House

Running Time - 74 Minutes


As I had mentioned in an earlier review for 1959's THE TINGLER, director William Castle knew how to promote his movies by presenting gimmicks that only worked for their respective films. THE TINGLER, which is about a creature that grows on one's spine and will kill its owner if they can't scream, used a gimmick called Percept-O - where certain theater chairs had devices that released shock waves onto those audience members whenever the Tingler creature would appear. Because of these crazy gimmicks, Castle would have huge successes on his hands. It also helped his films are usually good.

Prior to THE TINGLER's release was the release of the iconic HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. Most people are probably more familiar with the 1999 remake [which I like quite a bit] and its 2007 average sequel. But the 1959 version of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is considered one of the best haunted house films ever filmed, and deemed influential in the horror genre. It was the first collaboration between Castle and star Vincent Price. It also had an interesting take on the 3D gimmick called Emergo! - which involved a fake skeleton "coming out" of the screen during the point of the film [at the end] where the skeleton emerges from an acid pit inside the house's cellar. It would hover over the audiences' heads, attempting to scare them. Sounds like a fun concept, and it actually helped make HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL a box office success.

Unfortunately, Emergo doesn't happen as you watch HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL at home. But unlike THE TINGLER, the gimmick probably doesn't enhance the viewing experience all that much. It's fine, since HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL still manages to be a good time after all these years, even if it isn't a perfect film.

PLOT
Millionaire Frederick Loren (Vincent Price) has invited five strangers to join him and his wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart) at a haunted house party in celebrate Annabelle's birthday. The incentive for these guests - $10,000 if they stay the night inside this House on Haunted Hill...and survive. The guests include a jet pilot named Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), innocent Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), drunk journalist Ruth Bridges (Julie Mitchum), and doctor David Trent (Alan Marshal). Trent, in particular, wants to test his theories on what trauma and fear can do on the human mind if the rumors about the haunted house are true. Also in attendance is Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook, Jr.), who has spent a night in the house before and is afraid to be inside again due to the ghosts that haunt it.

As the guests roam the house, they encounter some strange phenomena that can't be explained or believed. They also have to deal with the tension between Frederick and Annabelle, who despise each other and seem to be implying each other's deaths. Nora, afraid for her life, decides to leave. But the doors and windows close by themselves, trapping all the guests inside. If this just a game? Or is this house really haunted?

REVIEW

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is considered by many to be William Castle's crowning achievement as a filmmaker, although I personally prefer THE TINGLER over this one. It's not a perfect film and is definitely cheesy and schlocky. But it's also a lot of fun, with cool moments that will make you jump or laugh, never boring you at all. Even without the Emergo! gimmick, the film succeeds for the most part.

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL was inspired by Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House - which would also later inspire 1963's THE HAUNTING and 1973's THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE. What could play out as a modern reality competition program on television, the guests intend to stay the night to win $10,000 [although each person has their own agenda as well] but have to face obstacles such as ghosts, guns, bloody ceilings, a bickering married couple, and an animated skeleton who rises from an acid pit in the cellar. It's like being in one of those funhouses at a local carnival, expecting weird things to pop up and disorient you at every turn. I won't really discuss the narrative any more than that, since I would be spoiling things if I got too much in depth with this film. So for those two people who haven't watched the original HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, you're welcome. I will say that the 1999 remake does play with the concept of the $10,000 survival prize a bit more, but the original is still a fun ride.

What really makes the film work are the characters. Nora, in modern horror terms, would be considered the film's Final Girl. She's innocent, naive, but sweet and good hearted as well. She also seems to be the main target of the ghosts in the house, probably due to her supposed pure nature. She's also the smartest one in the group, as she realizes she's way over her head and wants to leave the house, not caring about the money. Unfortunately, the house closes itself so she's locked in. But at least she has common sense. Lance, the jet pilot, is pretty much Nora's best friend in the house. He obviously has a crush on her and is the only one who is willing to believe her stories about seeing ghosts. He also catches the eye of Annabelle, which causes a tiny bit of tension between him and Frederick - although it's never really explored to add some needed drama between the characters. Ruth is a columnist who enjoys drinking, which aids her skepticism over the entire situation. She also has a puddle of blood dripping on her wherever she goes, which takes a while to gain a reaction out of her. Dr. David Trent is there to study the behavior of the other guests in terms of how they embrace fear. He also has a very personal relationship with one of the other characters that no one else is aware of, which leads to the fun conclusion of the movie. And Watson is pretty much the guy who's already been through the terror, warning the others about what's about to happen. He also likes to drink, as it helps him cope with the memories of what happened to him.

The best characters, however, are the Lorens. Frederick and Annabelle waste no time showing their lack of affection towards each other, having fantastic banter [the dialogue is really great for these two] and always implying murdering each other eventually. It seems Frederick sees Annabelle as a golddigging wife, while Annabelle sees Frederick as an easy means to a rich life once he's dead. Their relationship is the catalyst to the events that occur in HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. The reason the guests are because of the couple due to Annabelle's birthday party. And Frederick seems to want everyone there, almost as if he plans on killing Annabelle and needs alibis. The entire relationship is twisted fun.

I do think the ending of the film is pretty lame though. The special effect moment is cool. The twist, while interesting, doesn't really work as well as it should since it comes out of nowhere. And the very end itself is just weak, in my opinion. It's as if the film didn't know how to end and relied too heavily on the gimmick. Everything before the final moments are effective, and the ending doesn't really match up to the level of anything before it.

The film is also very dialogue heavy. So those expecting a lot of ghosts and murder will probably want to look elsewhere. But when the spookier moments do appear, they're pretty cool. Ghosts pop out of nowhere, looking more hilarious than scary. The scene where a ghost tries to wrap Nora with rope from outside the window is pretty neat. The skeleton is cool looking for its time, and probably the most memorable "effect" of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. We also get a hanging, a bloody ceiling, people boiling in acid, and a decapitated head in a suitcase. So while there's a lot of talking, there are also those moments where you'll either be creeped out, or just enjoy while laughing at them.

The direction by William Castle is very good here. It's a black and white film [at least the version I watched - there is a colored version out there], so the film has to rely on a lot of shadows and light. HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL succeeds in doing that visually, as the way certain scenes and objects are lit play a trick on your eyes at times. The pacing is pretty good and never feels long [it's only 74 minutes long]. There are cool "boo" scares and pretty creepy moments. There's also a ton of atmosphere that we don't really get in horror these days, which is what Castle always excelled at. The Von Dexter score also aids in the mood and tone of the film. I really enjoyed the visual presentation.

The acting is good as well. Vincent Price, without a doubt, is the best actor in the film as Frederick Loren. It's one of Price's most famous roles of his awesome career, as his voice mesmerizes you every time he speaks. He also maintains his massive charisma and makes Frederick somewhat sympathetic, even when you know the character's intentions are less than pure with his creepy mannerisms and delivery. Just as good is Carol Ohmart as Annabelle Loren. Her banter with Price is fantastic, as you can really taste the dislike the two actors have for each other through their characters. Ohmart is also very sexy and it's easy to see why the men in the film would do what she says. Carolyn Craig is good as Nora. She doesn't do much but scream and look cute, but she does both well. Richard Long is good as Lance, playing off Craig really well. Elisha Cook Jr. was kind of annoying as Watson, but I can understand the performance since he was playing a specific character. The other actors are fine as well. A good cast overall.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE USING THE $10,000 I WON FOR THERAPY

- Whoever stays inside the haunted house all night will be given $10,000 if they survive. I never got any money when I stayed over Neverland Ranch! What the hell? That pain was so not worth it...

- Frederick, although throwing his wife Annabelle a birthday party, hates her guts. Sounds like this marriage is just fine.

- Nora found a decapitated head in her suitcase. I guess Al Snow stayed there during a prior visit.

- Annabelle supposedly hung herself, which shocked the other guests. Ted Stryker must have told her about his drinking problem again...

- A skeleton rose from the acid pit inside the cellar. Um...Fatality?

THE FINAL HOWL

While not William Castle's best film, in my opinion, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is still a fun, imaginative movie that still deserves love after 53 years. The acting, especially by Vincent Price and Carol Ohmart, is very good. The direction has a lot of atmosphere. The story is simple, yet it works and creates memorable moments. The ending is pretty bland and more could be done with the "win $10,000 for surviving the house all night" concept. But overall, it's an entertaining B-movie that's a pleasure to watch.



SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

Dracula [a.k.a. Horror of Dracula] (1958)

DIRECTED BY
Terence Fisher

STARRING
Peter Cushing - Dr. Van Helsing
Christopher Lee - Count Dracula
Michael Gough - Arthur Holmwood
John Van Eyssen - Jonathan Harker
Melissa Stribling - Mina Holmwood
Carol Marsh - Lucy Holmwood
Valerie Grunt - Vampire Woman

Genre - Horror/Action/Vampires

Running Time - 82 Minutes


When audiences think about the character of Dracula, usually the 1897 Bram Stoker novel and the 1931 Universal Pictures adaptation starring Bela Lugosi come to mind before anything else. It's no surprise. The Universal representation of this horror character has become iconic, to the point where modern interpretations of the character still maintain some of the elements Bela Lugosi made famous. Many actors have played the character within many adaptations on film, on television, and in other forms of media. But my personal favorite comes from the British based film studio known as Hammer.

Hammer Film Productions was founded in 1934. Even though they had a few successful films that dabbled in multiple genres, mainly mysteries and thrillers, they had issues with finances due to slumps in the British film industry and trying to move their studio. It wasn't until 1955 with The Quartermass Experiment on BBC Television [as well as Quartermass 2 in 1957] that Hammer Film Productions started to catch momentum. In 1957, the studio received a script for THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Although the novel by Mary Shelley was public domain, the script was too similar to the 1939 Universal film, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. Realizing that Universal had the rights to the look of the Frankenstein monster and how the story was told, Hammer Films realized they had to present their version much differently. This included using color film instead of black and white, designing a different look for the monster, and pushing the envelope a bit in terms of violence and sexuality. The film was a giant success in both the UK and in the USA, influencing filmmakers at the time.

In 1958, DRACULA [or HORROR OF DRACULA in the United States] was released. But the film had its own share of problems during it's pre-production phase. Universal, who had the rights to the look and the stage play adaptation, wrote an 80 page legal agreement to Hammer with provisions that Hammer had to follow in order to avoid copyright infringement - and this was AFTER the film was already completed. The Hammer version of DRACULA couldn't use the same storyline as the Universal film. The Hammer version also had to present the story differently. Hammer felt that Universal would want to finance the film, so they can make some money off of this new version, but the studio had no interest [although the studio would financial the remainder of the budget while the National Film Finance Council made up the rest]. HORROR OF DRACULA changed the adaptation somewhat, changing relationships and characters while focusing more on an action feel with horror elements. It was also in color and had no shame in showing blood and seductive women. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing signed on for the project and the film was a massive success all over the world. In essence, HORROR OF DRACULA was the film that really made Hammer Films into what it is known today.

After 54 years, HORROR OF DRACULA still manages to be considered the best adaptation of the Bram Stoker story, even with the liberties the script took with the original narrative. It's due to its presentation, incredible acting, and taut direction that keep HORROR OF DRACULA a favorite among horror fans. I will always respect Bela Lugosi for his portrayal of Dracula. But when I think of the character, I think of Christopher Lee and this awesome movie.

PLOT
Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) arrives at Count Dracula's (Christopher Lee) castle, posing for a job as his librarian. While getting settled in, it's revealed that Jonathan is really there to kill Dracula, who he knows is a dangerous vampire that must be stopped. When Jonathan is distracted by one of Dracula's "brides" (Valerie Grunt) who tries to bite him, Dracula reveals his true form and eventually turns Jonathan into a vampire. What Dracula doesn't know is that Jonathan had kept a diary of his thoughts and actions on Dracula, sending it to Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing).

Van Helsing, finding Jonathan as a vampire, stakes him. He then tells Arthur (Michael Gough) and Mina Holmwood (Melissa Stribling) about Jonathan's passing, since Jonathan was engaged to Arthur's sister, Lucy (Carol Marsh). At the same time, Lucy has been feeling under the weather, concerning her brother and sister-in-law. What they don't know is that Lucy has been bitten by Dracula and is now seduced by him. When Lucy dies and turns into a dangerous vampire, Van Helsing convinces Arthur about the existence of vampires. The two decide to hunt down Dracula to kill him, not realizing that Dracula has his dangerous sights on Mina.

REVIEW

HORROR OF DRACULA is one of Hammer Films finest productions, and still holds up very well today. Unlike the stagey and static adaptation Universal had released back in 1931, this adaptation is horror-action at its finest. I could just imagine how this movie effected audiences back in 1958. The vibrant colors, the sight of red blood, the low cut dresses, and a Dracula that's more killer than a charming lover - this must have really opened eyes and caused an outcry that many would find humorous today. While there have been many versions of the Dracula story done on film since, HORROR OF DRACULA may be its best one.

Due to budget reasons and Universal's legal documents, the narrative in HORROR OF DRACULA had to be changed. There's no Renfield here. Dr. Seward barely makes an impression in a small cameo. The relationships have been switched with Mina now with Arthur and Lucy with Jonathan - it should be the opposite. The journey to Transylvania to Count Dracula's castle at the beginning of the story has been taken out. There's no asylum. Dracula also isn't a supernatural being, supposedly unable to transform into a bat or a wolf. You would think that these changes and omissions would ruin the traditional story. However, it allows the film to maintain a certain focus while screenwriter Jimmy Sangster maintains the essence of the novel.

HORROR OF DRACULA is only focused on one thing - the revenge plot against Dracula. The entire movie is a cat-and-mouse chase where certain characters are after Dracula for turning their friends into vampires. Unlike most adaptations, HORROR OF DRACULA feels more like an action film than a horror film, which works well in this installment. While the characters aren't as developed like they are in the novel, we know enough about them to care and understand their roles within the story. Jonathan Harker sets up the story fairly quickly, as we learn through him that Dracula is a vampire. Mina and Lucy are there to be victims of Dracula, which gives Arthur and Van Helsing reason to go after the vampire. Arthur is the skeptic who doesn't believe in vampires until he sees it for himself, becoming a hero afterwards. Van Helsing is the protagonist of the story, the Captain Ahab to Dracula's Moby Dick. He knows all about vampirism and how to combat it. He's a completely active character who will fight to survive, even if the odds are against him.

And then there's Dracula. Before this film adaptation, Dracula was portrayed as more of a charming, seductive character who came off as an aristocrat who just happened to be a legendary vampire. In HORROR OF DRACULA, the charm and seduction are downplayed for an animalistic take on the character. Like in the novel, Dracula comes across as a sexual predator, taking advantage of proper and prim women and turning them into sexually aggressive beings. Besides his first appearance, Dracula is never portrayed as a human being. He hisses and growls like an animal, always on the hunt and not caring who he has to charm to get his way. This Dracula is a parasite that needs to be stopped, as he doesn't mess around when it comes to getting a midnight snack. The character is ruthless and vicious, which makes Dracula a great villain and a perfect foil to the more calm and collected Van Helsing. While I'm sure this portrayal of Dracula shocked audiences in 1958, it's honestly the best way to go with the character. He's a monster in every sense of the word, just in human form. It makes the chase to stop Dracula that more interesting and exciting, building to a satisfying ending.

The set design and the use of blood are also highlights in HORROR OF DRACULA. Seeing blood in Technicolor must have been quite a sight in 1958, but it adds a lot to the film and shows how different this adaptation is from the 1931 Universal one. I also liked the Gothic sets and the wardrobe that reflects this period in time. The exterior shots are also quite lavish as well. I also loved the scene where Dracula turns into dust via sunlight. For its time, the special effects are quite good. It would all be CGI now, but I love practical effects like this one. I liked the burn scars of crucifixes on vampires whenever they were touched by one. It's obviously influenced other vampire adaptations ever since, especially in 1985's FRIGHT NIGHT and certain Buffy The Vampire Slayer episodes. The production values are really good here.

The direction by Terence Fisher, who is thought of as the best filmmaker in Hammer Film Productions history, is excellent. The pacing is great, as the film is only 82 minutes long. It's well shot, with great framing and composition. Loved the angles as well, especially when Dracula appeared. The film has atmosphere in spades. The action centered moments were paced and shot well. The color is vibrant. Fisher really wastes no time getting to the nitty gritty and sinking his fangs [pun intended] into the revenge portion of the film. There's no time to reflect on subtlety or Romanticism. This version of Dracula is violent action, which works in Fisher's energetic favor. Just a really solid job.

The acting is also very good here. Carol Marsh and Melissa Stribling are good as Lucy and Mina respectively. While prim and somewhat virginal, they still carry this quite seductive air about them that I liked. It's easy to see why Dracula was so eager to bite their necks. The ladies did a nice job. John Van Eyssen is cool as Jonathan Harker. He doesn't get to do much, but I liked his performance and his narration. Michael Gough, best known for his four portrayals as Alfred Pennyworth in the original BATMAN series, is okay as Arthur. He was a bit bland at times, but got better towards the end of the film.

Honestly, HORROR OF DRACULA belong to two people: Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Cushing, in my opinion, is the definitive Dr. Van Helsing. No one comes close to Cushing's portrayal of the character. He's charismatic, intelligent, fearless, and extremely convincing as a man who can kick a vampire's ass. He would only play Van Helsing two more times - in 1960's THE BRIDES OF DRACULA and 1972's DRACULA A.D. 1972 - as he was more focused on Hammer's FRANKENSTEIN franchise. Still, no one since has come close to matching Cushing's intensity and performance in the role.

And Christopher Lee, for me, is also the best Dracula out there. He's not in the film as much as people probably think, but it doesn't really matter. His performance creates a presence within the film that one could feel even when he isn't on screen. Lee creates an evil and animalistic Dracula, with a face that screams "don't fuck with me," - with bloodshot eyes and bloody fangs. It's no surprise he would play Dracula six more times in this franchise. He's fantastic in the role.

THE FINAL HOWL

HORROR OF DRACULA is one of the better, if not the best, Dracula film adaptations one can watch. It has two powerful performances by Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Terrence Fisher's direction creates mood and atmosphere through his framing, composition, and energetic pacing. The special effects are pretty neat for its time. And the narrative, while not the most faithful adaptation to Bram Stoker's novel, still works well as a cat-and-mouse revenge flick. This film, after all these years, is still worth swinging a Hammer for.



SCORE

4 Howls Outta 4