[Halloween Fifteen 2012] Madhouse (1974)

Ryne Barber of The Moon Is A Dead World is doing his annual HALLOWEEN FIFTEEN theme, where he asks bloggers to share their thoughts on selected films he plans on seeing each October. He was kind of enough to let me share my thoughts on a Vincent Price film I had never seen until a few weeks ago called MADHOUSE from 1974. Click on Ryne's take on the film and then read mine and see if you guys agree. Thanks Ryne for the opportunity! Look forward to contributing again next year, bro!

Ryne's Take


DIRECTED BY
Jim Clark

STARRING   Vincent Price - Paul Toombes
Peter Cushing - Herbert Flay
Robert Quarry - Oliver Quayle
Natasha Pyne - Julia Wilson
Adrienne Corri - Faye Carstairs
Linda Hayden - Elizabeth Peters
Ian Thompson - Bradshaw
John Garrie - Inspector Harper
Jenny Lee Wright - Carol Clayton

Genre - Horror/Mystery/Slasher/Giallo

Running Time - 91 Minutes  
First of all, I want to thank Ryne Barber, of The Moon Is A Dead World, for letting me contribute to his annual Halloween Fifteen list - a list where Ryne picks 15 random films and has other bloggers share their opinions on one of those 15. When I saw the list, I had watched most of them and even reviewed some. But one film had caught my attention for several reasons.

One, I had never seen it before and figured October's All Horror Month on Full Moon Reviews would be a perfect time to review it. Two, it's a co-production by American International Pictures and Amicus Productions - two companies I've barely scratched the surface with on this blog. And three, it stars one of my favorite horror actors, the late, great Vincent Price [with a bonus of the awesome Peter Cushing added in!]

So realizing that MADHOUSE would be an interesting film to review, I decided to sit down and watch it. While it wasn't the best film I have ever seen and it didn't really thrill me from beginning to end, I still got a kick out of the camp and mystery [or lack thereof] of it all. Let's take a look at one of Vincent Price's less seen and/or talked about films to see if this movie is worth getting mad about.
 

PLOT  
In Hollywood during the 1960s, one of the biggest horror icons named Paul Toombes (Vincent Price) hosts a New Year's Eve party, showing his latest Dr. Death film to his guests. As the guests applaud the film, Toombes thanks his writer, Herbert Flay (Peter Cushing), for pretty much being responsible with doing all the hard work when it came to the Dr. Death films. He also announces his engagement to the beautiful Ellen Mason (Julie Crosthwaite). Unfortunately, some prick for a producer, Oliver Quayle (Robert Quarry) reveals to Toombes that Ellen used to work for him in his 'adult' movies. Feeling betrayed, Toombes lashes out at Ellen, who runs away crying. Up in her room as she tries to get herself back together, someone dressed as Dr. Death enters her room and murders her. Obviously, all evidence points to Toombes. Toombes himself believes he may have done it, although he has no memory of the murder. 

For many years after a mental breakdown, Toombes has been in a mental institution. But feeling better and with no evidence that could prove he was a murderer, he's released back into society with his reputation now ruined. Coincidentally, Herbert Flay and Oliver Quayle [now a television producer] are working on a Dr. Death television series in England, inviting Toombes to reprise the role [although he's not too eager to do so]. Once the project starts filming, more people start dying by someone dressed as Dr. Death. Is Toombes really the murderer, or has he been framed all along?
 

REVIEW  
MADHOUSE is the last film Vincent Price made for American International Pictures, as the horror landscape was changing by this point - especially after the massive success of the big budgeted 1973's THE EXORCIST, which scared away a lot of producers of low budget films. Probably due to its similarities to Price's THEATER OF BLOOD from 1973 and his two Dr. Phibes films [1971's THE ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES and 1972's DR. PHIBES RISES AGAIN], MADHOUSE wasn't as well received or as well remembered as those films I mentioned. MADHOUSE also isn't as memorable or as well made as those prior films, so I can understand that. Still, MADHOUSE isn't all bad and is worth a look if you enjoy seeing Vincent Price, Peter Cushing, and Robert Quarry all in one film together sharing scenes.

MADHOUSE is supposedly based on an Angus Hall novel from 1969 called Devilday, although the film differs from its source. For example. the Toombes character is a sexual predator who is pretty much implied to be his wife's murderer under the guise of his cinematic alter geo, Dr. Dis. The film makes it pretty clear whether Toombes did the deed or not, while using Price's very own films to create this character of Dr. Death for him. Both the novel and the film are pretty tongue-in-cheek and self-aware when it comes to the horror genre, which helps and hurts it at the same time. Later films like 1996's SCREAM would perfect this, but MADHOUSE makes a solid effort even if it doesn't fully succeed.

What hurts MADHOUSE the most is the pretty routine and disjointed narrative. This is most likely due to the fact that the film attempts to be three sub-genres at once without really realizing it, making certain subplots implausible and certain important aspects fairly predictable sooner than they should be. The mystery aspect, in particular, is disappointing since you'll figure out the identity of the killer before the halfway mark. The film is still fun after that knowledge, but with a short list of suspects, it's not a head scratcher as to what's really going on in this film. It's also disappointing in terms that MADHOUSE plays out like a pre-slasher film. Or more likely, since the killer wears a mask and black gloves, the film is a English giallo film. Giallo films have convoluted storylines, but the identity of the killer is usually one you can't figure out and makes you re-examine everything that came before that revelation. MADHOUSE is too generic to allow that to happen, even if the killer does make sense in a logical way. I guess I was expecting more out of it.

There are other issues I had with MADHOUSE. The ending, in particular, kind of bugged me. It was like SCREAM 4 - where you think the film should have ended at a certain point, but it continues with some extra minutes to create more of a happier ending. I did dig the twist at the very end, but I could have lived without it. I also love the fact that a director gets murdered on a television set by a gimmicked bed and the production continues the very next day without any sort of consequences. Only in the movies! I also found the neighbor characters that were trying to extort Toombes to be really annoying. I also thought the subplot with the spider lady, who was Herbert Flay's crazy wife or something, was a bit out there as well. Plus a lot of the middle act was pretty slow and not particularly interesting in terms of story and characterization.

However, I do love the idea of a horror movie icon being haunted by what has made him a star. In many ways, the narrative uses Toombes as a character who gives us a reason as to why audiences make and flock to horror films. Toombes says that these kind of films serve as a way for all of us to get out all those latest desires for fear and violence, releasing that energy in a safe and sociable way. However, someone is using his Dr. Death character in an unsafe and dangerous manner. It haunts Toombes throughout the film, having trouble watching his past work since it reminds him of the pain it has caused him and others for years. Although he enjoys playing Dr. Death somewhat, he wants nothing to do with its legacy. It gives the character [and the film] a lot of depth. A man haunted by his own success - definitely a miserable way to live.

I also dig the nods to Price's past working for AIP, with the use of clips of his previous movies as a way to create credibility for his Dr. Death persona. We see scenes from 1961's THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM, 1962's TALES OF TERROR [with cameo by Basil Rathbone], 1963's THE RAVEN [with cameo by Boris Karloff] and other films. I like how meta it was, by using real life Vincent Price films that passes off as Paul Toombes' films as well.

There's another nod I loved as well. At a party for Toombes, the guests are dressed in costume. Toombes is obviously dressed as Dr. Death. Robert Quarry's Oliver Quayle is dressed as Count Yorga, which was Quarry's vampire character in 1970's COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE. And probably the most ironic one of all, Peter Cushing's Herbert Flay is dressed as his nemesis, Dracula. There are also nods to horror films, where characters threaten others by saying they'd be dead if they were inside of a horror movie. The script had its issues, but when it was smart, it was very smart.

MADHOUSE had a low production, so it's not a very gory film. We do see a decapitation, some slit throats, and objects being impaled into necks [such as a pitchfork and a letter opener]. There's also that bed scene, which is quite funny for multiple reasons. But hey, it's original and inventive! I loved the make up of Dr. Death as well, especially the Dr. Death costume the killer wore. I have a thing for skulls, so I thought it was awesome. I want to wear that for Halloween just to scare people. There was a definitely creep factor.

The direction by Jim Clark, who's much more known for being an editor, is slightly above average. There's not a lot of style to the film, making Clark's work a point-and-shoot affair. Still, there are some nice stalk-and-chase scenes that have nice tension. The editing is solid, especially during one scene where real life and reel life are mixed together to create a thrilling sequence. The film looks nice cinematography wise. But other than that, the pacing is off at times and it's not the most interesting presentation visually. I don't think Clark directed a film after this, which is a shame. His work isn't all that bad and could have gotten better with more films under his belt.

The acting is the reason why people still talk about MADHOUSE. Vincent Price is excellent in a very understated performance as Paul Toombes. He plays the role with some nice subtlety at times, but does get to chew the scenery in some memorable moments. It also helps that the Toombes character seems to be a role Price would be comfortable in playing, as MADHOUSE sort of plays as his farewell from AIP. I enjoy anything Price is in, and this is no exception.

The other actors don't get as much to do, but they're fine with the material they're given. Peter Cushing isn't in the film as much as I'd like, but I really enjoy seeing him interact with both Price and Robert Quarry. Quarry gets to do more as a sleazy producer, playing the character to perfection. The female actresses, like Natasha Pyne, Adrienne Corri, and Linda Hayden, are good in their roles. It’s a very cool cast that raises the watchability of MADHOUSE.
 

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE CANCELLING MY PHYSICAL CHECK UP WITH DR. DEATH
 
- Toombes is getting married to a hot blonde. He really takes his Dr. Death character seriously, because this step is one closer to the grave.  

- Some wannabe actress stole Toombes' watch. Since she messed with Dr. Death, it wouldn't surprise me if her time’s almost up.  

- Some redheaded nut lives in the basement with plants and spiders. BATMAN & ROBIN really messed up Poison Ivy! Or is this Mary Jane Watson after SPIDER-MAN 3? I can't tell the difference anymore...  

- Dr. Death strangled the actress playing Dr. Death's assistant. Judging by her performance, I'm not surprised she choked. 

- Dr. Death was able to stop an elevator from closing that occupied his victim 

- a scared Julia Wilson. Obviously this place does not take place in Haddonfield. See: HALLOWEEN II (1981)
  

THE FINAL HOWL  
MADHOUSE is pretty much a forgotten little movie from the Vincent Price days working for AIP - although Rob Zombie remembered it fondly for Bill Moseley in HALLOWEEN II (2009). While the narrative is convoluted and has issues that hurt it more than help it, the nods to the main actors' pasts are welcomed. I also enjoyed the acting, the make up, the death sequences, and most of the direction. So it definitely warrants a recommendation if you enjoy this era of horror, especially if you're a Vincent Price fan. Not the best Vincent Price film you could ever see, but a worthy 90-minute time waster.




SCORE

2.5 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