Quatermass and the Pit (1967)

Making my way through my Hammer boxed set, I’ve discovered some real gems (Plague of the Zombies, The Nanny), but also some fairly forgettable productions (The Reptile, She).  Oops, I’ve said this before!  I really shouldn’t repeat myself.  Oops, I’ve said this before!  I really shouldn’t repeat myself.  Quatermass and the Pit definitely falls into the second of these categories.  Other than the novelty of seeing a very young Grand Maester Pycelle, there is nothing that really stands out.

The eponymous Professor Quatermass (Andrew Kier) has been tasked to help Colonel Breen (Julian Glover) with the development a new rocket programme.  Their first collaboration is interrupted when they call by to check on an incident in Hobb’s End underground station.  They soon unearth an alien spacecraft; a craft that has been there a very long time.

Director Roy Ward Baker (A Night to Remember, 1958), is a steady pair of hands which are never-the-less tied by a forgettable story and wandering plot.  There is the interesting idea that the human race is a result of experiments carried out on our ancestors by the insectoid Martians 5 million years ago (a theme also explored the following year in 2001: A Space Odyssey), but the concept of the race memory is a step too far.

Sure, I like the way that the opinion of the scientists are trusted, and the fact that we see some lab research (spurious science notwithstanding).  But nothing memorable happens, apart from a very rushed ending involving a floaty psychic alien (ghost?) thing which is destroyed by crashing a crane into it!  Perhaps not exactly a Deus ex machina, the resolution only occurs to Quatermass in the final few minutes of the film.

I realise that in terms of special effects, a Hammer production can’t really compete with those of Planet of the Apes or 2001: A Space Odyssey (both of which were released the following year), but I feel those in Frankenstein Created Woman (1967) or even The Plague of Zombies from the the previous year are better than the cardboard insects on offer here.

Generic thriller sci-fi with little to recommend it, or indeed little to remember.  Competently directed with a good cast and some nice ideas in the story, let down by some more ridiculous ideas and some spectacularly bad special effects.  In fact the most interesting thing could be this line from the parents guide in IMDB: “The giant locusts could be frightening to some viewers even though they are dead”.  Locusts or viewers?  Says it all.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Witches (1966)

More a thriller than one of Hammer's more traditional Horrors, the first hour of The Witches excels at generating an air of "what the hell is going on?".  Miss Mayfield (Joan Fontaine) is employed as the new headmistress of the primary school in the idyllic village of Heddaby; but with strains of The Midwich Cuckoos and decades later Hot Fuzz (2007), Miss Mayfield realises something sinister is going on.

Joan Fontaine is really good as the innocent incomer, and is our window into the peculiar goings-on.  As a large part of this mystery, the two main kids Ingrid Boulting and Martin Stephens are both very good, and the surrounding support cast also help weave a sinister tapestry of deceit.  Perhaps most deceitful of all is the dodgy doctor played by Leonard Rossiter (Rising Damp (1974-78); 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968); Barry Lyndon (1975).  He is a microcosm of the the weird village and as such is perfect; he just seems to have a natural air of conspiracy about him.

I’m finding that the more famous of these Hammer films (Curse of Frankenstein (1957) and Horror of Dracula (1958) excepted) are a bit underwhelming, whereas the more obscure ones (The Nanny (1965), The Plague of the Zombies (1966), and now The Witches) generate far more atmosphere and are far more entertaining & enjoyable.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

Hammer’s seminal Frankenstein movie is just as much a departure from Mary Shelly’s novel as the Universal “classic”, but for me it doesn’t grate half as much.  That’s not to say there aren’t departures from the text or silly points in the plot, but at least there are no huge leaps or ridiculous name changes, and it starts with the right idea of Victor telling someone about his terrible deeds.

At the heart of it all is a, yet again, superb Peter Cushing as Victor Frankenstein; and in particular his banter with Robert Urqhuart’s Paul Krempe is excellent.  Unfortunately Hazel Court’s Elizabeth is rather a wet fish; your usual Hammer damsel, rather than the relatively strong character she should be.  Christopher Lee is good as the creature, though as he is silent (like Boris Karloff’s monster), it’s hard to fully appreciate him.  Strangely when we first see the creature, he looks more like Al Pacino than Christopher Lee!  Even the young Frankenstein (not the Gene Wilder one; he actually looks a bit like Armando Ianucci) is actually very entertaining, it’s a shame there isn’t more of him.

The Curse of Frankenstein is very well paced, packing in enough plot while still allowing Cushing and Lee to chew the scenery (if a mute part can chew scenery).  While not the whole story and not a patch on Danny Boyle’s stage production, Hammer’s version is very entertaining and very watchable thanks to the strong main cast.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Dracula (1958)

Having previously been disappointed with Tod Browning's Dracula (1931) I was very keen to see Terence Fisher's vision starring a young Christopher Lee and a slightly less young Peter Cushing.  I wasn’t disappointed.

Where Lugosi's Prince of Darkness has designs on moving to London (and Mina's "beautiful neck"), writer Jimmy Sangster shuns Stoker's source material to a degree and crafts a story similar to Nosferatu in that all the action takes place in Germany (Karlstadt, only a few hours coach drive from Castle Dracula).  The familiar names are all there, but the relationships have often changed. Jonathan Harker is engaged to Lucy, who is Arthur's sister and Mina is Arthur's wife!  Dracula and Van Helsing are of course the same, but despite all these changes they do not grate the same way it did in Frankenstein (1931).

It goes without saying that Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are fantastic.  Despite Dracula being one of the roles most synonymous with Lee, this is actually his 33rd film (I think) which is fairly incredible!  Where Lugosi was enigmatic and stilted, Lee is charismatic and full of energy; his Dracula is very active and physical which leads to a very dynamic movie as he desperately tries to stop Van Helsing.  Lee actually says very little.  Beyond welcoming Jonathan Harker to his castle and getting him settled in, he doesn’t actually say anything.  Which surprises me more that apparently he refused to say any lines in the script for Dracula: Prince of Darkness, as his Dracula is hardly verbose anyway.

Of course, where Lee is very physical, Cushing can match it.  Despite him looking not too far off Grand Moff Tarkin age, he is able to mix it with Lee in running around the excellent Gothic sets and fighting him off for a dramatic climax.  That’s not to say he is just “knees-bent running around”, most of the time he is the perfect Van Helsing using brain rather than brawn and displaying the same cold logic that he portrayed so well in Frankenstein Created Woman.  An honourable mention should go to Michael Gough (will later be Alfred in Tim Burton’s Batman films) who plays Arthur; he fits his story arc perfectly as a grieving family man who comes to realise the horror (slowly) of the situation and is then determined to protect those he loves.

I've already mentioned the Gothic sets, which are brilliantly created by production designer Bernard Robinson, who will become a Hammer Horror regular, working on the classics as well as Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Plague of Zombies, The Reptile and Rasputin: The Mad Monk to name a few.  Actually some of those were filmed back to back on the same sets; so he knew how to save some pennies too!  Terence Fisher’s direction is smooth and accomplished.  He seems to favour fluid tracking shots across a room, moving past pillars, columns and such like.  This way he shows off the great sets and creates a sense of scale that a static camera wouldn’t do; as well as mirroring the dynamic performances from the two main leads.

One of the happiest improvements over 1931 Dracula, is the moment Van Helsing explains that Dracula's ability to change into a bat or a wolf is a myth.  So no stupid rubber bats, or even armadillos (I'm still not sure why there were armadillos!) which instantly enhances the film’s credibility.  Great performances, smooth direction, smart story and wonderful sets.  I really enjoyed Dracula.  Now I’m looking forward to Hammer’s The Curse of Frankenstein and The Mummy.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)

Having been disappointed with Universal's Frankenstein (1931), I was hoping that Hammer's Frankenstein Created Woman might tell the second half of Mary Shelly's excellent book.  Admittedly I haven't seen Hammer's The Curse of Frankenstein, but as FCW also stars Peter Cushing, I was hopeful.  This optimism was sadly misplaced.  "Woman" is created (completely off screen, we don't see a thing) from a girl who drowns herself because she's has just seen her lover guillotined for a crime he didn't commit.  Oh, and she now has the brain of said guillotined lover!  Queue some revenge killing against the toffs who initially framed lover boy.

It all sounds a bit Young Frankenstein, and it is.  Despite not really connecting with James Whale's film, at least there were great sets, tremendous lighting and a dramatic creation scene.  There is none of that here.  It's a point and shoot film with no obvious creative vision, no "It's Alive!" scene, and a ludicrous plot.  Peter Cushing does his best, and his complete disregard for anyone’s feelings and his contempt for superstitious folk (as long as his research is undisturbed) is fun, but it's not enough.  Where Christopher Lee is able to rescue Rasputin: The Mad Monk by chewing the scenery, Cushing’s more reserved style isn’t enough to animate the lifeless body of FCW.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Reptile (1966)

A spurious reason involving a snake-tribe from Borneo is given to account for the fact that there is a Human-Reptile living in a stately home in the English countryside, but it’s not really worth going in to.  Actually, that’s about it!  A few unfortunate folk get bitten, and shortly after, they froth at the mouth and then die (at varying speeds depending on who the character is!), including Private James Frazer (John Laurie) from Dad’s Army!  No explanation is given as to why the Reptile is so bitey; it doesn’t seem to want to poison, trap and then eat its prey; or even collect them as a trophy; it just bites and lets its victim wander off to die.

It’s all rather silly, and even though I saw it yesterday, I can’t remember much of what happens, because actually, not much happens.  In the same style as Dracula: Prince of Darkness and Rasputin: The Mad Monk, The Reptile and The Plague of the Zombies were filmed back to back using some of the same sets, the graveyard in particular was very familiar; and indeed Michael Ripper, who was a policeman in POZ is Tom the friendly landlord of the local pub.  In fact he is the best thing in this; it’s a bit of a shame his role is only a peripheral character.  Jacqueline Pearce also pops up from POZ as the daughter of the mysterious Dr Franklin (Noel Willman).  Actually, Willman was also pretty good, weirdly creeping up behind folk, and almost gliding around with his big black cloak on!

However, none of this manages to raise the movie above what it is; a hammy Hammer production with a daft plot, bad make up and huge swathes of nothing happening. I implied that Christopher Lee was the only thing worth watching Rasputin for; The Reptile is what happens if you have a naff film and don’t have Lee to rescue it!  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Rasputin: The Mad Monk (1966)

Rasputin is a humble monk, but he has a special gift: he is able to convince people to do as he says and carry out his wishes.  Oh, and he can drink anyone under the table.  So, by virtue of his ability to essentially hypnotise others, Rasputin leaves his monastery, and tries to make a name for himself in St. Petersberg, with eventual designs on ingratiating himself within the Royal Court.  Of course his rise to power makes enemies, some of which want him dead.

This is a fairly forgettable film, doubtlessly historically inaccurate, which is remarkable for only two things as far as I see it.  One: it was filmed back to back with Dracula: Prince of Darkness, using some of the same sets and cast.  Two: Christopher Lee.  He is completely mesmerising in this film, you really can’t take your eyes off him.  In the riotous role of Rasputin, Lee shows a confidence and bravado that never lets up, even to his final scene.  Whether he was directed to play the character like this or whether he just allowed his personality to shine through it doesn’t really matter - he is superb.  I don’t think I’ve seen him in another role where he just lets rip as much as he does here.

Erm, I think that’s about all there is to say.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Plague of the Zombies (1966)

When Sir James Forbes receives a letter from his friend Doctor Tompson - a GP in a small distant village - which describes a strange disease that is wiping out villagers, Sir James and his daughter Sylvia pay a visit hoping they can get to the bottom of the mystery.  As with all of the Hammer Horror films, The Plague of the Zombies isn’t very horrible by today’s standards, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t suspense, mystery and a foreboding sense of menace; especially when the enigmatic Squire Hamilton turns up.

It turns out that after the villagers have died of a “plague” (actually a voodoo curse), the bodies are then disinterred and via another voodoo ceremony, become zombies.  These zombies are very much the slow walking variety made famous by Night of the Living Dead, two years later; and as such, their victims are seen to be paralysed with fear before they can be strangled/bitten.  The make-up is pretty good, the zombies all having a suitable recently-dug-up look, and the white eyes are particularly creepy.  The idea that voodoo is behind it all is a nice idea, rather than there just being zombies for no reason; so by the end of the film Sir James and Dr Tompson are clear with what they have to do.  The only thing that was a bit odd was the fact that the zombies were being created for use as a work force in an old mine!  It struck me that zombies probably aren’t the best choice for slave-labour, what with their predisposition for falling apart!  It put me in mind of Boris Karloff’s Mummy finding himself gainful employment for 10 years while waiting for the modern embodiment of Anck-es-en Amon to show up.

The main cast are fine; André Morell and Brook Williams as Sir James and Dr Tompson are both pretty good; serious but then incredulous, yet determined when it matters.  The two ladies Jacqueline Pearce and Diane Clare are both rather wet, but I guess that’s what passes for female victims in this genre at the time.  Certainly John Carson as the mysterious Squire Hamilton has the most memorable role; he gives a suitably sinister performance but manages to present an mask of benevolent normality which hides his true motives.

The Plague of the Zombies is perhaps not deemed a classic and is doubtless overshadowed by Hammer Horrors more illustrious ancestry; however, its inventive story, cool zombies, atmosphere of death, its “rationale” for the zombies and solid lead roles make it an absorbing & very enjoyable movie.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Nanny (1965)

It’s always the films that you have no expectations of that turn out to be real gems.  I certainly didn’t expect a tense thriller which kept me guessing as to who to believe right to the end of the film.  The nanny in question is played by the excellent Bette Davis, and she has worked for the Fane family for many years; however, about 6 years ago there was an accident which resulted in the death of the youngest Fane child, Susy.  Shortly after, Susy’s elder brother Joey was shipped out to a home for disturbed children; but now Joey is coming home, will the past catch up with everyone?

The film is full of mystery as it is not until a good way into the film that we start to get an idea of the history of the nanny (I don’t think she actually had a name), and even then we don’t know whose version to trust.  It is clear that Joey is very mistrustful of Nanny, and at the heart of this relationship is a wonderful performance from Bette Davis and William Dix who plays the role of the 10 year old Joey.  William (who actually was 10 when the film was released) is truly brilliant; he’s very sure of himself and is having none of the fussing that Nanny is foisting upon him.  He is a little cocky but stops short of being arrogant, consequently I loved every scene he was in, and his scenes with Bette Davis were full of an intensity you wouldn’t expect from one so young.

The black and white photography adds to the mysterious ambience of the movie, and there are a few noticeable tracking shots which help give an idea of the size of the Fane house and give the movie a more polished feel than perhaps you might expect.  Actually this might be expected of cameraman Kelvin Pike, who was good enough to get the attention of Stanley Kubrick, consequently he can list The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey on his CV.  Everything comes together beautifully; the intriguing plot, the marvellous relationship between Nanny and Joey, the cinematography and the camerawork to give an excellent final product that had me guessing all the way through.  A great and hugely enjoyable Hammer production.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

The Hammer sequel to the 1958 classic Dracula (both directed by Terence Fisher), with a script so bad that Christopher Lee refused to say any of his lines, I nonetheless enjoyed Prince of Darkness.  I certainly enjoyed it a lot more than the “classic” Bela Lugosi Dracula from 1931; for a start there were no rubber bats or armadillos.  The cast are fairly run of the mill 60s horror material, apart from the creepy butler Klove (Philip Latham) who makes a good job of turning a fairly minor part into a sinister and memorable character; and of course Christopher Lee who despite not having any lines has an electrifying presence.

The film begins with a very brief synopsis of the 1958 Dracula (unfortunately not part of my Hammer boxed set), to let us know that Count Dracula is no more.  Of course this means that he has to be resurrected in this film, and the only way that can happen is with human blood.  Our four “heroes” naturally ignore all the warnings about castle Dracula and end up providing the necessary bodily fluids to revive the Count in a surprisingly gruesome scene.  Once resurrected Christopher Lee obviously dominates every scene he is in; his Dracula is so enigmatic and full of menace it is hard to take your eyes off him.

I really like the set for Castle Dracula, it has a very grandiose feel to it as well as managing to be mysterious, with the potential for secret passages everywhere.  In fact the only thing I really didn’t like was the end. Spoiler!  Dracula is killed by running water, but the water seems to be under concrete (though it’s probably ice) which seems to be just outside the castle wall, which is on top of a hill!  Is there really frozen running water at the top of the hill under the foundations of the castle?  I was confused!  However,this doesn’t really spoil what is an entertaining Dracula film with an excellent Christopher Lee and plenty of atmosphere.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

One Million Years B.C. (1966)

Made 2 years before Kubrick’s masterpiece, this is most definitely not A Space Odyssey.  Following two tribes of cave people (one dark-haired and dirty, the other blonde, more advanced), the movie tells the story (I’m using the word in its loosest term) of Tumak (John Richardson) who is banished from his tribe but is saved from exhaustion by the more advanced tribe.  The technological state of this new tribe seems to stretch to spears, mullets and push-up bras, modelled perfectly by Loana (Raquel Welch).

The “story” is by-the-by and the real reason for the film is to put some of Ray Harryhausen’s animated creatures on screen.  The fight between the T-rex and the Triceratops is OK, but I was most impressed by the giant sea turtle, which looks really detailed and most life-like.  Unfortunately before these animations there is some live action forced perspective nonsense.  A “giant” tarantula seems to be doing press-ups over a presumably captured bug, but worst of all is a lethargic iguana that simply shuffles along occasionally making a Rehhhh “roaring” noise (just go Rehhhh yourself and that’s exactly how it sounded!).  Did you do it?  Stupid eh?  Well it was worse.  Apparently the lights under which it was filmed made it very sleepy, so the iguana wrangler essentially had to push the lizard along!

There was the occasional nicely shot landscape and swift camera move, but for the most part One Million Years B.C. is ludicrous prehistoric nonsense.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

She (1965)

Starting off my Hammer boxed set is the, well, thriller I suppose; She.  Full title: She who must be obeyed!  Her Sunday name I guess.  Played by Ursula Andress, She (actual name Ayesha) is an ancient Egyptian who has hung around for a couple of thousand years waiting for her lover to come back to her (after she killed him for infidelity!).  Her lover is Leo (John Richardson), part of a trio of World War One vets (also including Major Holly - Peter Cushing, and his valet Job - Bernard Cribbins) who are based in Palestine and who go looking for the fabled city of Kuma.  If the story sounds kinda familiar, that's because it is!  It's essentially The Mummy with some gender reversal.

 
This certainly isn't anything special, but it's interesting and I wasn't bored by it; probably for the most part due to Peter Cushing.  When he's on screen, it's clear who the main actor is, even though he's not the main character.  Bernard Cribbins over-acts if anything, but is good; and John Richardson is okay.  Christopher Lee is also in the cast as the head priest of Ayesha's cult; but it's a shame that he doesn't really get much to do.  The camera work was fairly point and shoot, and the special effects were quite ropey (I couldn't tell if the ruined Egyptian city we were looking at at one point was meant to be a model or real (or whether the effect was a bad model or a worse matte painting!)).

                                                                 I dunno, you tell me.

Overall, quite an ordinary film with a re-hashed Mummy plot, but interesting enough not to be boring due to a pretty solid cast.

The Woman in Black (2012)

The Woman in Black is a good old haunted house on a hill ghost story. There is a goodly amount of suspense, and several jumpy moments; two of which are really good. When Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is sent by his firm of lawyers to tie up the estate of the recently-deceased owner of a mansion, he catches sight of the mysterious Woman in Black. Unfortunately, whenever she is seen, children in the local village start dying, seemingly of their own volition.

Very sinister indeed, and the film does well generating suspense and a real sense of mystery. Practically shot in monochrome, the film feels very edgy; enhanced by the villagers' superstition and inherent distrust of anyone that shows any interest in the mansion. I think that it will be a while until Daniel Radcliffe can shake Harry Potter, but he does quite well here; helped by the fact that he doesn't speak very much. Though every time he took a slug of whisky I kept thinking "But you're still at school!" Ciaran Hinds was excellent throughout as the only skeptic in the village; and the scenes between him and Radcliffe were always very good. Ironically enough the woman in black is played by Liz White!

Overall The Woman in Black was an effective and chilling Hammer Horror with a classic haunted house plot. Well acted, and despite using a lot of the old tropes associated with the genre, a genuinely spooky movie. The suspense was fairly constant for much of the film, but actually perhaps not as tense as something like The Grey.