Witchfinder General (1968)

With themes of isolation, helplessness and anarchy, this seemingly silly revenge movie is none-the-less fun and at times unexpectedly stylish.  Vincent Price is the eponymous protagonist and as such is a great dead-pan witch hunter who genuinely believes he is “doing God’s work”.  He never once loses his cool (until he gets an axe buried in him) which adds to the detached way he views human life, apart from his own.

Resident Evil (2002)

Resident Evil isn’t the first film based on a computer game, and in 2002 is wouldn’t be the last; not least because of the various sequels of this particular franchise.  Tomb Raider (2001) had its merits, though the sequel Cradle of Life (2003) didn’t.  I seem to remember the only good thing about Doom (2005) was the first person shooter moment that Karl Urban has, which is really what Doom was all about anyway.  In this illustrious company Resident Evil doesn’t exactly stand out, but it also doesn’t fall into the mire of awful adaptations (I’m looking at you Streetfighter).

The setup to the film works really well.  Umbrella is a huge corporation that owns so many products that 90% of homes contain something made by them; additionally they have huge lobbying clout.  So, Unilever or Nestle then.  Of course the real work of Umbrella is military hardware, illegal and morally questionable genetic research.  So, Dow, Monsanto or any Western government then.  Sorry, I’ll stop being so political.  Essentially, the idea of an ethically suspect multinational is just as relevant today as it was in 2002.

Science in the Movies

As scientists we get a pretty hard time of it.  If we’re not struggling for publishable results, or being misquoted in the press about our research; then we’re being portrayed as über-geeks in The Big Bang Theory or with cinema-screen foreheads and clipboards in adverts (I’m looking at you Tefal).  Some of my non-science friends still call me boffin. If that isn’t enough, our subject matter, our interest, nae, our passion can be treated with such cavalier contempt in films.

As I see it, there are several issues to address here.  There is a fair amount (as you might expect) of bad science in movies; however there is also some good science (or at least the director has made an attempt to grasp some basics).  Quite often the scientist is the voice of reason (though the incidence of anyone paying them any attention is rather less); more often than not however, the mad scientist is the preferred flavour.  Finally I shall give some thought to the stereotypes that are perpetuated in the movies and whether there is any likelihood that it may change.

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.

Aliens Double Bill

Perhaps Aberdeen is not the centre of the cultural universe, but as long as the excellent Belmont Filmhouse keeps putting on events and screenings of classic films, then I'll be happy.  My cinema going isn't as frequent as it used to be, but in recent years I've enjoyed an Indiana Jones double bill, Metropolis, Nosferatu, Labyrinth, The Thing, Robocop, Tron, The Big Lebowski Wii ten pin bowling night and now an Aliens double bill.

When I first saw the advert for the event, there was nothing that was going to stop me going.  I've seen Alien before on the big screen, I think it was on the 25th anniversary (I was only 3 when it was first released); but I've never seen Aliens in large format.

Free Hugs for anyone who books tickets for our Alien + Aliens Double Bill on Sun 27 Jul ;) http://t.co/DLcpANEG1d pic.twitter.com/06aGnHkZTy
— Belmont Filmhouse (@BelmontFh) June 13, 2014

Needless to say, both films were utterly brilliant; seeing them on the big screen shows up a level of detail that is lost on TV, and in Aliens in particular the practical effects look tremendous.  The sound design in Aliens (that freaked me out so much playing AVP on the PC in the dark) is superb and so atmospheric at volume, as is James Horner's score.  Being part of an audience who are all fans enhances the viewing; there is almost palpable excitement as the Alien logos come up on the screen (sublimely understated), and a lot of humour that is lost when viewed at home suddenly works like you're seeing it for the first time.

Of course this was an event as much as a showing of two amazing films, and as such was a great success.  Posters and T-shirts had been kindly provided by the excellent Last Exit to Nowhere, and before each film, Dallas (Marketing and Events manager at The Belmont - not actually beardy Tom Skerrit) asked Alien-related questions handing out Alien Kinder eggs as prizes.

Having simply worn a dressing gown and sandals to the Big Lebowski night, I thought I'd make more of an effort this time, and through a combination of old clothes, charity shops and eBay, I thought that I came up with a fairly convincing Brett costume.

Dallas (centre, complete with chestburster) thought so too, and I am very thankful for my complimentary Filmhouse tickets and my Blu-Ray boxed set of the 4 Alien movies + Prometheus prize.

Brilliant event, a great time had by all, and I'm looking forward to the Back to the Future Trilogy.

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.

Reanimator (1985)

If Frankenstein was the modern Prometheus then Reanimator is the modern Frankenstein.  Except that the hard work has been done and all Dr West has to do is inject some luminous yellow liquid into the brains of dead people to bring them back to life.

Based on H P Lovecraft's story Herbert West: Reanimator, the film is very much in the 80s splatter movie style of Scanners (1981), The Evil Dead (1981) or Bad Taste (1987).  Full of Dark humour and quite outrageous scenes, Reanimator is great fun despite being essentially daft and looking rather dated.  The special effects, however, don't look dated.  In the great tradition of practical horror (American Werewolf in London (1981), The Thing (1982), Evil Dead or Evil Dead 2 (1987) and even Aliens (1986)) the effects are all tremendously gooey and as far as I can tell all done in camera, which all adds to the fun.

Perhaps not so horrific by today's standards, Reanimator is more of a Sci-fi romp than anything else, more frenetic than atmospheric; but this doesn't detract from it at all.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

To a new world of Gods and Monsters

I feel I’m starting to become a bit of a connoisseur of Frankenstein movies.  Though, as I’ve said before, I was spoiled early on by seeing Danny Boyle’s stage production starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller.  Both versions (the two leads swapped roles of Frankenstein and the monster) were fabulous and were closer to the source material than any of the movies I’ve seen yet.

The Bride of Frankenstein is the sequel to the original 1931 Frankenstein, again starring Boris Karloff as the monster and Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein.  The film begins with some rather unnecessary exposition involving Mary Shelly, her husband and a Lord Byron who is ridiculously pompous and overacts.  The point is to remind us of the events of the first film, but despite some nice camera transition zooms, it’s a rather clumsy way to start the movie.

When the story properly begins it follows on immediately from the first film and we discover that the monster isn’t dead.  There is a certain amount of knees bent running about involving some more rent-a-lynch-mob action; but crucially the victimisation of the monster is far more convincing than in the first film.  The introduction of speech increases this misunderstanding.  Apparently Karloff thought that if the monster spoke it would ruin its “charm”, but I feel that the introduction of the blind man that helps him begin to communicate helps create empathy with the creature as he becomes more self aware.  In this scene in particular I thought Karloff showed his skill and really managed to create a sense of sadness and generate sympathy with the monster.

Aside from Karloff, the other crucial characters are Henry Frankenstein (still don’t know why he was renamed) played by Colin Clive, and Ernst Thesiger as Dr Pretorius.  Colin Clive has a great manic energy that he continues from the first film and improves on; even when he is refusing to do the experiments his guilt is rather eccentric.  Dr Pretorius is a calm collected counterpoint to Frankenstein, and is the driving force behind the new experiments.  His introduction is a touch bizarre; he shows Henry several live homunculi he has created, complete with individual personalities and squeaky voices.  It sounds better than it actually is, but I can understand the reason behind introducing Pretorius’ skill, and at least the special effects are surprisingly good.  Clive and Thesiger work really well together, and it is their relationship that helps drive the film to its conclusion.

This conclusion is of course the creation of the monster’s bride, and is a wonderful blend of glorious sets, brilliant lighting and dynamic direction.  As in the first film, James Whale makes excellent use of light and shadow, and nowhere is this better seen than when lightning is striking the creation. Frankenstein and Pretorius are filmed from above (looking down at them from the gods?) in shadow and their excited faces are suddenly lit by flashes of lightning.  It is a far more dramatic creation scene than the first film, and indeed Hammer’s Curse of Frankenstein.  It then culminates in Colin Clive’s iconic “It’s alive!”.  After all this superbity (new word), the final scene is a bit of a let down, and a self-destruct lever in the lab seems like a quick fix end to the film.  Shame.

A vast improvement over the first film, apart from a clunky beginning and a quick fix end, The Bride of Frankenstein captures far more of the spirit of the novel; both Frankenstein and his monster are victims, and Karloff’s performance generates real sympathy with the misunderstood creature.  The story demands less leaps of faith than the original film, and James Whale’s direction is sharper and more creative than before.   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.

Priest (2011)

Historically Scott Stewart is more involved with visual effects as a cofounder of The Orphanage (credits include Sin City (2005); Pirates of the Caribbean (2006 & 2007) and Iron Man (2008)), but increasingly he is spending time in the director’s chair.  Priest is his third feature film and is very loosely based on the graphic novels written by Hyung Min-Woo.  Not the first film to be based on a graphic novel by any stretch, and I'm sure it won't be the last.  However, it is one of the few movies that I can think of that actually features a cartoon; Hellboy 2 being another obvious example.

The exposition cartoon at the beginning is very stylish, very cool and gave me hope that the rest of the film would be similarly stylised, and perhaps to an extent it was; but for all the great ideas, the movie is disappointingly flat.  It essentially boils down to a revenge movie of sorts, but it could have been so much more.  What saves it from being dreadful are the technical achievements.  I really liked the harsh, high contrast of the badlands which were reminiscent of Pitch Black (2000) and generally the cinematography by frequent Robert Zemeckis collaborator Don Burgess is great (also responsible for lensing the harsh look of The Book of Eli (2010)).  I also liked the idea that the vampires were a race themselves and didn't just suck blood of of their prey, they tore them apart!

Paul Bettany was fine, as was Cam Gigandet.  Christopher Plummer and Alan Dale both phone in their cameo performances.  As did Karl Urban, but his character just reminded me of Rattlesnake Jake from Rango!  Some great ideas (the premise is more interesting than the source material sounds!), I just think that the film falls short of what it aimed to be.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

If only...

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.

Nosferatu (1922)

As part of this year’s Halloween programme, our local Picturehouse cinema The Belmont screened Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s 1922 horror film, Nosferatu.  This is the first time that the character of Dracula had been portrayed on the silver screen, though due to the inability to secure the rights to Bram Stoker’s novel, names and locations had to be changed.  Most notably Count Dracula becomes Count Orlok, and the location of the heroes moves to Germany; understandable as Murnau was German.  This all has no effect on the final product because Nosferatu is tremendous.

The plot really does follow that of Dracula: estate agent Hutter travels to Transylvania to help Count Orlok purchase a property in Wisbourg where Hutter and his wife live.  During Orlok's voyage across to Germany, all of the ship’s crew are mysteriously killed or disappear.  Once in Wisbourg, a mysterious plague strikes the inhabitants, blamed on infected rats brought ashore by the ship that carried Orlok.  Count Orlok himself makes Mrs Hutter his personal mission, ever since he noticed from a photograph that she “has a beautiful neck”!

Max Schreck is incredible as the sinister Count Orlok, certainly one of the most enigmatic and iconic portrayals of the Dracula character.  I’m not sure how tall he is, but the long slim coat he wears, the bald head and the pointy ears serve to make him look even taller and even more disquieting.  Shadows and lighting are used to tremendous effect, so that the audience shares the same dread that the characters do.  The shadows perhaps give even Raiders of the Lost Ark a run for its money, and it is obvious where Francis Ford Coppola got his inspiration for Dracula’s menacing shadows in his 1992 film.  Schreck has such an overwhelming presence that any time he is on screen, the viewer is sure that something terrible is about to happen.  In this way Orlok is as ominous as more contemporary baddies such as Darth Vader or Anton Chigurh; not bad for a silent movie from the 20s.

Of course there are noticeable technical issues due to sections of the film being lost, found and restored by one way or another, but none of these issues diminish the power of the film; the music and the presence of Max Schreck make sure of that.  The film is also perfectly paced, with a run time of little over 90 minutes it clips along at a fair old pace, but never feels rushed or that any important exposition scenes are cut out; I certainly didn’t have time to get bored.

In Nosferatu, Murnau created one of the most iconic horror villains ever to appear on film, and at the same time shot some of the most memorable scenes in cinematic history.  These shots have been oft copied in movies and are now an accepted cinematic technique; almost a prerequisite for a horror film.  A wonderfully atmospheric gothic horror with an incredible performance and evil presence from Max Schreck, Nosferatu changed the way horror was made, and also happens to be magnificent.  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.

Los Ojos de Julia (2010)

Directed by Guillem Morales and produced by Guillermo del Toro (amongst others), Julia’s Eyes is a tense thriller with many twists, turns and hide behind a cushion moments.  A story involving two sisters who have an degenerative disease of the eyes means that the titular Julia spends a lot of the film virtually, if not totally blind; which really ramps up the creepy.  Belén Rueda is good as Julia, really making the viewer sympathise with her predicament, despite some questionable decisions later in the film.  Óscar Faura does some great cinematography work, creating some wonderfully subtle bleak and gloomy moments; then the flash photography is used to great effect as its starkness contrasts the rest of the movie.  A really atmospheric, creepy, psychological thriller which had me grimacing at the screen on several occasions.  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.

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.

Dracula (1931)

I am Dracula. I bid you welcome.

Believe it or not, there was a time when cinema wasn’t replete with Vampire films.  Bram Stoker published Dracula in 1897, but in a time when movie studios didn't instantly jump on any novel idea, it wasn't until 1922 that the story was adapted for the silent film Nosferatu.  Then in 1931 director Tod Browning adapted the stage production featuring Belá Lugosi as Dracula and Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing for Universal's Dracula.  It sounds like it should be a classic. Unfortunately it’s far too clunky to be anywhere near it.

The opening couple of scenes are spooky enough, and I can live with the obvious matte painting (it is 1931 after all); however, any pretence of atmosphere goes out of the window as soon as the rubber bat makes an appearance “driving” the carriage!  I kid you not.  The bat makes many appearances, but that’s not all; there’s plastic spider of unknown scale, and some armadillos.  Yup, you heard me.  Honestly, I don’t know; perhaps they’re meant to be giant rats?  Or maybe Dracula has pet armadillos in his castle.

I think Belá Lugosi is trying to be enigmatic, but most of the time he’s daft.  He manages to be creepy weird when he is bending over someone to bite them (no teeth or blood though), and he does something sinister with his hands (think Saruman’s claw hand as he tries to use the palantir), but when he speaks with his stilted Hungarian accent he doesn’t sound enigmatic at all.  He’s more Manuel from Fawlty Towers: “I speak Eeenglish, I learn it from a book” than iconic vampire!

Most of the acting is high school amateur dramatics, and some of the direction is too.  Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing is probably the best thing, and he certainly rescues most scenes he’s in from tedium.  That’s not much of a compliment though, as everyone else is so bad; the worst thing is the Cockney Music Hall orderly at the mental asylum saying “Your maaad aint cha!”; it’s a wonder he doesn’t slap his thighs at the same time.  Probably the best part of the film were the sets, in particular inside castle Dracula and a magnificent staircase in Carfax Abbey.

I started watching with high hopes, sure I was about to see a masterful understated and sinister performance from Belá Lugosi.  I was sorely disappointed, and I look forward to seeing the 1958 Christopher Lee version.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Blade: Trinity (2004)

David S Goyer wrote the first two Blades, but it has taken until the third and final instalment for him to get behind the camera as well.  Though he is better known as a writer, Goyer has directed one film before; and though it’s never going to win any awards, Blade Trinity is never-the-less quite fun.  This time around Blade discovers and teams up with some a small group of humans who are battling the vampire blight.  One of them is Whistler’s daughter, Abigail (Jessica Biel), another is Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds), and together they have to defeat the ultimate vampire.  Yup you’ve guessed it, they have to defeat Dracula!

I had been warned that “Trinity” was fairly awful, but actually I thought it was quite entertaining; possibly due to my diminished expectations.  The set pieces were still more exciting and inventive than anything Stephen Norrington came up with in the first film, there was no truly awful CG, and there were no vampires wearing sunscreen!  Though I do think the key to the film was casting Ryan Reynolds as King; his script is quite funny, but Reynolds really manages to bring it alive and despite my best efforts I did laugh quite a bit.  Snipes is still fine as Blade, though I don’t know enough of Blade canon to know if anyone else could do a better job.  Reynolds provides the levity that the film needs, and Biel is fair enough. Dominic Purcell is fine as Drake (the contemporary name for Dracula!), and is physical enough to be a match for Blade.  However, Parker Posey (yes that’s someone’s actual name) is rubbish as the vampire that helps resurrect Dracula; her face is all wrong if she tries to sneer and her delivery is as wooden as one of Van Helsing’s stakes.

Like I say, it’s not a classic; but as a final instalment to a trilogy that started as a good idea with poor execution, graduated to a higher level of movie with a proper director, it’s a fairly funky finale.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Zombieland (2009)

Many now respected directors started their careers in the zombie splatter genre.  Peter Jackson made his bones with Bad Taste (1987) and Braindead (1992), Sam Raimi first made Within the Woods (1978) and more famously The Evil Dead (1981).  More recently Zack Snyder’s first feature film was a visceral remake of the George A Romero classic Dawn of the Dead (2004), and Edgar Wright’s first feature was Zom-Rom-Com Shaun of the Dead (2004) (though I’m intrigued as to what his video short “Fun Dead” starring Keith Chegwin is like!).  So given that Zombieland is director Ruben Fleischer’s first feature length film, perhaps we can expect interesting things from him in future (though I didn’t hear amazing things about Gangster Squad (2013)).

Zombieland is definitely more in the vein of Shaun of the Dead than Bad Taste, less of the over the top gore (though there is plenty of that too).  Narrated by the main character Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) we are quickly introduced to the 5 rules for surviving a Zombie attack (cardio, double-tap, beware of bathrooms, buckle up and travel light), and after that the film is full of dark, gory humour.  Jesse Eisenberg is a likeable main character; a quiet conscientious kind of guy who seems to have applied logic to the zombie apocalypse, and so far his brain has kept him alive.  Tallahassee (Woody Harrleson) is a maniac in search of a Twinkie, whose unbridled joy at battering zombies has kept him alive; and though he seems an unlikely friend for Columbus, they get on together and form an unlikely alliance.  Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin complete the human cast, and they are both fine, but don’t really have as substantial a role as Eisenberg or Harrelson.

From the opening steady-cam tracking shot, and the subtle background CG effects to the way that the text for “The Rules” is integrated into the film, it is apparent that thought has gone into the making of Zombieland.  Ruben Fleischer is suitably inventive with his shots and camera work, so that the movie clips along nicely and keeps us down amongst the characters for much of the time; all helped by Cloverfield DP Michael Bonvillian.  The zombie effects are a mixture of practical and visual effects, but despite all of the blood being computer generated everything looks suitably gooey and convincing.

Everything amounts to a great little film with a wicked sense of humour, Eisenberg and Harrelson play off each other really well and enough is done differently to keep the zombie genre fresh and exciting. But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.