The Hound of the Baskervilles (Fisher 1959). (1st viewing) Another limit case regarding the horror category. A few changes have been made to sex it up just slightly and make it a little scarier, in fact quite a few have been made in terms of the plot itself, but I was surprised how, prologue aside, still overall tame this was, and in that view more of a “mainstream” film for Hammer. Again extremely solid acting on the back of great casting, and pleasing aesthetics. Overall though I still prefer the Rathbone version, in part because of the black and white photography fits the story better (although the colors here are subdued and it’s lit appropriately). Whether on the side of evil or good (see his Van Helsing also), Cushing is almost always recognizable as the same single-minded obsessive!
Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (Francis 1968). (rewatch) It feels like perhaps changes have been brought in to appeal to a younger audience, with a young couple-to-be taking the place of the adult foursome in the previous
Dracula Prince of Darkness, the lad here a chest-baring, beer-drinking, atheist dead ringer for Roger Daltrey, the girl the especially appealing Veronica Carlson. The sex is played up more strongly too, with a lot of more obvious, late Hammer cleavage shots. The purity of the atmosphere in the previous two Dracula entries is sacrificed somewhat, but I find this very enjoyable in its own right. The story and characters involving the young people, the Monsignor uncle and the folks at the inn are well-written, staged and played, and interestingly the religious angle with Dracula is ramped up (he’s taking revenge for an exorcism performed on his castle –
Dracula’s Revenge would have been a more apt title than the nondescript, and slightly inaccurate, one used). The theme of Dracula as seductor/rapist is more pronounced here also, and Francis brings his own stylistic touches, like the use of color as Mr. Sausage wrote, and I love those sped-up shots of Dracula maniacally whipping his carriage horses through the forest. Lots of different thrills here, the most entertaining of the series and possibly in the end the most likeable for me.
The Plague of the Zombies (Gilling 1966). (1st viewing) A new turn for Hammer contributing to the development of the zombie film, but it definitely builds on the pre-existing Dracula/Frankenstein/etc. Gothic tropes: an undead state created by infectious-disease, grave robbing, the hidden occult circle, and cast in the very recognizable 19th century Hammer universe. But it’s a really solid and well-made film. Tremendous sets, really nice photography and direction, interesting and good newcomers like Clare, Pearce and Williams along with the reliable-as-usual Morell. The innovative zombie scenes come at the end, but the progressive mystery uncovering and the atmospheric drama thriller that make up most of this film are truly successful and enjoyable in themselves.
Poltergeist (Hooper 1982). (rewatch) Given that Spielberg not only produced it, but came up with the story and co-wrote the screenplay (which wasn’t the case with
E.T., released a week apart), in addition to at least having a hand in the direction as we know by now, he’s definitely the auteur here. This is like the darker, mirror image of
E.T., with the paranormal replacing the aliens: the southern California suburbs, the young blonde girl and the older boy, the very detailed, realistic ordinary middle-class life setting, the toy-filled bedrooms, bicycles, dog, etc. It’s definitely a fun and well-made film, and the horror/terror level isn’t mild but at the same time still retains the quality of a good old-fashioned fright fest. It’s a bit of a strange brew that way, like a horror film for kids that at the same time is too intense for (young) kids – maybe a film for grown-up kids is the best description (this division is reflected in the fact that, according to Wiki, the film initially got an R rating but Spielberg & Hooper managed to then get it changed to PG). Maybe that, along with the level of spectacle, makes it a likeable but not quite a favorite film for me. I remember later in the 80s when
Aliens came out how Ripley was the subject of social commentary on a shift in female characters taking up previously male exclusive action hero roles. This isn’t exactly the same sort of film but it’s striking how the mother Diane is the central (action) heroine figure here (and JoBeth Williams’ performance is definitely a stand-out aspect of the film), and this would at first glance provide a counter example or exception to the more frequently observed accent on the significance of the father (present or absent) in the director’s films.
Just a weird, synchronistic little note: a few days before I was watching a video detailing the
Shining documentary
Room 237, and I was paying close attention to a lot of the film’s details during this revisit and when Carol Anne contacts the spirits through the television set for the second time, in her parents’ bedroom after the storm, the clock on the TV reads… 2:37. Likely a coincidence, but given how this film explicitly references many other films (
Star Wars,
Alien,
A Guy Named Joe), maybe just not?
The Abominable Snowman (Guest 1957). (1st viewing) Average at best, though with some good moments. This is more of an adventure drama, with eventually the threat of the creature looming. There are some parallels to
King Kong, with the lead expeditioner in it for financial and fame motivations we find out. Cushing’s role is the sober scientist, and frankly a bit dull. Attractive location shots in snowy mountains alternate with more obviously studio stage close-ups. In the end, the promise of monster horror eventually evolves into something with more of the feeling of science fiction.
The Omen (Donner 1976). (rewatch) I don’t know what the current consensus is about this once very popular and iconic film, but it seems you don’t hear about it much anymore. I was surprised how very good it still was overall, even if some of the material is a bit silly and the dialogue in some scenes could have used some work. The story is very strong and the mystery narrative is interesting, woven around the developing events around Damien’s unfolding destiny. (Just after viewing the film, as I was re-reading parts of Noël Carroll’s book
The Philosophy of Horror, there’s a chapter where he discusses how almost all horror plots revolve around knowing the unknown, either through the “overreacher” plot or most often the “complex discovery” plot, and he then goes on to use the example of this film as an especially successful instance. It rings very true to me when he says that the viewer’s involvement in this process of discovery is an important source of pleasure that people derive from the genre. Just in this last batch, that was definitely true for me here with this film, as with
The Plague of the Zombies.)
There are several really memorably staged scenes, mostly around the kills, and almost a bit of a vampiric undertone at times (“drink the blood of Christ” Father Brennan keeps insisting, whose attempts to inform and convince the ambassador, by the way, could not have been more ineptly and ineffectively thought out!; the method that has to be used to kill the son of Satan; the way the nanny attacks Peck near the end), and there’s a general Gothic feel about the Thorn mansion. That tricycle scene really prefigures
The Shining, another film where the father is intent on killing his son. And that last shot really is one for the ages. Good-looking photography throughout by Gilbert Taylor, and nice score by Goldsmith here, as with
Poltergeist (that guy sure knew how to write memorable tunes
).
