
I watch so many movies that my movie memory is started to overload. So I've decided to start doing short reviews for each film I've watched during the week. Often they'll be movies I'm viewing for the first time, but some may be favourites that are getting their latest re-watch.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
(Germany, 1920, Robert Wiene)
10/10One of the undisputed greats of the silent era, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari acts as the perfect definition of German Expression. Its beautiful sets and contorted angles are still as effective as they ever were. But more impressive, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari remains a genuinely disturbing horror film. The performances are unearthly - helped by the dollops of black and white make up - and the story manages to get under my skin with each repeated viewing. There are two standout members of the cast - Werner Krauss as Dr. Caligari and Conrad Veidt as Cesare. Fittingly in this dark tale, the standouts are both antagonists, however unwilling the latter may be. Krauss is a powerhouse of bugged eyes and hunched stature, while Veidt manages to terrify even though he spends most of the film unconscious. With an ending that is still imitated today, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is not only a masterpiece, but a film crucially important to the development of cinema.
Creature from the Black Lagoon
(USA, 1954, Jack Arnold)
9/10For far too long I've neglected the famous Gillman of the Black Lagoon. I've seen the majority of Universal's monster films - well, the classics, at least - but Creature from the Black Lagoon always slipped me by. Now, finally having seen it, I can see why it inspired so many great filmmakers like Joe Dante and John Carpenter. As simple as it is, it is quite an amazing monster movie. The biggest reason to see this is, of course, the Gillman himself. I expected the monster's design to appear cheesy and laughable... it is anything but. The design of the creature is excellent and surprisingly believable. The Gillman costume allows enough personality to seep through the rubber and creates a sympathetic monster. The gills that can be seen breathing in and out add a touch of realism, and the monster's webbed hands allow for many excellent goofy scare scenes. Creature from the Black Lagoon succeeds in the difficult task of creating a monster that is both frightening and sympathetic. And to see the creature in motion under the water is a particular treat. The underwater photography in Creature from the Black Lagoon is spectacular. And the genius of keeping the film in practically one watery location for the majority of the film works wonders. The lagoon itself becomes a character. The human characters are not as interesting as the monster, but they are not irritating either. They serve their purpose in the film and some are even quite likable. Creature from the Black Lagoon was not the shoddy b-flick I expected it to be, instead it is a polished and brilliant b-movie.
Dracula
(USA, 1931, Tod Browning)
8.5/10I had not seen Universal's Dracula for at least ten years, and I must say it's not the film I remembered. Dracula is the beginning of Universal's foray into monster movies, and it doesn't hold up as well as some of its contemporaries. I'd go as far to say that it's not a very good film. The script is patchy, feeling as if chunks were pulled out (apparently on set, director Tod Browning literally tore out pages of the script that he felt were unnecessary) and the lack of a score makes for an odd viewing experience. Dracula has long chunks of nothingness and fails to follow up on major plot points. Had I not been familiar with the book, I think certain scenes would have me befuddled. But despite its many flaws, Dracula is still a classic of the horror genre. Firstly - and most obviously - this is because of its leading man. Bela Lugosi is one of the true greats of the genre, and, as much as I love Christopher Lee, he is Dracula. His performance may have been parodied to death, but there is no denying that his presentation of the character is the definitive Dracula. Lugosi is slick, scary and even funny at times. Dracula is also a classic for its brilliantly horrific atmosphere. From its spiderweb-infested opening in Dracula's castle to the stormy boat journey and finally to its dusty finale, Dracula is a triumph of style. Visually, the film is impeccable. Interestingly enough, Browning apparently left his cinematographer to direct most of the film. So, as talented as Browning was, a lot of credit must be given to Karl Freund - a wonderful cinematography responsible for photographing masterworks such as Metropolis. A flawed and dated classic, Dracula is still a must-see for all those interested in the horror genre (and cinema in general).
The Evil That Men Do
(USA, 1984, J. Lee Thompson)
6.5/10Let's be honest. Charles Bronson vehicles of the late 70s and 90s - from Death Wish onwards - are all the same movie. Some baddies do bad things, Bronson comes in and kills them all. The repetition is not a problem for me. Why? Because it is a blast watching Bronson doing what he does best. (Death Wish 3 is the pinnacle of these films - Bronson's retaliation is so outrageous and violent that he ends up doing more bad than good.) So essentially we have the same movie over and over, except each film differs in quality. And how do I judge the quality of a Bronson revenge flick? I have some basic criteria: how evil are the villains, how awesome are Bronson's one liners, how violent is the movie, how ridiculous is the action and does Bronson make any hilarious comments about food.
The Evil That Men Do is a mix bag; it delivers sometimes, but it is also a let down. To start with the good, the film scores points for some excellent villains that are truly horrid. And any villain entourage instantly gets a golden star if it includes John Glover. Bronson's one liners are a confusing mess in this, making for some big laughs. Bronson himself is his usual gentle, smiling (and psychotic) self, and his character has a hilarious relationship with a fish. The action is quite outrageous at times, but it is sparse. The Evil That Men Do scores huge points for a scene where Bronson violently crushes a giant's penis. We get a few blood splatters and what not, but nothing truly offensive. Bronson at no point makes odd comments about food, but he does lure a man into a death trap with the promise of a bisexual three-way. The Evil That Men Do sounds better than it is. However, it's not the joyous carnage of Bronson's most insane films.
The Evil That Men Do is a mix bag; it delivers sometimes, but it is also a let down. To start with the good, the film scores points for some excellent villains that are truly horrid. And any villain entourage instantly gets a golden star if it includes John Glover. Bronson's one liners are a confusing mess in this, making for some big laughs. Bronson himself is his usual gentle, smiling (and psychotic) self, and his character has a hilarious relationship with a fish. The action is quite outrageous at times, but it is sparse. The Evil That Men Do scores huge points for a scene where Bronson violently crushes a giant's penis. We get a few blood splatters and what not, but nothing truly offensive. Bronson at no point makes odd comments about food, but he does lure a man into a death trap with the promise of a bisexual three-way. The Evil That Men Do sounds better than it is. However, it's not the joyous carnage of Bronson's most insane films.
Gemini
original title: Sôseiji (Japan, 1999, Shin'ya Tsukamoto)
8/10Gemini is an oddity amongst Tsukamoto's work. It is far from the cyberpunk insanity and city settings of Tetsuo and the majority of his films prior to 1999. It feels more in tune with older, moralistic, Japanese horror stories. And it should. It's based on an Edogawa Rampo story. The story is like a reverse Martin Guerre and presents a classic story of separated twins. One twin grows up rich, the other - because of a disfiguring birthmark - is discarded by the parents and winds up in the slums. The neglected twin returns to his home to take back what is his, including his brother's wife. When Tsukamoto made this in 1999, it was a big change in story and setting for his work. Yet it is still - no doubt - a Tsukamoto film. While Gemini is not quite as in your face stylistically as say Tokyo Fist or even Nightmare Detective, recognisable Tsukamoto elements are certainly present. This can be seen from the frantic camerawork - particularly in the fantastic flashback sequences - and jumpy editing. But Tsukamoto appropriately reigns back his visual swaying to allow for the period setting. There is nothing especially bad about Gemini, but I found it to be one of Tsukamoto's less interesting works. The story - while enjoyable - is nothing interesting or new and the performances are inconsistent. Gemini will be enjoyed by those that appreciate Shin'ya Tsukamoto's filmmaking (although he seems to have some "fans" that hate everything he's made outside of Tetsuo) and those that like classic Japanese horror storytelling will also get something out of it.
Hudson Hawk
(USA, 1991, Michael Lehmann)
?/10What on earth is Hudson Hawk? Honestly, how the hell did this amazing mess of shitty brilliance get made? Who the fuck let Bruce Willis write a script? Was the casting director some kind of maniac? What possessed a studio to give such an obviously mentally challenged movie so much fucking money?! Hudson Hawk is impossible to describe. It's gluttonous 90s filmmaking at its worst and best simultaneously. It is more immature than the most obnoxious of 90s kids films and 80s teen flicks combined. Yet as much as the disgraceful script appears geared towards children, the dialogue is peppered with more fucks and shits to fill a Kevin Smith film. And while we occasionally get ridiculous comedy violence that would embarrass the Three Stooges (Bruce Willis getting punched up in fast motion by James Coburn, 'nuff said), the film is awkwardly bloody and gory. And the story! It's a convoluted mess, filled with a ridiculous amount of ridiculous characters. Willis is supposed to be a cool guy, a hero and a great burglar (as the characters tell us constantly), yet we see no evidence of this through his idiotic actions. While Hudson Hawk is a fucking disaster of Hollywood stupidity, it's also incredibly entertaining. And not just as a car crash analogy. No, sometimes, SOMETIMES, Hudson Hawk is genuinely and deliberately funny ("are you gonna die, mister?" is a particularly great line). But then other times, the attempts at comedy nearly made me vomit. Everyone involved in Hudson Hawk should be equally proud and ashamed of themselves.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
(USA/UK, 1975, Jack Arnold)
9.5/10I hated The Rocky Horror Picture Show the first time I saw it. It was a truly a case of "not getting it". Watching it now, for the first time in years, I have a whole new appreciation for it. With its amazing cast, ridiculous plot, science fiction homages and great music, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is deserving of its cult status. Despite being seen by practically everyone in the world, this is the definition of a cult film. Obsessed over by fans, a flop at its release, The Rocky Horror Picture Show - along with a few other classics of the 70s like Pink Flamingos - changed cinema's landscape for the better. The Rocky Horror Picture Show, from start to finish, is complete and utter chaos. And I mean that in the best possible way. It is chaos, but a deliberate chaos. The songs and off the wall performances tie in directly with the film's story and tone - something that musicals often get wrong. At the centre of The Rocky Horror Picture Show is Tim Curry's performance. Curry is beyond brilliant and, for me and most other people, he is Dr. Frankenfurter, no matter who else plays him on stage. The Rocky Horror Picture Show isn't perfect. I found that the first half is better than the latter and the ending drags a little bit. But it remains entertaining to the end. This definitely ranks as one of the ultimate must-see movies of the 1970s.
Spartacus
(USA, 1960, Stanley Kubrick)
7/10I can see why Kubrick disowned Spartacus. It's not a bad film, but it may as well be called Kirk Douglas's Vanity Project: Spartacus. There is nothing particularly Kubrickian about Spartacus. The sweeping generic score, the flawless protagonist/martyr, the predictable script and the cringe-worthy dialogue are not exactly traits associated with Kubrick films. Douglas as Spartacus is perfection - not in performance, but as a character; he never takes a moral misstep. This creates a dull hero. It doesn't help that he has to spew some pretty atrocious lines, but it's Douglas's delivery that really bugged me. In fact, all the American actors are the weak link in the cast. The mixture of accents is very jarring. The thick American accents of Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and - worst of all - John Dall stick out and sound absurdly modern when spoken next to actors like Laurence Oliver. It's not all doom and gloom. As a (traditionally overlong) historical epic, Spartacus is not bad. The amazing - and really dangerous looking - battle sequences are up there with the best, some of the performances (Laurence Oliver and Peter Ustinov) are fantastic and, despite the long running time, the story holds attention. As a film, Spartacus is good, at times even great. As a Kubrick film, it is a disappointment, but remains a fascinating look at the stepping stone that made Kubrick the director he would become.
Speed Lovers
(USA, 1968, William F. McGaha)
6/10Speed Lovers starts badly. It opens with ten minutes of dull stock footage of car racing with an announcer blabbering over the top. The announcer/commentator brings up a few names that will be relevant to the film later on, but at this point we've met none of the characters. With the horrible opening out of the way, Speed Lovers picks up... uh... speed, and becomes a reasonably fun bad movie. Speed Lovers is about a "punk kid" (played by a guy who looks to be in his mid-forties), the son of the world's greatest mechanic, who wants to be a car racer. He bugs his dad and racer buddy and winds up getting mixed up with a ginger-bearded gangster who likes to "step on people". Speed Lovers is a repetitious mess. Our hero is extremely unlikable - none of the other characters like him either - and most of the movie consists of him whining about his desperate need to be a car racer. The gangster's evil plans makes no sense whatsoever, and the story meanders for eighty minutes and then awkwardly brings things to a cheesy halt. Speed Lovers has a few things going for it. It has a lot of fun 60s music on the soundtrack. There's lots of goofy dancing. The acting is nonexistent and thus hilarious (one of the characters is played by a real life car racer - and he's fucking awful). And any scene involving the gangster is stupidly funny. Speed Lovers is a turd, for sure, but bad movie fanatics will be sure to get their kicks out of it.
Teenage Bride
(USA, 1975, Gary Troy)
4/10With a title like Teenage Bride, you'd expect a wild ride of politically incorrect sleaze. But sadly, you would be wrong. There is no teenage bride in this film (at least I couldn't see one). There is sleaze, but it's fairly restrained. Teenage Bride is more or less a mediocre softcore flick that sluggishly meanders from one dull sex scene to the next with little entertainment in-between. The film scores minor points for having some truly heinous men in its leads that create a few giggles. Why all these attractive women would want to have sex with disgusting fat and old men is beyond me. There's really very little to say about Teenage Bride. It is a vaguely interesting relic of the 70s, but even for fans of skin flicks, there are far, far more entertaining ones to watch.
This Stuff'll Kill Ya!
(USA, 1971, Herschell Gordon Lewis)
2/10I love Herschell Gordon Lewis, but even his biggest fans can't deny that the man has made some truly unwatchable garbage. This Stuff'll Kill Ya is by far the worst and most boring that I've seen from Lewis. At an annihilating 99 minutes, This Stuff'll Kill Ya is far, far, far too long. In that 99 minutes, we've got perhaps 5 minutes of entertaining footage. Even by trash movie standards, that's pretty bad. The opening ten minutes of this film is a preacher babbling incomprehensible nonsense. When that rubbish finished I thought "okay, now the movie starts", but no. Oh no. This preacher character continues his pausing-restarting-pausing garbling monologues right till the end of the film. It's hideous. I couldn't even tell you the story of this film. I was watching the film with no distractions, but it was so boring and awful that I wasn't processing anything. I'll give This Stuff'll Kill Ya two points. One is for the depressing casting of two talented men - a has-been, Tim Holt (yes, the Tim Holt of Treasure of the Sierra Madre), and a future b-movie star, Larry Drake. The other point is for a brutal stoning scene that was actual a little disturbing. As Joseph A. Ziemba of Bleeding Skull (the finest review site on the internet) puts it, it's best to view This Stuff'll Kill Ya as a "cultural artifact". Even Herschell's worst are a fascinating watch, but be prepared to be left furious and half-asleep.
Thunder in Dixie
(USA, 1964, William T. Naud)
8.5/10Thunder in Dixie is one of the biggest surprises in Something Weird's amazing catalogue. I had never heard of it, and I have it only because it came in a larger collection. All films released by Something Weird tend to be entertaining, or at least interesting, but rarely are they "good" - in the traditional sense - films. Thunder in Dixie is. Throwing this DVD in my player, I felt wary as the titles started. Hearing nothing of this film, I assumed it would be a stinker. The first few minutes did nothing for me, but as Thunder in Dixie sped along, I found myself paying more and more attention to the television screen. Thunder in Dixie is a story of a vengeful car racer. He blames his pal - and rightly so - for killing his girl in a drunken car accident. He decides to murder his ex-friend in their next car race. Part melodrama, part tense thriller, Thunder in Dixie is quite an impressive film. The speedsploitation genre is not one that has interested me, but Thunder in Dixie moves beyond being simply a movie about fast cars. Its performances are surprisingly good and the film is tightly paced. William T. Naud shoots the film with confidence and unlike Speed Lovers - the film that it shares a double bill with in its DVD release - the race scenes are not made up purely of stock footage. In fact, the film's twenty minute finale is genuinely intense and beautifully cut together. Thunder in Dixie is one of the most underrated films in the Something Weird archives. I highly recommend picking up the excellent DVD set Drive-In Classics, Thunder in Dixie is a highlight in an already glowing set of exploitation classics.
The Wolf Man
(USA, 1941, George Waggner)
9.5/10The Wolf Man is another Universal monster movie I've neglected. Watching it now, even with all the anticipation and hype, it still managed to thoroughly impress me. With its brisk, economic storytelling, The Wolf Man is possibly the most entertaining Universal horror I've seen - or at least as entertaining as Bride of Frankenstein. First of all, the film has a wonderful atmosphere. The British setting is permanently ominous with its foggy and cold exteriors. Then there's the Wolf Man's design. While my generation grew up with the excellently executed werewolves of The Howling and American Werewolf in London, the Universal werewolf is no slouch either. With a face that reminds us of its human form, the Wolf Man is as tragic as it is terrifying. Universal were great at creating sympathetic, but still scary, monsters. Lon Chaney Jr. isn't quite the performer that his father was, but he is still a lot of fun. I've never considered Chaney Jr. a good actor, rather he is a great presence and is always instantly likable. From start to finish, you are on Chaney's side and hoping he can cure his lycanthropia. The Wolf Man also features a fun cameo from Bela Lugosi and a truly funny (and creepy) scene involving Chaney hitting on a girl at an antique shop.

























