There is a beauty, style, and look to classic Hammer horror
films that only that studio contains. There are only a handful of times in the
history of cinema that a studio has defined themselves so steadfast, even when
they experiment, one can immediately tell who made it by the style and tone.
Hammer is one of those. For this latest franchise article, we were asked to
cover some of the major Hammer studio releases and it seemed only fitting to
start with the one that most people recognize: Dracula. Spanning multiple
decades, the Dracula series is often
times as iconic as the original Universal series and it certainly helped
solidify both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as genre cornerstones.
Truthfully, it was a pleasure to be asked to go back and watch this franchise
once again and write this series of articles. Not that my words do it much
justice, but even if I can inspire one to revisit the films, then I will have
done my duty.
Due to the length of this franchise, it only made sense to
split it up into multiple articles to prevent having one massive piece that
people will tire of reading by the time they reach the third or fourth film.
Since there are nine entries, it made sense to evenly split the articles into
three films each. For this third and final part of the article, we will be
covering the seventh, eighth, and ninth entries into the series.
There is a beauty, style, and look to classic Hammer horror
films that only that studio contains. There are only a handful of times in the
history of cinema that a studio has defined themselves so steadfast, even when
they experiment, one can immediately tell who made it by the style and tone.
Hammer is one of those. For this latest franchise article, we were asked to
cover some of the major Hammer studio releases and it seemed only fitting to
start with the one that most people recognize: Dracula. Spanning multiple
decades, the Dracula series is often
times as iconic as the original Universal series and it certainly helped
solidify both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as genre cornerstones.
Truthfully, it was a pleasure to be asked to go back and watch this franchise
once again and write this series of articles. Not that my words do it much
justice, but even if I can inspire one to revisit the films, then I will have
done my duty.
Due to the length of this franchise, it only made sense to
split it up into multiple articles to prevent having one massive piece that
people will tire of reading by the time they reach the third or fourth film.
Since there are nine entries, it made sense to evenly split the articles into
three films each. For this second part of the article, we will be covering the
fourth, fifth, and sixth entries into the series.
There is a beauty, style, and look
to classic Hammer horror films that only that studio contains. There are only a
handful of times in the history of cinema that a studio has defined themselves
so steadfast, even when they experiment, one can immediately tell who made it by
the style and tone. Hammer is one of those. For this latest franchise article,
we were asked to cover some of the major Hammer studio releases and it seemed
only fitting to start with the one that most people recognize: Dracula.
Spanning multiple decades, the Dracula
series is often times as iconic as the original Universal series and it
certainly helped solidify both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as genre
cornerstones. Truthfully, it was a pleasure to be asked to go back and watch
this franchise once again and write this series of articles. Not that my words
do it much justice, but even if I can inspire one to revisit the films, then I
will have done my duty.
Due to the length of this franchise, it only made sense to
split it up into multiple articles to prevent having one massive piece that
people will tire of reading by the time they reach the third or fourth film.
Since there are nine entries, it made sense to evenly split the articles into
three films each. Naturally, we will be going through the series in chronological
order. Part I will cover the first three films.
Notable Cast: Jared Harris, Olivia Cooke, Sam Claflin, Eric
Richards, Rory Fleck-Byrne
Possession films seem to be all the rage at this point, but
just how far can one go with creative spins on a genre that seemingly comes off
as the ‘same old, same old?’ I had some decent expectations out of The Quiet
Ones, not because it’s another possession film, but because of the logo in
front of the film: Hammer. While the old school horror company disappeared for
a number of decades, their resurgence has produced some solid old school
feeling horror flicks. Unfortunately, The Quiet Ones is easily the
weakest film of their new slate.
Joseph (Harris) is using his theories of parapsychology to
try and cure Jane Harper (Cooke.) He assembles a small team, including
cameraman Brian (Claflin,) to document and help with the process, but what they
will find in Jane Harper may not adhere to scientific explanation. What they
find may end up killing them all.
"Don't mess with me, son. I played Sherlock's evil counterpart."
Hammer’s last film, the enigmatic The Woman in Black,
was a blend of modern style and old school atmosphere that rocked the blend and
hit one home. Even though I didn’t give that film a great review when I first
saw it, since then I’ve grown to really appreciate what they accomplished with
it. The Quiet Ones attempts to go 2 for 2 with that same concept as it
attempts to blend modern techniques and old school storytelling. The results
are simply more awkward than effective. Writer/director John Pogue (known
mostly for writing some fun B-grade horror flicks like The Skulls and Ghost
Ship, but also for directing and writing Quarantine 2) doesn’t get
the blend right this time around. There are moments of great atmosphere and
subtle character work to be found particularly surrounding a fun performance
from Jared Harris, but the rest tends to feel downright cliché and often
illogical. An entire sequence where Jane disappears has the entire cast
stumbling around in the dark from the viewpoint of the camera that Brian is
holding and it utterly feels like a waste of time. Seriously? That’s the best
scares you can come up with?
That being said, the film also misses out on the key to make
this work – the characters. The title refers to the group of people performing
this experiment and while the film does an admirable job creating a roller
coaster character for Jane that the audience consistently hooks into, it’s the
main character of Brian and his cohorts that get the shaft. His two fellow
college experimenters feel like broad stroke characters and their interactions
often result in exposition rather than real moments of connection. It
undermines a lot of the doubt and atmosphere that The Quiet Ones
attempts to create and the film has to jump massive logistical moments,
particularly in the third act, to get us to the next scary sequence…which often
comes off as more cliché than not anyway. Instead of the formulaic progression
that the film uses, they should have pushed even further towards the spiraling
tension between the team.
As I mentioned, the scares tend to be fairly cliché in the
end. If you’ve seen a few possession films, you’ve seem a majority of The
Quiet Ones. Occasionally the film succeeds in throwing in a handful of
solid jolts, but even those seem illogical at times. A random connection
between the doll and Jane indicated with a knife has a nice moment in the
latter half, but it left me wondering why it happened at all as it never seems
to be cohesive with the rest of the film and the scares it was giving the
audience.
This was my reaction to Furby.
The Quiet Ones isn’t a terrible film, in fact it’s a
perfectly serviceable possession flick that does step over many of the shitty
straight to home video flicks of the same genre in the last few years. It just
also so happens to be a scattered script that lacks the characters to sell the idea,
the scares to hook the audience, and the atmosphere to feel like a classic
Hammer flick. I didn’t hate it, but I certainly expected more out of it
particularly with the potential of its concept.
After years upon years of obscurity in
the United States, Hammer’s third and final film into their Karnstein trilogy
finally gets unleashed onto DVD and Blu-ray thanks to Synapse films. In an
ironic twist the first two films in the series, “The Vampire Lovers” and “Lust
for a Vampire”, are now out-of-print and have become obscure in themselves. But I digress; the real question is was
“Twins of Evil” worth the wait for young and new fans of Hammer Horror to finally
lay their eyes upon. I’m happy to give an enthusiastic YES as not only is
Synpase's release fantastic, but I also found the film to be the strongest in
the Karnstein Trilogy and one of the most overlooked gems in all of Hammer’s
extensive catalog.
The story is in actuality a prequel to
the previous two films, taking place before the sexy Carmella started making
rounds by sucking the life out of rich young women in controversial Lesbian
scenes. In this film we are introduced to the Karnstein family and how they
became vampires by worshipping Satan. Knocking at their door is Peter Cushing
(playing a different character than the general he played in “The Vampire Lovers”),
the head of a vampire lynch mob called “The Brotherhood” eager to burn any
nimble vampire they come across. Things get complicated when his two beautiful nieces
come to visit and our head of the Karnstein family want to make the gorgeous
duo his dark brides.
"The power of Christ compels you!"
The writers here seem to throw tons of
material into the mix and somehow it all gels together with the vampire and
witchfinding plots complementing each other perfectly. New comer director John
Hough seems right at home in Hammer proving he had what it took to make a
gorgeous looking gothic horror film with ample amounts of gore and sexuality
for a an early 70s release.
In the words of the band Foreigner - "My double vision gets the best of me"
The real winner of the film for me is
Peter Cushing, who gives perhaps his best performance of his career. “Twins of
Evil” marked the first film following his return after his wife’s tragic death
and this anger and pain fueled his performance making his character, who is essentially a protagonist
of the film, almost as sadistic and indiscernible as the villainous bloodsucker
himself.
These twins are about to 'double-cross' you buddy!
The film can be criticized being even
further removed from the Carmella novella source material and for having a
heavy focus on heaving bosoms as many of Hammer films from the early 70’s are
but that just adds to the enjoyment (at least for a majority of the male
audience) and giving the audience something different and refreshing. The
gorgeous film-making and strong acting makes this entry a winner and not only my
personal favorite of the Karnstein trilogy but also one from Hammer’s impressive
vault of films. Though this marks the end of the trilogy, some members of the Karnstein family would pop up in Hammer's "Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter" essentially making that film a pseudo spin-off.
"The Vampire Lovers" was a huge box office hit thanks to Hammer successfully fusing exploitation elements into their gothic horror stencil with female nudity and lesbian elements. Every huge success deserves a sequel so "Lust for a Vampire" was quickly put into production and marked the second entry into what would become known as the Karnstein trilogy. Typical with quickly made sequels lots of flaws rear their ugly head out the abrupt production time.
Taking place 40 years after the events of "The Vampire Lovers", our lovely Carmilla Karnstein (know played by Yutte Stensgaard) gets reincarnated by virgin sacrifice performed by her two family members seen in the previous film. She soon is back to her evil deeds, infiltrating a all girl school nearby seducing fellow students when they are not exorcising in flowing white robes while at the same time falling in love with the Literature professor.
The all-girl school plot element is unintentionally campy to say the least. They seriously set up an all-girl school only a short hike away from the notorious Karnstein castle, a place known for deaths of beautiful young women for centuries? BAD IDEA! The setting just comes off as crass and just to serve as an easy element to get some lesbian action into the story... but fans might be disappointed as there isn't as much as "The Vampire Lovers".
Swedish bombshell Yutte Stensgaard takes over the titillating role from Ingrid Pitt, whom turned down the film for reasons unknown (was she doing anything else of importance at the time... I mean really?). Yutte Stensgaard does lack some of the screen presence that Pitt emitted but damn is she easy on the eyes! Up-and-coming Hammer star Ralph Bates also has a rather throw-away role as a history professor obsessed with the history and evil of the Karnstein family.
Director Jimmy Sangster, a longtime screenwriter for Hammer penning many of their most memorable films, makes second directing effort and was hired in a on the fly when original director Terence Fischer had to bow out due to broken leg. Due to that production problem he still manages to craft the same loveable gothic atmosphere that fans of Hammer expect, yet sadly isn't able to get past the scripts flaws which causes the film to fall into campy territory at many moments.
"Lust for a Vampire" has an odious prominence amongst many Hammer fans but it's not near as bad as it's reputation. Sure it has flaws with its script but it Jimmy Sangster is still able to give the film the loveable gothic feel we fans expect. Plus it has the sexy Yutte Stengaard which can always make a film seem better than it is! Though not near as successful as "The Vampire Lovers", a third Karnstein film entitled "Twins of Evil" emerged the same year with better results.
"The Vampire Lovers" marked a significant change going on in the mighty hammer horror factory in England. By 1970 horror films began to change, especially on the European front thanks in part to Paul Nashy and Jess Franco, and nudity became a key ingredient as horror films became more exploitative. Hammer followed suit of the competition by injecting skin and other exploitative elements into their pictures. Some view this as the downfall of the studio, while others find it to be the most interesting era of the company. For me, I'm torn, but there's no denying that "The Vampire Lovers" ended up being an entertaining exploitative romp from Hammer.
The plot is the first of a trilogy of films to revolve around the vampire Karnstein family (followed by "Lust for a Vampire" and "Twins of Evil"). One of the few surviving members (is 'surviving' the right term as clearly she's an undead bloodsucking freak) named Carmilla (Ingrid Pitt) starts to invade wealthy estate owners mansions by coercion and slowly starts to feed upon their nimble daughters.
The new exploitative elements, though tame by today's standards, were shocking back in 1970. This includes a sultry love scene between two lovely women and vampire bites, get this, on busty bosoms! Of course this was all heavily censored for the original U.S. theatrical release but thankfully has been restored on recent DVD releases.
The plot, based on novella Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu, is a slow burner, typical of Hammer horror pictures, but it's got just enough beheadings, sexy characters and bosoms to keep one's attention throughout. Veteran Hammer director Roy Ward Baker knows how to make an engrossing gothic Vampire chiller and he does just that and handles the new addition of exploitative elements with a sure hand.
New to the hammer family is Ingrid Pitt, a voluptuous Polish actress that has a figure to die for. She has a mesmerizing presence, being able to convey both evil and sexy at the same time with her husky voice. Not surprisingly she earned a cult following after this picture and it's a damn shame she only did a few Hammer films, and sadly she didn't return for the sequels. Hammer regular Peter Cushing also shows up as General von Spielsdorf but it's a very standard role for the loveable actor and nothing we haven't seen from him before.
Overall I liked "The Vampire Lovers" as the new approach with exploitative elements works thanks to being handled professionally by director Roy Ward Baker. For this I would much rather watch this than the works of exploitation extraordinaire Jess Franco as this has a sense of professionalism and looks great to boot. The new approach worked and "The Vampire Lovers" was a hit proving skin was the key and Hammer would include this ingredient in many of their films to come, not to mention the two sequels.
After the success of The Vampire Lovers, Hammer knew they could make money by showing more female skin in their productions. The actress showing the most skin in the that film was actress Ingrid Pitt so they decided to give her body another go around with their next production Countess Dracula. The results of Countess Dracula however prove that just by showing more skin by far doesn't make a great film.
The film opens with an old queen bitch who is unhappy with the will reading at her husband's wake. While getting ready for a bath she bitch slaps a mad and when the mad's blood touches her skin, it proves to make her young again. She locks up her visiting daughter in order to be a stand in and all goes well until she reverts to her old age again, only uglier, after a few days. So she and her second in command start combing the village for virgins and he is willing until she falls in love with a younger man, then all hell breaks loose due to jealously.
Due to the title many people will expect to be a vampire film which it isn't. Many people actually mistakenly think this to be an entry into Hammer's Dracula franchise but again this isn't so. It's actually a version of the classic legend of Elizabeth Bethory so basically it's about an old hag who bathes in blood to look young. Here lies the problem as there isn't enough plot to make this worthy of an hour and a half and there's very little action to keep the film moving.
Another problem is Ingrid Pitt just isn't that strong of a n actress to carry a film. The Vampire Lovers had a lot more going on so it didn't really mostly on her shoulders and here she proves her body isn't enough to hold a film together.
The production values are also a shy compared to older, better Hammer outings and the studios declining popularity is very evident, despite the Studio desperately trying to stay afloat by adding nudity into their films.
Hammer fans will find something to like but this is a far cry from great Hammer material. It lacks the great actors of other Hammer outings as well as production values. It also lacks the likable exploitation elements of The Vampire Lovers making this an overall very disappointing effort from the studio. Perhaps Ingrid Pitt would have been better off doing the sequel to Vampire Lovers, Lust for a Vampire, instead of this? Hard to say...
The early 70's was a rocky time for Hammer studios. A new breed of horror film with the likes of The Exorcist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre made the companies output seem as old as the periods they take place in. Fans were expecting contemporary horror with added violence and graphic visuals and Hammer just didn't have a nitch in this market. Not surprisingly Captain Kronos tanked at the box office and this is just a damn shame as Captain Kronos is one of Hammer's most overlooked gems in their large catalog.
Like the title says, Captain Kronos is a vampire hunter. He and his humble sidekick roam the British countryside slaying vampires wherever they might come up. Young girls in a small village are coming under attack by a hooded figure who drains them of their youth. Kronos and his sidekick track down the original to an ancient family that has ties to the dreaded Karnstein family. Hammer aficionados will recognize that name as that is the family name in the Karnstein trilogy (which includes the films The Vampire Lovers, Lust for a Vampire, and Twins of Evil) so if you want to get technical Captain Kronos could be considered a spin-off from that interesting trilogy. I love little connections like that in films and I thank the filmmakers for writing that in.
The film, typical with hammer productions, has a beautiful look to it with nice direction, wonderful costume design, and solid acting. A kickass score just tops it off. Sadly there are a few flaws which keep this from becoming one of Hammer's all time great films. Captain Kronos for the most part is a rather poorly developed character. Not much is know of him other than some quick dialogue about how he returned back from the war only to have his sister attack and bite him as she was turned into a vampire (anyone else thinks this sounds familiar to Blade?). I wish his character was a little more fleshed out. Along his journey Kronos picks up a gypsy girl and she really has no plot relevance other than eye candy. Our Karnstein family here is also not as threatening as I would have liked them to be. The family is just wishy washy and I never felt that Kronos was in real danger. I also found it to be in poor taste to have Kronos's side kick to be a hunchback. Really? How much more cliché can we get guys? Why not call him Igor for Christ sake!
Despite its flaws Captain Kronos comes out being a highly entertaining Hammer film and it just saddens me that none of the planned sequels ever got made. Perhaps some of the sequels would have delved more into the back story of the character. We might have even got a team-up with Hammer's other grand vampire slayer Van Helsing. Hey, a Hammer fan can dream can't he?! The film has an ever growing cult audience and I highly recommend fans of this old fashioned-type of horror to seek it out.
The classic horror tale Phantom of the Opera has to be one of the most adapted stories in film history. There seems to be at least one Phantom film made each decade since movies began being made. The story became one of horrors most popular stories with Universal's silent adaption in 1925 starring Lon Chaney. Universal also made a successful color remake in 1943 staring Claude Raines. When the sixties rolled around one horror company ruled the cinemas. That's right, it's Hammer time and it was due time for them to give a the extremely popular horror pulp story a shot.
The plot of the film actually follows more of the Claude Raines version with Hammer also talking liberal changes to the story, which is of course fine by this fan! We open with a popular opera being rehearsed (overseen by corrupt play writer Michael Gough) only for the opera to be plagued my a mysterious "accidents" and deaths. It seems that a masked lunatic is causing all the ruckus (played by Herbert Lom). Thanks to a flashback sequence we see that Herbert Lom spent years of his life writing an opera and when trying to sell his story to a publisher (Gough), the publisher in turns prints the story taking all the credit for himself. Lom finds this out and breaks into the printing mill in order to destroy all the copies but accidentally sets himself on fire in the process. He then becomes known as "The Phantom", masking his burned face and living in the sewers below the opera, Lom takes his revenge on Gough by sabotaging his play. His revenge is going as planned until he falls for a young opera singer whom he is bound determined to train to give his play all its worth.
Hammer did a decent job with adaption especially by hiring seasoned Hammer director Terence Fischer (Curse of Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula) to helm the project. He makes this adaption less pondering than other ones and also spices up the film with some atmospheric shots. Michael Gough and Herbert Lom are also good replacements for Hammer regulars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee and their strong acting brings this familiar story up a couple of notches. The one aspect I couldn't help but be disappointed in the character of the Phantom. The character of the Phantom is more of pity and sympathy rather than horror. His character just really lacked the driving revenge I craved. Sure have the character sympathetic but give him a psychotic, dangerous edge! If some asshole stole my play and I became disfigured in the process, I would lose my mind and set out to take that fucker down! A simple mask isn't enough to make his character "horror". This horror lacking villain made me come out of this film a little disappointed despite the film having top notch production values and cast.
Overall a decent Hammer film but hardly top tear horror material from the company. As a sympathetic atmospheric drama it's good but it really lakes that good horror aspect that great Hammer films supply. If the Phantom character was a little more fleshed out and had more of a psychotic edge to him this film would have been one of Hammer's best!
The whole time while watching this solid Hammer horror film, I kept thinking to myself it was the result of Christopher Lee refusing to return in the role of Dracula. Hammer desperately wanting to keep making vampire pictures made the Dracula-less sequel "The Brides of Dracula" and of course "The Kiss of the Vampire" which in-itself feels like a spin-off. I kid you not this film could easily take place in the same fictional universe as hammer's Dracula franchise.
Here we have a young newlywed couple traveling through a remote section of mountains until their "motor-car" runs out of "petrol" (sorry, I had to use British terms). They check into a creepy, mostly empty hotel only to get an invitation by carriage to come join a aristocratic family for dinner who live in an enormous castle on the mountainside. Being a Hammer film we all know what that family is...VAMPIRES!!! The couple happily agree and the wife not surprisingly becomes a victim to the cult of vampires. The husband seeks help from the resident "Van Helsing" wanna-be also staying in the hotel to go get her back.
The film has that ever-likable Hammer look (full of lush sets and costumes) and the story just builds and builds to it's interesting, if a little absurd climax with a wave of vampire bats coming down upon the castle (the ending was originally intended for The Brides of Dracula until Peter Cushing talked the filmmakers out of it due to it being too "supernatural"). Our young couple is very likable but extremely dumb at the same time. How many warning signs do you need to realize that family is bad news! I found myself hitting my forehead a few times at their decisions.
My one other problem with the film is Clifford Evans as Professor Zimmer. I found this character as a hollow stand-in for Van Helsing. This film would have benefited much more by having Peter Cushing return to the infamous role to aid our young man take out the vampire family elite. Overall though I didn't hate the character but it just made me wish for Van Helsing to return instead.
If you're a fan of Hammer Horror, especially Hammer's Dracula series, then you will love this film. The characters can be dimwitted but overall this is a must see for people interested in Hammer. I would have loved to have seen this film as an entry into Hammer's Dracula series. Dr. Ravna's castle on the other side of the mountain from Dracula only to have Van Helsing come knocking....oh that would have been great!
I know what you're thinking... how many more shambling mummy movies can Hammer make? Don't fooled by the title friend. Though this is hammer's fourth and final entry into their Mummy franchise, the studio wisely decided to make a film with-out a shambling mummy. But how can they make a mummy movie without a cloth wrapped mummy? Don't worry as there is a mummy, just the most beautiful, striking mummy you have ever lied your eyes on!
Based on the novel Jewel of the Seven Stars by Bram Stoker, Blood from the Mummy's tomb has a group of egyptologists (is that even a proper term?) enter into a cursed tomb (well that's standard mummy stuff if you ask me!) and uncover a mummy of a beautiful Egyptian princess who is perfectly preserved as if she is sleeping. Once the group entered the tomb, the wife of the leader of the expedition suddenly gave birth to a young girl who looks exactly like the mummy princess. The girl grows only to have terrible dreams of the princess. Along with some mumbo-jumbo about the big dipper star constilation, it seems the princess wants to use the girl's body as a vessel to come back to the land of the living.
I applaud hammer for trying something different. Though I enjoy the first three shambling mummy movies for what they are, it was time to attempt to try something different in the series even if the attempt was not that full-filling. The film has some great atmosphere and camera work (a shot down an asylum corridor blew my mind!) but the film is slow without any characters to capture your interest except for our main actress's striking good looks and enormous cleavage. To be honest I didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. The film also was plagued with many production problems. Hammer regular Peter Cushing was originally cast in the film and only shot one day before having to pull out due to news of his wife failing deathly ill. The director Seth Holt also died of a heart attack on set with only one more week left to shoot.
Horror fans going into this film expecting a killer mummy are going to come out disappointed. This no doubt mixed with the rather meandering, unfocused plot lead to the film's failure at the box office and being forgot about for years to come. The film however is gathering a small cult crowd because it was mummy movie that was different and that I have to give it respect for.
The Brides of Dracula, despite not starring Christopher Lee as Dracula, is Hammer's first sequel to their hit Horror of Dracula. Lee refused to return as Dracula for many years (he would return in the role for the third film Dracula: Prince of Darkness). Instead writers decided to forge on without him following the character Van Helsing has he roams Transylvania to kill of Dracula's disciples.
I actually had to put off viewing this film for many years for refusal to by the Universal DVD set this film was featured in. The set, entitled "The Hammer Horror Series", had eight Hammer films featured on two duel layered, double sided discs and this set (along with many other Universal DVD-18 releases) was known to be plagued with defects and problems. Thanks to a co-worker who graciously bought the set for me for my birthday, I was able to finally view this second entry I was dying to see. Thankfully this film was not defective and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the rest of the films.
The films plot begins with a young woman traveling across Transylvania when her coach decides to leave her at a tavern. She ends up going home with an elderly woman to shelter at her castle and ends up being fooled into releasing her vampire son from his shackles. In comes Van Helsing to release the town from its vampire grip as this young fanged monster spreads his contagion.
Despite the film having a deceptive title and for the fact it doesn't star Christopher Lee, this sequel ends up being the best sequel in the entire franchise. Peter Cushing is likable as ever as Van Helsing and one only wishes he played the role more in the sequels to come. David Peel does a acceptable job as our new vampire but he's no Christopher Lee and thankfully the presence of Peter Cushing makes up for this fact.
Not only did I find this the best sequel in the series, I also find this to be one of the best Hammer horror films ever made. Everything that made the company so great is featured here: Lush colorful sets, wonderful cast and acting, thick Gothic atmosphere, and sure handed directing again from Terence Fisher, who is a little more mobile with the camera here than he was on the first film. For people wanting to get into Hammer, this would be a must-see film. It's just a shame it's featured in a DVD set that has an extremely glitchy reputation.
I was really geared to see Night Creatures (known as Captain Clegg in native England). First it's a Hammer film, and I love Hammer! Second it stars Peter Cushing and Oliver Reed, two top Hammer stars. Third the story has ghosts and pirates. A swashbuckling pirate hammer horror film! Sign me up! That novel idea ended up being a wet dream and I emerged from the film let down and disappointed.
The film opens promising enough on a pirate ship where a crew member is sentenced to die on island for threatening the captains wife. It cuts later to a coastal community where some lawmen show up to see if the community is smuggling alcohol as well to investigate the death of an undercover soldier that supposedly died by some "marsh phantoms", which just look like men dressed up in skeleton costumes with dark lights shining upon them.
Though described as "swashbuckling" in many descriptions, this is actually a land locked "pirate" film with hardly any "horror". Despite this film being featured in a DVD set entitled "The Hammer Horror Series" and it's deceptive original poster art, I wouldn't even consider this a horror film. The plot is overly talky with very little action making this more far more of a melodrama. The directing of the film is also far less stylized than other films in the Hammer catalog, no doubt due to director Peter Graham Scott mostly known as a TV director. Though sluggish the film does have a nice twist at the end and the star power of Peter Cushing and Oliver Reed kept me watching until the credits rolled. It was also nice to see a Hammer film for once that looked like it was filmed on many live locations as opposed to sets like many of their other features.
Fans must not go into this not expecting a "horror" film. It is a melodrama. I was fooled and came out really disappointed with the results. Die hard Hammer fans will find something to like but others shouldn't work too hard to hunt this rare title down.
Executives at Hammer productions went down their Universal horror icon checklist - Frankenstein: Check, Dracula: Check, The Mummy: Check, The Wolf Man: oh yes, here is an icon we haven't touched on yet. Don't be fooled as this is not a complete reworking of Universals classic The Wolf Man because even though it contains a werewolf, it is a very different story.
The film has an extremely long build-up and we are first introduced to a beggar thrown into an arrogant king's dungeon. Staying in there for decades he loses his mind and one day, a deaf and dumb servant is thrown in (due to not pleasing the king sexually) and so she is raped. She escapes by killing the king and then is picked up by a young couple in a village where she gives birth to a bastard son. The son, it seems, is going to be evil because he is going to be born on Christmas. It gets even worse when they try to baptize the little bugger. He grows to a young boy and suddenly sheep in the village start to be slaughtered in the night. His adoptive father catches the boy in the act and with the help of his adoptive mother are able to stop his transformations.
Halfway through the film he grows to a young man in the for of Oliver Reed, who shines in the role. He goes to work at a mill, falls in love with a woman already to be wed, and suddenly his transformations begin to take effect again.
The main problem of this film is that there is far too much back story, especially with Oliver Reeds character's real parents. Much more time could have been spent on his childhood or even how he deals with this pesky lycanthropy as an adult. By the time the film really kicks into gear it's over an hour into it. The film also doesn't delve into the werewolf myth very well and the word werewolf isn't even mentioned other than the title. Again why does a beggar's rape of a servant warrant a child to be born a werewolf? We are given no answers! I would have been totally lost if it weren't for me being extremely familiar with the werewolf legend thanks to the umpteen other werewolf films I have seen. The werewolf makeup also leaves a lot to be desired, again not holding a candle to the original Universal make-up designs.
By far the best thing here is Oliver Reed and he is exceptional in his part. He captures all the emotions and torment of the character perfectly. I just wish there was more of him in the picture because due to so much back story, he doesn't arrive until over halfway through the film. I also liked how the film took inspiration from many films not just Universal's The Wolf Man. Elements of Werewolf in London and The Hunchback of Notre Dame can also be seen.
This may be a classic Hammer film but compared to the likes of other classics of the company like Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula, this one falls short. If only it's plot flow could have been tweaked up a bit would it have been as good as those. No sequels followed further showing this film did not have the power for our beast to carry on into a series like Baron Frankenstein and Dracula.
After two strong entries, this third film into Hammer's Frankenstein franchise did the unthinkable: It completely threw all continuity to the first two films out the window despite the fact that Peter Cushing again plays Baron Frankenstein. Why or why did they do this? The continuity is so screwy that fans consider this a "one-off" from the series and do not consider it part of the continuing story-line.
So why did hammer decide to screw with the continuity? Well it could be for the fact that Universal Pictures distributed this film and with that agreement Hammer was allowed to use visuals and story elements from Universal's original Frankenstein franchise. The original Universal series definitely has an impact on the visuals and story here and fans even refer to this as "Hammer's Universal Monster Film".
The film opens with Baron returning to the town that originally ran him out due to his creation running amok. Returning back to his castle he later finds that his "monster" has been preserved in a glacier (flashes of Universal's Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man comes to mind!). He and his apprentice thaw out the beast and revive his brain with the aid of a psychic. The psychic however has different plans and plans to use the monster for his own amusement and personal greed.
There are many things wrong with this sequel. Like I mentioned before the continuity is all to hell. The flashbacks to when the Baron created his first monster look NOTHING like the original film The Curse of Frankenstein. He now lives in a castle whereas in the original he lived in large house. The viewer has to be extremely forgiving or have a bad memory to think this actually follows the events of the first films. The second problem is the effects. Other than some embarrassing blue-screen shots the main problem is the make-up job with the monster. It is embarrassing and it looks like a paper-mâché mask. The monster's forehead is even square like the bottom of a cardboard box. There's even a beautiful deaf and dumb girl brought into the plot. What exactly is her point? To show Frankenstein has a heart or to just to give the audience eye candy? I'm going with the eye candy aspect. The most unintentionally funny sequence is towards the end of the film when our monster seems to get a little drunk on wine and proceeds to burn Frankenstein's lab.
Other than all those problems the film is beautiful to look at and has that typical early Hammer flare. It's just a shame director Freddie Francis (director Terence Fisher stepped out of this entry) just can't seem to keep the film above its weak script. Perhaps the filmmakers should have followed the plot of the first two films instead of making a stand-alone Frankenstein film in turn confusing the living shit out of fans everywhere. Thankfully director Terence Fisher returned for the next entry Frankenstein Created Woman to get the storyline back on track.
As one final swift kick to the long dead, decaying carcass of a horse, Hammer made one last entry into their Dracula franchise, this rounding out the series at number nine. That's almost as many as Friday the 13th! For this entry though Hammer really decided to change it up by making this a co-production with Hong Kong's legendary production company Shaw Brothers. Well this can't be too bad as I love Hammer and I also love Shaw Brothers (more so Hammer). Well...let's just say the results come out very mixed.
The film opens with an Asian marching through the Carpathian mountains where he arrives at Dracula's castle. There he meets with Dracula (now played by John Forbes-Robertson) and the traveler tells him how he was the leader of the great 7 golden vampires in China and he needs Dracula's help to raise them up again to make them the monstrous rulers they once were. Dracula then proceeds in an extremely cheesy sequence to take over the travelers body to go to China to rule the 7 Golden Vampires.
In the mean time we are re-introduced to Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, making this his fifth appearance in the franchise) teaching in Hong Kong. He is approached by a young man saying that the 7 golden vampires do exist and so Van Helsing, being the fearless vampire slayer that he is, decides to trek across China with his son to rid the country-side of evil once and for all, that is until he comes face-to-face with his arch nemesis Dracula!
This being a Shaw Brothers co-production one can expect some Kung Fu. Believe me there is kung fu and it's very surreal seeing this kind of action in a Hammer film. The kung fu sequences were even directed by regular Shaw Brothers director Cheh Chang (uncredited) while the rest of the film was directed by Hammer veteran Roy Ward Baker. Like I expected the kung fu and hammer style horror doesn't gel perfectly and this could also be attributed to two different directors at the helm. It seems that Christopher Lee knew it was going to be a bad idea because he turned down the chance to reprise his role as Dracula one last time. Speaking of Dracula, John Forbes-Robertson isn't bad at all in the role but his portrayal is mostly thankless as his character really offers nothing to the plot. This film could have easily been made without the likes of Dracula and it seems the writers added him just to make a link with a solidified franchise. As for the 7 golden vampires themselves...they look like a complete joke. The make-up is awful and I never felt that the character were once threatened by these horrible looking things. Another thing that bothers me is this entry throws the continuity with the series completely out the window. It ignores entries 2 through 7 and seems to be a direct sequel to the first film Horror of Dracula. I've mentioned in other reviews that I like continuity between sequels and this laziness by the writers just infuriates me.
Overall I found this film extremely cheesy and a shadow of former Hammer glories. Hell it's even easy to say this is the weakest entry into the Dracula franchise...however it is at the same time it's one of the most interesting due to its mixture of cultures and genres. One could joke that a series has gone on too long when the plot takes place in space. One can now also say that adding Kung Fu to the plot can mean the same.
On a side note I should mention that the DVD I have also contains the American edit with the title The Seven Brothers Meet Dracula. This version completely re-edits the film so that plot doesn't have any flow. If I would have seen that version first I would have easily given the film 1 star. Thanks to Anchor Bay they also provided the un-edited UK version of the film preserving the look the original directors envisioned. It's nice to have both versions just to see how distributors can fuck up a film even more but make sure to watch "The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires" version first to get the true cheesy effect.
The Satanic Rites of Dracula seems to be the red headed step child of Hammer's Dracula franchise. It seems to be the film talked the least about despite the fact it again stars Christopher Lee in the title role. This film just overall has a bad aura with Hammer fans. Was it because the formula had been done to death and audiences were just sick of Dracula? I don't know but I actually eagerly awaited to see why.
Despite the Hammer's Dracula franchise being done to death, I will give the film credit as the plot is different than the previous Dracula films...perhaps too different. After a cheesy title sequence with a shadow Dracula showing up behind the cast and crew names, the film then moves to a black mass and a young women being sacrificed. An undercover cop escapes from the compound where the mass is taking place and makes his way back to the police. The police go to resident occult expert Van Helsing for help and they discover that the satanic group seems to have resurrected Dracula and Dracula plans, get this, to bring on armageddon by releasing a new strain of the bubonic plague.
Dracula destroying the world with the bubonic plague? Okay that might be a little too much of a stretch and no doubt Warner Brothers thought so as they turned down the opportunity to distribute this entry leaving Hammer to independently release it. The film actually didn't even reach the U.S. until five years after it was made with the new title Count Dracula and His Vampire Bride (Despite he has no bride in the film).
What I do like about the film is that it has a gritty 70's look to it, going against the beautiful Gothic photography of the older entries. This was the era of "The French Connection" and it shows up in the movie with its style. Again this is also may turn off fans of Hammer because this definitely doesn't have the typical hammer style. The film also seems to be more bleak overall than previous films and this film also marks the first entry into the franchise to show nudity, which was quickly becoming a requirement for horror films to show in the 70's. I also respect the fact that this film kept continuity with the previous film bringing back characters and acknowledging it's story line. We fans like our continuity between films!
Overall I can see why die hard hammer fans look down upon this film. It's look and style is different from classic hammer outings not to mention it's rather "out-there" plot. However this is what I liked about the film because it was DIFFERENT. Does it make it a great Dracula film? No and it's still one of the weakest entries into the series but I did find it interesting and worth my time. Hell I might be burned at the stake by other Hammer fans for saying this but I liked this entry better than the regurgitated Dracula A.D. 1972. At least this film doesn't cram the 70's down the audiences throat!
Despite this film being the entry where Christopher Lee tossed in the cape, Dracula would return one last time in The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires. Why did Lee turn down the film? Well, that's a whole different story...
Hammer desperate to keep their Dracula franchise alive decided, perhaps hastily, to bring Dracula into modern times, that is circa 1972. The film right away throws away any continuity to the previous six installments by opening with Dracula and Van Helsing having a fight to the death while on top of a horse carriage speeding out of control . The carriage crashes, somehow impaling Dracula with a wheel and killing Van Helsing. At Van Helsing's funeral the camera pans up to the sky and suddenly an airplane appears and thus is our title transition to modern 1972.
We are then introduced to a bunch of young men and women (one who is the niece of a descendant of the original Van Helsing, of course played again by Peter Cushing). They meet up with a creepy Satanist (which gave me flashbacks to Taste the Blood of Dracula) who promises them a good time if they come to a black mass. They do, end up resurrecting Dracula who's bloodshot eyes burn for revenge against the Van Helsing family.
I just found this whole project embarrassing for the glorious Hammer studios. I wasn't against bringing Dracula to "modern" times at first but Hammer decided not to do it subtly. They decided to cram the 70's so far down the audiences throat that they shit peace symbols. Every cliché, 70's free love and style is done to the absolute max here. Did the filmmakers want to make this the hippest ,or hippiest, film possible? It worked against the film making it extra cheesy and dated beyond belief. After the title sequence the film even goes into a 10 minute long hippy, free love concert in an apartment building. The sequence serves no point other than to say "this is the 70s!".
Another problem is the plot and of course continuity. The continuity aspect to the rest of the series is just laziness on the filmmakers part. It feels like a whole film is missing between Scars of Dracula and this. Audiences like to see some sort of effort to make a connection and when there isn't one, it just makes people like me feel like the filmmakers don't give a damn. My other problem is the plot as it is nothing new other than the aspect of it taking place in...shutter...1972 . Take plot elements from all the previous Dracula films, put them in a blender, add the year 1972, and you have this extremely desperate sequel. I forgot the funky 70's score which gave me flashes of Austin Powers as opposed to Dracula. The score sucked out the little possible suspense there was when Dracula came stalking.
The one aspect I liked was the return of Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. He was sorely missed in the previous sequels and it's just a damn shame the character had to make his return in such an embarrassing follow-up. Still I'm glad to see the character back going face-to-face with the count and his return made this sequel somewhat stomach-able.
After viewing Dracula A.D. 1972 I have decided Hammer should stick to period pieces. That is what the studio is known for and the results of Dracula A.D. 1972 shows that is what they should stick with. The Dracula formula was tired before this sequel and this desperate blitzkrieg attempt to breath new life into the franchise left it dead. However the series still forged on coming back to life just like it's bloodsucking villain.
The previous sequels took their time to resurrect Dracula from the awful deaths he suffered at the end of each film before. Not Scars of Dracula, the sixth entry into Hammer's Dracula franchise. This time Dracula is resurrected within the first 2 minutes. These filmmakers didn't want to fuck around with coming up with unique ideas to bring him back. This time they have a bat (that looks so fake I swear I could see the damn strings holding it up) barf up some blood on his ashes which results in a quickly and cheaply done film dissolve into Dracula. This is the best resurrection sequence the filmmakers could think of? If it was that god damn easy to bring him back from the dead why didn't they just have a shitty looking bat barf on his ashes in previous films! This hack job of an opening just ruined my mood for the rest of the film.
After the lame resurrection of Dracula we then have an angry mob (more suited for a Frankenstein film) marching up to his castle to burn him to death once and all. Dracula doesn't take kindly to this and sends a group of fake looking bats back down to town to kill all the women and children. Jump to a neighboring town and we are introduced to a young brash womanizing man who gets accused of rape and while escaping police he winds up deep in Dracula territory. Finding his way to the castle he is greeted by Dracula and not surprisingly becomes his next victim. His worried brother and girlfriend track him down to the castle and come face to face with Christopher Lee himself.
One aspect I like about this sequel is that the character of Dracula is more like the character he was in the original film. He speaks far more and is the icy, yet polite host he was originally made out to be. I also like how Dracula is more violent and ferocious, even using knives to aid in his killing. Fans of blood will enjoy as director Roy Ward Baker makes this by far the bloodiest entry into the series. He even zooms the camera in on the bloody carnage giving me flashes of Lucio Fulci.
What I don't like about this sequel is that it has a cheap quality to it, making it feel more of a B-movie compared to the original films. Bad effects (bats anyone?) and cheap castle sets are just a few of the problems. The humor director Roy Ward Baker injects just comes off campy like he knew the Dracula formula had been done to death so he desperately tried to do something different. Oh did I forget to mention the lame resurrection of Dracula?
This sequel is a large step below the other films in the series and the Hammer's faltering financial situation shows up everywhere from the casting, to the plot and the effects. Despite being a disappointing entry into the series this far from the worst. The worst is yet to come...
