Vampire Circus (1972)

Image

ImageImageImageImage

First of all, this:

vampire_circus_1

Second of all, Vampire Circus received a PG rating!  Unless scenes were cut for the American release, I can imagine the “hubba-hubba” elation I would have felt if I saw this movie in the theater as a little kid and can imagine my mom or dad angrily whispering, “turn your head, son!”

Vampire Circus is a later period Hammer film that loosely fits into their much steamier later period films such as Twins of Evil, The Vampire Lovers, Lust for a Vampire and Countess Dracula.  Notice they didn’t make Lust for Frankenstein or Frankenstein’s Sexy Nymphs because I don’t think there is any way to make a sexy Frankenstein picture.  And no, Frankenhooker wasn’t sexy.

As indicated above Hammer pictures was moving in a more salacious direction primarily to keep up with the changing trends in cinema and partially just to stay afloat.  In all of that came this remarkable vampire picture, which succeeds in being unique, creepy and, well, erotic.  I would say it borders on European erotic horror films; it certainly has the right amount of nudity for that!  Oh and there’s a surprising amount of gore for a PG rated movie as well.

In the prologue, a young, cute nymphette, Anna Mueller (Domini Blythe) runs to a castle to have a passionate romantic love affair with vampire Count Mitterhaus (Robert Tayman).  Both are caught by her husband Prof. Albert Mueller (Laurence Payne), who looks more like her dad (wonder why she ran way…).  Mueller impales the count but the count promises to get his revenge.  Afterwards Anna Mueller is brutally flogged by the town folk for her lechery and runs back to the castle, which the town folk then burn down.

Fifteen years later a plague has hit the town.  The superstitious people believe it’s the vampire’s curse but Prof. Mueller doesn’t believe vampires exist (after all, he killed the vampire but anyone would die from getting impaled, ya know?).  Then the caravan rolls in!

Led by the sexy Gypsy Woman (Adrienne Cori, who looks quite stunning with all that flowing red hair) and consisting of a painted up dwarf, a  strong man, two acrobatic types, a lion tamer of sorts, a naked tiger dancer and Emil (Anthony Higgins) who can shape shift into a leopard, the circus allegedly comes to bring the woa-begotten folk some joy.  They perform various circus tricks and it seems innocent enough – well, as innocent as a completely naked woman painted green with tiger stripes performing a sexually charged dance with the lion tamer in front of men, women and children can be – but soon things take a turn for the worst.

It’s revealed pretty early on that the circus hasn’t come out of good spirits but to avenge Count Mitterhaus.  What’s interesting is that not everyone in the group is a vampire; only the shape shifting Emil and the two acrobatic dancers.  The rest just do their cicusy thing, albeit maliciously.  Remember kids; dwarfs aren’t to be trusted!  The circus people do a variety of bad things whether it be traumatize an old man via a nightmarish carnival mirror, lure a group of people into a forest just to have the very same circus animals brutally ripped them to shreds and of course the standard blood sucking expected of the vampires.  In fact little kids aren’t even safe.

Which leads me to another point.  This movie has some weird overtones of pedophilia.  I dunno, maybe the vampires are just biting the little kids for their blood but, considering what vampirism has always implied, it adds a certain level of creepiness.  Otherwise though, Vampire Circus is an underrated little gem that deserves to be re-examined.  Hammer was going through some rough times financially which prompted them to think a little outside the box and this is a good example of that!

Frankenstein’s Daughter (1958)

Image

ImageImageImage

As I mentioned somewhere else on this blog, the American horror movie landscape was pretty unique in the late 50s and early 60s.  American companies weren’t convinced that traditional, gothic or literary horror pictures could really grab the youth market until Hammer and later American International proved that with their Draculas, Frankensteins and Edgar Allen Poes.  In the meantime, any American horror movies made were set in the present day and any connection they had to classic monsters was superficial at best.

Take for instance this movie I am currently reviewing.  Frankenstein’s Daughter is no more a Frankenstein movie than any other movie about a mad scientist who experiments on bodies to create life.  And quite honestly Frankenstein’s Daughter is a pretty misleading title; the mad doctor’s creation is a female (and barely at that) but the doctor is actually Frankenstein’s heir so shouldn’t it be called Frankenstein’s Great Grandson?  I guess it doesn’t have the same ring to it.

But what’s really great and surprising is how grotesque the movie is for 1958; the scene where the doctor gets a burning chemical thrown in his face could easily earn an “R” rating these days.  The makeup job on the monster is no slouch either.

Frankenstein’s Daughter concerns a mad doctor named Oliver Frankenstein (Donald Murphy) who assists an elderly scientist named Carter Morton (Felix Locher), who is experimenting to create the cure for every disease ever (hey, I didn’t say it was a good script!).  Frankenstein has other plans; to use the laboratory and its resources for his own demented plans to bring the dead to life.  He also has a creepy assistant named Elsu (Wolfe Barzel), who helps round up corpses for the experiments.

Since this is a “modern” horror picture, the protagonists are all teenagers or, rather, people in the their 20s/30s acting like teenagers.  The main one, Trudy (Sandra Knight) is also the niece of Carter and nightly transforms into a hideous monster that attacks people.  Surprise surprise, this occurs when the maniacal Oliver Frankenstein spikes her drink.  But that’s only a sub plot.  The main plot concerns the doctor collecting bodies and eventually assembling his monster.  The monster rampages and does the evil bidding of the doctor and that about covers it.

It doesn’t sound like the most original plot in the world and it’s not.  But it’s fun because the doctor is such a nut job who even makes time to paw after the two female characters between his mad exploits and the monster makeup is awesome.  Kills?  Not enough but one of them has the doctor run down a victim with his car.  Also, in order to further exploit the youth market of the time, there are a handful of rockin’ musical numbers performed by the Page Cavanaugh Trio.

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987)

Image

ImageImageImage

Brilliant!  But first…

silent_night_pic

Ho ho hell, everybody!  Silent Night, Deadly Night caused a whole lot of controversy on account of its having a guy dressed like Santa Clause going around killing people.  It’s an absolute masterpiece that delivers on all of its promises, one of the few movies where, as you’re watching and you say, “get ‘im, yeah, get ‘im!”, he actually “gets ‘im.”  In that one we got to see a topless woman get impaled on a pair of antlers, a boy get decapitated while sledding down a hill and a woman get shot with an arrow.

So does the sequel live up to the first one?  That’s a tough question to answer.  As you can tell by the grade, I enjoyed the movie.  I would have given it four crosses but I think the first problem is the most glaringly obvious one.  Roughly 35 minutes of Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 are recycled scenes from the first Silent Night, Deadly Night.  There clearly must be some sort of rule when it comes to giving director Lee Harry 100% of the directing credit when he only directed 55% of the movie.

And there is no second problem.  The rest of the film is totally awesome.  My friends and I have all gotten a hearty laugh from the classic clip of Ricky (Eric Freeman) walking around a happy suburban neighborhood casually dusting off its inhabitants with a revolver and hamming it up with over the top, maniacal laughter eventually leading to his bizarre exclamation of “GARBAGE DAY!!!”  Just like in this video:

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 is mostly told in flashback until the epic final scene.  The movie begins with an adult Ricky talking to his 13th shrink, Dr. Henry Bloom (James Newman), who speaks in a stern, authoritative manner – the type which we anticipate will result in his death – as he tries to suss Ricky’s life story.  Ricky precedes to tell the events, including the 35 minutes (and best scenes from) the first Silent Night, Deadly Night, culminating in little kid Ricky foreshadowing the events of the sequel by uttering, “naughty.”  Ricky’s own story is no less of a bloodbath, in which he saves a woman from a rapist by running him over several times and impales a bully with an umbrella.

I must say the scene where Ricky saves the woman from the rapist is a hoot.  The rapist appears to be her boyfriend who gets too pushy when trying to get his gal to put out and the situation turns into an attempted rape.  The girl fights back and the guy gets up and leaves, which should have been the end of it.  But instead Ricky gets in the guy’s car with the keys still in the ignition and runs him down, rolling back and forth over his corpse.  They even insert a shot of his bloody, twitching arm.  Instead of being frightened for having witnessed a homicide, the woman thanks Ricky.  Wow.

Regardless of his murdering a few people, Ricky keeps it together enough to get a girlfriend.  Even then he exhibits signs of insanity, particularly in the awesome movie theater scene, where the theater is showing a movie about a killer Santa!  I’m not going to say anything else about the rest of the movie because it’s a total riot.  If you’ve seen the entire “garbage day” clip, then you know how the girlfriend situation turns out but the rest of the movie is epic and needs to be seen.  There you go; you have my recommendation.

200 Motels (1971)

Image

ImageImage

Happy 73rd birthday, Frank Zappa!  I like Frank Zappa a lot.  His music and attitude are partially what influenced me to start writing this blog in the first place.  Undoubtedly his snarky cynicism caused by the so-called “peace and love” and “counterculture” movements of the 60s give him the distinction of being a “savage hippie.”  He was a long haired freak but he was completely clean of drugs (except for the cigarettes) and laughed at both hippies and cops.   He voiced disdain for the system, the Vietnam war and people’s willingness to succumb to societal pressure and be mediocre while not supporting the left or right; he bashed goony institutions from all sides and encouraged people to think for themselves.  Above all he made some fantastic music; a hybrid of rock, doo-wop, free jazz, avante-garde, musique concrete and whatever other tricks he had up his sleeve.

In 1971, Zappa came up with the idea of making his very own movie about the life, trials and tribulations of a working rock band.  Unlike his music which, it seems, he took the utmost care to make note-perfect with state of the art equipment and top notch musicians, his movie, he apparently allowed to run slipshod into god knows what.  At least it seems that way.  A lot of people talk about how “way out” and “craaazeee” the movie is and how you need to see it all “fucked up” to get into it.  But actually it just reminds me of a cheaply filmed, Monty Python episode with less good skits and more dick jokes.

First of all it wasn’t filmed.  It was taped.  That’s the first thing the “film people” will notice when watching it.  Zappa, I guess is credited as director alongside Tony Palmer but I don’t know who was doing the real “heavy lifting.”  Second of all, as one might expect, there isn’t much of a story.  The movie didn’t really feel directed; it just felt like a camera was set up and some shit was allowed to happen.  Third and best of all, Zappa or Palmer or whoever, go crazy with the early video camera effects.  It’s so obvious how  the effects were created yet they still look cool; filters, layered film, rewinds/fast forwards, negative effects.  It’s so amateurish looking, high school kids would be able to use these same effects on their home video projects less than a decade later.   Also the sets are completely and obviously fake looking; it sort of reminded me of something in Forbidden Zone or a Guy Maddin film.

The movie features every member of the Mothers of Invention from that period; Ian Underwood, Aynsley Dunbar, George Duke, my personal favorite Jimmy Carl Black and Motorhead along with Flo and Eddie.  The best parts of the film are the performances, which were done live and are all top notch.  I also really liked the animated sequence which I will discuss momentarily.  Frank Zappa barely appears in the movie, instead opting to play guitar in one segment and drums in another.  The rest of the band do a bunch of stuff, none of it particularly interesting or worth mentioning.  Also Ringo Starr and Keith Moon have cameos and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra perform in the film as well.

During the film we see topless groupies, a living vacuum cleaner, people with funny masks sitting in a fake saloon, Ringo Starr pretending to be Frank Zappa, Keith Moon dressed as a nun and threatening to overdose on sleeping pills while hanging with said topless groupies, idiotic discussions about the differences between dicks and penises and Jimmy Carl Black shooting at a target that says “hippies” on it.  I’m sure other stuff happened but I don’t feel like digging into my memory sack.  I feel a little embarrassed for Ringo, who is forced to talk about putting a genie’s lamp into a woman’s reproductive organ.  Come on, Zappa, you thought that was funny?

Now then, the animated sequence is easily the best part of the movie; it’s not the most original thing but it involves an acid trip, hippie mumbo-jumbo, Monthy Python-esque collage art and name-drops Black Sabbath and Coven.  I could easily see it as a standalone piece.  There’s really nothing else to say about the movie.  It’s not exceptionally funny nor does it really offer any true insight into the lives of working musicians.  The dialogue is apparently pulled from real life but, so what?  Really this movie is for Zappa fans because I honestly cannot picture the average person being able to stomach more than 20 minutes of it.

Vampyres (1974)

Image

ImageImageImageImage

Further proof that the 70s were the best decade in film making.  In what other decade could you release a movie that literally sits on both the horror and erotica fence?  You can’t have “erotic” films anymore.  You can either have porn or horror.  Vampyres is one of the few erotic films I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot!) that manages to go in both directions seamlessly without seeming forced.  The movie has a lot of nudity and sex, perhaps even gratuitous amounts but it also has copious amounts of blood and gore as well.  And best believe these aren’t “sexy” vampires who “sexily” suck someone’s blood but rather just vicious killers who happen to be sexy.

This reminds me; I was supposed to review Daughters of Darkness, which I also liked a lot but I totally forgot about.  Now I have to get it again on netflix because it’s been about a week since I’ve seen it and I don’t trust my memory nor do I want to just read through other IMDB reviews.  Dammit.  Oh well.  I was reminded of that, by the way, because Vampyres is also known in some markets as Daughters of Dracula and that’s a similar sounding name.

Anyway, as I was saying Vampyres is both sexy and scary.  It was directed by José Ramón Larraz and has a totally stylish, Eurotrash look combined with a creepy atmosphere and takes place primarily in a neat looking gothic mansion and the vast, lush, green field and forest outside the mansion.

The film is about a vampire (vampyre?) couple – darker, brunette Fran (Marianne Morriz) and lighter, blonde Miriam (Anulka Dziubinska) – who stalk, seduce and kill their victims.  Their primary mode of action is to take turns hitching rides from the side of the road to the mansion, inviting the strangers in and having their way with them. However, as demonstrated by Fran’s actions, the undead need sex too; in between taking giant gulps of human blood from her victim she also has time for some good ol’ fashion humping.  During the couple of tasty shack ups, the male victim wakes up, sees giant slashes on his arms and feels more and more tired daily.  What a way to go, huh?  Miriam, on the other hand, is strictly a lesbian as demonstrated by her never taking part in sex with the men she kills and lusting only after Fran.

The story begins as a complete stranger walks in on Fran and Miriam as living people in the throes of passion and inexplicably shoots them dead.  Then the credits role and we’re introduced to the three main characters, a sort of rich playboy type (Michael Byrne) who, I guess, is on vacation or something and the cute, young couple John (Brian Deacon) and Harriet (Sally Faulkner), who decide to go camping near the mansion.  As the story progress, Harriet begins to notice weird stuff happening, including a person screaming right outside her window.  As expected, when she wakes up her lover, the man is gone and all he has to say is, “see, honey, you were just dreaming!”

There are a few other victims and some bodies found mangled in car crashes on the side of the road but, most importantly, there is sex and gore.  There’s also a sexy shower scene between the two vampire ladies and there is one particular kill sequence that displays that, just because Miriam is a lesbian, does not mean she treats the living female character any more kindly.  This is one of the finest in the eroto-horror/sexy vampire sub genre.

Christmas Evil (1980)

Image

ImageImage

Have you ever watched a movie and thought, “man, this has too much good taste?”  I know what you’re thinking; yes, Christmas Evil (a.k.a. You Better Watch Out and Terror in Toyland) from writer/director Lewis Jackson may have pre-dated Silent Night, Deadly Night by four years and how tasteful can a movie about a killer Santa really be?

To be sure, the plots for Christmas Evil and Silent Night, Deadly Night are pretty darn similar save for a few little details.  Like Silent Night, Deadly Night, the movie begins with the killer’s childhood, where he witnesses a traumatizing event that eventually manifests in his adult life, resulting in his going on a killing spree while dressed in a Santa costume.  What’s surprising is that the event in Christmas Evil could probably be explained by a simple talk of the “birds and the bees” (Santa getting it on with mommy).

Years later it’s revealed the boy in the opening sequence has grown into a lonely, pathetic man-child named Harry (Brandon Maggart) who has creepily filled his home with nothing but Christmas decorations and Santa toys.  At night he works in a factory with typical assholish types, one of whom takes advantage of his generosity and convinces him to switch shifts with him only later to reveal to his buddies how he “suckered Harry into taking his shift.”  In addition to that, Harry closely watches the neighborhood children, taking note of who’s been naughty or nice.  He catches one boy reading Penthouse, thus making him not “nice.”

Harry suppresses is rage, of course making everyone around him think that he’s just an eccentric but harmless man.  So far, so good.  You’re just anticipating the brutal payoff, the moment when Harry will snap and go on a rampage just like the killer in Silent Night, Deadly Night.  So we finally get to that crucial moment when Harry glues on the Santa beard, puts on the costume and arms himself with a knife and nutcracker doll with bayonet.  And then…

Major freakin’ letdown!!!

There are so many people in this movie; all those people at the company Christmas party, the neighborhood children, Harry’s own brother and his family, all those potential kills and only four people get it!  The asshole guy who tricked Harry into taking his shift is one and three completely random people on the steps of some memorial site and that’s it!  The rest of the movie is Harry either running or driving away from trouble!  Can you imagine my major disappointment when there’s a whole mob after Harry and Harry doesn’t run them down with his van?  What’s his problem?  What’s the problem of the filmmaker?  What’s with that stupid ending where Harry drives to the moon?

I really hope Lewis Jackson wasn’t trying to make a “serious” character study.  I’d like to chalk it up to a poorly written, poorly paced script and very few shocks.  Have you seen Silent Night, Deadly Night?  That’s the one where Santa impales the woman on a pair of antlers and decapitates the kid sledding down the hill.  Don’t expect anything even remotely that cool to happen.  Yes, in this movie, Santa stabs some people but other than that.. what wasted potential!

The Curse of the Living Corpse (1964)

Image

ImageImage

Now that’s just ridiculous.  There is no creature that “undrapes the passions of the living” in The Curse of the Living Corpse.  It’s clear from the first stalk and kill sequence that the menace of the movie’s namesake is just a guy with a hat and cloak and that there are no supernatural elements in the film.  To be honest, though, two crosses seems a little low for a movie which had some pretty neat sequences but three seems a little high for a movie I didn’t enjoy all the way through.  If any of you loyal readers can render me an image of a “half cross”, then I’ll amend this post by using it!  Thanks in advance!

Coming from the same Del Tenney double feature DVD as The Horror of Party Beach, I was little a disappointed that The Curse of the Living Corpse didn’t give me the same charge as the other film.  It was going places at first but sorta began meandering into needless comic relief and endless scenes of nothing going on, which strung together the few gory and suspenseful sequences.

The plot is pretty basic; set in New England in 1892, a rich man’s heirs stand to inherit his will given that they follow his post death instructions properly.  Of course none of them do and allegedly, the old man leaves his grave and begins picking off his ungrateful, unruly kids, their spouses and some other hangers on one by one.  This group of WASPs includes the non-WASPy Roy Scheider as a smart ass alcoholic named Philip, Philip’s brother and failed doctor Bruce (Robert Milli), Bruce’s main squeeze who I think is played by Linda Donovan, Philip’s wife Vivian (Margo Hartman), Philip’s and Bruce’s mother Abigail (Helen Warren), the caretaker Seth (J. Frank Lucas) and some other guy whose name I forgot.

The film is made well and has some neat sets, primarily the tomb where the father’s body is kept and the old looking mansion they all live in.  The kill scenes are superb; you get a head on a plate, a bloody face, a live burning and a bathtub drowning and some of the characters are completely, hilariously self centered, especially Bruce, a domineering, womanizing pig.  So yeah, it’s fun watching them get picked off.

What’s not fun is the sort of meandering, roundabout way in which the events happen.  They need to make this shit snappy, come on!  Also, what’s with the goofy cop who accidentally handcuffs himself and gets coerced into drinking booze, passing out and waking up hungover?  How is the film supposed to keep its sense of creepiness and suspense with all that tomfoolery going on?

Oh well, it’s not perfect.  On the plus side, there’s some borderline nudity in the bathtub scene.  In the U.S., official “above waste” nudity is constituted by the exposing of a nipple or two, which didn’t happen due to the way in which Margo Hartman was positioned in the bathtub; if she just sat up a bit… also the twist at the end does come as a surprise.  I just wish the movie was more evenly and quickly paced.

Mudhoney (1965)

Image

ImageImageImage

I finally saw the movie from which one of my favorite bands got its name.  I guess I don’t really “get” Russ Meyer.  I’ve seen Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and I found those and Mudhoney entertaining enough.  I guess they’re supposed to be a mix of satire with some titillation?  Mudhoney is certainly well made – albeit with a couple continuity jumps – and has its tense dramatic moments but was he just trying to make trashy melodrama?

That might be the issue I have with the movie; I’ve seen films like Common Law Wife, Jenny Wife/Child and Shanty Tramp and I watched those for their shoddy film making, antiquated look and occasional nudity.  Meyer’s film isn’t nearly as shitty as the crap Something Weird puts out yet seems too trashy to be taken as “real” cinema.  Was he trying to be the b-grade Douglas Sirk?

For those unawares Mudhoney tells the depression/prohibition era tale of a hired hand named Calif (John Furlong) who comes from Detroit to some non-disclosed location in the deep south where he begins working for a farm owned by some guy (forgot the character’s name) and his hot, blonde niece Hannah (Antoinette Cristiani).  Only problem is that Hannah is married to an abusive, alcoholic nut job named Sidney (Hal Hopper) who, along with raping and beating his wife and visiting the local whore cabin, plans on inheriting his wife’s uncle’s farm when the old man kicks off.

Naturally the story heats up when it’s revealed that Calif has a thing for Hannah and, given that Calif isn’t an abusive drunk like her husband, she likes him back.  This creates all kinds of tense and melodramatic situations; Hannah screams a whole lot and even finally fights back against Sidney.  Meanwhile Sidney also attempts to get the townsfolk against the hired hand through the help of a naive preacher.

In my opinion the movie would be a tad more dull if it weren’t peppered with colorful side characters, most of whom inhabit the local whore cabin I mentioned earlier.  This tacky bunch definitely add a lighthearted if a bit sleazy touch to the story.  Eula (Rena Horton)  and Clara Belle (Lorna Maitland) are two hot, busty blondes.  The former is a deaf mute and both bathe nude outside and are always horny.  In fact Eula ingratiates herself to the local preacher who, after doing his thing, yells “sinner!” to the amusement of the rest of the group.  The barn is tended to by the hilariously weird and ugly looking Maggie Marie (Princess Livingston) who jovially exclaims about how she hasn’t turned a trick in 15 years.

The film does make its statements on morality.  The preacher accuses everyone of being a sinner while the inhabitants of the happy whore cabin basically celebrate their sexual freedom.  Yes we see both Eula and Clara Belle naked and yes, it’s meant to excite – I mean, come on – but both scenes have a natural, carefree tone about them.  Clara Belle even says to Calif, “oh you’re one of those city boys who uses a bathing suit.”

But the main crux of the story lies in what Sidney does and, indeed, he’s one awful son of a bitch.  I don’t want to give too much away but he does some pretty selfish, mean-spirited and downright sociopathic things eventually leading to the film’s cataclysmic conclusion.  The ending is pretty epic.

Overall the film is pretty entertaining.  The opening sequence of Sidney driving drunk, storming into his own house and raping his wife – as awful as that is – does an excellent job establishing the twisted, white trash world we are about to enter.  Is that the point then?  Should I re-rate this movie and give it four crosses?  Only time will tell!

The Horror of Frankenstein (1970)

Image

ImageImageImage

Well now I’ve seen all of Hammer’s Frankenstein movies thanks to youtube.  With so many horror movies that I haven’t seen yet, such as The Creeping Flesh, Vampire Circus, Countess Dracula and Frankenstein’s Daughter, available, I wonder if there is even a reason to have a netflix account anymore.

One important thing to note about The Horror of Frankenstein is that it is not canonical with the rest of the Frankenstein movies, all of which feature the continuing struggle of Peter Cushing, the famed mad scientist/anti-hero and his experiments to bring the dead to life.  Instead The Horror of Frankenstein, directed by in-house Hammer-man Jimmy Sangster, tells the story of Dr. Victor Frankenstein all over again.  But, even moreso, I feel that it tells the story of an entirely different doctor who happens to be called Victor Frankenstein.  Let me explain.

The Horror of Frankenstein begins with Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) as a student.  The opening sequence is Frankenstein drawing dotted lines all over the picture of a naked woman; an action which obviously foreshadows his later work.  When he is caught, the headmaster threatens to beat him but Frankenstein convinces him not to and it’s immediately revealed that Frankenstein is not some sick, antisocial weirdo but a cunning, manipulative and charming young man.  He even has all the young ladies pining for him

It’s also revealed that he’s a sociopath; when his charm doesn’t get him what he wants, he simply kills people.  Thank god forensics and fingerprinting didn’t exist back then or he would have been caught for his little trick of booby trapping his father’s gun so he could inherit his estate and use his dad’s money to go to college.

Ralph Bates does a fantastic job as the morally bankrupt mad scientist who will do anything to get his way.  And it’s good fun watching him move his plan forward to create life from death by various forms of cajolings; it’s pretty amusing his sidekick Wilhelm (Graham James) was so naive that he thought he convinced Frankenstein to stop his experiments by threatening to go to the police only to have Frankenstein kill him.

Basically Frankenstein through the help of a grave robber collects parts to create his monster.  The doctor also finds time for a few casual shack ups with hot as hell house maid/sex worker Alys (Kate O’Marra).  In addition to that, there is a subplot in which a woman named Elizabeth (Veronica Carlson) inexplicably falls in love with Frankenstein only to become his replacement house maid.

And all that is fine and dandy and enjoyable for a time but that does not warrant it taking 66 out of 95 minutes to finally introduce the monster.  Granted, when this happens, the monster does stalk and kill a few people.  It’s not some misunderstood creature; it’s just a mindless killing machine that either works on its own or when the master tells it to.  How it managed to understand English is best left to suspension of disbelief.

The Horror of Frankenstein is a Hammer film through and through with neat looking gothic set pieces, characteristically hammy acting and low-cut, cleavage exposing dresses.  Allegedly it’s supposed to be somewhat of a comedy and, though there were moments of dry humor, including its brilliant ending, it’s still pretty much a monster movie.  My only other complaint aside from its taking forever to show the monster (which kind of resembles Pluto from The Hills Have Eyes) is that the severed limbs looked a little too rubbery at times.

Punk: The Early Years (1998)

Image

ImageImageImageImage

Also keep in mind that this four “iron crosses” rating is mainly for people who’ve seen literally every other movie that exists about punk rock (which I have!  Thank you very much!).  I saw some pretty negative Amazon.com reviews stating that the Generation X footage isn’t synced up or that there’s too much interview footage with a Seditionaries employee and not enough Pistols live footage.  If you’re looking for that sort of stuff, check out the brilliant The Filth and the Fury or, if you’re looking for an overall gloss over of 70s punk, there are plenty of VH1 style documentaries on youtube.

Now that we’ve “separated the wheat from the chaff” as they say, let’s get down to business.  Punk: The Early Years was originally shot for a British TV program in 1978. The movie captures the feel of being right in the world of these events as they’re happening.  We get live footage from the Slits, Generation X (not synced up, wah-wah), X-Ray Spex, the Adverts, Eddie and the Hot Rods and Souxsie and the Banshees along with interviews with all members of Gen X, the Slits, the Adverts, Polly Styrene from X-Ray Spex, Marc Bolan from T. Rex (regarding his recent tour with the Damned), the writers of the Sniffin’ Glue zine, random punk rockers on the streets, some nobody punk bands from other countries (one guy even has an early mohawk!), Jordan, the painted up Seditionaries clerk with liberty spikes and various major label execs.

The interviews are pretty insightful.  The A&R guy at CBS all but entirely dismisses the politics of the Clash by saying, “eh, they’re young and naive.”  It’s such a trip hearing the label exec using outdated record industry lingo when describing a punk band.  Marc Bolan, while showing respect for the new groups, alleges that the Pistols and the Clash would eventually use strings (“aggressive strings”) on their albums.  He was right about one of those!  Other interview highlights include Polly Styrene discussing the meaning to “Oh Bondage Up Yours”, the Sniffin’ Glue guys talking about the hypocrisy of British clubs and authorities for banning the Pistols, Jordan of Seditionaries talking about how punk has helped break down gender barriers and Siousxie Sioux defending herself against accusations of fascism.

On one hand, the film functions as a time capsule of how much stuff has changed; in less than a year after the doc was made, punk would evolve/de-evolve into multitudes of different sub-genres that its original creators could never have dreamed of and hardly any major labels would touch punk anymore giving rise to the independents.  On the other hand, it shows how much hasn’t changed; the live footage in the dingy clubs (or are they clubs) looks exactly like dingy basement/club/VFW shows that you or I have attended all our lives!  You can practically see kids  that you’ve seen at those shows right in this video before you realize, “hey, wait a sec, this footage is from 1977!”

It’s 2013 and punk rock has been defined, redefined, analyze to death and turned into a cartoony parody of itself.  In the words of Mudhoney, it’s “overblown.” There are countless articles, books and TV specials out.  There are so many different factions, it’s hard to believe they’re all under one genre umbrella – how did garage rock, arty post punk and macho bro-core all have roots in the same-ish music genre?  Punk: The Early Years takes us all back to a more innocent time.

But why trust me?  See for yourself!