Happy Halloween Part Two

I'm a bit late getting a post up today. It has been a busy day for me and not all of it was a good busy. Depending where you are, Halloween is over as I write this. I was planing on getting a post up earlier today but with things going the way they were, I simply forgot. I wanted you all to know that Eric, over at Something To Be Desired, has let me know that they have a new halloween clip up for this year. You may recall that I reviewed their zombie episode last year. They are at it again this year but this time it has to do with vampires! I would do a proper review but the sound on my computer has been broke for a good while now so I don't feel right doing a review when I can't hear what is being said. I did watch it though and it looks very cool.

If you missed out on last year's zombie episode, they have kindly provided some links so you can get to it. If you did watch it last year, you might want to check out the new stuff. They added some behind the scenes outtakes and an alternate ending! So head over to Something To Be Desired and let me know what I am partly missing out on!

Finding A Bride

There are some days when I watch a lot of movies. I didn't watch "a lot" today but I did get two movies in all the same. I have yet to get my tickets for Horror Fest but I'm hoping that I will have them ordered sometime tomorrow. I was getting bored with tv today so I decided to watch some movies. Bride Of Frankenstein (1935) was first since I was curious as to how the monster survived the first movie. The other movie I watched was Son Of Frankenstein which I will review tomorrow if I have time. I had two problems when watching that one though. One was that I was tired when I started to watch it so I dosed off through part of it. Nice thing about dvd's though is that it is easy to get to the last place I remembered seeing before slipping into sleep. The other thing is that the second disk came loose at some point and is now badly scratched up. I will get into that more for the next review though. I know, like you all care lol.

Bride Of Frankenstein pretty much picks up where Frankenstein left off. It actually starts in a kind of odd way that we see Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) talking to a small group of people about her now famous story. One of the guys says he is surprised that the story ends so suddenly and she says something like "Oh but that isn't the end." From there we see the mob of people still standing around the almost burned out windmill. The father of the child that was killed in the first movie is hanging around. He wants to see the charred bones of the monster that killed his daughter. He climbs in and falls into some water. Before he can figure out what happened, the monster (Boris Karloff) is shown to be there with him. The monster drowns the father, climbs out and attacks the mother then walks over to Minnie (Una O'Connor) who gives the worst (in a funny way) scared look I have yet to see.

The mob takes Henry (Colin Clive again) back to his place where Elizabeth (now played by Valerie Hobson) is waiting. At first he seems dead but soon comes around. Not long after all this happens, a Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) comes in to talk to the now Baron Frankenstein. Dr. Pretorius wants Henry to help him create another person. A woman this time for the monster actually. Henry isn't so sure he wants to go there again so it is up to Dr. Pretorius to convince him.

The effects are good once again but the makeup looked a little different this time. I couldn't really place my finger on it though. The Bride looks real good as well but I would like to know how she got all that hair under those bandages and have them look normal. It is surprising how well liked the Bride character is considering she wasn't in the movie longer than 5 minutes. Overall, I didn't enjoy the acting as much. I think it is because where the first movie stopped just short of being campy, Bride Of Frankenstein went pass that point. Not all actors did. Ernest Thesiger made a great villan. Boris Karloff once again gives a great performance as the monster.

Two things set Bride Of Frankenstein apart from the first movie. The first is something I have already touched on in that there is more of a comedy feel to it at times. The other is that the monster gets to speak in this one. While reading other reviews, I have noticed that people are split on how they feel about both points. Some liked that dark humor while others didn't care for it. Some people hate that the monster started to speak while others feel it was the right thing to do for this movie. I fall into the second camp for both of these points. I didn't really care for the humor but I do feel it was the natural thing to do for the monster to speak. We call him a monster because of how he acts. Partly because of the way he looks but mostly because he goes around killing people that make him mad. Still, the monster is human so it makes sense that he can talk if he wanted to. I don't feel it took the mystery of the monster away at all. It simply fleshed out the character more and made him more interesting.

A lot of people feel that Bride Of Frankenstein is the better of the first two movies. Personally, I like Frankenstein better. I didn't care so much for the humor and at times the plot can really take a left turn. It turned out right bizzare when Dr. Pretorius was showing Henry his "little people." Bride Of Frankenstein has its share of highs and lows. I didn't love this entry like I did the first movie but it was still a good film. Worth watching for Karloff alone I would say. I'm starting to see where the different characters came from in Young Frankenstein. With each passing movie I see more and more of the characters that were borrowed in that film.
3 out of 5 Did you know there were two endings filmed?

Let There Be Life

At last I sat myself down and watched another movie. Since I finished off The Wolf Man set, I took the next set off my shelf and it was the Frankenstein set this time. I was actually hoping it would be the next set since the last set tied into this one with the last movie I watched from it. On my shelf, I have two rows of dvds with more dvds stacked on top of those. I have to move dvds around to get to these sets and I have no idea which set is which since they are in the back row. Before I get into this movie though, I wanted to say that I will hopefully have a nice surprise coming up in a few weeks. I'm hoping that by saying this, I'm not jinxing the plans I will be making. Remember the 8 films to die for? Well they are doing it again this year. I couldn't go last year because no one around me was showing the movies but that isn't the case this year. So I am hoping that a friend of mine will agree to go with me so I can watch and review this next set of 8 films. Oh yeah, I also added a new poll!

Lets talk Frankenstein (1931). If you don't have a general idea of what the plot is, I would be very surprised. Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is holed up with his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) trying to bring life back to dead tissue. The film opens with them watching a funeral and then once everyone leaves, they dig up the body. The only thing Henry now needs is a brain. Fritz breaks into the medical school and steals a normal brain but drops it on his way out so he swipes the abnormal brain. Meanwhile, Henry's soon to be wife, Elizabeth (Mae Clarke), and his best friend Victor (John Boles) are getting worried about him and decide to drop in unexpectedly. They happen to show up at the moment that Henry is about to try and bring life to his creation. Will he be able to bring life back to the dead? I think we already know the answer to that question.

The makeup effects for the Frankenstein monster are very cool looking. I have looked at many pictures from the film and have watched film clips. Still, seeing the monster for the first time in the film still managed to send a slight chill through me. Part of it is the makeup effects. The other part is Boris Karloff himself. I knew he was more than just a stalking monster but I found out he put a lot more into his role than I had thought that he did. Boris easily steals any scene that he is a part of. I can't say enough about his acting here. That says a lot for someone that never says a word. I don't know how he did it but his presense alone made it worth watching. Colin Clive was very good as the mad doctor. He really pushes his performance to almost over the top levels and campyness but doesn't get that far.

I have watched so many clips from Frankenstein that I wasn't sure how well I would like this movie. I kind of felt like maybe the movie was ruined for me by seeing so many clips and hearing so many people talk about it. I was surprised that I was being warned right from the get go. I soon discovered though that Frankenstein still had the power to draw me into the story. Even when the scenes I have watched before came around, it was more of an after thought that I had seen this already. I have never read the novel but I understand this movie and the novel have little in common except for the basic plot. Still, James Whale put together a great film with some great actors and it is easy to see why the film is still liked even today.

It is easy to see that it was filmed on a set. In the outdoor scenes you can often see wrinkles in the background. This was a little distracting but I didn't hold it against the over all feel of the film too much. The windmill scene really stood out to me and I feel it should have ended there instead of the way it did. One thing I didn't like about that scene is that at times it was easy to see that the film was being sped up. Just minor things really when compared to the over-all feel of the movie. I didn't even notice that it didn't have a music score. I guess that is how into Frankenstein I was getting. A must see for sure!
4 out of 5 Wanting to know where the monsters fear of fire comes from

Making Fridays

I'm sorry it has taken me a little while to get a new review up and I'm sorry that this review isn't a movie review. I'm hoping to get back into movies very soon. This last weekend I wanted the interview with David Williams to be the first thing people would see when showing up here. I should have watched a movie but instead, I sat around reading. For a while now I have been reading Making Friday The 13th: The Legend Of Camp Blood by David Grove. It is one of the books I ended up buying months back. Why this book? I have liked the Friday The 13th set of movies and since this book covers all 11 films, I thought it would be interesting.

Making Friday The 13th begins by talking about how the people behind the movie came together and where the idea for the original movie came from. It was pretty interesting but I pretty much knew the story by now from other books. From there it goes into each movie. All the way to Freddy Vs Jason. Each movie gets a plot recap with a lot of spoilers. There are also a lot of quotes from all kinds of people that either worked behind the scenes or in front of the camera. This is what I found the most interesting. Hearing the stories of what happened on the set or trying to get the movies going from the people involved. All quotes were taken from interviews conducted by the author.

This is a good read if you are into the movies. As I said, there are a lot of spoilers to be found but I think only the die hard fans would be reading this book anyway and probably have watched every movie. David Grove does a good job with the book but one thing I didn't care for was his going over each and every plot. I understand why it was done, to help fill pages. Sometimes the quotes are spun off directly from the plot summary but it doesn't happen enough. To top it off, not all his plot summaries are correct. Using the word "correct" is the wrong choice on my part. Let me give you an example from the plot summery for Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives:

"With Allen watching in stunned horror, Tommy digs up Jason's grave, armed with a gas canister which he plans to use in order to cremate Jason. Once Tommy eyes Jason's rancid corpse, a dark rage wells up inside him. Overcome with hatred, he tears a spiked rail from the front gate and uses it to impale Jason over and over.

Just as Tommy is about to incinerate Jason's corpse and turn him into a pile of ashes once and for all, Jason's maggot-covered eyes spring open. He's alive!" Taken from page 144.

Everything there did happen but he left out one big detail. Lightning hits the rail once Tommy goes to get the gas canister. The way David Grove makes it sound, Jason being impaled over and over is what made Jason come back to life when it fact it was the lightning bolt. Maybe he didn't want to spoil everything about the movie. That is fine if he didn't go over almost every death that happens in other chapters. If you are going to spoil that, why stop there?

One other thing that I kind of didn't care for. He talks about the original movie in basicly the 7 opening chapters. The 2nd movie is given 2 chapters and each movie from there only gets 1 chapter. You can tell that David Grove doesn't like the sequels as well as the original movie. Not only does he remind the reader of that more than a few times, but you can also tell by the page count each movie gets. Jason X gets 8 pages and 1 page is a full page picture.

There were two things that was nice to see. One was that David Grove takes the time to talk about Friday The 13th: The Series. I have watched maybe a handful of these from reruns but I never got into them all that much. The chapter on the tv show puts it into a new light though so maybe I will have to give it another chance sometime. The other chapter made me laugh some. It was a chapter dedicated to the body count. It lists each death and give a brief explination of how each person was killed. It gives a count for each movie and also a grand total count to go along with it. If you liked the movies then I would suggest you read Making Friday That 13th: The Legend Of Camp Blood. It does give a good insight into each movie, even if some are more plot summary than anything else. If you are not into the fims that much then I would say to skip this one.
3 out of 5 Needed more quotes from Amy Steel!

Interview: David Williams

Back in July I did a review of a movie called Prison Of The Psychotic Damned. Soon after that, I found two comments that I was not expecting to see. One of those comments was by David Williams, the writer/producer of the film. After doing my interview with Cattleworks, he kept encouraging me to ask David for an interview. After much debate with myself, I decided to do so and David was kind enough to agree.

David Williams had a rough life to start with. We have something in common in that our mothers passed away when we were young. After moving around, getting married/divorced and working many jobs, David made it into college. He attended State University Of New York at Buffalo and got a BA in Media Study. David was accepted into a screenwriting program at UCLA but was tired of the college life by then so turned it down and got a job. The film bug was biting though and here we are. So now that you know a little bit about him, I present to you David Williams.


Heather Santrous: David, thank you for agreeing to do this interview with me. Would you tell us how you became a horror fan, and how you got involved with making movies?

David Williams: I've been making movies since I was 14 years old. I've been a fan of horror films since I was four. First horror film I remember seeing was The Crawling Eye. I still love that film. I was brought upon the old Universal horror films...Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolfman, etc....graduated to Corman and AIP then Hammer then the Eurotrash cinema of the late sixties and early seventies. The indie horror boom of the late seventies through the eighties was a big influence. Despite that, I was also drawn to the art house cinema of the 50s through the 70s. Italian neorealism, French new wave...the films of Antonioni and Bergman. Fellini to a degree. Somehow or other that all gets rolled into the ball that makes a RedScream Film. My good friend Chris Lackner said I make b-horror movies with art film pretensions. LOL. That's about right.

Been writing since I can remember. All through high school. I even had a fan base. People I didn't know would stop me and say, hey, when are you writing another story? I read that last one and it was cool. Write another or I'll beat your ass. I stopped writing for quite a while there - just not enough hours in the day. There never is. I have seen about a dozen short stories published. The most recent in Cuthulu Sex magazine. I've written two novels. Killer Asylum and Twilight in the Spaces Between. Those are currently only available in e-book format but if you go to Amazon you can get the paperback of Asylum. It's sort of Die Hard meets Silence of the Lambs. With artfilm pretensions. LOL.

I don't know why I make movies. I don't know why I write. I do it because I have to. There's something about it that draws me. Like old buildings. I have an obsession with old buildings. They call to me. Pull me in. I can feel the time within them. Like a fog. With my films I'm not trying to make any statements or address any social concerns. What I do want to do is make people react. I really don't care how they react as long as they do. As much as I prefer that someone like my films, if they hate my films that's okay too. As long as they feel something. If someone watches one of my films and at the end shrugs and goes, it was okay...I've failed. I would rather they hate it. Iwould rather they want to find whoever made it and kill them they hate it so bad. That's better than, it was okay.

HS: It is my understanding that a script is harder to write than say a book. Have you found this to be true?

DW: I find writing a screenplay much easier than writing a book. A screenplay is, the basics. Imagine writing a detailed outline for a novel that is 120 pages long. It contains all the key points and dialogue but little else. This happens, then that happens, then something else happens, then the end. If moving on to a book you now have to expand on that outline, turning 120 pages into 350+ minimum. You have to carefully choose your words, and sculpt your descriptions and, its hard work. A script is a skeleton. It doesn't need meat and muscle grafted on like a novel. That comes when you shoot it and then edit it and score it. Which isn't to say you can just write anything. Without a strong skeleton the whole thing just falls apart, like a human body without bones. All you've got is a pail of soft tissue that ain't going no where. LOL.

HS: That is interesting to know and not how I thought you would answer. As far as Prison Of The Psychotic Damned (POTPD), how long did it take you to write the script?

DW: The first draft took roughly a month. I write what I called the "kitchen sink" version first. In this I throw in everything that comes to mind. When that is completed I can then go back and start trimming and revising to get it into a workable format. All in all, it took around 2-3 months to get the final draft.

HS: Was there an inspiration for the story or was it something that you came up with?

DW: The film is influenced greatly by the original film version of The Haunting as well as the book that film is based on. Perhaps a touch of Hell House but not that much. There is also my fascination with modern ruins and the Buffalo Central Terminal in particular. It's a place that looks like its haunted -and if its not, it should be.

HS: In addition to writing screenplays and producing, I see that you also direct your movies too. Would you explain why you chose not to direct POTPD?

DW: I "directed" all my early films. Prison was the only film I have ever made, short or feature or otherwise that I have not directed. I did not direct Prison because there just were not enough hours in the day for me to do all the production work and have to deal with the actual making of the movie. But I was on the set most days and DW Kann and I had frequent discussions regarding what he was doing and what I needed and expected. It was a pleasure working with him. He did a wonderful job despite the cold and the schedule.

HS: Would you care to elaborate on what you "needed and expected" out of POTPD?

DW: I was looking for a more classic horror feel. More character development with the terminal itself being one of those characters. The influences for the film were the original version of The Haunting and the novel upon which that film was based. But also the more gothic aspects of the Universal Horror films ofthe 30s with just a touch of 70s Eurotrash. I didn't want MTV style editing. I wanted longer, more static shots. Bascially I wanted to make a classic style horror film with modern sensabilities. Does that make any sense at all? LOL. I think we achieved that goal.

HS: Could you tell us what your favorite memory or moment is for POTPD?

DW: Finishing it and gettting it released. LOL.

HS: I can see why that would be the case. I'm sure you were proud that it was finished. As an Indy filmmaker, what is involved in getting a project off the ground and getting the final project out to fans like me?

DW: How much time do we have? I tend to build scripts around existing resources. So if I know I can use the Buffalo Central Terminal or an abandoned church or a friend's cabin in the woods, then I build my script around that location. I use Mandy.com for casting. I can post a casting call on a Sunday afternoon and by Monday afternoon my email box is filled with resumes from actors. We do have a growing group of local talent we can call on which is great as I can write based on their talents and I know I can depend on them.

We typically have very short production schedules, our longest shoot was 17 days but most fall between 7-10 days. I write with that in mind. Small cast, few locations, keep it simple. I have considerable experience in editing so while I shoot I am constantly editing in my head. Many times I will change or even drop a scene because as I edit the film in my head I know I either don't need that scene or I need to change it to make it work. I think in shots so know what I need to make a scene work typically before I shoot it. I do like to work with the cast on a scene. I like to get their input and I always ask actors to develop their own backstory for their character and purchase their own wardrobe. I want them to be their character and on set I call them by their character's name, not their real name.

The hard part of making a film to get back to your question is, all of it. I compare filmmaking to an insanely difficult puzzle. You have an idea of what you want the puzzle to look like but to get there, you have to assemble all the pieces and keep all those pieces together. Finally, when you believe you have all the pieces you start to put them together. But while doing so you might find out that some pieces don't fit or not as well as you'd hoped. So you either have to change those pieces, or force them to fit, or get new pieces. And the puzzle keeps changing and you keep adding new pieces or removing other pieces. While all this is going on, you're working under a time limit. You have to put the puzzle together by the end of the week or chances are it will never get put together. Does any of this make sense? It's nuts. Nobody in their right mind would try to make a movie. It's too hard. It can be brutally hard. People don't realize how hard making movies can be.

Getting the final product to the audience is a whole 'nother animal. We've lucked out in finding Sean Argoof Dissolve Pictures who handles sales for all our films. He is a great guy. He is a rare breed in a business that is eyebrow deep with scumbags who will tell you they are distributors then sit on your film for months, even years and do nothing. Who will take all the profits and hand you a list of expenses. The number of people you can trust who operate on the distribution end of the deal can probably be counted on two hands and you'll have fingers left over. Plus your thumbs. It's tough. Controlling your own distribution is the way to go, but that's another full time job and I'm already working two...three if you count family.

HS: I know what it is like to be very busy so I know how you feel. Expanding on your last answer, why such short shoots? Is it a money issue, or because of the time you can shoot at the location?

DW: The short shoots are a matter of time and money. There is only so much money that can be spent and when that is gone, it is gone. Plus most of us still hold down full-time jobs and have families so there are numerous factors contributing to the short shoots. Many members of the cast and crew must take time off from work to do these films. So we have a limited amount of both. We either do the film within those constraints or we don't do them at all. We make sure everybody understands that. If you can't do it for what we can offer you, then we'll find someone else. I don't mean to downplay anybody's talent or worth, but there are damn few cast or crew who cannot be replaced. I've fired crew the day before a produtionwas scheduled to begin and had their replacement on set the next day.

HS: Remind me to work hard if I ever work for you lol. Do you do your own effects in movies or hire someonefor that? How do you decide what effect to use for a scene?

DW: I do have some background in makeup effects but for all our films we have hired professional makeup effects artists. For Red Scream Vampyres nearly half our budget went to effects. Those are the money shots. They have to be good. They have to be great. If I direct a death scene I want a death scene that doesn't just push the envelope, I want a death scene that shreds the envelope. I want to be knee deep in blood when its over. I want flesh that pulls and tears and snaps. I want to rub the audiences' face in the violence. There are no polite deaths in a Red Scream Film. At the same time, I don't write gore for gore sakes. People die in our films for a reason. Their deaths are part of the story. Sex is the same, if there is a sex scene or nudity in our films, it comes naturally out of the flow of the story. We don't drop it in randomly. There is a reason for it.

HS: What is the hardest part of being a director for you?

DW: The hardest part of being a director? I think not attacking crew who don't do their job and killing them. Or actors who obviously have not taken the time to learn their lines or read the script. It's happened, believe me. I'm not a proponent of auteur theory. I am the writer, I am the producer, I am the director, so I am the final voice in any production Red Scream Films LLC is involved with but, I fully realize that film is a collaborative process. You need a dedicated, talented cast and crew who are passionate about making films. If a single person doesn't give you 1000%, the film suffers. And on our budgets and schedules, you really don't have the luxury of going back for reshoots or stopping production so you can find the right person or persons. It has taken us two years to find our core group of people. That really came together on Red Scream Vampyres and again on Terminal Descent. The people I worked with on those films are the people I want to work with on all my films. They get me and I get them and we share the belief that nothing is more important than the film. Nothing.

HS: When we first started to talk over email, you sent me a list of the films you have done and are working on. I will include that list now but I was wondering if you would like give a brief sneak peak into each film?

DW: Prison Of The Psychotic Damned (produced,wrote)...in release.

Red Scream Ghost Hunt (wrote, produced, directed) - in post production. Blair Witch meets Ghost Hunters. (2008 release)

Red Scream Vampyres (wrote, produced, directed) - in post production. Dark, demented, erotic, bloody...sometimes all at the same time. A total reworking of the vampire mythos.

FrightWorld (wrote, produced, directed) - completed. The spirit of a serial killer haunts a long closed halloween scream park. (2008 release)

Terminal Descent (wrote, produced, directed) - in post production. Urban Exploring Riot Grrrlz versus Mutant Hobos. (2008 release)

The Eldritch (wrote, produced, directed) - Captures Entertainment has this. No release date.

Movies Coming up:
Blind
The Cabin
Assemblages
Red Scream Gargoyle

HS: If you were given a nice large budget and were given a choice of any horror movie to remake, which one would you pick and why?

DW: Return of the Living Dead 3. I love that movie.

HS: Interesting choice! Once again David, I want to thank you for doing this interview with me. I enjoyed talking to you and getting to know you. I really appriciate that you took the time to do the interview. I hope you keep in touch with me about your projects so I can talk about them on Mermaid Heather. Please stop by in case any of my commenters might have a question for you.

Adding things

Just a quick note to say that I added a couple of things to Mermaid Heather. A few days ago I added a new blog to my list of blogs to check out. When you get a chance, please click over to The Film School Dropout. Sarah is just starting out, having started up her blog last month but already has more postings than I do for this month. I'm looking forward to reading more from you Sarah so don't disappoint me! Check it out soon.

I also added a poll. I tried this once before and didn't like how it looked plus it wasn't working more than it was working so I got rid of it. It is a different poll and it is in a different location but I think it is easier to find now and it looks better. If you want, cast a vote. I am interested in knowing what you all will have to say.

Also, I thought I would say that I should, hopefully, have one of my interviews I have going ready to post by this weekend. If all goes well, it will be ready by then. I could say who it is doing the interview but since it is late, I feel like being a little mean so you will just have to wait and see. If I get around to asking, maybe I will have yet another interview to work on. So much to do, so little time!

Monster Vs Werewolf

Since my sleep was all messed up this weekend, I ended up watching Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man (1943) late last night. I didn't start a review though since it can take me a while to do a write up. I have been doing some reading about it today and discovered that this film isn't just a direct sequel to The Wolf Man but also to The Ghost Of Frankenstein. I have yet to watch that series of films but I plan to. When I decided to watch all of these films, I had thrown around the idea of watching them in order by year but decided against that. Instead, I am just going to watch each set as I pick them up. I have every set and I don't think I can get through all of them this month. So, after this month, I will keep watching them but also work in Netflix stuff here and there also so it isn't sitting around here for a few months and I end up paying for the same movies over and over again. Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man is the last movie on The Wolf Man set of discs and I have no idea which set is the next one in my row of these sets. So your guess is as good as mine which one will be next in line.

Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man opens with some grave robbers. They have decided to break into the tomb the Talbot's own in order to get the jewels that Larry (Lon Chaney Jr.) was buried with. They find the family tomb and quickly figure out which one is Larry's. They open it up and find a very well preserved Larry covered in wolfbane. As they stand there thinking over the meaning of this, the light from the full moon washes over Larry. When one of the robbers tries to take a ring off Larry's hand, his other hand grabs the robber. His buddy, instead of helping, chickens out and takes off. A police officer finds Larry a little later passed out with a bleeding head. He is taken to a hospital from there and seems to have a little trouble remembering things at first. Of course no one believes that he can turn into a werewolf. He tells them who he is but after checking it out, they decide he can't be Larry Talbot because Larry died four years ago. After committing a murder as a werewolf, Larry escapes.

He goes in search for the only person he believes that can help him, Maleva (Maria Ouspenskaya). After a long search, he finds her. All Larry wants to do is die. He thinks that is the only way to get rid of the curse. Maleva can't help him but she thinks she knows someone that can. A great doctor, Dr. Frankenstein. They travel to Vasaria and discover that the doctor is dead. Larry tricks his daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), into meeting with him in hopes that she knows where her father kept his private writings about life and death. In the mean time, Larry discovers the creature (Bela Lugosi) in some ice and frees him. The doctor from the hospital, Dr. Mannering (Patric Knowles) catches up with Larry and agrees to help him but the doctor ends up having other plans.

The effects are about the same as what you will see in the previous films. The first transformation this time around has probably been the best one so far when it comes to the Wolf Man. The fade in's are barely noticeable the first time around but are a little more obvious durring the other transformations. Still, it was a better job all the way around. The Frankenstein monster on the other hand, while he looked good, I just wasn't very impressed with it. It was nothing against Lugosi really. I just don't think he makes all that great of a Frankenstein monster. Even though I haven't watched Frankenstein yet, I have watched plenty of clips and looked at plenty of pictures to know that Boris Karloff made an imposing looking monster. Lugosi looks too small so the monster wasn't all that scary looking to me. Lon Chaney Jr. once again pulls out a great performance. The supporting cast was also very good. The village people are folks I think I would want to stay away from since they were seemingly ready to hang anyone that they thought was going to cause problems.

The opening scene was a lot of fun to watch. Many people consider it the best scene in any of the Universal monster movies. Since I haven't watched them all yet, I can't say if it is or isn't but I did enjoy watching it a great deal. One thing I have wondered while watching these films is why they didn't try and show some blood at least. In one scene, the village people are walking through town and one of them is holding the dead body of a woman that was killed by the Wolf Man. I wasn't sure how she died. She didn't look hurt at all so I wasn't sure if she was dead or if she had passed out. The answer comes when someone says that her jugular was severed. Even if she didn't die from the blood loss, there would still be a lot of blood on her. I know that the black and white film isn't the best medium to show blood on but I still can't help but feel a little cheated.

Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man made it pretty clear that there would eventually be a battle between the two monsters even though Larry sort of befriends the Frankenstein monster. We do get that clash of monsters and it was fun to watch. However, it was much shorter than I thought it was going to be and in truth, it wasn't much of a battle. The ending left me very disappointed as well. It just basicly ended and I was left with the thoughts of "What? That's it?" I have read many a review that says this is an over looked classic. I liked this one but not as well as the original The Wolf Man and I'm thinking some of the others as well even though I haven't gotten to those yet. Still, it is worth watching.
3 out of 5 Never build a castle next to a dam

Almost Howling In London

Today when I got up I noticed that nothing was on TV, so I decided to watch a movie instead. I was a bit disappointed when I noticed I have only four posts so far this month and we are thirteen days in. As a whole, I haven't watched as many movies as I did last year. There has only been one month that I did more review than the year before and one month I did the same amount. Yes I actually pay attention to things like that. I know it's sad. Today I kept going with the werewolf collection that Universal put out for its classics. She-Wolf Of London (1946) was the next movie I decided to go with. I was thinking that maybe it had to do with Werewolf Of London since the title was close. I couldn't have been more wrong.

She-Wolf Of London wastes no time getting into the story. A murder has happened in one of the parks. Most think it was a wild dog but at least one person believes it was a werewolf. As the police investigate, we find a couple on horseback making a bet. They are about to race and the winner of the race gets to set their wedding date. Phyllis (June Lockhart) wants a winter wedding while Barry (Don Porter) wants to be married next week. Off they go and Barry ends up winning. As they sit there talking, they notice the police in the park and figure it is the spot where the murder happened the night before. As they listen to what the police are saying, Phyllis begins to get upset so they ride off.

Phyllis goes to her aunt's house. Once there one of the dogs gets her cornered and growls and barks at her. Aunt Martha (Sara Haden) comes to save the day though but doesn't understand why the dog is acting the way it is. We also meet Carol (Jan Wiley), Phyllis's cousin. The next morning Phyllis wakes up and discovers blood on her hands. The bottom of her robe is wet and her slippers have mud on them. Phyllis thinks something bad has happened, and the newspaper seems to confirm this when it reports that a small boy was killed in the park the night before. It would seem that a curse runs through Phyllis's family. Werewolves run in the family and she fears she is one.

Not much to report here for effects. We see a little blood on hands and someone ends up with a knife in them at some point, but nothing too major here. The acting was pretty good. I didn't know who June Lockhart was until I started reading other reviews for She-Wolf Of London. I was never a fan of Lost In Space so I didn't know she was the mother in that series. Everyone did a good job in this film but I couldn't get into it as much as I have the other films on these discs. I think that was because of the story and not so much the acting.

I was starting to think something was up when we never got to see a transformation or even a death. By the end of the movie, which has a "twist" ending, I found out that I was right. She-Wolf Of London really doesn't belong on this set. It is more of a thiller/mystery type of movie. It isn't a bad movie really. I have seen much better thrillers but it isn't one of the worst either. It is just that being on a horror collection disk that deals with werewolves then that is what I was expecting to get. She-Wolf Of London is only an hour long so you can do worse things with that hour. If you like thrillers or mystery type movies then you should give this one a watch. As a horror movie though, it leaves much to be desired.
2 out of 5 Sheep in wolf's clothing

Howling In London

I started to write a review for Werewolf Of London (1935) on Saturday. I got the picture uploaded and then I just sat there staring at the screen. I discovered that with everything that has been going on for me lately, I just wasn't in the mood to be writing. I don't want to get into everything here but I will say I think things are starting to look up at last. I'm also sorry for the slight delay in getting another Universal monster movie review up. I have been wanting to see The Burning since I found out about it. I bought it almost a month ahead of when I put the review for it on here. I wanted to watch it right then but I waited for the film club day. I pushed Under The Raven's Wing up because I promised I would get the review up before it was due to be shown at the convention I talked about in the review. Speaking of that movie, I don't feel I need to explain myself but please don't think that because I was asked to review it I gave it a good rating. That isn't the case at all. If it had turned out I didn't like that film, I would have flat out said so. I asked Susan Adriensen for an interview, which I was planing on posting along with the review but that plan has changed, before I even got the film so I was taking a risk of not liking it before getting to the interview. I guess I'm saying I'm not doing reviews to get anything out of them. I have fun writing them and I have fun expressing what I thought of each film that I review.

Werewolf Of London is about Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) who is a Botanist. He is looking for a flower in Tibet that is supposed to capture the light of the moon. It is a rare flower that only grows in Tibet and, as we see later, it only blooms when the moon is out. He finds the flower but little does he know he is being followed by a werewolf. Before he can harvest the flower, he is attacked by the werewolf but survives. Once back home he sets about trying to figure out this flower he has found. This manages to make his wife (Valerie Hobson) mad at him since he spends so much time with his flowers instead of her. When Lisa's old sweetheart shows up (Lester Matthews), it adds even more tension between the couple. Wilfred gets his own visitor, Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland), who tells Wilfred that he was the werewolf that attacked him in Tibet and if Wilfred isn't careful, he will go after the people who he loves the most. Will Wilfred take heed of this warning or will he hold to his beliefs that there is no such thing as a werewolf?

The effects were done by Jack P. Pierce who also did the effects for The Wolf Man. An interesting little history/triva is that the makeup for The Wolf Man was going to be used for Werewolf In London but Henry Hull wanted a less hairy version since he didn't like how long it took to put all that makeup on. It took six hours to put it on and three hours to take it off. It looks fine but I didn't like it as well. The first werewolf we get to see looked out right silly to me (see above picture). Thankfully, it gets better as the movie goes on. We never see that first werewolf again, just the Wilfred werewolf (see below). The first transformation we get to see is done in a great way. As Hull passes by some pillars and each time he comes out from behind one, he has changed even more. I actually liked the way that transformation was done instead of the fade overs.

While I enjoyed the acting, I felt that Henry Hull's acting was a little stiff. I didn't like him in the lead as much as I liked Lon Chaney Jr. That is nothing against Hull as an actor at all. One thing some people liked about Werewolf In London was the comedy that is found through out the film. Spring Byington is one of those people. As Miss Ettie Coombes, she sees a frog being fed to a plant and gets disgusted by it. Ethel Griffies and Zeffie Tilbury also add some comedy. They manage the bar and apartments that are for rent in a town Wilfred goes to in order to get as far away from his wife has he can. They are usually drunk and have friendly disagreements that usually results in one of them being knocked out.

Once Wilfred turned into the werewolf, I was never sure if he could remember the events while being a werewolf or not. He seemed to at times and other times he seemed surprised when reading the newspaper and learning of a death. At least he didn't change clothes but he did put on a cape and hat before leaving while a werewolf. There was some lore I had never heard of before. A werewolf must kill at least one person. If that doesn't happen, he will be stuck that way forever. The flower actually helps a werewolf but I will let you find out how on your own.

I don't remember when I watched this one. It was last week sometime that I do know. I decided to watch Werewolf Of London because I was curious about it. I noticed that it was compared to The Wolf Man a lot in reviews so I decided I would watch it next. Werewolf Of London is no The Wolf Man but it is worth checking out all the same. It is often considered the first Hollywood werewolf movie. I think it is worth a watch for that alone.

3 out of 5 No silver bullet for this werewolf

Goth Murders

As I noted in my last post, for The Burning, I said I would do one more review as I was doing the Universal monster reviews. I decided to go ahead and get it done so I could get back to the "regularly scheduled program." A little while back I got an email from someone asking if I would be interested in doing a review of the film they had finished. I had to read the email a couple of times to make sure I was understanding it correctly. I have had films suggested to me to watch and possibly review but I never had anyone want me to watch and do a review of a film they made before. It was a very nice surprise and I felt honored that I was asked. Since Under The Raven's Wing (2007) has not yet been released to dvd (if I'm wrong about this, I'm sure I will be corrected), I don't have a cover picture to add (Update, I have one now!). Even so, you can go to Under The Raven's Wing to check out the trailer and the web site. Once you have done that, come back here to read the review.

Under The Raven's Wing is about a man who is only known as The Director (Coy DeLuca). He is making a movie about Raven (Kimberly Amato), Angel (Kamilla Sofie) and Jessie (Jessica Palette). Raven has given him permission to film them because she wants to spread her philosophy through him. Raven's philosophy is that death is but a transcendence and that it is the greatest gift a person can give to another. Don't dare call it murder in front of Raven. She will quickly correct you and she isn't all that nice about it either. Raven likes to control everyone that is in her life and that includes The Director and his film. While Raven has a mean streak in her when it comes to Angel and Jessie, it is also obvious that they all respect and love each other. The Director wants to make a movie about them and the murder they committed. He also has an agenda of his own and soon enough there is a power struggle that leaves The Director fearing for his life.

You will find some effects but they are very light. Under The Raven's Wing is more of a character study with a dab of horror overtones to it. Because it is more of a character study, the acting needs to be good and I'm very happy to say that it is better than good. Each of the three actresses nailed their parts. You can give credit to the director/writer Susan Adriensen for giving each of the characters an interesting history. But the history would not have worked without the actresses giving strong performances. I really can't stress enough just how good each of them were in this film. They all made their characters seem very real.

I was a little disappointed that Under The Raven's Wing wasn't a horror film as I define them, but, just because a film falls out of my definition doesn't mean I won't like it. Of course I loved the acting. I think I made that point already. Learning about each of the women was also a very nice treat. It really helped me understand them and feel for them. Those two things together really helped keep me interested in the film and wanting to learn more. The only thing I can point out that I didn't like is that the film managed to confuse me at times. This happened more at the start of the film than at any other time. I think if I were to watch it again it would make more sense to me. But my first time watching it, it was a bit confusing. This was just because it jumps from scene to scene. Some are quick scenes while others linger longer. Some of the scenes have dialogue while some don't.

Once Under The Raven's Wing gets passed these opening scenes, we get to the meat of the movie. There have been a couple of other movies that I have reviewed that were slightly more of a character study than a horror movie. Those didn't come away with the best scores though. Under The Raven's Wing is different since it drew me in and kept me interested. If these are the kind of movies that interest you, you can't go wrong with this film. I was recently told that the film was accepted as part of the Full Moon Horror Con so check out the site and if you plan to attend make sure you at least check out Under The Raven's Wing while you are there!
4 out of 5 Please don't transcend me Raven

Film Club Day Part Seven

I almost let today slip by without a Film Club review. I was going to write up a different review and decided to check other blogs before I did some writing of my own. It is a good thing I did because I had managed to forget when the due date for The Burning (1981) was. As you can see, today was that day. I don't think my readers will be too upset if I review this movie instead of my planned Universal monster movie reviews. Actually I will need to do that one more time this week as I promised I would review another movie this week. I'm very happy that Final Girl picked this movie for the Film Club. I afraid to admit it but I didn't even know about this movie until last year. I don't know how it got passed my radar but it did. Once I did know about it, I wanted to see it. It is now out on dvd so let's see what I thought about it.

The Burning starts like many other horror films have, a prank gone wrong. A group of boys at a summer camp have something of a hate/hate relationship with the camp's caretaker. Everyone complains about how mean he is so this group of boys decide to try and scare him. Late one night, one of the boys sneaks into Cropsy's (Lou David) room and places a skull with candles in the eye sockets and worms crawling all over it. Once back outside they tap on his window in order to wake Cropsy up. When he sees the skull, he screams and tries to knock the skull away. Instead, it lands on the bed and catches the bed and his legs of fire. The whole cabin catchs fire as he tries to get out. Once he does get out he runs into the woods.

Five years later, he gets released from the hospital. The doctors weren't able to do much for Cropsy so he was left horribly disfigured as we see late in the film. The first thing he does is go looking for a lady of the night. Once she gets a good look at him though, she just wants him to leave. Cropsy has other plans though and kills her. From there we go back to camp. We find out during a camp fire story that the camp that the burning took place in is in the area but has long since closed up. Cropsy doesn't much care though. He is out looking for someone to kill and he finds plenty of people around at the camp.

The effects were done by Tom Savini fresh off Friday The 13th. Tom works his magic in The Burning. From what I understand, the rated version was heavily cut so I don't know what effects made it into this version since I have only watched the unrated version. What you will find is a pair of scissors being twisted in a tummy, a few fingers getting cut off, blades going into (and out of) a few necks to name a few of the effects. Only once did I see a wound being made and when the blade leaves the wound, it is no longer there. I admit I was half watching to see if that would be the case though.

I enjoyed the acting. I didn't have a problem with how any of the actors played their characters. In fact, I would say that The Burning has some of the more likeable characters in a slasher movie. Brian Matthews and Leah Ayres take the lead roles and both do a pretty good job with them. What was fun for me was seeing Jason Alexander and Brian Backer. Holly Hunter is also in the film. Even though I was trying to spot her, I didn't see her. Ned Eisenburg and Fisher Stevens have both gone on to many movies and working on TV shows. You will also find Larry Joshua, Carrick Glenn, Carolyn Houlihan and Shelly Bruce.

As much as I liked the effects and even the acting, there were still some things I didn't like. Everyone talks about the raft killing scene. It is a great scene but it made me wonder how Cropsy could hide in a canoe and not be seen until they are right on top of it and he pops up. Second of all, how does he manage to kill people and not fall out of the canoe? Another scene is with Glazer and his girlfriend. Cropsy again manages to hide in a way that is in plain sight but yet is not seen until the very last moment.

These things didn't take away from the film, just made me wonder a bit. Some people seemed to like the music but I thought it added a lot to things. I liked the theme music for Cropsy. If you like your slashers, if you like your gory effects, you will need to watch this movie. I'm really surprised that it didn't take off with fans of the time. There are a few extras to be found on the dvd version. There is a commentary by director Tony Maylam and film journalist Alan Jones. There is also a feature called Blood 'N' Fire Memories. This is basicly Tom Savini talking about his memories of the film. This is also a must see. Check this one out when you can!
4 out of 5 Hoping I will be able to hide as well as Cropsy some day

Howl Like A Wolf

I'm not sure when I decided to do this. About a month or two ago, I decided that I was going to watch the Universal monster classics durring the month of October. The original plan was to watch a movie each day but, once again, life has a way of messing up plans I make. I guess that is why I try to avoid making plans in advance. I had some time today to sit down for a little while and pulled The Wolf Man (1941) out of my collection. Sometime back my dad bought me a collection of all the Universal monster movies. He told me that if I wanted to be a fan of horror movies then I needed to watch the classics. I have yet to watch them so that played partly in my deciding to watch them this month. Gives me an excuses to actually watch them. Why The Wolf Man? It just happened to be the first in the line of discs is all.

The Wolf Man is about Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.). Larry is returning to his homeland after the death of his brother. He meets with his father, Sir John (Claude Rains), who wants Larry to take over for his brother in the nearby village. While they talk, a telescope arrives. Larry helps his dad install it since Larry seems to be good with tools. While Larry is looking through it, to make sure it works, he has it pointed at the village and spys Gwen Conliffe (Eveyln Ankers) in her room getting ready for the day. He heads to the village to meet and flirt heavily with Gwen. She works in her father's store where Larry buys a cane with a silver wolf's head on it. They see some gypsies ride into town and Larry tries to make a date with Gwen. Even though she keeps turning Larry down, she ends up waiting for him but she surprises him by taking a friend along. They head off to see the gypsies in order to have their fortune told. The friend goes first and Bela (Bela Lugosi) sees a pentagram in her hand and sends her away. Moments later, a wolf is heard and the friend gets attacked by a wolf. Larry hears her scream and runs to find her but is too late. He does manage to kill the wolf with his cane but not before the wolf manages to bite him. Bela's mother, Maleva (Maria Ouspenskaya), tries to warn Larry that he is now a werewolf but Larry doesn't believe in such things.

The one effect I have heard about many times over is the change into a werewolf. While it is nothing to what effects people can do now days, it was still fun to see. I was a bit surprised that they just show the legs and feet changing most of the time though. No blood of course but I wasn't expecting any for a film this old. Lon Chaney Jr. in his werewolf makeup does look scary and I'm sure it would make me scream if he jumped out in front of me. As with many older films, effects take a back seat to acting. Lon Chaney Jr., in what many consider his best acting, was fun to watch and I'm glad they gave him a lot of things to actually act instead of just running around as a werewolf all the time. I was afraid that might be the case since he is credited simply as the Wolf Man. I also enjoyed the very pretty Evelyn Ankers. I thought these two had a wonderful chemistry about them so I was surprised to read that they didn't get along at all off the set.

The Wolf Man surprised me in other ways. Mainly in the fact that it doesn't take the time to always explain things. We never learn what Larry is supposed to do in the village. Bela turns into an actual wolf but Larry doesn't. Something else that bothered me is that the werewolf seems to take the time to change clothes before going out on the hunt. The werewolf wears a long sleeve shirt and pants that are buckled up. I understand the reason behind this. Much better for the actor to wear those clothes than to try and transform his whole body into a werewolf but it would have been nice if the actor had been wearing them before the transformation.

Even with these problems that I had, I fully see why The Wolf Man is considered a classic. With such strong acting, it is hard not to love this one. The werewolf himself also really impressed me. What surprised me the most though was how clear the movie is. There was no static or flaws in the film itself that I could notice. It is light on extras though. However, it does have three other movies to watch in the collection which I plan to get to. If you like this and other movies I will be reviewing here sometime, I suggest you look for the Legacy Collections. Worth getting, believe me.
4 out of 5 What is with him always choking his pray first?