Archive for christopher lee

« Older Entries

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (2012)

Posted in 2012, Based on a Classic Novel, Cinema Knife Fights, Epics, Fantasy, Fantasy Films, Wizards with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 17, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE HOBBIT:  AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (2012)
By Michael Arruda

Hobbit Poster

(The Scene: A cave in Middle-Earth.  Gollum sits admiring his ring.)

GOLLUM:  My precious!

(A large boulder falls from above, landing on Gollum with a loud THUD! flattening him.  The ring flies through the air through an opening in the cave where it’s caught in midair by MICHAEL ARRUDA who happens to be walking along the green mountain path above.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Cool!  (looks at ring).  This will make a nice stocking stuffer.  (Puts it in his pocket.  Looks over his shoulder).  Come on guys!  Pick up the pace.  This isn’t a leisurely stroll.  We’ve got a job to do!

(Behind him, a group of DWARVES march along.)

MA:  Figures L.L. would take this weekend off, leaving me to babysit a bunch of dwarves from Middle-Earth.

(The DWARVES start singing “Hi ho!  Hi ho!  It’s off to work we go!”)

MA:  Seriously?  Enough with the singing already!  This isn’t Snow White!  This is Cinema Knife Fight! Jeesh!  (one of the DWARVES flips him the bird).  Anyway, we still have a ways to go before we reach our destination, which will give me time to review today’s movie, THE HOBBIT:  AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (2012), Peter Jackson’s follow-up to his acclaimed LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy.

Based on the novel “The Hobbit” by J.R.R. Tolkien, which he wrote before “The Lord of the Rings,” THE HOBBIT:  AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (2012) tells the story of a younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman).  The movie opens with an older Bilbo (Ian Holm) preparing to write down the events from his youth in order to share the story with young Frodo (Elijah Wood).

This time the plot involves dwarves, gold, and a dragon that drives the dwarves from their kingdom because they had stolen gold from him.  Years later, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) decides to help the dwarves get their kingdom back, and he sees Bilbo as the key to the dwarves’ success.  As he says at one point in the movie, while others view great strength as the way to fight evil, he sees the little things in life as being the most effective, which is why he views Bilbo so highly.

DWARF #1:  That’s a bunch of tree hugging nonsense if you ask me!  Give me a bad-ass brawny warrior with a sharp sword any day of the week, not some soft-spoken hoity-toity Hobbit!

DWARF #2:  I like Bilbo.  And I don’t think hoity-toity is quite the word you’re looking for.  You can’t be hoity-toity and soft-spoken at the same time, can you?

DWARF #1:  Shut up!  Who asked you?

MA:  Much against his better judgment, yet unable to resist an adventure, Bilbo sets off with the dwarves to reclaim their kingdom, having to fight off all sorts of dark forces along the way, including Orcs, goblins, and giant spiders.  What about that dragon?  Sorry folks.  You’ll have to wait until the next movie.  Yeah, bummer, and that’s one of the problems with THE HOBBIT.  Its story is split among three movies.  Something tells me one movie might have been a better idea.

And that’s it in terms of a plot summary, because really, in this movie, the plot is secondary.  Does it matter all that much why hobbits and dwarves are battling evil forces?  Not really.  What matters is their exploits make for a grand spectacle on the big screen.

Now, while I liked this movie—it’s so visually satisfying how can you not like it?—I certainly didn’t love it.  It has a lot of drawbacks.  To me, the biggest drawback is it’s hindered by the feelings of “I’ve seen this before” and “they’ve gone to the well too many times.”  Simply put, it’s nowhere near as good as the LORD OF THE RINGS movies.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy had a stronger story, better characters, and was much more compelling than THE HOBBIT.  There are a lot of memorable characters in THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, characters I really cared about.  In THE HOBBIT, we have Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf, and some dwarves.

Bilbo Bagginsteams up with a bunch of dwarves in THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED ADVENTURE.

Bilbo Baggins teams up with a bunch of dwarves in THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY.

DWARF #1:  Will you listen to him?  We get no respect!

DWARF #2:  I heard him say he liked the movie.

DWARF #1:  Yeah, and now he’s knocking us dwarves for not being interesting characters.  I suppose he would have rather seen a movie about elves.  Fool!

MA:  Comparing THE HOBBIT to the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy might be unfair, but since they were both made by Peter Jackson, and both based on works by Tolkien, I think you have to, and in doing so, in viewing THE HOBBIT as part of the same franchise, it plays like the fourth film in a series, and as such, at times, it seems tired and redundant.

Again, this might be unfair, but in order to be completely successful, THE HOBBIT would have had to show me something different, something more, than what I saw in the LORD OF THE RINGS movies, which were phenomenal, all three of them.  THE HOBBIT doesn’t do this, it doesn’t have anything extra that those three previous movies didn’t have, and as a result, in spite of its impressive visuals, it comes off as a disappointment.

Long story short, I liked the LORD OF THE RINGS movies much better than THE HOBBIT.  Hands down.  THE HOBBIT, while good, isn’t excellent.  And another negative here is the knowledge that we have two more of these movies coming.  Really?  Seriously?  It reminds me of SON OF KONG (1933) following up KING KONG (1933).    SON was a likable enough movie, entertaining and well-made, but it wasn’t KING KONG, not by a long shot, and with that in mind, would you be looking forward to two more SON OF KONG movies?  I know I wouldn’t be.

In THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, Christopher Lee’s Saruman leads armies of Orcs in battle and is pretty much the main baddie in the series.  In THE HOBBIT, Christopher Lee’s Saruman sits at a table and has a conversation.   There you go.  One is all out and intense, the other is a dinner table conversation.

The main reason to see THE HOBBIT—and really, the only reason, unless you’re a huge fan of Tolkien—is its visuals.  THE HOBBIT is truly impressive to behold on the big screen.  You have to give Peter Jackson a lot of credit.  He must own the patent on Middle-Earth or something.  Everything about the world he creates in these movies, including THE HOBBIT, looks authentic, which is amazing, considering it’s a world of pure fantasy.

thehobbit

I didn’t like the story, I didn’t really like the characters, but the scenery, costumes, make-up, CGI effects, and the entire feel to this film lifted it to a level that, without these things, wouldn’t exist.  Take all that way, and I don’t like this movie.  I enjoyed looking at this film and was completely impressed by what I saw on the big screen.  Unfortunately, the story wasn’t on par with the visuals, but I can’t deny that the world Jackson created was a remarkable one to see.

So, yes, Peter Jackson does an excellent job at the helm, although, truth be told, no one scene in this movie truly stands out as being memorable.  It’s just the entire package that’s memorable.

I had more trouble with the screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro.  The story wasn’t as strong as the LORD OF THE RINGS movies, nor was the dialogue as memorable.  I’m not sure it’s entirely their fault, as in general, the story told in Tolkein’s “The Hobbit” simply isn’t as compelling as the story told in “The Lord of the Rings” books. And again, I go back to, “They’re making three movies about this?”

The acting is okay.  Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo Baggins, and he easily gives the best performance in the movie.  But just how excited can one get about Bilbo Baggins?

DWARF #1:   Not very!

MA:  Bilbo is kind of a Hobbit version of Bob Newhart.  Nice guy, funny, but not exactly all that exciting.

Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf, and as you would expect, he again is very good.  But truthfully, no one else in the cast really stood out.  Compared to the cast of characters in THE LORD OF THE RINGS, the dwarves in this one are inferior.

DWARF #1:  I’m going to kick that guy in the teeth!

DWARF #2:  Can you reach his teeth?

DWARF #1:  Shut up!”

MA:  Andy Serkis fares well once again as his CGI alter-ego, Gollum, but we’ve seen this shtick before.  It’s no longer new and refreshing.  But hey, Christopher Lee is on hand once more as Saruman, and even for just one scene, it’s great to see him.  It’s 2012 and he’s still making movies.  Amazing.

And I saw it in 3D.  Do I even need to say it anymore?  The 3D effects, hardly noticeable, are nothing more than an afterthought, and certainly aren’t worth the extra admission price.

Bottom line, there wasn’t anything unexpected about THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY.  It played out pretty much exactly the way I expected it to play out.  It’s an expensive, well-crafted, near-perfect-looking movie that unfortunately has a weak story and blah characters that prevent it from being anything truly special.

It’s like picking up a book with weak writing that has unbelievably amazing illustrations.  You can’t praise the writing, but you can’t deny the illustrations are remarkable and fun to look at it.

So, it’s with this line of thinking that I give the film three knives.  It easily could have been a two knife movie, if not for the strength of its visual package.

(Stops at a large tree.  Turns to dwarves behind him.)

Okay, guys, we’re here.

DWARF #1:  We came all this way just to see a tree?  What the hell?

DWARF # 2:  It’s a very nice looking tree.

DWARF #1:  Shut up!

MA:  It’s not just any tree.  It used to belong to the Keebler Elves before they closed shop and outsourced.

DWARF #1:  What?  Are we going to make cookies now?  I’m a warrior, not a baker!

DWARF #2:  I like cookies.

DWARF #1:  Shut up!

MA: Something better than cookies.  I have with me – (pulls out a piece of paper) – the secret recipe for Twinkies!  It’s yours if you want it.  Something to fall back on if the warrior thing doesn’t work out.

DWARF #1:  What the hell is a Twinkie?

DWARF #2:  It’s a yellow sponge cake with cream in the middle.

DWARF #1:  Those things that last forever?  Hmm.  Sounds magical.  I just might like it.

DWARF #2:  May I suggest a new name? The Dwinkie.

MA:  And on that note, we’ll say so long, as my friends the dwarves debate whether or not to get into the baking business.

DWARF #2:  Can I get my face on the box and become the face of the franchise?  (mugs for the camera.)

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY ~ three knives!

Leave A Comment »

Cinema Knife Fight: THE WICKER TREE (2010)

Posted in 2012, 70s Horror, Cinema Knife Fights, Cult Movies, Dark Comedies, DVD Review, Indie Horror, Jenny Orosel Columns, LL Soares Reviews, Pagans, Plot Twists, Sequels, Twist Endings, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , on March 14, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE WICKER TREE (2010)
DVD Review by L.L. Soares and Jenny Orosel

(THE SCENE: A castle in rural Scotland. L.L. SOARES and JENNY OROSEL stand in front of group of locals. LS is wearing jeans, a jean jacket and a cowboy hat and JO is wearing a colorful May Queen’s dress)

LS: Howdy folks. So I guess we’re here to review the movie, THE WICKER TREE (2010).

JO: (smiles)  Aye, we are.

LS: Well, let’s not keep these people waiting much longer. Why don’t you tell these fine folks a little about the movie.

JO: There was a chunk of time in the 60s and 70s where British horror was like the perfect date—it didn’t take itself seriously and only wanted to show you a good time, with a little bit of naughtiness thrown in here and there.  The Hammer studios were masters of this genre, with Amicus tagging closely behind, and this era brought us the wickedly fun THE WICKER MAN (1973), a tale of Paganism on a remote Scottish island.  Now, almost forty years later, director Robin Hardy returns to that lovely heathen isle with THE WICKER TREE (2010), with all the affection for pure entertainment he carried in his heart during the original.

LS: There has been talk of a sequel for years now. Seeing THE WICKER TREE, I was just glad that this movie finally got made. Robin Hardy based it on his novel “Cowboys for Christ” (which was the original name of this movie). Hardy directed the original film, too, which was “inspired” by the novel “Ritual” by David Pinner, and Anthony Shaffer wrote the screenplay for WICKER MAN.

JO: THE WICKER TREE opens with dancing shirtless men that look straight out of a party at the Burning Man festival.

LS: How apt!

JO: Then we cut to a small Texas church, and the caricatures begin.  Folding chairs are filled with jean-clad, cowboy-hat-wearing folks about to send off two missionaries, country singer Beth Boothby (Brittania Nicol) and her boyfriend Steve (Henry Garrett), to Scotland where “they don’t even believe in angels!”  Or chastity, as is later brought up.  So we start with two people totally unaware that, in fact, Scotland is a predominately Christian nation.  Their enthusiasm and ignorance might not serve them well for the rest of the movie, but it will serve the plot well.

LS: Caricatures is right. They’re pretty goofy characters. And there weren’t many instances when they seemed like real people to me. Although Beth does kind of redeem herself by the end.

JO: When they first arrive in Scotland, Beth performs for sold-out houses.

LS: Yeah, Beth is a singer back in the States whose career is just starting to take off. I thought it was odd that someone who is just on the cusp of becoming a star would suddenly leave the country to perform missionary work. Then we find out that this isn’t her first time in the spotlight.

JO: Yes, a local reporter uncovers her previous career as a secular country-western singer whose biggest hit was “Trailer Trash Slut.” (subtlety is not this movie’s strongest point).  She and Steve retreat to a small village off the coast, lured by the notion that, although not Christians themselves, the villagers will be open to the messages of Jesus and chastity.

LS: The “Trailer Trash Slut” video is actually pretty funny. But another big reason why Beth and Steve head to the country is that, when they going knocking on doors in the more “citified” parts of Scotland, all they get is doors slammed in their faces. The couple who actually hosted their visit, Sir Lachlan Morrison (Graham McTavish) and his wife Delia (Jacqueline Leonard), suggest they might have more luck in the country, and bring them out to an island where the Morrisons pretty much own everything.

JO: I can’t imagine the experience of watching THE WICKER TREE without having any knowledge of THE WICKER MAN.  Part of the suspense for the next forty-five minutes is knowing what happened in the first movie, and knowing what the villagers like to do to Christian outsiders.   During this time we get to know the villagers, we find out that due to a nuclear accident, the men of the island are sterile and we see Steve fail at his chastity vows the moment he’s faced with a beautiful woman named Lolly (Honeysuckle Weeks – what a name!) bathing in the nude in the local pond (after first noticing her horse.  Having lived in Dallas for the past four years, I can say that is the most realistically Texas part of the movie).

LS: So much for Steve’s purity ring!

(A MAN in the crowd before them stands up)

MAN: And when will we be eating the haggis!

LS: What are you talking about?

MAN: The haggis, man! I’ve got me a mighty hunger, don’t ye?

LS: I don’t think I’ll be eating any haggis. That stuff sounds gross.

MAN: How dare ye insult the official food of Scotland! Off with his head I say!

(The rest of the crowd bursts with noise and the people argue)

JO: Sit down, sit down. We’re not done with our review yet. Don’t you want to see where this goes?

MAN: I suppose so. (he sits back down and the crowd grows quiet again)

JO: The first part of THE WICKER TREE was rather unexciting, but the actors made it interesting to watch, and knowing what happens in the WICKER world, the tension built.  Plus, Christopher Lee made a cameo and he’s like bacon—everything is better with Christopher Lee.

LS: I didn’t find the first part of the movie that unexciting. I thought it was pretty watchable, actually. And yes, if you didn’t see the original WICKER MAN, then you won’t fully appreciate this one. You don’t have to see the first one to understand THE WICKER TREE – it is completely self-contained – but if you saw the first movie, there’s a different level of suspense throughout, as you anticipate what is going to happen to these two naïve Americans.

As for Christopher Lee, it’s nice to see him here, especially since he played the pivotal role of Lord Summerisle in the original movie. But it’s definitely a case of “blink and you’ll miss him.” Lee is only in one short scene, (the credits call his role simply “Old Man”) and it’s a flashback, so don’t turn this one on expecting to see Lee in a major role here. I know he’s pretty old and not as active as he once was, but I was still disappointed he didn’t play a bigger part in THE WICKER TREE.

JO: During the last half hour, it suddenly turns into a horror movie.  Our missionaries meet with their inevitable fates.  Steve’s was especially shocking, both in what they do to him and the style in which they filmed it.  For that brief sequence the movie hovered somewhere between 28 DAYS LATER (2002) and HOSTEL (2005).  It definitely jarred me out of the movie for a little while.  I’m still not sure if that was a good thing or not.

LS: Oh, I thought it was definitely a good thing. The movie is pretty much all leading up to that part, and you want it to have some impact – and it does. By the way, the way the pagans get the Christian missionaries to take part in their annual festivities is to make Beth their May Queen, for the feast of May Day, the rite of spring. She gets to wear a fancy gown and everything. And Steve gets the symbolic role as her “Laddie.” What exactly he has to do as the Laddie is explained as the movie goes on, culminating in the jarring scene Jenny mentioned.

JO: Once we return to Beth’s plight, the movie goes back into fun mode.  In fact, the end shot looked straight out of some of the best Hammer moments.

LS: Yeah, the last half hour or so of this movie is the best part of it. But the very end seemed a bit rushed – we’re treated to several short scenes and are left to make our own deductions. I know it was the case where the viewer has to fill in the blanks themselves, but it would have been nice to get a little more information. Of course, I can’t explain that further, since I don’t want to give anything away.

JO: THE WICKER TREE is not without its faults.  As I mentioned earlier, it is far from subtle.  The characters tend to be over-the-top stereotypes, from Steve’s ever-present cowboy hat to the gratuitous kilt usage.  The gags are broad and blatant.  Other than the level of horror in Steve’s demise, there are no surprises.  But rather than try to hide its flaws (think TROLL 2 (1990)), director Hardy revels in them.  It fully embraces the campiness it was destined to have.  As long as you realize going into it that THE WICKER TREE is more humor than horror, you can have as much fun watching this little flick as they seemed to have while making it.

LS: Here is where I kind of disagree with you. I don’t think THE WICKER TREE needed to embrace a campiness at all. The original WICKER MAN played it completely straight and serious and the ending was all the more powerful for that. This time around, Hardy makes THE WICKER TREE so silly in spots that the movie does come off as a comedy for most of its running time. Making fun of the dumb missionaries who think they’re there to do God’s work. But I thought this was the completely wrong tone for a sequel. There was no reason why THE WICKER TREE couldn’t be as serious as its predecessor, without the broad stereotypes and the inside jokes and the winks to the audience. The only scenes I really liked were when the movie stopped playing around and got down and dirty. It’s almost like Hardy was trying to make a parody of his original movie at times, and I just don’t understand why.

(Another man jumps up. This one is holding out his arm upon which sits a raven)

LS: Oh no, it’s that annoying guy Beame from the movie! He’s always carrying around that raven and he’s always talking in rhymes.

BEAME: Ye’re right that Beame be’s my name, and that I stand here so. But bored of your review I very am, and I suggest you go!

LS: Get bent! We’re finishing this.

JO: Yeah! Give us a chance, won’t you.

BEAME: I shall hold my tongue for a minute more. But then I’ll be compelled to show you the door.

LS: Sit down, you village idiot!

(BEAME sits down)

LS: Where was I?

Oh yes. THE WICKER MAN is a genuine classic, and that’s mainly because of its power to surprise you. There really aren’t any surprises in THE WICKER TREE. You know something bad is going to happen to these two bumpkins, and it’s just a matter of how. If Hardy wanted to be truly subversive, he would have given us a twist we didn’t see coming, and completely surprise us in a totally new way. I mean, he’s had 40 years to come up with something fresh!

JO: That makes sense, but I can also see where Hardy was coming from.  The big reveal was such an integral part of the original, and he probably figured audiences wouldn’t fall for it a second time, and tried for something completely different.  I’ve seen a lot of people angry at the tone of this one because they were expecting THE WICKER MAN again.  Perhaps if he’d stuck with the COWBOYS FOR CHRIST title, it would have gone off better.

COWBOYS FOR CHRIST was the original title of THE WICKER TREE.

LS: Maybe you’re right. But I think THE WICKER TREE was a missed opportunity. Robin Hardy had a chance to make a movie every bit as memorable as THE WICKER MAN, and instead he gave us something that was more of a light comedy in comparison. I was disappointed.

(FIRST MAN jumps up again)

MAN: What are ye wearing pants for! Here in bonny ol’ Scotland, men wear kilts! Get a kilt on ye, I say!

LS: We’re in the middle of a review here. Stop interrupting, please. Besides, I’m not interested in wearing one of those funny skirts.

MAN: A funny skirt? Ye call a kilt a “funny skirt?” HOW DARE you insult the official garb of the Scotsmen! Off with his head, I say!

(Rest of the audience begins arguing again)

JO: Please, please, let us finish. There is no reason to be rude.

MAN: Okay, I’ll let it go now, for your sake, lassie. But there is only so much a Scotsman can tolerate!

(MAN sits back down)

LS: Ahem.

I guess we should also mention that THE WICKER TREE is not really a sequel at all. It’s kind of a “reimagining,” since it involves completely different characters and a completely different outcome. It simply takes the basic premise of an unsuspecting “innocent” finding themselves among a group of pagans with a hidden agenda, and does a variation on that theme. And THE WICKER TREE is in no way even close to being the movie THE WICKER MAN was.

If anything, I found another recent British movie, KILL LIST, to be more in the spirit of the original WICKER MAN, in the way it sets up a story to shock us with a completely unexpected ending. And it plays it completely for chills. KILL LIST is a totally different movie, but it sets out to jar us in a way similar to the way THE WICKER MAN did, and THE WICKER TREE doesn’t even come close to doing that.

JO: Well, I really enjoyed THE WICKER TREE for what it was. I give it three bloody knives.

LS: I didn’t hate it, and it was a fun flick, but it wasn’t the movie I was hoping for when I heard they were making a sequel to THE WICKER MAN. I wish they’d gone the serious route. I wanted a good meal, and they gave me a snack. I give it two bloody knives.

(The crowd gathered before them claps. LS and JO bow.)

(MAN jumps up again)

MAN: Are ye finished, finally?

LS: Yeah, yeah, we’re finished.

MAN: Well, goodie for ye. Ye go around spouting on about bloody knives. Well then, we’ll very well give ‘em to ye!

(Everyone in the crowd is now holding either a knife or a hatchet. They proceed to chase LS and JO around the castle in fast motion, as the “Benny Hill” theme plays)

-THE END-

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares and Jenny Orosel

L.L. Soares gives THE WICKER TREE ~ two bloody knives!

Jenny Orosel gives THE WICKER TREE ~three bloody knives.

Leave A Comment »

Meals for Monsters: THE WICKER MAN (1973)

Posted in 2012, 70s Horror, Classic Films, Cult Movies, Jenny Orosel Columns, Meals for Monsters, Pagans, Twist Endings with tags , , , , , , , on February 28, 2012 by knifefighter

MEALS FOR MONSTERS: THE WICKER MAN
Review and Recipes by Jenny Orosel

THE WICKER MAN (the original 1973 version —not the 2006 root canal of a remake) is a rarity among movies.  There’s a sense of playfulness to it, a little absurdity, Christopher Lee in a dress, a couple musical numbers…then an ending that completely blindsides you.  You can have as much fun the second time around watching, if not more.  Thus, it’s perfect to invite friends over for a flick and some food.

A police sergeant is called to a small Scottish island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl who may or may not even exist.  He finds the tiny village is run by gleeful pagans.  Being a devout Christian himself, he is immediately suspicious of them and knows their sacrilegious ways must mean a horrible fate awaits the child.  But can he discover what they’re up to before it’s too late?

WARNING—THE FOOD PREPARED HERE INCLUDE SPOILERS.  TRUST ME, DO NOT CONTINUE IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE, OR HEARD ABOUT THE ENDING!

This time around, I will not be including a cocktail.  Just about everything drunk during THE WICKER MAN was ale.  A recipe for ale would be a bit boring: get bottle, open bottle, drink, repeat.  So instead, grab your favorite ale, and enjoy a two-part main dish.

As the harvest festival grows closer in the movie, there are loaves of bread made to look like a Sun God.  Why not have your own for the meal?

SUN GOD BREAD

All you need is a tube of refrigerated crescent dough.  If you find one that is uncut, simply unroll and get to work.  If not, simply unroll the whole thing and seal any perforations.  Preheat the oven to 375 degrees.  Cut a circle from the dough, place on an ungreased baking sheet, place triangles of dough around the circumference for the sun’s rays and create a face from any leftover dough (the amount of detail in the face is directly related to whatever artistic talent you may have).  Bake for approximately 13 minutes, or until golden brown.

#

I did some research into Scottish stews, and it seems there are two ingredients that separate it from other countries’ stews: red currant jam and oatmeal.  Sounds like breakfast, but, in fact, it makes for a tasty meal.

SCOTTISH BEEF STEW

Ingredients:

1 pound beef stew meat, cut into 1 inch pieces
1 pound tiny potatoes
4 carrots cut, into bite size pieces
4 stalks celery, cut into bite size pieces
1 onion, cut into large chunks
1 pint mushrooms, quartered
¾ cup red wine
2 tbsp tomato paste
1 tbsp red currant jelly
2 tbsp oatmeal
1 carton (32oz) beef broth

Directions:

Brown the meat in a large pot.  Add the red wine and bring to a boil.  Once it is boiling, add the jelly and tomato paste.  Stir until they are melted together.  Add the rest of the ingredients.  Bring to a boil.  Cover and simmer for two hours.  Enjoy with a slice of the Sun God bread!

#

Now, dessert is where the fun begins.  There is no better way to end this meal than with a Wicker Cake, and it’s rather simple.

WICKER CAKE

Prepare a box of cake mix (I used Duncan Hines Butter Cake) as directed on the package, and bake it in a 13×9 pan.  Have a baking sheet with sides ready.  Once the cake is cooled, cut into six pieces: a large rectangle for the body, four narrow rectangles for the limbs (cut an angle for the arms so they hang slightly at the body) and a small square for the head.  Arrange them on the baking sheet, trimming as needed to fit.  Congratulations—you now have a Wicker Cake. 

THE WICKER MAN is a truly scary movie that still has a sense of humor about itself.  There’s no reason not to share that good-natured fun with your meal as well.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

3 Comments »

In the Spooklight: THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1971)

Posted in 2011, 70s Horror, Amicus Movies, Anthology Films, Christopher Lee films, In the Spooklight, Michael Arruda Reviews, Peter Cushing Films, Vampires with tags , , , , , , on October 28, 2011 by knifefighter

This IN THE SPOOKLIGHT column, on the Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee anthology movie THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is from 2004, and it was actually reprinted in October 2010 in the HWA NEWSLETTER, so this marks the third time this particular column has made it into print. Not sure why I chose this one today, except that I figured now was as good a time as any to finally review a Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee movie for CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.

—Michael Arruda, October, 2011

 

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT
THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1971)
By Michael Arruda

There’s a lot to like about THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1971), the third anthology movie by England’s Amicus Productions.

Amicus is England’s lesser known horror film company, having operated in the shadow of the more famous Hammer Films. Amicus made horror movies during the same years as Hammer, and even used some of the same stars, such as Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, but never quite made it as a phenomenon.

Yet, Amicus churned out quality horror movies in abundance throughout the 1960s and 70s, and THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is no exception.

There are four tales in THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, plus a linking story, all of them written by the great Robert Bloch, which is one of the main reasons why the film is as enjoyable as it is. It goes without saying, it’s a well-written movie! The stories all take place in the titled house, each chronicling a different owner’s experience within its walls.

The first story, “Method for Murder,” is a neat little tale in which a horror writer (Denholm Elliott) creates a sinister murderer in his latest novel, a strangler by the name of Dominick. The writer is excited about his latest work, until the strangler he created shows up outside his window! A very creepy tale that works surprisingly well.

The second tale “Waxworks” starring Peter Cushing is probably the weakest of the movie and involves strange goings-on inside a wax museum. Director Peter Duffell said the story was basically a “contrivance to get Peter Cushing’s head on a plate” which is one of the more famous images from the film, and later immortalized on a cover of FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND magazine.

The third story stars Christopher Lee and is called “Sweets to the Sweet.” It’s about Lee’s strange relationship with his young daughter. He’s terribly frightened of her, and as we find out in the story, with good reason.

The last tale, “The Cloak,” is the story of a horror movie actor (John Pertwee) who buys a cloak for his role as a vampire. When he puts on the cloak, he becomes a real vampire. He has the best line in the film when he’s talking about classic horror movies, he says “That’s what’s wrong with your present-day horror films, no realism! Not like the old ones—the great ones! Frankenstein, Phantom of the Opera, Dracula—the one with Bela Lugosi, of course, not that new fella!” This tale also stars Ingrid Pitt who also gets to wear the cloak and strut her stuff as a vampire. Mostly played for laughs, “The Cloak” is the most fun tale of the movie.

First-time director Peter Duffell does a very good job, imbuing the film with both atmosphere and genuine shocks, though he wanted to call the film DEATH AND THE MAIDEN, because he felt THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD was too trashy. Personally, I kinda like THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD.

But the main reason the film succeeds so well is the same reason why so many of the Hammer/Amicus films work, and that is, the people involved take them very seriously. Actors like Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing play it straight, so when Lee fears his young daughter, as silly as it seems, you see the look on his face and you believe it too.

THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is a good Halloween movie, spooky, well-made, well-acted, well-written, and fun.

This Halloween, why not stop by for a visit? I hear they’re looking for new tenants.

—END—

© Copyright 2004 by Michael Arruda

1 Comment »

Monstrous Question: BEST MAD SCIENTIST MOVIE? (4 of 6)

Posted in 1950s Horror, 2011, Frankenstein Movies, Hammer Films, Mad Doctors!, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monstrous Question with tags , , , , on August 6, 2011 by knifefighter

MONSTROUS QUESTION
(Part 4 of 6)
Created by Michael Arruda

This month’s MONSTROUS QUESTION comes to us courtesy of our good friend Pete Dudar.

PETE:  Okay, so what’s the best ‘mad scientist’ movie? Is it FRANKENSTEIN? RE-ANIMATOR? THE FLY? We fans want to know.

****

Our panel answers:

MICHAEL ARRUDA:

 

Best mad scientist movie?  Well, for me it’s a no brainer:  THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, Hammer Films’ first horror hit.  It remains my favorite Frankenstein film, and also ranks as one of my all-time favorite horror movies, period!

The main reason I like this one is Cushing’s performance as Baron Victor Frankenstein, and while he can be categorized as a mad scientist, I’ve always felt that one of the strengths of his performance is that Cushing convinces his audience that Victor Frankenstein isn’t mad at all!  He’s just a determined, driven scientist.  So when he says lines like “What am I doing?  I’m harming no one!  Just robbing a few graves!  What doctor or scientist doesn’t do this?  How else are we to learn the complexities of the human body?”  We believe him.  Hands down, best mad scientist:  Peter Cushing as Victor Frankenstein in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957).

And while his performance in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN is my favorite, you can’t go wrong with any of his other 6 movie performances as Baron Frankenstein.

Of course, there are plenty of other notable movie mad scientists. Here are a few I like a lot:

-I’m a huge fan of Frankenstein movies, so I’d certainly place Colin Clive high on this list, for his performances as Henry Frankenstein in both FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935).  He’s always been overshadowed by Karloff’s tremendous performance as the Monster in these films, but he’s quite good:  “If I could learn just one of these things, what eternity is like, for example, I wouldn’t care if people did call me crazy!”  And when the monster first comes to life, and after he’s shouted his famous “It’s alive!” lines, he adds in a line cut from the final print for decades and only recently restored, “Now I know what it feels like to be God!”  Madness at its best.

-Fredric March in DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1931)

-Boris Karloff as Dr. Neimann in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944)

-Lionel Atwill as Dr. Bohmer in THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

-Boris Karloff as Dr. Janos Rukh in THE INVISIBLE RAY (1936)

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

Leave A Comment »

Screaming Streaming: TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2011, 70s Horror, Devil Movies, Hammer Films, Horror, Michael Arruda Reviews, Satanists, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , , on July 20, 2011 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review: TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER (1976)
By Michael Arruda

 

Welcome to the first ever SCREAMING STREAMING! movie review column, where I’ll be reviewing movies available on screaming— er, streaming video. I’ll cover a mix of old movies and new releases, as well as different genres, including horror, action, thriller, mystery, and comedies. Chick flicks?— no.

We begin with an oldie, the Christopher Lee/Hammer movie TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER (1976), notable because it was Hammer Film’s last horror movie, that is, until its recent comeback film LET ME IN (2010). And that’s really all that’s notable about it. It was a flop back in 1976. I saw TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER several years after it was released, in the early 1980s on HBO, and I hated it. Other than Nastassja Kinski’s full- frontal nude scene, there was nothing memorable about it. In fact, as I sat down this week to watch the movie again, that’s the only thing I remembered about it!

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER is a story about Satanists, which comes as no surprise, since it’s based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Dennis Wheatley, who also wrote the novel THE DEVIL RIDES OUT, also about Satanists, also filmed by Hammer in 1968, with the U.S. title THE DEVIL’S BRIDE, also starring Christopher Lee. Wheatley died in 1977 at age 80.

In TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, a distraught man, Henry Beddows (Denholm Elliott) seeks out the help of an American occult novelist John Verney (Richard Widmark) to protect his daughter Catherine (Nastassja Kinski) from an evil Satanist, an excommunicated priest named Father Michael (Christopher Lee). It seems, years earlier, at Catherine’s birth, her parents made a “deal with the devil” promising the girl’s soul to Father Michael on her eighteenth birthday. Father Michael intends to hand over Catherine to Satan for reasons we can only imagine— let’s see, she’s 18 and beautiful, what do you think he wants her for? Sounds like a marriage made in Hell.

It also sounds like a plot I just saw in a movie a few years ago, THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY (2008), as that film was also about parents who made a deal with Satanists to turn their daughter’s soul over to them when the girl turned 18, and in that movie the dad also changed his mind and tried to protect his daughter.

And that in a nutshell is the plot of TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, as Verney vows to protect Catherine from Father Michael, and Father Michael vows to find Catherine and get her to the altar in time to make whoopee with Satan. Along the way there are some satanic goings-on by Father Michael and his cohorts, including the painful birth of a baby which they plan to sacrifice later. What is it about Satanists and babies, and why do they always want to sacrifice the little infants? I just finished watching DRIVE ANGRY (2011) on DVD starring Nicholas Cage, another movie about Satanists, and what did these folks want to do? Sacrifice a baby, only they picked the wrong baby, Cage’s granddaughter, and he’s not about to let that happen, which is why he’s driving angry.

Anyway, back to TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER. In addition to the Satanic shenanigans, we also get to watch John Verney try to solve the mystery of what’ s up with Catherine, since her daddy wasn’t exactly truthful in his explanation of why he wanted Verney to watch over his daughter. Of course, Verney eventually figures everything out, being the intelligent occult novelist that he is, which sets us up for the final and dramatic confrontation between tough guy Richard Widmark and Dracula himself, Christopher Lee.

All of this sounds better than it actually is. Truth be told, age hasn’t really helped this movie. It’s still all rather dull.

A lot of the blame here falls on the shoulders of screenwriter Christopher Wicking, who wrote the screenplay. There really isn’t much of a story, which is why it’s so dull. Not much happens, and the little that does is painfully stretched out to fill the 90 minute running time.

The characters aren’t fleshed out. We know very little about the evil Father Michael. Christopher Lee is fun to watch, as he does evil as good as anybody, but Father Michael isn’t developed beyond being a bad guy. Lee looks like Dracula wearing a priest’s collar. Since Lee always looks good as Dracula, he looks good here, too, but other than being a straightforward evil baddie, he does little else. Compared to Lee’s Lord Summerisle in THE WICKER MAN (1973), a character who was chilling because he was an oddball who was difficult to gauge, Father Michael is a one-trick pony.

Richard Widmark’s occult author John Verney is dreadfully dull, about as boring a hero as you’re going to find in a horror movie. He has very little personality, and comes off as wooden as a fence post. Nastassja Kinski’s Catherine is also a bore. She hardly says two words, but she’s beautiful in this movie, and that’s probably all the filmmakers were going for here.

Some memorable dialogue would have helped this movie. Christopher Lee gets one of the best lines in the movie, and really, it’s memorable not so much because of the line, but because of the way Lee delivers it. After the woman has given birth to the Satanists sacrificial baby, Lee leans close to her and says with a smile, “You can die now.” It’s Lee at his evil best.

Christopher Wicking also wrote the screenplay for Hammer’s BLOOD FROM THE MUMMY’S TOMB (1971), Hammer’s final Mummy movie, and for the movie SCREAM AND SCREAM AGAIN (1970), famous for the first-time triple teaming of Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing, and also famous for being one of the most confusing horror movies ever made!) Storytelling with clarity doesn’t seem to be Wicking’s strong point.

Wicking died in 2008 at the age of 64.

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER was directed by Peter Sykes, and he does an okay job at the helm. And, photography wise, the film looks good. It’s handsomely photographed and makes good use of some on-location filming in the German countryside. But in terms of memorable scenes, there’s nothing.

For a movie that compared itself in its original theatrical trailers to ROSEMARY’S BABY (1968) and THE EXORCIST (1973), it forgot one very important ingredient: it forgot to be scary, and that’s really the major problem with TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER. It’s NOT scary. Not a good thing when you’re a horror movie about Satanists.

It’s no surprise then that Hammer struggled in the 1970s and eventually went out of business. Their style of movies couldn’t compare to the other horror movies of the 1970s. Just look at THE EXORCIST, for example. Besides the obvious, that THE EXORCIST is scary, it also has realistic and very memorable characters. Father Karras (Jason Miller), for instance, seems like a real person. The characters in TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER don’t seem real at all.

If there’s a reason to watch TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, it’s the cast, which is the best part of the movie. Father Michael may be a one-dimensional character, but Christopher Lee at least makes that one dimension— evil— fun to watch. Over the years, nobody has done evil as well as Lee, and in TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, he’s at his evil best. Plus at this point, pretty much anything Lee has done is required viewing. Just don’t expect THE WICKER MAN.

Richard Widmark runs hot and cold as American author John Verney. When he’s doing his “tough guy” routine, and he gets to be physical and fight, he looks more at home. When he’s talking about the occult and Satanists, he seems out of place. He also doesn’t really sound like an author. He sounds like a police detective. Widmark died in 2008 at 93.

Honor Blackman (Miss Pussy Galore herself from GOLDFINGER (1964), and from THE AVENGERS TV show (1961-69), is on hand as Verney’s agent Anna, and she adds style and class to the proceedings with a very good performance.

Denholm Elliott as scared daddy Henry Beddows gives the best performance in the movie, other than Christopher Lee. He seems scared to death throughout. Elliott died in 1992 at age 70.

And while Nastassja Kinski is beautiful in this movie, her performance is blah, and other than her beauty, she doesn’t stand out a bit.

But in spite of its strong cast, TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER is slow and dull. Hammer had much more success with their other Dennis Wheatley film, THE DEVIL’S BRIDE, but of course that one was directed by their best director, Terence Fisher, and Richard Matheson wrote the screenplay. TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER can’t boast of such talent.

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER is a mixed bag, with very little to offer other than Christopher Lee’s demonic performance. Of course, there IS that Nastassja Kinski full-frontal nude scene.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

1 Comment »

THE MONSTROUS QUESTION! Answer 1 (of 3)

Posted in 2011, Hammer Films, Horror, Lost Films, Universal Horror Films with tags , , , , , , , on March 2, 2011 by knifefighter

THE MONSTROUS QUESTION
(Questions by Michael Arruda)

Watching THE HILLS RUN RED a couple of weeks back, a horror movie about a lost horror film, it got me to thinking about the real thing.

There are lots of stories out there of lost scenes.  For example, growing up, I’d read about the scene cut from the Boris Karloff FRANKENSTEIN (1931) where the monster drowns the little girl.  This scene had been cut when the movie was shown on television, and although I’d seen stills from this scene, the actual scene didn’t seem to exist anymore, until it was discovered and restored on video in 1987.

There are so many more scenes like this out there that still have not turned up.

So, here’s this month’s MONSTROUS QUESTION:  If you could discover lost footage from any movie, old or new, and this could include an entire movie, what would it be?

*****

From MICHAEL ARRUDA:

I have read about many instances of lost scenes, but being a lifelong fan of Hammer Films, I’m going to go with a Hammer Film as my top choice, and it’s probably their most famous movie, HORROR OF DRACULA (1958).

The rumor has existed for years that Hammer released different versions of their movies for different markets.  For example, the tamest version was released in Britain, a more violent version went to the United States, and the most explicit version was shipped off to Japan.

For example, one of the bloodier scenes in HORROR OF DRACULA, where Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) drives a stake through Lucy’s (Carol Marsh) heart, was not shown in Britain until a recently restored version was made available in 2007, but the scene has been shown intact on U.S. video/DVD prints for longer than that.  The scene was often cut on U.S. television, though.  I would say that when I used to catch this movie on TV back in the 1970s, usually late at night, about 90% of the time this particular scene would be cut.  The uncut scene shows the stake going into Lucy’s chest, as blood bubbles out onto her gown.

Now, rumor has it that in the version released in Japan, Lucy actually tries to climb out of her coffin, but Van Helsing clobbers her across the head with the hammer.  I actually find this hard to believe, as it seems rather violent for 1958, even for Hammer, and I’ve never seen a still from this scene anywhere or read anywhere that it still exists.  But if it does, it’s one I definitely want to discover.

There are two other scenes in HORROR OF DRACULA still missing.  The first is of Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) decomposing after he has been staked by Van Helsing.  In the print that exists now, the camera fades as Van Helsing approaches the crypt.   The staking scene doesn’t even happen on camera.  Stills of this scene do exist and show Harker in the crypt in an early stage of decomposition.

Now, the biggest missing scene from HORROR OF DRACULA is from its famous ending.  You know the scene, where Van Helsing runs across a table in castle Dracula and leaps through the air ripping down the curtains, unleashing the sunlight which ultimately destroys Dracula (Christopher Lee.)

There were scenes in the original HORROR OF DRACULA that have not been seen here.

This scene is pretty graphic as is, as we see Dracula disintegrate into dust before our very eyes, but it’s a quick scene, with each stage of decomposition interrupted by cutaways to reaction shots of Cushing’s Van Helsing.

But this scene was longer when originally filmed.  Evidently, for a particularly gruesome special effect, Lee’s face was painted over with a red blood-like make-up,  and then covered again with a flesh tone make-up, so when he scratched at his face, his fingers would rip through the “skin,” making deep bloody gouges in his face.

I’ve seen stills from this scene as well, and they’re pretty cool looking.   In the special feature on the DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS DVD from 2004, where Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Francis Matthews, and Suzan Farmer provide voice-over commentary to DRACULA- PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966) (this commentary was recorded in the late 1990s) Lee talks about the ending to HORROR OF DRACULA.

Since DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS is the sequel to HORROR OF DRACULA, the film begins with the ending of HORROR OF DRACULA before the opening credits, and during this sequence, in his voice-over commentary, Christopher Lee points out that the sequence he’s watching, where Dracula disintegrates, is much shorter than the one they originally filmed.  So, the longer death sequence was definitely shot.

If I had to pick one lost sequence to discover, this one would be it.

Some other lost sequences I would love to discover:

—from KING KONG (1933) the famous “spiders in the pit” scene after Kong has thrown the men off the giant log into the ravine below.

—-from THE WOLF MAN (1941) the scene where Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) wrestles a bear, and any other scene that was filmed for its original shooting title, DESTINY.  Originally, the wolf man stuff was all going to be in Larry Talbot’s mind, and the bear wrestling scene I’m talking about supposedly had Talbot seeing himself as a werewolf fighting the bear, while onlookers saw only the man.  There are still several scenes in the final print where you can get a feel for the original intentions of the storytellers.

—from THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), the deleted footage where Karl (Dwight Frye) murders his uncle and then blames the crime on the Monster (Boris Karloff), a scene that explains why the Monster is so intent on killing Karl in the film’s climax.  Without this scene, the Monster’s actions make little sense.

I could go on, but it’s time to give someone else a turn.

—-END—

2 Comments »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – Part 3 – Who Was the Best Dracula?

Posted in 2011, Cinema Knife Fights, Classic Films, Dracula, Friday Night Knife Fights, Hammer Films, Universal Horror Films, Vampire Movies with tags , , , , , , , , on February 25, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE
WHO IS THE ULTIMATE MOVIE DRACULA?
With MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES

PART 3 (CONCLUSION)

(The Scene: Back at the Cinema Knife Fight studio.  MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are seated across from each other on stools.  Behind them are movie stills featuring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as DRACULA, as well as photos of Count Chocula and The Count from SESAME STREET.)

MA:  Welcome back to Friday Night Knife Fights.  Tonight, L.L. and I will conclude our discussion of Bela Lugosi vs. Christopher Lee and decide which one is the ultimate movie Dracula.  Lugosi came out on top after our Round 1 discussion two weeks ago, and Lee won the second round last week, so tonight’s third and final round will decide the victor.

Time for the final question.  It’s actually several questions.

LS:  Make up your mind.

MA:  I can’t.  Anyway, here we go.  Which one is more iconic?  In other words, when people think of Dracula today, who do they picture: Lugosi or Lee?  And who do you think modern audiences prefer?

LS:  I really don’t know who people today picture when they think of Dracula. It may even be neither Lugosi or Lee, since there have been other versions since then, like Gary Oldman in Francis Ford Coppola’s take on the material: BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA (1992).

Gary Oldman caught in the act, in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

MA:  Come on!  You can’t seriously believe that anyone today would actually picture Gary Oldman as Dracula!  The guy looked like John Lennon!

LS:  Who knows what people think? What am I, a psychic? I only know what I think!

MA: I don’t think Lugosi and Lee have much competition, unless you include Count Chocula and The Count from SESAME STREET.

LS: So that’s why those photos are up. I just figured you had the mind of a child. Who knew you were going to make a point.

MA: Well, certainly not you, since you don’t know what other people are thinking!

LS:   And you do, I suppose?

MA:  I have a pretty good idea what you’re thinking right now, and I can’t say it out loud.

Anyway, people certainly aren’t going to picture Frank Langella, who played the role in the weak 1979 film version.  Who else as Dracula could they possibly imagine?

LS: Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen in the TWILIGHT movies? He’s not Dracula, but he’s certainly just as popular a vampire these days. (groans). And if he ever played Dracula, then I’m sure, for a whole generation, he’d be the definitive one. Imagine that, and be truly horrified.

But for me, Lugosi will always be my first choice. He may not have had a lot of roles that were as good as the original DRACULA (1931), but that is his shining moment, and the movie, as atmospheric and almost surreal as it is, will always be the real deal to me.

MA:  I would have to agree with you and say that Lugosi is more iconic, at least here in the United States, and that when people today think of Dracula, they most likely think of Lugosi.

The great LUGOSI, from Universal Studio's DRACULA (1931)

LS: And how do you know this? Did you take a survey?

MA:  I’m speaking in terms of Lugosi and Lee here.  If you ask someone to impersonate Dracula, chances are they’re going to do the Lugosi voice.  They’re not going to speak in a British accent like Christopher Lee.  That’s what I mean when I say that when people today think of Dracula, they most likely think of Lugosi.

It’s largely due in part to the influence of Universal Pictures.  They constantly re-package their old black and white monster movies, along with their merchandise, so that the images of the Universal monsters never seem to be out of the modern-day collective consciousness.  I think when people think of Dracula, they think of Lugosi, complete with his trademark accent.  I don’t think people today picture Christopher Lee, even though he starred in those seven Hammer DRACULA movies.

But even without Universal’s marketing department, I think people would still picture Lugosi as Dracula, which shows the power of Lugosi’s legacy.  Even after all these years, he remains in most people’s minds the definitive Dracula.

LS: I bet you there’s a whole generation who has no idea what we’re talking about, and they haven’t heard of Lugosi or Lee.

MA:  That’s why you and I write about these guys, so this doesn’t happen, so people don’t forget.  That’s why we need readers, readers, and more readers, so out there in horror movie land, if you like reading Cinema Knife Fight and this spin-off, Friday Night Knife Fights, tell your friends!  Okay, enough with the self-promotion.  Where was I?

Oh yeah.  I don’t know who modern audiences prefer.  At one time, I would have easily picked Lee as the fan favorite, but today I’m not so sure.

Christopher Lee, the star of seven DRACULA films from Hammer Films.

LS: Now you say you don’t know who modern audiences prefer? Make up your mind!!

MA: What?  Before, I said people think of Lugosi when they think of Dracula.  Now, I’ve moved on to the next question, which is, which actor do we think modern audiences prefer?  Having trouble keeping up or something?

LS:  I’m having trouble keeping up with the number of times you change your mind!

MA:  Whatever.

I have a story to share on this subject.  Several years ago, when I was teaching a movie class to eighth graders, at Halloween time I showed my classes both DRACULA and HORROR OF DRACULA (1958).  In the follow-up essays, I expected students to overwhelmingly pick HORROR OF DRACULA as their favorite film, but I was surprised that this wasn’t the case.  The majority of students went with the Lugosi version, citing Lugosi’s performance as the major reason why they liked it better.  And I think it was because Lugosi played Dracula the way the students expected Dracula to be played.

LS (snoring): Zzzzzzzzz

MA: Wake up! We’re having a debate here.

LS: Huh? Your “stories” always bore the hell out of me.

MA: I’m sorry.  I forgot you have the attention span of a gnat.

All right, we’ve reached the moment of truth.  Time for us to decide:  which one is the ultimate movie Dracula: Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee?

LS:  I hesitantly choose Lugosi. Not because I don’t feel he’s the ultimate movie Dracula—because I do— but because Lee is no slouch either. I really like Lee’s take on the character and in many ways it’s just as satisfying as Lugosi’s. But for me, Lugosi is the more iconic figure: the first (at least after the silent age) and the best.

MA:  I feel your pain. I went back and forth so many times with this, it almost made me dizzy.

So, who’s my pick for the ultimate movie Dracula, Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee?  This is such a difficult choice for me to make, and I’ve gone right down to the wire with my final decision.

LS:  Just spit it out already!

MA:  Okay, okay.

Without further hesitation, here it is:

As much as I like Christopher Lee as Dracula—and even though I think he is far scarier as Dracula—when it comes to the complete package, I can’t deny that Bela Lugosi is the ultimate movie Dracula.  For the most part, this opinion is based on the strength of Lugosi’s initial performance in DRACULA.  From the way he speaks, to his mannerisms, to his commanding presence, Lugosi is Dracula.

LS: Hell, Lugosi was even buried wearing one of the capes he wore in DRACULA. That’s dedication to a role.

MA: I love Lee as Dracula, but there’s no comparison to moments where Lugosi utters such lines as, “Listen to them, the children of the night, what music they make.”  “To die, to be really dead, that must be glorious.”  “There are far worse things, Miss Mina, awaiting man, than death.”

Bela Lugosi is the ultimate movie Dracula.

So, there you have it.  The decision is unanimous, but boy was it close!

LS: (laughs) Yeah, I’m sure everyone was sitting on the edges of their seats.

MA: That was quite the bout.  I need a drink of water.

LS:  I need a drink of blood!

MA:  Well, don’t look at me.

LS (groans):  I’ll settle for a beer.

MA:  That sounds better.  Anyway, it’s been fun.

LS: Yes it has.

MA (addresses audience) :  Thanks for joining us tonight.  We had a good time, and we hope you did too.

LS:  And don’t forget to join us every weekday for new content about your favorite movies, new and old, right here at CinemaKnifeFight.com!

MA:  This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Good night everybody!

—-END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – ROUND 2 Who Was the Best Movie Dracula?

Posted in 2011, Dracula, Friday Night Knife Fights, Hammer Films, Horror, Vampire Movies with tags , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE
WHO IS THE ULTIMATE MOVIE DRACULA?
With MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES
PART 2

(The Scene: The Cinema Knife Fight studio.  MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are seated across from each other on stools.  Behind them are movie stills featuring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as Dracula, as well as photos of Count Chocula and The Count from Sesame Street.)

MA:  Welcome back to Friday Night Knife Fights, as L.L. and I continue our discussion of which actor, Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, was the ultimate movie Dracula.  So far, we looked at their initial film performances as Dracula.  I thought Lugosi was slightly better than Lee.

LS:  And I thought the same thing, though as I said last time, it was a tough decision because Lee’s no slouch, and both of their initial performances were terrific.

MA:  Okay, time for the next question.

Of the two, who fared best in the sequels?  I’ll get us started by answering my own question.

I would have to say that Lee fared better in the sequels, if only because he actually appeared in sequels.  Lugosi only played Dracula in the movies twice, and the second time was in the comedy ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948).  He played a vampire in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935) and RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1944), and while his performances in all of these movies were topnotch, I still give the edge to Lee, since he was actually playing Dracula in his movies.

Plus, thanks to Hammer Films’ interest in the character— and Hammer was interested in Dracula because the Christopher Lee Dracula movies consistently made the most money for the studio—Lee got to play Dracula in six sequels after HORROR OF DRACULA (1958).

Though it’s not a sequel, Lee also played Dracula in the non-Hammer movie COUNT DRACULA (1970), directed by Jess Franco, as well.

So, by sheer numbers alone, I give the edge to Lee.

Christopher Lee portrayed Dracula as a more animalistic, savage creature.

LS:  Unlike the Frankenstein monster and Mummy franchises (and later the Wolfman), Universal didn’t make any more Dracula movies (they did however, make a sequel to the original Dracula in 1936, called DRACULA’S DAUGHTER, but Lugosi is nowhere to be found except in a brief scene at the beginning, where his daughter burns his corpse).

MA:  Don’t forget SON OF DRACULA (1943) starring Lon Chaney Jr. as Count Alucard….

LS: Yeah, that’s a funny one. Count “Alucard.” It’s Dracula spelled backwards. What a clever ruse (laughs)

MA: And of course there was both HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945), in which John Carradine played Dracula, so Universal did in fact make more Dracula movies.

LS:  You’re right about SON OF DRACULA. It’s like Lon Chaney Jr. played every monster in the Universal cannon to see which ones he could turn into a franchise (the answers: Larry Talbot and Kharis the Mummy). As for the HOUSE movies, I always considered them almost a subgenre in themselves, since they were more concerned in packing in as many monsters as they could, rather than focusing on just one.

Besides, we’re talking about Lugosi here, and they didn’t make any more Dracula movies starring Bela, except as you said, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, and with the exception of DRACULA’S DAUGHTER, none of these other Universal Dracula movies were direct sequels to the Lugosi original.

So, the only other time Lugosi was able to play his most famous role again was in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, which is partly why that comedy is such a revered classic.

Lugosi’s other vampire roles tended to be disappointing. MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (a remake of Lon Chaney Sr.’s silent classic LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT from 1927) is okay, but in the end the vampires are really actors in disguise, which is always a big letdown.

MA:  It’s a REALLY big letdown.  I don’t like that part of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE at all.  It nearly ruins the movie.

Bela Lugosi portrayed Dracula on stage, as well as playing the role in the 1931 film version.

LS: Let’s face it. It’s not a great movie.

MA: Lugosi’s not in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE all that much, but when he’s in it, he’s good.  His performance here actually reminds me a little bit of Christopher Lee, since Lugosi doesn’t talk much in this one and actually gets to run around a bit, appear menacingly outside windows, and generally look scary.  But Lee does “scary” better.

LS: RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1944) is better, and features a werewolf in it, too, but never again did Lugosi reach the greatness he achieved in the original DRACULA, mostly because the scripts in his other movies just aren’t up to par.

MA:  Yeah, I agree, although I like RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE a lot.  Lugosi speaks lots of dialogue in this one, and he’s close to his earlier form as DRACULA, though not quite.

LS: You can’t really compare the two films. The original DRACULA was a work of art. RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE was a fun B-movie. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Lugosi is okay in RETURN, but it’s nowhere close to his performance in the original DRACULA.

MA:  I don’t know about that.  I think Lugosi is almost if not just as good in RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE as he is in DRACULA, but you’re right about not being able to compare the two movies.  DRACULA is a much better movie than RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, but I really enjoy Lugosi in both of them.

LS:  As for Lee, his Dracula sequels are much more satisfying. They’re not all great, but at least they have a level of quality that Lugosi’s other vampire roles did not.  So, I go with Lee in terms of who fared better in the sequels.

MA:  We’re in agreement then.  Must be a full moon or something.  Moving right along.

Next question:  who’s scarier as Dracula?  Lugosi or Lee?

LS:  Since Lee played Dracula as a much more menacing, animalistic creature, I think his version is scarier, hands down. Although Lugosi was really good at showing the duality of his character, at times charming and, at other times, almost as menacing as Lee.

MA:  I’ve always thought that Lee was way scarier than Lugosi as Dracula, but I don’t think the margin is quite as wide as I used to believe.

Lee, with his athleticism and quick cat-like movements, made for a very violent and brutal Dracula.

Lugosi, on the other hand, possessed none of the action-oriented characteristics which Lee so masterfully displayed.  Lugosi brought his Dracula to life strictly through the strength of his acting, and the fear instilled by his Dracula is much more subtle and hypnotic.

We fear Lugosi’s Dracula will cast a spell on us, put us in a trance to do his bidding, or hypnotize us into inaction while he creeps up to our bed and drinks our blood.  We fear Lee’s Dracula will leap over a table, grab us by the arm, pin us down and bite us violently on the neck, blood dripping to the floor as he drinks his fill.

They’re both scary, and while neither Lee nor Lugosi ever gave me nightmares as Dracula, if I had to pick one, I’d go with Lee.  His in-your-face style is scarier.

Okay, of the two’s various portrayals of vampires, which one has delivered the weakest performance?  And why?

LS: After the triumph of DRACULA (a role he first performed on stage), Lugosi’s career gradually went downhill. There are a few highlights, like the first two movies he made where he “teamed up” with Boris Karloff – THE BLACK CAT (1934) and THE RAVEN (1935).

MA:  I love THE BLACK CAT and THE RAVEN.

LS:  But by the late 1930s and the 40s, his career was in a bad way.

MA:  What?  You didn’t like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE? (laughs).

LS:  The scripts just weren’t very good, horror was slowly dying out as a popular genre due to the real horrors of WWII, (although horror would be revived in the 1950s by Hammer Studios, ironically enough). It also didn’t help that Lugosi had a thick accent that made it difficult for him to avoid being typecast as foreign villains. The opportunities just weren’t there for him to have a more respectable acting career.

Lee, despite a few weak scripts, was able to maintain the quality of his vampire performances throughout his run as Dracula, and was always very effective in the role. I think he had a better time of it playing the character.

MA:  When I asked the question, I was only thinking of their performances as Dracula, or as a vampire.  I know Lugosi made a lot of notoriously awful movies, but in terms of vampire performances, do you still think Lugosi delivered the weaker performance?

LS: My answer covered all his movies, even his vampire ones. Besides, we already talked about his other vampire movies in depth. Do we really need to talk about them again?

MA: I’m just saying I asked about his vampire performances, that’s all.  Okay, good enough.  My turn to answer.

Lugosi only played Dracula once more in the movies, and to his credit, his performance as the Count in the comedy ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN doesn’t miss a beat.  He plays it straight, letting Bud Abbott and Lou Costello get the laughs.  And as we already discussed, he also delivers a fine performance in RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE and MARK OF THE VAMPIRE.

The odds are against Lee, since he played Dracula more—seven times for Hammer Films!  I don’t think Lee ever gave a weak performance as Dracula, but there were moments where he wasn’t as effective.

For example, in DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966), a film I happen to like, I’ve always found Lee’s performance here a bit off, compared to his other Dracula portrayals.  His Dracula seems uncharacteristically weaker here.  One scene in particular, where Dracula battles the hero Charles in Castle Dracula, and Charles forms a cross with swords to fend off Dracula, Dracula’s response is very un-Lee like.  He jumps away in fright.

It’s also the only Hammer Dracula where Lee doesn’t speak any lines, so this doesn’t help his case.

Lee’s performance in SCARS OF DRACULA (1970) is also different, although I don’t think I’d go so far as to categorize it as weak, but it does take some getting used to.   Gone is the leaping and running around, as in this film, you never see Dracula enter or exit a room.  He’s simply there one moment, gone the next, or a character’s alone in a room, and suddenly Dracula is there with him.  I didn’t like this at first, but this and other parts of Lee’s performance have grown on me over the years.  He also is extremely violent in SCARS (which is why it’s called SCARS OF DRACULA, I guess) as he whips, burns, and stabs his victims.  Like I said, it’s not really a weaker performance, but it takes some getting used to.

LS: I love SCARS OF DRACULA. It’s one of my favorites of the series.

MA: You can make the case that his performances in the last two films in the series, DRACULA A.D. 1972 and THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (1973) aren’t so hot, but these two films which take place in the 1970s have more problems than Christopher Lee.  Still, in DRACULA AD 1972, he seems out of place and doesn’t seem to know what to do with himself.  Plus Lee’s performance here is hammier than usual.  He’s almost a caricature of himself.

LS: He’s supposed to seem out of place in DRACULA A.D. 1972. He is an ancient aristocrat who suddenly finds himself in the world of 1972, complete with drug-taking hippies! Talk about culture shock!

MA: So, as to which one of the two delivered the weakest performance, I’d go with Lee for these moments, in DRACULA – PRINCE OF DARKNESS, and DRACULA A.D. 1972 especially.

LS: I don’t think that’s fair. I like both of those.

MA: Well, it looks as if Round 2 of our Friday Night Knife Fight has gone to Christopher Lee, and since last week’s Round 1 went to Bela Lugosi, it looks like it will come down to our final segment before we have a winner.

So don’t forget to join us next Friday for the final segment of this month’s Friday Night Knife Fight where we’ll decide once and for all which one of these two actors is the ultimate movie DRACULA.  See you then!

—END PART 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – February 2011 – PART 1

Posted in 2011, Classic Films, Dracula, Friday Night Knife Fights, Hammer Films, Vampires with tags , , , , , , , on February 11, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE
WHO IS THE ULTIMATE MOVIE DRACULA?
(With MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES)

***PART 1***

(The Scene: The CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT studio. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are seated across from each other on stools. Behind them are movie stills featuring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as Dracula, as well as photos of Count Chocula and The Count from SESAME STREET.)

MA: Welcome to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, brought to you by CinemaKnifeFight.com, your home for the best movie criticism on the planet. If you disagree with this assertion, you show us someone better, and we’ll promptly throw a pie in their face.

Tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, L.L. and I will be discussing BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE to determine which one of these classic actors is the ultimate movie DRACULA?

I have to say at the outset that this is going to be tough. I grew up a Christopher Lee fan. In fact, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are the reasons I got into horror in the first place. For the first 20 years of my life, this question would have been a no-brainer. Lee would have won easily. I preferred Lee to Lugosi any day of the week. But things change.

LS: Quit whining and let’s get started!

MA: I wasn’t whining. I was just explaining that this decision is going to be tough.

LS: I wouldn’t have it any other way.

MA: Me, neither.

LS: By the way, where’s the rest of the Cinema Knife Fight staff? I thought we’d get a few other writers to join in this debate with us. Did the topic scare them off?

MA: I don’t know. Maybe it was all the snow outside. It’s hard to get here when there’s a blizzard going on outside.

LS: We’re here.

MA: Yes, but we’re nuts! Anyway, are you ready for the big bout?

LS: Bring it on!

MA: First question: whose initial film performance as Dracula is better: Lugosi in DRACULA (1931) or Lee in HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)?

LS: That’s hard to say—

MA: Ah ha! I told you this was going to be hard!

LS: Quiet! It’s hard to say because I think they’re both terrific. I think on some level, Lugosi will always be the first one to come to my mind when someone says “Dracula.” This is partly because his 1931 DRACULA was the first version of the story I ever saw, but also because I think he did an amazing job with the character, enough so that it’s left a strong imprint on me.

But the reason why Lee’s performance in HORROR OF DRACULA is so great is because he does not try to imitate Lugosi’s performance at all. It would have been easy to do a variation on Lugosi’s original, but Lee’s Dracula is a completely different animal.

MA: That’s a really good point.

LS: Where Lugosi was kind of a classy foreign aristocrat with a dark/violent side when provoked, Lee’s is much more animalistic. Lee’s Dracula is not interested in seducing his victims or fooling them – he simply takes what nourishment he needs like a wild beast. He rarely speaks in his films and is more a force of nature than anything resembling a human being.

MA: I agree.

As for myself and what I think about them, having watched both DRACULA and HORROR OF DRACULA many, MANY times, I’d have to say that it’s simply not a clear-cut answer. Lugosi and Lee both deliver different performances.

Lugosi enjoys lots of screen time in DRACULA, and he speaks lots of dialogue, which would make sense since the 1931 version of DRACULA was based on the stage play by Hamilton Deane and John Balderston, which of course was based on the Bram Stoker novel. Lugosi pretty much dominates DRACULA, which is no surprise, because he’s in the movie a lot. He out-acts everyone in the movie, with the possible exception of Dwight Frye as Renfield. Of course, Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing is no slouch, either.

But when Lugosi is not on screen, DRACULA sags. There are lots of slow dull scenes when the other characters are on screen without Lugosi.

By contrast, this is where Christopher Lee excels in HORROR OF DRACULA. Believe it or not, Lee is only on screen in HORROR OF DRACULA for like some ridiculously short amount of time—like nine minutes! Seriously! But you would never know it, because it seems like he’s in it much more, because his performance, as brief as it is, is so shockingly powerful he scares the crap out of you, and even when he’s not on camera, you’re still constantly thinking about him, fearing that he’s going to jump out from the shadows with a loud hiss, his fangs bared, dripping with blood.

HORROR OF DRACULA opens with such a bang, the film’s first 20 minutes are as scary as any other film of its type, probably scarier, resulting in a shocked audience that just can’t get comfortable anymore. Back in 1958, these first 20 minutes probably pushed the envelope further than any other horror movie before it.

And all of this takes place before the film’s best actor even makes his appearance, Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing, who arrives just in time to restore order, and over the next hour gives the audience hope that Dracula won’t attack and kill everyone in his path.

Lee’s performance is so powerful, so resonating, that it remains with you even when he’s not on screen, and when these other scenes feature an actor as talented and dominating as Peter Cushing, and yet you’re still thinking of Lee, that’s saying something.

Taken as a whole, I think Lugosi’s performance as DRACULA is the more definitive portrayal. Yet, Lee creates such a shocking character in such a brief amount of time, it’s almost unbelievable. Both performances dominate, but in different ways.

LS: I think another aspect that is relevant here is atmosphere. Both versions of DRACULA are heavy on the atmosphere and tone, but the original Lugosi version is so atmospheric, the look of the movie is almost one of the characters all by itself. I think that actually compliments Lugosi’s performance.

MA: I agree.

Back to the point I was making about how they both dominate, but in different ways. Lugosi crafts the near-perfect iconic vampire in his portrayal of Dracula, while Lee goes for the throat, if you will, giving his vampire an animal athleticism and overt sexuality that are completely absent in Lugosi’s performance. If this were a boxing match, Lugosi would be the superior boxer, displaying great skill in the ring, dominating the bout throughout, clearly winning on points, while Lee would hang back, losing style points, waiting for his chance to deliver with lightning-like quickness a fierce knock-out blow.

So, who would win?

It’s a tough call. I guess it depends on how you define “best performance.” Lugosi delivers the more complete performance, creating the definitive Count Dracula, while Lee makes the most of his brief screen time, creating one lasting scary image after another. Both performances remain with you long after you’ve seen them.

But if I had to pick, I’d go with Bela Lugosi, since he gives such a complete performance.

How about you? If you had to pick one, which one would you pick as having given the best initial film performance as Dracula?

LS: I agree. I’d go with Lugosi.

MA: So, Round 1 goes to Bela. Join us next Friday for Part 2 of this three part bout, as we continue our discussion on who is the ultimate movie Dracula, Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee.

—-END PART 1-—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers