At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul

The year is 1964. The place is Brazil. And this is the first horror movie from that country.

Once more Cinemassacre's Monster Madness introduced me to this trilogy of films directed and starring José Mojica Marins as Zé do Caixão or as he's known in the States, Coffin Joe. It's kind of amazing to see a piece of world history like this and it would be the first film I ever saw from either Brazil or South America, and I'm very curious to see where this all goes. The plot is pretty basic involving a small town where our absolutely not protagonist resides Ze who is the resident coffin maker, as we see his cruel and unusually punishing tactics in trying to secure a woman who will birth to him a son to continue his bloodline. That's basically the whole movie, there's not a lot of frills but I don't expect a lot of complex storylines for a horror film and it's effectively discomforting and horrifying. Coffin Joe is a bastard with a capital B, like I haven't encountered a movie villain this heinous and fucked up I think in my life. He murders any opposition to his goal, maims and intimidates the townsfolk to the point where he can do whatever he wants, abuses and rapes women, and has a distinct hatred for religion. You are stuck with this guy the whole movie, and the film far from glorifies Zé but man is it rough to sit through! José plays it so straight almost to the point it doesn't seem like acting because he embodies the part so well, apparently they couldn't find a good fit so he just decided to do it himself so he had his work cut out for him both on and off screen. The cinematogtaphy and editing is extremely simple and yet at the exact same time ambitious, they went for a desired effect and shot even if it wasn't seamless in execution which I actually admire and praise. You'd be surprised how little background information there is for this film, so who knows what brought the idea to mind, what the production was like, hell even the release and legacy are a bit foggy even in today's trivia soaked culture. You'd think for a movie made in 1964 it wouldn't be that shocking and gruesome, even more so considering the part of the world it was made in where censoring was common and wide ranging depending on the film, but it's pretty hardcore in it's potrayal of body mutilation alone then you throw in the abuse and rape and it gets even more extreme though you don't see any nudity. I'm almost convinced the greatest offense taken back then was the sacreligious standing of the main character, a true defining trait that at first I chalked up to atheism because Zé states he has no belief, but then it shows he has great contempt for religion, it's symbols, and considers the followers of the christian religion cowards and fools. The only belief he really has is creating an extension of his bloodline, having children as a sort of quasi-immortality. And I suppose if you wanted to you can give him at least one good point, he sees a father about to strike his son and he intervenes and says no parent should hit their child for they are the continuation of your family and the future of the world, so hey he won't beat his kids but he'll absolutely fuck with their mother any chance he'll get. Ummmm....priorities?? Yeah he's pretty irredeemable. I actually quite like the look of the film, it's fairly low budget and is extremely candid of the environments, it's interesting. It's a pretty rough time trying to find a copy I'll tell you that, the old box set is pricy and the recent giant collected release of all three films is not any better price wise, but if you're a hardcore fan of these movies the new collection by Arrow seems just the ticket. And for everybody else, you can find an acceptable quality video on YouTube. Not too sure how a sequel could come about given the ending but that's what we'll look at tomorrow. I give this 3 stars, 7.5/10!

The Masque Of The Red Death

What a pick for Friday the 13th. Sometimes my genius it's...it's almost frightening.

A fairly strong point to end the week on as well, I greatly enjoyed this movie. And huzzah, I've actually read the source material on this and while admittedly it is a loose adaptation it gets the gist well enough. Set during the dark ages a cruel and heinous prince named Prospero holds a lengthy and degenerate feast and masque, while the countryside is being plagued by a terrible disease where he takes a young woman named Francesca, her lover Gino, and her father Ludivico for the purposes of "entertainment". They make some big changes though, originally the prince set up the ball to distract from thr horrors of pestilence and disease sealing himself and his court in the castle while here the prince is a straight up satanist and revels in the showing of such impure and fiendish behaviors to the innocent Francesca. Vincent Price is a bastard in this movie, he plays it really well but Prospero is beyond horrible and makes a great villain who essentially is our main character to the end. Jane Asher as Francesca is just a poor girl who gets whisked away and has to keep her faith while Prospero either tries to convert her or sacrifice her, it can be read either way, and you want to see her get the hell out of this damned castle. There's a fairly bigger cast than previous Corman films but I want to give some major love to John Westbrook who plays the eponymous Red Death, the look alone is incredibly simplistic and yet so classic and striking but his voice is outstanding, understanding the value that truly powerful and menacing figures need not even raise their voice. Speaking of striking, the color is unreal in this movie, I'm not sure what the technicals were but they used a good deal of saturation and had no issue using a wide palette. They used the imagery of rooms with various hues, why? Color. They use candles of green and blue, why? Colour. You see many personifications of death in a kaleidoscopic fashion, why? Couleur. It's a spectacle practically of seeing so many extras in various regalia merrymaking, but it doesn't lose it's horror basis. Just seeing acts of cruelty being brushed off as a good or acceptable thing is disturbing enough, throw in devil worship, another weird dream scene bathed in blue, the literal specter of a gruesome and hellish death sweeping across the castle, even if you want to get all philospohical and see the juxtaposition of faith in God against Prospero's belief that war, plague, famine, and death rule the world with no good things to be found and that the belief in God is nothing short of a farce is pretty screwed up man. I almost fully believe this is a tale that could be remade today in all seriousness, maybe not with the backdrop of recent world events but...I'm not saying. I'm just saying. Look at this movie, look at today. Onwards we trek, so production values are surprisingly expansive, acting is solid, story is a classic, and I feel like a complete utter fool for not reviewing these way waaaaay earlier. I give it 4 stars, 9/10! Next week we're getting foreign, ooooh yeah!

The Raven

Not a traditional horror film per se, but this has been a favorite of mine and damn it I want to talk about it.

For the longest time this was the only Roger Corman Poe film I saw and I love it so, this ain't no objective film review so hunker down y'all as I spout off some opinions. This is also the loosest adaptation of any work of fiction I have ever seen, how do you make a feature film off of a short poem? The short answer, you don't. The long answer, you center the movie on magic wielding wizards consisting of Vincent Price as Erasmus who aids Peter Lorre as Dr. Bedlo who has been transformed into a raven by Boris Karloff as Dr. Scarabus, but Lorre wants revenge real bad so Vincent accompanies him to Karloff's castle where duels are challenged, dead wives return to life, and humor is peppered throughout. It is a really funny movie to me, that may throw people for a loop when most of the Corman movies of this time period are played straight and serious, but this was an intentional choice of the writers and works nicely. Now you don't get three of the biggest names in horror together in a film and say the acting is bad, Vincent is on a roll in this film from reciting the world famous poem, to the humor, to the magic wielding that would put Doctor Stephen Strange to shame, he's a 20/10. Boris Karloff nearing the end of his career has lost none of his ability, showing a lot of class and charisma while still being a good antagonist, and I'll level with you man the first lines he speaks do nothing but send shivers down my spine in a most eerie way. Peter Lorre while in actuality not as prolific in horror movie history as one might think is a welcome addition, delivering his rapid fire burning insults and wise ass remarks and while he is the lesser of the powers that be in this wizard triumvirate the movie would not be the same without him. For those in the know about Roger Corman's history, to see a very young Jack Nicholson before he got to super stardom is really neat to see even if he doesn't have that big of a role, and you see interviews of him being humbled to the point of tears in thanking Roger giving him a chance to act when no one else would and I have to express a lot of love and gratitude to him as well for getting so many people into movie making. I'm not a book critic by even a microscopic capacity but I recommend you read Corman's book, How I Made A Hundred Movies In Hollywood And Never Lost A Dime. Once again the sets and costuming are most impressive, and the effects while not exactly seamless have a strong charm all of it's own. And now comes the part where I say without a shred of irony or exaggeration, these wizard duels are better than anything Harry Potter ever gave us. No, I'm not kidding. No, I'm not taking it back. Don't @ me bitches! I adore it, there is creativity, humor, and ambition in how they did everything. I'll even push that envelope further and say 4 stars, 10/10! Watch it, buy it, love it. But we got one more to go before the week is out, until next time.

The Fall Of The House Of Usher

This has actually been on the list since it all began.

Several of the Roger Croman movies based on Edgar Allen Poe's works in fact, and this was the first and a pretty damn good one to start with. Now I haven't read the story, in fact it's a goal of mine to read all of Poe's work before the end, but it's an interesting story. A young man named Philip is visiting the estate of the Usher family to wed his fiancee Madeline and quickly is shut down by her brother Roderick, who claims the bloodline of the Usher family is wrought with terrible things and ailments, as Philip tries to escape the crumbling house with his lady friend. Once upon a time while I was still in high school we watched this film for our english class, but being as classes were barely an hour long I never fully saw the film until today and I was immediately loving it from the setting alone. For a film with not that large of a budget, the sets look incredible, the costumes are ornate, the atmosphere is simply to die for, and the use of color was not only a big step up for AIP but incredibly striking. Roger Corman had to convince the studio to give a bigger budget for a color film at that time, and he was an avid reader of the Poe stories since he was a kid so it was as much a passion project as well as a gamble but surprise surprise! This was the first of many movies Roger made from the stories of Poe and it was an immense success! And it's hard not to see why, you have a god tier level horror actor like Vincent Price delivering a very memorable performance, the moody sets and slow burn pace add a foreboding mood to an already foreboding story, the direction is effective, and it was made still during that special time when horror movies could be classic or modern. I don't really know why we don't see more movies like this today in the horror genre, everything has to be modern times or if they do go back it's primarily to the 80s, you never see a horror movie get victorian on your ass anymore and I feel that's a shame. How the movie just shows the house of Usher and the decrepit grounds is just beauty to my eyes, a lot of credit has to go to the set builders and cinematographer on this movie. I need not tell you Vincent Price is excellent in this role, it's a given, but how the character of Roderick genuinely believes there is nothing short of a curse on the family lineage can be felt quite easily and it is a striking performance. Mark Damon is a more conventional leading man but works nicely, Myrna Fahey has a bit more to work with and gets a moment to shine near the end, and Harry Ellerbe is a good ally character to Philip playing the manservant of the house. It's so difficult to describe, but when you watch the movie and you let the ambience and mood just wash over you, you absolutely buy it. Cause you know from the start something is off about the house and the people who live there, but even if you are a horror movie veteran you can't quite pin down what. And what's interesting is you could see this movie from two different angles, through science in terms of psychology as to why Roderick and Madeline are the way they are, or through a sheer supernatural lens and simply chalk it up to a haunted house or curse or whatever. It's an almost baffilingly effective film and it's a giant recommendation from me. It's almost a film that must be seen to be believed. 4 stars, I think I'm gonna give it a 9/10, and we got more Corman goodies to come.

Dracula (1992)

Yeah I'm pretty happy with this one.

I don't know whether or not the reception of this film has went up or down over the three decades since it's release, but I'm in the camp of liking it a good deal. Easily the most lavishly produced, faithful, and striking adaptation of the story in film, Francis Ford Coppola bet it all on this movie to save his sinking film company with a solid budget of 40 million and pulled in over 200 million when all was said and done, and I can understand why. True the movie leans a bit more into romance than abject horror, but it didn't bother me all that much. The stuff that is creepy, freaky, and just plain horrific had a strong effect on me. Never once in all vampire media have I ever cringed and shirked away from seeing a vampire consume blood, but the razor scene in this movie mm-mmm. No way, that creeped me right the fuck out man, gave me the heebie-jeebies! And the romance while assuredly dramatic I bought into, it strangely worked for me. Only a handful of details I noticed didn't make the jump from page to screen, but all the things that did make it give a lotta brownie points to this film! The production is batshit insane, I cannot believe the visuals in this movie, and to think everything was done in camera with next to zero post production or computer graphics work kinda blows my socks off. The sets, the costumes, the scope of it all, it's almost illegal how grand this movie looks. Star studded cast and I gotta just say real quick oh ho boy this is gonna be sacreligious, Gary Oldman had such a perfect voice and presence for what was required in this role. I know, Bela Lugosi is THE voice, he is friggin' Dracula as long as the world keeps turning. However! Gary got me creeped out, entranced, and invested. The hair at the beginning though, absurd. But I can't change it so I gotta live with it, and everything else was great about him. Winona Ryder as Mina was very nice, and I'm actually happy she has more of a role to play cause in all seriousness Mina and Lucy are barely even there in any adaptation. Anthony Hopkins was riding a high and beautiful wave in the early 90s due to Silence Of The Lambs and I did like him a fair bit, I mean this is the most exotic and foreign Van Helsing I've seen since Edward Van Sloan. Keanu my son, I'm thrilled you have a shining career nowadays and I understand you were burnt the hell out making this, so I will not trash you here but I do feel a different actor would have worked more. I do however wish we got more Cary Elwes, Richard E. Grant, and Billy Campbell as Arthur, Seward, and Quincey respectively cause well I'm a sucker for Cary and Richard, and huzzah Quincey is proper texan and was kinda awesome! I do find it hilarious though they had to cut about 20 minutes of gore effects out though the film was in no danger of getting a higher rating than an R, but they absolutely kept every breastises and charged erotic moment in this movie no problem. I mean I think they were in a moooood making this movie, my God Hammer wasn't this gratuitous and revelling in the sexy aspects, but here? Make sure the kids are in bed or out of the house before flipping this on. Lawd have mercy! Moving swiftly on. I really digged this movie, I loved the lavish design and tone, I was most definitely entertained, I give it 3.5 stars and an 8/10! Next week, it is high past time we pay our respects to the king of low budget pictures with his acclaimed and memorable Poe series.

Count Dracula (1970)

Big leap ahead to 1970 with another more accurate depiction of the novel.

Now obviously it's not a perfect adaptation, but Jesus Franco delivered a good enough adaptation of Bram Stoker's work. It's an interesting example of cinema, and I'll freely admit this is my first Jesus Franco film and the style is unique to me but also gives the film it's own personal feel. So we start off with Jonathan Harker making his way to the Borgo Pass to convene with the Count over the purchase of property in London, and it follows the book fairly well for that first section, hell it gets a giant gold sticky star for being the only adaptation of Dracula that fits the description of the count in the book, but this being a barely over 90 minute movie we move swiftly on to London as we are introduced to the rest of the characters. Jonathan's fiancee Mina, her best friend Lucy, Dr. John Seward residing physician at a mental hospital, Quincey Morris the love interest of Lucy, and Dr. Abraham Van Helsing. We're still following the no frills outline of the book and keep a steady pace, and not to go into the depths of detail and spoilers because you know this story, so let's talk about some details instead. I appreciate it being a period piece and the look of the movie while minimalistic works very well! The camera is the most interesting factor, you get a lot of handheld stuff, so many zooms it would be a dangerous drinking game, and panning shots which shows off the full scope of the sets and location. I've heard conflicting opinions on whether this was shot in Franco's native country of Spain or in Italy, but either way the castle, the classy interiors, and the distinctly old fashioned yet creepy exteriors look lovely. Easily, far and away, hands down, best Christopher Lee performance as Dracula, I was so taken aback by the amount of dialogue he had because it's a well known fact he refused to speak the dialogue in subsequent Hammer films, and it makes a world of difference. Speaking of Hammer, Herbert Lom is Van Helsing in this and it took me a good bit before I realized it was The Phantom Of The Opera before he got scarred by acid, a very serious and well spoken iteration of the character but not much else. I feel like an ass when I say stuff like this but...if Quincey Morris ain't texan then he ain't Quincey Morris, now am I saying I need this thick kountree accent or more southern idioms than you can shake a stick at? No sirree, but goddamn it that would tickle me pink and put a huge smile on my face because he is easily my favorite character in the entire book. Not to even slightly say the cast didn't do fine work, they did all the way through. It's not one of the most examplary versions of this classic literary character, but if you're a fan of vampire movies or more foreign-y films or movies of an older caliber it is worth seeing. They made a solid attempt at bringing the book to life, and did it in an interesting and entertaining way. So it's definitely a good movie, and if you don't want to take my word for it Christopher Lee himself said it was a fine effort. I give it 3 stars, 7/10, and Coppola's Dracula is next.

Dracula [Espãnol]

It feels like home again.

Wow, wow, wow let me tell you! I have heard about this for some time but seeing it for the first time I feel like a fool for not seeing it sooner. Now you may be wondering exactly what it is I'm reviewing here, well in short Universal Studios shot two versions of the 1931 classic Dracula, one for english and one for spanish speaking audiences. They used the same basic script but made changes here and there, the same sets, the same costumes, and the spanish crew shot during the night while the Lugosi version shot during the day. It is such a fascinating experience to watch this, because I've seen the Bela Lugosi version countless times since I was about 8 years old, I know that movie super well, so to see something oh so similar and yet very different the only way I can explain it is like if they remade the movie, not shot for shot, but did an even better job than the original! It was almost a game to see what elements they kept and what they changed. Yeah I am firmly in the crowd of the spanish version being superior to the vastly more famous version, but it might be hard for me to articulate why. The one big element that blindsided me was the fact that this movie pushes an hour and forty-five minutes for the runtime while the Lugosi version is an hour and fifteen minutes long, so you get a movie that takes it's time and has more room for slower moments, character moments, and flat out stuff that was not in the english version. In fact I was profoundly impressed with how much material from the book was presented, it makes the Lugosi version look so truncated and abridged in comparison. The movie is a bit more hardcore too, you barely see a damn thing in the english version and while that has it's own scary effect, you see the bite marks, you hear not one but two stakings, and not to sound piggish or anything but Lupita Tovar's dress is significantly more revealing than Helen Chandler's. I know Americans are kinda prudish and certainly during that time especially, but the spanish audience does not screw about and God bless them for it. I greatly loved the performances given here as well, Carlos Villarías is a very very good Dracula obviously making the role his own, but the way he carries himself and the facial acting gives a different edge to this Dracula, with Lugosi it's a creepy smile and careful lighting around the eyes but with Villarías he looks like he's about to tear people limb from limb and feast. Eduardo Arozamena as Professor Van Helsing I saw a good bit of Edward Van Sloan in, and he had a great presence with a strong worldy knowledge for our vampire hunter so a lot of love there. Lupita Tovar I actually got to see before the film, they had this short little interview probably shot in the 90s as she discussed her time making the picture and you could tell she had a lot of love and appreciation for the role, and she does damn good, truly stunning too I mean holy cow, the Count has very fine taste in ladies for sure. Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield, good God I didn't think you could outcrazy Dwight Frye but the man is unhinged in this movie and I love every second of it, nothing but a glowing review of his talents from me. Even Barry Norton as Juan I felt was way better than David Manners' John, never to put down David's performance but he was just a teeny bit of a little bitch in Tod Browning's film but here he seems much more the unshakable heroic leading man. Again it's not the easiest thing to expound upon my points but if you have a back to back comparison viewing the results are as clear as daylight, hell if you watched this and Dracula's Daughter as a sort of introduction to golden age vampire films you'd have a grand time. I know I would! It is fully worth your time seeing if you're any fan of the Universal Monsters, Dracula, or horror films in general. I'm just so happy to be back if even for just a moment in time writing reviews again like I used to, but even more so now that I've seen this slice of cinema. Big time 4 stars, 8.5/10! And our business with Count Dracula is far from over and I will see you next time with a Christopher Lee Dracula film we haven't touched on yet.