My Favorite Classic Movie

This post is part of the My Favorite Classic Movie Blogathon in celebration of National Classic Movie Day (May 16). To view the schedule listing all the great posts in this blogathon: http://www.classicfilmtvcafe.com/2015/03/a-blogathon-in-celebration-of-inaugural.html




Now....I know that some people will disagree with my pick for favorite classic movie of all time, for the simple reason that they don't think the movie qualifies as a "classic". Most would assume that classic automatically means "old". Well, we live in a world where a film like JURASSIC PARK is considered "old".....and this month will mark the 38th anniversary of the original release of my pick. That year, 1977, marked the 38th anniversary of another famous film's debut: GONE WITH THE WIND. So I would say that my pick deserves the recognition of "classic".

My pick is STAR WARS.

STAR WARS (the real STAR WARS--the version that came out in May 1977) is my favorite movie of all time. The whole reason I love movies, the whole reason that I am a film buff--heck, the whole reason I write a movie blog goes all the way back to STAR WARS.

I saw STAR WARS during its original release, when I was eight years old.....at a drive-in, no less. I was obsessed with it even before I saw it, due to the Topps STAR WARS trading cards and the Marvel comic book movie adaptation. Everything about the movie intrigued me and fired up my young imagination. I saw STAR WARS at exactly the right age, and exactly the right time. Back then I certainly couldn't articulate what made me love the film so much. All I knew was that I wanted to spend as much time in this world as possible. At that point fairy tales and kiddie stories had not made much effect on me--but STAR WARS did.


STAR WARS got me interested in other science-fiction and fantasy films, and that led to my interest in classic horror films, and that led to my interest in classic films in general, and so on, and so on. All cinema is connected in some way--even if you try to just limit yourself to just one genre of film, or one director, or one actor, you will be exposed to many different types of movies. If I hadn't seen STAR WARS when I did, I think I still would have become a film buff in some way--I'm sure some movie would have come along and triggered my interest--but STAR WARS was the one that did.


STAR WARS--I'm talking about the whole saga now--has become a cultural phenomenon. It is now world-wide modern mythology. Everything about STAR WARS is so famous now that I believe the movie itself is somewhat taken for granted. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK may be the "better" film, but STAR WARS still holds up as a great film on its own.

STAR WARS moves fast--especially for a movie that came out in 1977. I love how the movie goes from one location to the other, constantly introducing new characters and new plot situations along the way. The movie doesn't stop to take a breath, and it doesn't stop to linger on the fantastic production design, either. We all know now how much George Lucas loves his CGI--but for the original STAR WARS the sets and settings have a reality to them that would be defined as a "used universe". That's what I really noticed as a kid when I saw photos from the movie in magazines and on trading cards. Everything looked like it really existed, and I had just never seen anything like it before. One must also remember that back in 1977 almost nothing about the STAR WARS universe had been explained yet. There were so many things going in in the first STAR WARS movie, and so many things that existed in the background....and they were just there. The movie didn't stop to tell you what was going on,....you were dropped into the middle of this galactic battle, and you just had to go along for the ride. Yes, there was that opening crawl, but that just gave a brief overview of the situation. Today's movies explain everything. The original STAR WARS explained almost nothing...and that just made it more fascinating.

Are the characters in STAR WARS generic? Well, yes, but that is what they're supposed to be. Young, naive farmboy....cocky star-pilot...beautiful feisty princess...strange old wizard....these are all archetypes, to be sure, but they are archetypes that people know and understand right off the bat. The acting in the STAR WARS movies never gets any credit at all, and George Lucas gets no credit for his direction of human beings, but you have to give props to Lucas for one thing....he picked the right combination of actors to portray these archetypes. You can call it luck (although Obi-Wan Kenobi doesn't believe in such a thing as luck), but if you recast even just one of the main characters in STAR WARS, the whole movie would come out very differently.

And let's not forget the main thing that intrigued me and so many other kids back in 1977: Darth Vader. It was the look of Vader, more than anything else, that made him so popular. Take the stature of Dave Prowse, and add the voice of James Earl Jones, and you have more than just a cool bad guy--you have one of the most iconic movie characters of all time. I can't even begin to tell you how much kids loved Darth Vader back in 1977. If you had any of the Topps Star Wars trading cards that had Vader's picture on them, it was like you were carrying gold around in your pockets. I'm proud to say that I wore the original Darth Vader Halloween costume in the fall of 1977.

And believe me, I had more Star Wars stuff than just a Halloween costume--I had the original Star Wars lunch box, the Star Wars Burger Chef movie posters, and the first Star Wars action figures (which actually didn't come out until 1978--but that's another story). Peter Cushing, who played Grand Moff Tarkin in the movie, wound up being my favorite actor of all time, and Carrie Fisher became one of my first crushes.

I could go on and on about STAR WARS (and if you read some of my other posts through the last couple years, you'll find that I have). I'm sure I've seen it about a hundred times, but I still love watching it. As a matter of fact, I viewed my DVD of the original version on May 4, Star Wars Day. This is the DVD that is non-anamorphic with sub-par sound & picture quality...but I still prefer it to the changed version on Blu-ray. Whether you like it or not, STAR WARS changed motion pictures forever, and it still affects the motion picture industry to this day. I love this movie and I always will. One of the greatest gifts that God has given us is out ability to use our imaginations. STAR WARS was the movie that unlocked my imagination. If I sound like a STAR WARS nerd, that is because I am--an original one.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

BARQUERO

One of Kino Lorber's latest releases in their "Studio Classics" home video line is the 1970 Western BARQUERO, starring Lee Van Cleef and Warren Oates.

If you have been reading this blog you know that I am a huge Lee Van Cleef fan. I had never seen BARQUERO, and I had always assumed that it was a true Spaghetti Western--but it's not. The movie was an American production, shot in Colorado. BARQUERO tries to be just like a Spaghetti Western, but it doesn't quite get there.

The movie opens with a rather large group of bandits (there seems to be about a hundred of these guys) laying waste to a small town and killing all the citizens. The bandits are led by a vicious man by the name of Jake Remy (Warren Oates). Remy's real reason for attacking the town was to steal a huge cache of rifles. Remy intends to take these rifles and his men and cross into Mexico, to start a new revolution.


To get to Mexico Remy and his gang have to cross the river. They have to use the only barge within miles, and that barge is run by the mysterious Travis (Lee Van Cleef). Needless to say, Travis is not too happy with the idea of a bunch of bandits taking over his property, and the "Barquero" decides to put up a resistance.

The idea of a barge being the main plot point in a Western may seem silly to some people....but think about it: back in the 19th Century, if you had to go over a large river, and there were no bridges around, how would you do it? A small settlement has been built around the barge crossing, and Travis ferries over the settlers to the other side before Remy and his men arrive. The settlers (who sort of look down on Travis in the first place) want to get back to their homes and property, and they try to convince Travis to either give in to Remy or make a deal with him.

Of course Lee Van Cleef isn't about to give in to anyone for any reason. The character of Travis is a lot more working class than the Colonel Mortimer type of role Van Cleef usually played around this time. Travis is a taciturn loner, his only friend being Forrest Tucker's mountain man. Travis goes out of his way to protect the settlers and fend off Remy's gang, but it seems the real reason he is doing this is just pure stubbornness rather than a sense of doing good.

Warren Oates was a fantastic character actor, and here in this movie he is incredibly mean & cruel. Remy spends a lot of time smoking marijuana, and having flashbacks--kind of like how Gian Maria Volonte's character acted in FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE. Remy acts more and more mentally unbalanced as the story goes along, to the point where he almost seems comic. Remy's main lieutenant, a French veteran of Maximilian's Mexican occupation army, is played by Kerwin Mathews, who I will always think of as Sinbad from THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD. Mathews is very good in what is an unusual role for him.

The reason Remy gets to spend so much time smoking weed and hallucinating is that for most of the film Remy and Travis are at opposite sides of the river, waiting for the other to make some sort of move. BARQUERO is about 110 minutes long, and that's way too much of a running time for this sort of material. There are a couple of sub-plots to fill things out, including Mariette Hartley as a settler who offers herself to Travis if he saves her husband, who has been taken hostage by Remy's men on the other side of the river. The sub-plots just delay the final showdown, and after the final scene, you will probably say what I said..."Why didn't Travis just do that in the first place?"

BARQUERO was directed by Gordon Douglas, who is best known for making several Frank Sinatra movies in the 1960s. Douglas had actually made a very underrated, and very violent Western named RIO CONCHOS years before, so he certainly knew his way around the genre. BARQUERO isn't bad...it just doesn't have enough in it to make it particularly noteworthy. As stated before, it tries to pattern itself on the Spaghetti Westerns, but it isn't flamboyant enough to be considered part of that class.

The real reason to see BARQUERO is to watch Lee Van Cleef and Warren Oates. Both actors had spent several years playing bit parts in various movie & TV Westerns--if BARQUERO had been made 10 years earlier, Van Cleef and Oates would have been members of Remy's gang, and they would have been killed off halfway though the film. It's nice to see them get the main roles and oppose one another--but because both men are on different sides of the river throughout the movie, they never appear in the same scene face-to-face!

One more thing I must mention. While the visual quality of the movie is fine, the sound mix makes certain dialogue passages hard to hear--and unfortunately there are no subtitles. The only extra is an original trailer.

WITHOUT CHARITY

NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, I must reveal that Paul Lyzun is one of my best friends. Nevertheless, this is my honest appraisal of his film.





On September 14, 2000, three men who were working on a barn near an upscale rural home outside of Lakeville, Indiana were murdered during a botched attempted robbery. The crime shocked Northern Indiana, and the case became even more notorious due to a young woman named Charity Payne.

Director Paul Lyzun's documentary WITHOUT CHARITY examines the case through Payne, who was accused of having told the men who committed the murders how to bypass the security system at the house (the family of Payne's former boyfriend lived at the residence). Despite Payne's testimony that she had no idea what was going to happen, the woman was convicted and sentenced to 165 years in prison.

The ramifications of the case--and the effects it had on the families and friends of those involved--are covered through numerous interviews. Police and law officials from St. Joseph County are asked about their decision to charge Payne, and members of each of the three murder victims' families are allowed to express their feelings. Charity Payne may be the main focus of this film, but the director makes sure that the viewer realizes that three men lost their lives in a horrible and senseless manner.

Payne only served seven years of her sentence before it was overturned--and that decision brought out a whole new series of questions and controversies, which are examined in a straightforward, even-handed manner. This is a riveting documentary, but it is not an easy one to watch. At the end there is no sense of justice, or triumph, or even closure....there is only a set of unanswered questions, which thankfully the director does not try to answer for the audience. These unanswered questions will remain in the viewer's memory long after the film has been seen.

For more information on WITHOUT CHARITY, please visit http://withoutcharity.com/

Watching Movies In The 21st Century

As of this writing I have not seen the new AVENGERS movie yet. It's been a long time since I've seen a blockbuster film on its opening weekend. It used to be a common thing for me to go see big-time movies as soon as I could, but there just doesn't seem to be a major reason to anymore.

A lot of it has to do with movie audiences instead of the movies themselves. A packed theater should mean a more exciting movie-going experience--there's nothing like a large group people reacting positively to a great film--but now it means dealing with more and more annoyances. People just act differently in movie theaters now.

We live in a sound-bite society where the average person can't go more than 10 seconds without checking whatever personal device they are carrying. The idea of sitting in a darkened theater and spending almost two hours paying attention to what is happening on the screen seems beyond the capabilities of many.

This means that if you go to the movies and the theater is full, you are going to have to put up with plenty of distractions. And before you call me an old fogey, I'm not just referring to young whippersnappers. Bad behavior in a movie theater knows no age limit. I've found that older moviegoers are even more inclined to drive you nuts than younger ones. My theory on that is older citizens don't actual go out to the movies very much, so they don't know how to act when they are there. When I went to see UNBROKEN there was an elderly man sitting near the front who decided to start up his own audio commentary...he started making loud comments like "THAT'S A STAFF SERGEANT" and "THAT'S A B-25". Luckily the sound of the movie started drowning him out. Whenever I do encounter someone talking loudly in a theater, it is almost always an older person.

When I do go to a movie, I try to go to a weekday matinee. One of the reasons for this is that I am cheap. Another is that there won't be many people there. In the theater I try to sit high up (I can't stand sitting down in front and tilting my head back to look up at the screen), and I try to avoid sitting close to any large groups of people.

Do I appear to be an anti-social grouch? Well, when I go to watch a movie--I actually want to watch the movie.  This is another idea that many seem to have a hard time dealing with. I'm amazed when I overhear people having a nice chat with their friends while a movie happens to be in progress. There's nothing wrong with making quiet comments about the film with the person you are with--but having a personal discussion while a film is going on? I just don't get that at all.

I honestly think those who act like a darkened movie theater is their own living room don't mean to be rude. It's the way society is now--with all the multi-tasking going on, focusing on just one thing seems quaint. I go to a lot of sporting events, and the attention level there is even worse. If you are going to pay money to see a movie--or pay even more money to attend a sporting event--wouldn't you, like, want to sit and watch what you came to see? Am I the weird one for asking this question?

Set aside for a moment the human equation of going to a movie theater. I haven't even discussed the ridiculous price of movie snacks. (Do I sneak in food to the movie theater? You're darn right I do) And what about the now common practice of showing at least 30 minutes of trailers before the movie even starts? (And the ten minutes of commercials?) If I wanted to watch trailers, I can always stay home and go on YouTube.

But what gets me about the trailer thing is...I've found that audiences respond more to the trailers than they do the actual movie. I'll give you an example. Last year when I went and saw GODZILLA, one of the trailers shown was for LET'S BE COPS or WE ARE COPS or whatever the title was for some movie about guys posing as cops. The audience went absolutely nuts over it--you'd think they were watching the Three Stooges or something. When it came to the main feature, that same audience just couldn't give anywhere near the same sort of enthusiasm. My theory on this is (yes, I have another theory), modern Americans have a very short attention span, so they enjoy trailers more than a two-hour film. I think most Americans would rather just watch trailers. If someone opened up a theater and showed nothing but trailers, they would make a lot of money.

I've gone to a lot of revival showings of older films. The audiences for those screenings act differently, right? Well, not really. You may be familiar with Cinemark's Classic Series. A couple years ago, they had a special double feature of the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN and THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. During the screening many of those in the audience laughed several times--and trust me, they weren't laughing at the sardonic wit of James Whale. I think a lot of them were laughing because they felt that this was an "old movie", and it was okay to laugh at it. But once again, I have to ask--why go to the screening in the first place if you are going to laugh at it?

The sad thing is I don't think movie theater audience behavior is going to improve. So what can be done? Well, we now have 3-D showings, and IMAX showings, and Mommies with babies showings....how about showings for people that actually want to watch the movie? I'm serious about this. The theater sets aside a showing for people that want to talk, or screw around with their cell phones, or who want to eat as loudly as possible--and then the theater sets aside a showing for people who really want to watch the movie. But you know what would be the result of that happening?

The people who actually wanted to watch the movie would be charged twice as much.

A PLUMBING WE WILL GO

This is my contribution to Shorts!--A Tiny Blogathon, hosted by Movies Silently.



Taking part in a movie blogathon about short films gives me a perfect opportunity to discuss the Three Stooges. The Stooges might be the most famous short film stars of all time--their comedy series for Columbia still runs on television constantly, and probably always will. If you asked the average person on the street whether they had ever actually seen a short subject film, their response might be, "What are those?" But if you asked that same person whether they had seen a Three Stooges episode, they would know exactly what you are talking about.

I've watched the Three Stooges literally all my life. I was fascinated by them as a kid, and looking back now it's easy to see why. The crude, rapid-fire brand of slapstick, the wild & wacky situations, the crazy sound effects, and the super-fast pace of the films easily got the attention of my young mind. The Stooges were perfect for the short film format. Most of their Columbia films last between 15 to 20 minutes, and unlike most full-length comedy feature films made during the same period, there's no romantic sub-plot, or musical numbers, or burdensome plot details. In a Stooges short film, it's the boys all the way....and even if you didn't like them, you have to admit they weren't boring.

My favorite Stooges short of all time is A PLUMBING WE WILL GO, released in 1940 and directed by Del Lord, with story & screenplay by Elwood Ullman. I consider this the quintessential Stooges comedy. It was made right in the middle of what I consider the Stooges' golden period--1937-1944. During this era Moe, Larry, and Curly made their funniest comedies, and the Columbia short subject unit that supported them was running like a well-oiled machine. A PLUMBING WE WILL GO has several great Stooges elements:

The Stooges running from the law
The Stooges attempting to perform a professional service
The Stooges pretending to be something they are not
The Stooges meeting up with (and annoying) snooty high-society types

About the only thing A PLUMBING WE WILL GO doesn't have is an appearance by long-time Stooges nemesis Vernon Dent--but it does feature another famed Stooge supporting player, Bud Jamison.

The short starts with the Stooges in a familiar place--a courtroom. The boys are accused of being chicken thieves, but luckily the presiding judge doesn't buy it (Curly doesn't help things by taking his hat out of his pocket and unleashing a flurry of feathers). As soon as the Stooges get back out on the street, they wind up in trouble again with Bud Jamison's angry cop. With the unknowing help of street magician Professor Bilbo, the Stooges manage to get away and steal a plumber's van. Incredibly , the swanky house they park the van in front of has just called for a plumber--so the Stooges, fearing arrest by the pursuing Jamison, act like they are plumbers.

After the boys go down to the basement, Moe sends Curly upstairs to shut off the water. What follows may be the high point of Curly Howard's entire film career. Instead of stopping the water Curly just makes it flow more and more (Curly's facial expressions and body language during this scene are a wonder to behold). Curly's solution to stopping the water is to keep adding pipes to it over and over again, until he is surrounded by them--one of the great visual moments in Stooge history.

Curly's greatest screen moment?

With the water still flowing Moe tells Larry to turn the water off outside. Larry winds up ruining the lawn (when the butler tells Larry to stop, the middle Stooge gives the servant a shovelful of sod in the face). Curly escapes his pipe prison by drilling a hole in the floor, which causes him to fall straight down into the basement, angering Moe (as if Moe needed angering in the first place). Moe tells Curly to find some more pipe...and Curly does, but as he explains to Moe, "The pipe is filled with wires!!"


Of course the wires are electrical wires...and the Stooges replace those wires with water, causing every electrical device in the house to start spouting like a geyser. African-American actor Dudley Dickerson gets a showcase scene as the house cook who reacts to seeing his kitchen take the brunt of the Stooges' "repairs". Some of today's viewers might consider Dickerson's role to be politically incorrect, but the man is genuinely funny--as a matter of fact, Dickerson almost steals the short from the Stooges.

While this is going on the lady of the house decides to show her guests a brand new "television receiver". She tunes in to a broadcast from Niagara Falls--and soon a real waterfall comes through the screen. (Is this the earliest use of a television set as a comic gag in movie history?)

Finally the owner of the house comes in, finds out what is going on, and heads off to confront the idiots who have ruined his home....and the owner is none other than the judge who let the Stooges off at the beginning of the short! The judge falls through the hole Curly made in the upstairs bathroom....and once again the Stooges are on the run, jumping into the giant hole Larry made in the yard, and then interrupting Professor Bilbo's magic act yet again.

A PLUMBING WE WILL GO starts off with a very simple premise--all the Stooges have to do is fix a small leak--but that premise builds and builds, until the house the Stooges are working in takes on more water than an ocean (as Moe says, "This ain't a house, it's a sieve!!") The Stooges are not plumbers, and they know nothing about plumbing, but they carry on anyway, absolutely confident in everything they do. You can call the Stooges stupid, but they have an assurance about them that puts them on another level among classic film comedians.

Many Stooge fans look upon Del Lord as the best short subject director the boys worked with, and he keeps the story moving so fast you don't have time to do anything but laugh. That's the main reason why the Stooges comedies work so well so many years after they were made--they're as quickly edited as any action sequence in a 21st Century comic-book movie.

The Three Stooges were masters of the short comedy subject, and A PLUMBING WE WILL GO features them at the height of their powers. If you ever meet someone who has no idea who the Three Stooges are (if such a person exists), you should show them A PLUMBING WE WILL GO. It sums up the Three Stooges perfectly.

TALES OF TERROR On Blu-ray

Over the past couple years, Shout Factory has come out with two different Vincent Price Blu-ray sets. Every Roger Corman-directed Edgar Allan Poe movie starring Price has been included in them....except TALES OF TERROR.

Now TALES OF TERROR has been released on Blu-ray by Kino Lorber, and that company will be putting out several other Vincent Price movies later on this year. If Shout Factory is going to put together a third Price set, I don't know what they are going to be able to put in it.

TALES OF TERROR (1962) was the third Poe adaptation that Vincent Price and Roger Corman had worked on together. It was the fourth Poe movie for Corman.....before TALES he had tried to make THE PREMATURE BURIAL outside of American-International Pictures, so he could get more of the profits back.....but AIP bought the film while it was still in production. (THE PREMATURE BURIAL featured Ray Milland instead of Vincent Price.)

The Poe series was already starting to show signs of over-familiarity, so for TALES Corman and writer Richard Matheson tweaked the ingredients a bit. TALES concerns three stories instead of one, and a comic flavor was injected into the middle segment. Two big-name stars were also added to appear along with Vincent Price: Peter Lorre and Basil Rathbone.

The elements of comedy and guest stars would carry over in the next entry in the Poe series, THE RAVEN, which was a full-fledged spoof that added the King of Monsters, Boris Karloff, to join up with Vincent Price and Peter Lorre. Some have suggested that TALES OF TERROR was a turning point in the production of the Poe series--and not in a good way. It must be pointed out, however, that two of the best Price/Corman/Poe films of them all--THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH and THE TOMB OF LIGEIA--were still to come.

The first tale in TALES OF TERROR is "Morella". A young woman named Lenora (Maggie Pierce) returns to her New England home after 26 years away to find that her dissolute, reclusive father (Vincent Price) has been keeping the corpse of her mother (who died after giving birth to her) in an upstairs bedroom. "Morella" is the weakest tale in this film, and it is very reminiscent of HOUSE OF USHER. It also anticipates the later THE TOMB OF LIGEIA. Most of the typical Corman/Poe elements are stuffed into this story--Vincent Price playing a brooding recluse, a portrait of a dead woman having importance, and a fiery climax, in which we get to see the "burning barn" footage that would be used again and again in the AIP Poe series. According to the excellent Tim Lucas commentary on this Blu-ray, "Morella" was originally supposed to be the closing story in TALES OF TERROR--it's a good thing it wasn't.

The second tale is "The Black Cat". You could say that this second segment is made up of two Poe tales--the story takes a lot from "The Cask of Amontillado" as well. Drunken lout Montresor Herringbone (Peter Lorre) finds out that his wife Annabel (Joyce Jameson) has been having an affair with the snooty Fortunato Lucresi (Vincent Price). Montresor's solution to this is a little home-improvement project in his basement, but his wife's hated black cat literally gets in the way. The result is a horror-comic gem, with a hilarious off-the-wall performance by Peter Lorre. Price is very funny as well--the actor still doesn't get enough credit for his sense of humor (and as Vincent would readily admit, there's a very thin line between comedy and horror). Price and Lorre's comedy act would be reprised in THE RAVEN and THE COMEDY OF TERRORS.

The final tale is "The Case of M. Valdemar". Dying and in great pain, Mr. Valdemar relies on the ministrations of a creepy hypnotist named Carmichael (Basil Rathbone) to obtain relief from his suffering. Carmichael asks for only one thing in return--a chance to hypnotize Valdemar at the very point of death. The hypnotist does this, but then holds Valdemar in a kind of purgatory.....all so he can claim Valdemar's wife (Debra Paget). This is what I feel is the best tale of the movie, with a deadly serious Basil Rathbone taking the acting honors--you can almost feel the anger coming out of the man (maybe the reason why Rathbone seems so put out here is that he wasn't too happy about working at AIP in the first place). The "voice" of the in-limbo Valdemar is one of the creepiest sound effects of all time ("RRRREEEEELLLLEEAASSSEEE MMMMMEEEEE..."). The ending of "The Case of M. Valdemar" is more than sufficient enough to put a memorable capper on the entire proceedings.

As mentioned before, Tim Lucas from Video Watchdog contributes another one of his masterful audio commentaries. There is also a second commentary on this Blu-ray from David Del Valle and actor David Frankham, who played the David Manners-like role in "The Case of M. Valdemar". This commentary is an informative and fun-filled chat between Del Valle and Frankham, and Del Valle does make two very relevant points, one being that Roger Corman was more a producer than a director, and the other being that despite AIP's reputation of churning out drive-in movies for the youth market, the company gave out major work to numerous older Hollywood legends (Lorre, Rathbone, Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr., Buster Keaton, etc.).

The Blu-ray has a new 10-minute interview with Roger Corman in which he discusses the making of TALES OF TERROR, and a "Trailers From Hell" segment with Corman.

TALES OF TERROR is one of the many classic horror films I first saw as a kid back in the 1980s on TV, and I still have an affection for it. Price, Lorre, and Rathbone are all magnificent, and I can still remember certain lines of dialogue ("It's from the better slopes of the vineyard." "For the love of God, Montresor!!"). Kino has put together a very nice Blu-ray package (the colors really pop on this release), and I'm looking forward to their AIP Blu-rays in the future (although I don't believe my wallet is).

BLACULA/SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM Double Feature On Blu-ray

Shout Factory, under their Scream Factory label, has just released BLACULA and SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM on a single Blu-ray disc, with various special features.

The BLACULA films now have a somewhat notorious reputation, especially among those who have never actually seen them. The very title BLACULA is enough to cause most people to dismiss the films outright. These features were obviously made to cash in on the early 1970s Blaxploitation genre. The company that made the BLACULA films, American-International, was the leading exponent of low-budget drive-in cinema at the time. I'm not trying to say that the BLACULA films are revolutionary in any way, but a re-examination of them shows that they stand up very well to all the other vampire movies of the period....especially the ones from Hammer Films.

The first BLACULA, made in 1972 and directed by William Crain, starts out in the year 1780 with the African Prince Mamuwalde (William Marshall) in Transylvania, trying to convince Count Dracula (Charles Macaulay) to help end the Slave Trade. It isn't long before Dracula shows his true colors, putting the bite on Mamuwalde and sealing the Prince and his wife up in a room at Castle Dracula. Nearly 200 years later, a pair of very gay interior decorators purchase the furnishings in Castle Dracula, including the locked coffin containing Mamuwalde. The pair ship the furnishings back to Los Angeles, where of course they accidentally revive the Prince. Soon victims start popping up all over the city, as Blacula tries to reunite with what he believes is the reincarnation of his wife (Vonetta McGee).

BLACULA is very much a movie of its time. The early Seventies jive dialogue and hair & clothes fashions date it badly. Starting off with the two interior decorators, the movie is very politically incorrect, and most of the attempts at humor will be cringe-inducing to an audience of today. But despite all that....the movie works. Nearly all of this is due to the outstanding performance of William Marshall. His stentorian voice and commanding physical presence make him an outstanding figure of a vampire--it doesn't matter what color he is. Marshall simply elevates this film, and one wishes that the story--and the rest of the cast--where able to be anywhere near on the same level as he is (Vonetta McGee, in particular, just doesn't seem to be passionate enough to arouse Blacula's longings).

In an earlier blog post I included William Marshall among my top ten movie vampires. Most monster-movie buffs agree that Marshall is brilliant as Blacula, but it is forgotten that Marshall--along with Jonathan Frid's Barnabas Collins--was one of the first "romantic vampires". Marshall is the real hero of the story....he even gets to make love to his leading lady, and this was way before TWILIGHT. Marshall also gets a major amount of screen time, and a lot of dialogue.....something Christopher Lee did not get in his Hammer Dracula films of the same period. (By the way, BLACULA makes a great companion piece to Hammer's DRACULA A. D. 1972.)

As for the film itself, BLACULA does have a lot of rough edges, but it also has a few impressive shock scenes, including one featuring the great character actor Elisha Cook Jr.. Seeing Blacula fling around L.A. cops like they were toys is rather ironic in today's times, and the movie's ending is unexpected, and even poignant.

SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM (1973, directed by Bob Kelljan) has long been seen as a dud--I even think it was included in one of those "50 Worst Movies Of All Time" books by the Medved brothers. Seen today, in my opinion, it's not as bad as it's reputation suggests. An elderly voodoo high priestess has died, and the members of her cult choose her foster daughter Lisa (Pam Grier) as her successor instead of her son Willis (Richard Lawson). Willis decides to use a voodoo curse on his sister, but during the ceremony he re-animates Blacula instead. Once again more victims start popping up, as Blacula hopes to use Lisa's voodoo powers to exorcise his vampiric tendencies.

SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM suffers more from the 1970s attitudes than does BLACULA. After Willis performs his voodoo ceremony, the first thing he does is sit down and drink a can of Coors beer.....and after he is vampirized by Blacula, Willis' biggest complaint is that he cannot see himself and his fly threads in a mirror anymore. Blacula's quest to rid himself of his vampire curse is reminiscent of John Carradine's attempt to do the same thing in HOUSE OF DRACULA...and just like those 1940s vampire films, Blacula has the power to turn himself into a animated bat.

The beauteous Pam Grier does a very effective job as Lisa (one wishes that she had been in BLACULA). SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM isn't as good as BLACULA, but it's still better than most horror films made around the same time......and the main reason for that is William Marshall.

The extras on this Blu-ray double feature include an audio commentary on BLACULA by Blaxploitation expert David F. Walker. Walker gives out a lot of information, but the commentary is rather unfocused, and Walker spends a lot of time talking about how bad he thinks the movie is (while at the same time saying he loves it and that he has seen it dozens of times). There is a short interview with actor Richard Lawson about SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM, and there are photo galleries and trailers for both films. The visual and sound quality on both films is excellent...one thing I noticed was how much William Marshall was sweating during both movies (his Blacula costume must have been very hot to wear under the lights).

For those who think that the BLACULA films are jokes, this Blu-ray will show that they come off rather well, all things considering. They are also not nearly as exploitative as most assume (both movies were originally rated PG!). For those monster movie fans who have never seen these features, this Blu-ray is a great opportunity to catch up with them.