The Criterion Blogathon--THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME

Like most film buffs, I have a fair amount of Criterion releases in my movie collection. According to my personal page on the official Criterion website, I own at least 28 Criterion DVDs or Blu-rays. That might sound impressive, but I know people who own literally hundreds of Criterion titles.

The Criterion Collection is best known for its many foreign and art films, but the company has also put out several cult classics that in no way match the definition of "pretentious". One of those releases is 1932's THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. It is an earlier title from Criterion (the spine number is 46), and while it has nowhere near the expansive extras of the company's recent products, the DVD matches the movie's low-budget streamlined attitude perfectly.

THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME will always be compared to the original KING KONG. It was produced at RKO in 1932 during the pre-production of KONG, and both movies share many of the same on-and off-camera talent. Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack often used THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME as sort of a test run for certain aspects of KONG. THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME is more than just the little brother of KING KONG--it is a fast-paced engaging thriller that stands alongside such other Pre-Code horrors as MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE and THE MASK OF FU MANCHU.

The film is based on the famous short story of the same name written by Richard Connell, a story that has probably been read by every American schoolchild. Famous big-game hunter Rainsford (played in the film by Joel McCrea) is shipwrecked upon a South Pacific island controlled by the mad Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks). Rainsford learns that Zaroff is a hunter as well--but the Count goes after the biggest game of all, man.

THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME has officially (and unofficially) been remade many, many times over the years, but this version is the first and the best. The screenplay by James Creelman (who worked on the script of KING KONG) adds a female element to the tale in the form of Eve Trowbridge, played by the ultimate scream queen, Fay Wray. Ms. Wray wound up doing many of the same things in THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME as she would in KING KONG, namely running around in terror and screaming a lot. Her character's appearance allows Count Zaroff to expound upon his theory that true hunters must kill first, then "take" a woman. This adds to Zaroff's menace--the audience has no doubt what will happen to Eve if the Count kills Rainsford. It also adds a kinky aspect to the film that would not have been allowed if it had been made a few years later, when the Production Code was fully enforced.

British stage actor Leslie Banks made his screen debut as Count Zaroff. Banks is best known today for appearing in Alfred Hitchcock's original version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. He cuts a dangerously fine figure as Zaroff--he's one of those decadent foreign bad guys that were so much a part of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Banks suffered injuries during World War One that left half of his face paralyzed, and this results in Zaroff having a off-center look that matches his off-center personality. Banks' performance as the Count is as memorable as anything Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi did during the same time period.

A very young Joel McCrea may strike some viewers as too young to be a renowned big-game hunter and successful author, but his All-American simplicity and ruggedness make him a perfect opposite from the Count's Old World villainy.

THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME is really a dark adventure story, but it could also be classified as a horror film in many ways. Zaroff's island has an old fortress which might as well be called a spooky old castle, and the Count has a physically afflicted servant, just like Dr. Frankenstein had Fritz. The Count saves the heads of his victims and puts them on the wall of his "trophy room". We don't get much of a look at these "trophies" (it is explained why in the audio commentary), but what we do see would have been a major shock to audiences in 1932. The movie is quite violent for the time period, and the fact that the film is only 63 minutes long makes it seem even more frantic.

Criterion's DVD of this title only has one major extra--an audio commentary by film historian Bruce Eder. Thankfully it is very well done. Eder's talk is a combination of historical facts about the production, and those involved in it, along with a thoughtful analysis of the film itself. Eder keeps to the point and does not stray from the subject at hand, which is good considering the film's short running time. There are also liner notes from film professor Bruce Kawin.

The visual quality of this DVD is good--at least it is better than the many public domain copies of this title that are available. The Criterion version of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME can still be purchased on Amazon for a decent price. It may not be one of Criterion's most famous titles--or one of their most extra-packed releases--but this DVD of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME shows the company's commitment to celebrating all the various forms of cinema, no matter what the genre.

The DVD case cover 

Liner notes by Bruce Kawin

Liner notes booklet and back case cover

SPECTRE

I have to admit that I'm still unsure how I feel about SPECTRE, the latest James Bond film. I didn't hate it, but I wasn't blown away by it, either. It's kind of like how I felt about the last Bond movie, SKYFALL. Could it be that I've reached the point where I can't even enjoy a James Bond flick?

I hope not, but there is one thing I became aware of when I was watching SPECTRE. I kept trying to "analyze" it, and I kept trying to figure out what I was going to put in my blog post about the movie. I really shouldn't be thinking about stuff like that--I should be sitting back and looking at the film like a "normal" person. I've found that ever since I began writing this blog, it has become harder and harder for me to put away the movie blogger uniform when I walk into a theater--and that is a bad habit I need to break.

Anyway, back to SPECTRE. This movie references all the other Daniel Craig Bond films. I'm still not sold on the idea of the 21st Century Bond movies being direct sequels to one another. The classic Bond films were not direct sequels--they were a series of films (and yes, there is a difference). I love the 2006 CASINO ROYALE--but constantly going back to it reminds one how great that movie was, and how the other Craig Bonds are somewhat lacking in comparison.

SPECTRE reveals that all the incidents that have happened to Daniel Craig's Bond were secretly masterminded by a major criminal organization known as...SPECTRE. That name will be familiar to James Bond fans, and there's plenty of other stuff will Bond lovers will recognize. (Let me say right now that I am NOT going to give away any spoilers, even though that is going to make this blog very hard to write.) If you are a longtime hardcore 007 fan, you will be reminded of THUNDERBALL, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, LIVE AND LET DIE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE while watching SPECTRE. Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson must have read all those people on the internet complaining about how the Craig Bond films are not "fun" and how some of those people wish the Bonds were like they "used to be". Daniel Craig has lightened up a bit, but he's still pretty surly. The climax has several classic Bond film elements, such as a massive secret enemy lair.

But SPECTRE is still a long way from Roger Moore territory. The finished product has a lot of 21st Century darkness to it, such as a sub-plot dealing with a worldwide surveillance system, a sub-plot very reminiscent of CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER. Yes, it's the good old "The people who say they are protecting us are really our enemies" storyline, one that has been used so many times recently it has become stale. Like most typical modern-day big-name popcorn movies, SPECTRE clocks in at 2 and a half hours, and in my opinion it should have been a tighter, leaner film. And SPECTRE has one of those "desaturated color" schemes that makes everything look either tan or grey...this is something I'm so tired of seeing I'm thinking about writing a blog post on it. (Cinematographer Roger Deakins, who worked on SKYFALL, is absent from SPECTRE, and he is missed.)

I can't say too much about Christoph Waltz's performance without giving the whole plot away. As for the Bond girls (ahem, Bond women)....there was a lot of publicity over the fact that Monica Bellucci was cast in SPECTRE, and most of that publicity centered around the idea of James Bond being with a "mature" woman. The fact is that Bellucci has nothing more than a glorified cameo, and Bond spends most of his time in the film with Lea Seydoux's character...and she is far younger than Daniel Craig. The person who stands out the most in this movie is Dave Bautista, who plays SPECTRE's main henchman. He's probably the best Bond bad guy in years.

Overall, I would rank SPECTRE as a better-than-average Bond film. Due to spoiler considerations I can't really get into it as much as I would like (maybe when it comes out on home video I will write another post on it). There was a huge pile of money spent on this picture, and there were times I felt that director Sam Mendes wanted to make sure the audience knew how much money was spent instead of moving the story along. Right now it is still up in the air whether Daniel Craig will do any more Bond films--but if he does, I humbly submit that the franchise needs to move away from being tied to CASINO ROYALE and send Craig on a totally new Bond adventure.

Oh, one more thing....the credits song is horrible. The only Sam Smith that I am aware of is a Chicago sportswriter by that name.

Swashathon! THE SEA HAWK (1940)

This is my contribution to the Swashathon! blogathon hosted by moviessilently.com.


When you hear the word "swashbuckler", what is the first thing that comes to your mind? I'm sure some of you might say Douglas Fairbanks Jr., but for most folks it would be Errol Flynn. Flynn is to the swashbuckler as John Wayne is to the Western, or Karloff and Lugosi are to the classic horror film. Call it fate, destiny, or happy accident, the decision to cast Flynn in Warners' 1935 pirate adventure CAPTAIN BLOOD set the young actor on a course that would see him define an entire genre of film.

There have been many, many stars (male and female) who have taken up a sword, defended the honor of a monarch, or stood upon the deck of a pirate ship. But nobody did it quite the way Errol Flynn did it. Put any other actor in green tights and a green vest, and have him swing from a tree, and that actor would look as silly as the time Daffy Duck tried to prove he was Robin Hood. But Errol Flynn....for whatever undefinable reason, Flynn was the perfect swashbuckler--at home in Sherwood Forest, Middle Ages England, or on the Seven Seas.

THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD is the greatest Robin Hood movie of them all, and the definitive Errol Flynn swashbuckler performance. But there's another high cinematic tale of adventure--an almost semi-sequel to ROBIN HOOD--that in some ways, I think, is even better than ROBIN HOOD.

1940's THE SEA HAWK is the Errol Flynn movie to end all Errol Flynn movies. It is a bold, vast epic that has a 127 minute running time (very few mainstream movies went that long back in that era). With THE SEA HAWK, Warner Bros. went out of their way to try and repeat the successful formula that had created ROBIN HOOD. Both films shared on-camera (Flynn, Claude Rains, Alan Hale, Una O'Connor) and off-camera (director Michael Curtiz, screenwriter Seton Miller, composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold) talent. In ROBIN HOOD Flynn plays a dashing rogue who, even though he goes by his own rules, really just means to faithfully serve his English monarch. That description also applies to the character Flynn plays in THE SEA HAWK.

In 1580s England, Captain Geoffrey Thorpe (Flynn) is a "Sea Hawk"--a privateer who, while not officially under the command of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth, uses his ship and crew to harass and loot England's enemies. (In other words, he's supposed to be "better" than a mere pirate--although he basically is a pirate, no matter how the screenplay tries to cover it up.) The continued raids of the Sea Hawks on Spanish interests has led that country to the brink of declaring war on England. Queen Elizabeth (the magnificent Flora Robson) is tired of the threats of Spain, but she also believes that England is not yet ready for war. The Queen tries to keep a tenuous peace while at the same time keeping happy both the Sea Hawks and ministers like the treacherous Lord Wolfingham (Henry Daniell), who is actually loyal to Spain.

The very beginning of the film showcases the artistry of director Michael Curtiz and the glorious black & white camera work of cinematographer Sol Polito. In an expressionistic meeting chamber, King Phillip of Spain (Montagu Love) and his ministers plot the conquest of England. The chamber is dominated by a huge map of the world, and as Phillip rises from his seat his shadow looms ominously over the map--a clever visual metaphor.

What follows next is one of the greatest action sequences in all of classic Hollywood history. A Spanish Galleon is en route to England, transporting the new ambassador (Claude Rains) and his lovely niece (Brenda Marshall). The Spanish Captain believes that since the ambassador is on board, none of the Sea Hawks will dare to trouble his ship. He's greatly in error, however--the masts of the Albatross are sighted, the ship commanded by none other than Geoffrey Thorpe. Soon both ships are engaged in fierce combat, with the cannons of the Albatross scoring major hits on the Galleon. Thorpe runs his ship alongside the Galleon, and has his crew board and capture her. The hand-to-hand fighting between the two crews is still breathtaking, even in this day and age. Hundreds of men battling one another, with swords flashing, flintlocks shooting....there's so much going on during this sequence it is almost too much to take in. The two ships were full-size replicas built by the studio and then placed in a large water tank located in a giant stage on the Warners lot. The final effect is simply astounding--once you see it you'll swear there was no way it could have been filmed on a California soundstage.

The opening sea battle showcases Errol Flynn at his best--swinging over the rails of a ship, engaging in a swordfight with the Spanish Captain, and barking out orders to his crew. What's interesting about Flynn's screen persona was that even though he usually was an individualistic rogue, he was still able to appear natural when commanding large groups of men. Naturally the Spanish ambassador and his niece are upset at Thorpe's actions. Thorpe promises the duo he will safely take them to England--but not before confiscating the treasure the Spanish have stored aboard their vessel.

Some film buffs have complained about the fact that Brenda Marshall is the love interest in THE SEA HAWK instead of Flynn's usual co-star, Olivia de Havilland. The romance angle really isn't important in this movie, however. At first Brenda Marshall acts "hard to get", but that doesn't last long. Marshall and Flynn are not able to develop the same chemistry as Flynn had with de Havilland, but that's more because Marshall's role is somewhat underwritten.

The major relationship in THE SEA HAWK belongs to Queen Elizabeth and Geoffrey Thorpe. When the Albatross gets back to England, Thorpe has to explain his actions to the Queen. The Queen "officially" acts perturbed toward Thorpe, but in reality she is as charmed by him as any other woman would be in the presence of someone like Errol Flynn. The scenes that Flora Robson and Errol Flynn share are delightful, and one wishes that there were more of them.

Flora Robson had already played Queen Elizabeth on the big screen in Alexander Korda's 1936 British film FIRE OVER ENGLAND. That movie has a lot of similarities with THE SEA HAWK, and there's no doubt Warner Bros. was influenced by it. Warners had also made an earlier film involving the Virgin Queen, THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, directed by Michael Curtiz and starring as Essex, none other than....Errol Flynn. The role of the Queen in that picture was filled by Bette Davis. In that movie Elizabeth and Essex are supposed to have a serious relationship, but you never buy it. Flynn and Davis did not work well together, and the movie itself is very turgid. Robson and Flynn, however, are quite entertaining, and even though several female stars have essayed the role of Queen Elizabeth (such as Davis, Cate Blanchett, and Judi Dench), I think that Flora Robson is the best screen Elizabeth of them all.

Thorpe convinces the Queen to unofficially give her sanction to his latest plan--a raid on the Isthmus of Panama and the Spanish treasure haul located there. Lord Wolfingham and the Spanish ambassador learn of Thorpe's plans, and they are able to get warning to the New World before Thorpe and his crew get there. Thorpe and his men are ambushed, and they are sentenced to serve on the slave galleys of the Spanish navy. The indefatigable English Captain leads his men in an escape, and they even wind up capturing a Spanish ship!

Thorpe finds plans that prove that the Spanish Armada is ready to attack England. He also finds out that the Sea Hawks have been declared outlaws by the Crown, as a way to try and appease Spain. Thorpe and his crew sail back to England, and the Captain attempts to sneak his way into the Queen's chamber. He is confronted by Lord Wolfingham, and the two have an epic sword duel.

The climatic sword fight in THE SEA HAWK is even more impressive than the one between Flynn and Basil Rathbone in THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. It is set up with Thorpe taking on four of the Queen's guards at the same time, rousing the audience's expectations for the ultimate confrontation with the traitorous Wolfingham. Henry Daniell was truly as much of a villain as Basil Rathbone was, but sadly he wasn't anywhere near the swordsman Rathbone was. In the final duel Daniell is relegated to only a couple of close-ups, but he is doubled so effectively the viewer doesn't really notice. Curtiz's well-known use of shadows is on full display here, as Wolfingham and Thorpe fight each other throughout the castle. (I love how in one point in the duel Flynn chops down the candles lighting a room!) Backed by Erich Wolfgang Korngold's stirring music (which is as much of a main character in the movie as Flynn is), one can't help watching this duel and wanting to jump off the couch and join in. And having Queen Elizabeth burst in, and Thorpe drop his sword and kneel at her feet? Can it get any more swashbuckling than that??

THE SEA HAWK ends with Queen Elizabeth giving a impassioned speech on the eve of the battle against the Spanish Armada. The speech is a thinly-veiled reference to what 1940 England was experiencing against Nazi Germany. Robson's delivery of the Queen's speech is both moving and uplifting, and her performance, combined with the final flourishes of Korngold's majestic score, brings the film to a memorable close.

I realize that I've told way too much of the plot that I usually do in one of my blog posts, but there's so many things I enjoy about this movie, and I have to share them. THE SEA HAWK was made at the height of the Golden Age of Hollywood, and everything about it--art direction, production design, music, stunts, special effects, editing--proves that when the studio system was at its best, there was nothing like it. THE SEA HAWK is pure old-fashioned adventure on a grand scale, and you can't help but feel good after seeing it.

The greatness of Errol Flynn is that you believed in whatever he was doing. He took his swashbuckler roles seriously, but he was still able to have a sense of humor about himself and his situation. Men (and kids) dreamed of being Flynn, and women dreamed of loving him. Before his personal problems caught up with him, no other film actor exuded the sense of fun and adventure that Errol Flynn did. He remains the epitome of the entire swashbuckling genre, and I submit that THE SEA HAWK is one of the best all-time swashbuckling films.

An iconic image of an iconic performer.

Roger Moore As James Bond

There is a theory among Doctor Who fans. The theory is that whenever someone starts watching, or discovers Doctor Who, whoever happens to be playing the character at that particular time becomes that person's favorite Doctor. I don't know if that theory works for the James Bond universe, but I do know that when I first became aware of 007 as a kid in the 1970s, Roger Moore was James Bond--and for a long time it was Moore that always came to my mind whenever the character was mentioned.

When I became a teenager I read all the Ian Fleming novels and watched all the other James Bond movies on TV. My perception of Moore as THE James Bond changed. I became a huge fan of Sean Connery's Bond, and I couldn't wait for Moore to quit playing the role. A lot of kids who grew up in the 70s and 80s are now re-assessing Moore as Bond--such as myself. Maybe it's just nostalgia, but my respect for Moore as 007 has gone up a bit recently.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of Moore's last outing as Bond, the horrid A VIEW TO A KILL. For many years after that Moore was the one given the most blame for how the Bond series fared in the 1970s. The problem with that assessment is that it does not take into account 1971's DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, made before Moore took on the part. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is basically a Roger Moore-type Bond movie without Roger Moore, and it proves that the series was heading in a very different direction from what it had been in the early 1960s--even if someone other than Moore had wound up cast as Bond.

Certainly Moore had a huge effect on how the Bond series turned out during his tenure. Before becoming 007, Moore was most famous as a leading man for TV. He was handsome, with an appealing personality, and he had a way with one-liners--but he wasn't anything like Fleming's brooding misanthropic secret agent. Moore was well aware of his limitations as an actor, and instead of trying to be like Bond, Moore just played his usual "Roger Moore" persona.

One advantage Moore had was his screen presence. I've always believed that the character of James Bond doesn't need a great actor as much as it needs someone with enough presence to make the audience think he is Bond. Moore had that in spades. There were all sorts of wild and silly things going on in the world of Roger Moore's Bond, but the man made you buy into whatever was going on--and that's not an easy feat for any performer to pull off.

Moore had another advantage over all the other actors that have played the role--he actually enjoyed doing it. Roger Moore didn't just love being Bond, he reveled in being 007. Whenever one of the Moore Bond movies were getting ready to come out, the newspapers would always print a publicity photo of Moore on the set, with a big grin on his face, surrounded by a dozen or so gorgeous women. Moore constantly had a look on his face that said, "Yep...I'M James Bond, and I'm having a hell of a time." Moore's enjoyment was felt by moviegoers, who wanted to be with him on his experiences.

Today all the other James Bond actors either refuse to even talk about the role, or reflect on it with a sense of disdain. Moore will talk about Bond anytime, anywhere--I bet if you saw him walking down the street and you asked him a Bond question, he'd chat with you for 30 minutes. Moore has never felt that Bond was "beneath" him, and average guys like me respect that.

Now...was Roger Moore the best person to be Ian Fleming's 007? Well, probably not. But once again, it has to be said that the James Bond movies are not made for hard-core Fleming fans. Most people who watch the Bond films have never read a Fleming novel in their lives. I'm not saying this to make excuses for some of the series' more lackluster outings--I'm just stating a simple truth. The Moore Bond films went overboard on the "goofy fun" element, but they were goofy fun, and Moore was a very popular James Bond.

Moore's first two movies as 007, LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, are somewhat weak--if it wasn't for Christopher Lee, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN would probably put you to sleep. Series Co-Producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman then split up, with Broccoli taking control of the franchise. Broccoli wanted to bring the series back to its larger-than-life status, and the result was THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, without doubt the best Roger Moore Bond film. The success of STAR WARS influenced Broccoli to go even bigger with MOONRAKER, the movie now generally considered the worst Bond film of all time. I re-watched MOONRAKER not that long ago, and yes, it is incredibly silly, but I came away impressed with how much money was lavished on it--it truly is a spectacular production, and people forget that it made a killing at the box office.

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was an attempt to go "back to the basics"--but it was a half-hearted attempt that still tried to incorporate typical 70s Bond silliness, such as a fake Blofeld and a fake Margaret Thatcher. OCTOPUSSY had some interesting elements, but by the climax it was goofy season once again, with a group of circus showgirls fighting off a bunch of heavily armed bad guys.

Once the 1980s came along it was readily apparent that Moore wasn't getting any younger. Moore had always tried to avoid too much heavy lifting as 007, and now it seemed Moore's stuntmen got as much screen time as he did. A VIEW TO A KILL was so bad it put Moore out to pasture permanently. What can you say about a movie that gives us the unforgettable sight of a blimp sneaking up behind Tanya Roberts?

It would be easy to totally blame Roger Moore on the decline of the Bond series during the 1970s and the 1980s, but that's too simple. EON Productions followed a rigid formula when making the Bond films, using certain directors, screenwriters, and off-camera personnel over and over again. Moore wasn't the type of actor to rock the boat, and even if he did try to do more with his Bond, any changes he would have suggested probably would have fallen on deaf ears.

So how do we define the career of Roger Moore as James Bond? Fleming fanatics consider him the worst by far. Movie critics generally dismissed Moore, and they continuously complained about how he wasn't like Sean Connery. The general movie-going audience, however, accepted Moore in the role, and spent a lot of money going to see his Bond movies. As I stated at the beginning of this post, many who grew up watching Moore as Bond are now in a position to appreciate him, and many have done so, especially on the internet. The fact that Moore still makes himself accessible to the public, and the fact that he is willing to admit how much he enjoyed being the character, has enabled him to retain a major fan base to this day.

Did you know that before Daniel Craig came along, Roger Moore was the only English-born actor to play James Bond in an official 007 film? (Sean Connery is Scottish, George Lazenby is Australian, Timothy Dalton is Welsh, and Pierce Brosnan is Irish.) Moore also holds the current record for having played Bond for the longest consecutive time--seven movies from 1973 to 1985.

I don't think Roger Moore was the perfect film Bond. But when I was a kid, he WAS James Bond--and that meant a lot. Moore only made one truly great Bond film, but all his series entries are entertaining in a goofy sort of way.

DR. TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS On Blu-ray

One of the most frequently requested titles by film buffs to be released on home video has finally come out from Olive Films. The 1964 horror anthology DR. TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS is now available on Region A Blu-ray and Region One DVD.

(Before I go own, I am well aware that Odeon has released a Region B Blu-ray of this title with loads of extras. As I've mentioned many times on this blog, I do not have a region-free Blu-ray player. A few of my internet friends have wondered why I don't have one...well, I'll tell you the real reason why. I spend way too much money on DVDs and Blu-rays as it is. If I did have a region-free player, I'd be spending even more money on stuff. I'm a working-class guy from Indiana...I'm certainly not rich. When you see me review a DVD or Blu-ray on this blog, it is a movie I have actually bought. No company sends me freebies, or screeners....and I don't expect anybody to do so. If anyone is interested in sending me free product, you are more than welcome to do so--just don't expect me to kiss your behind for you.)

Now that that's out of the way.....

DR. TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS is a legendary title in classic horror film history. It is the very first anthology film made by Amicus, the English-based production company run by Americans Milton Subotsky and Max J. Rosenberg. The duo had already made one of the best modern Gothic thrillers ever, 1960's CITY OF THE DEAD (aka HORROR HOTEL) under the name Vanguard Productions. Milton Subotsky (who wrote the script for DR. TERROR) was inspired to use the multi-story format by the 1945 British film DEAD OF NIGHT. I wonder, however, if the success of AIP's 1962 TALES OF TERROR had an influence on Subotsky. The very first tale in DR. TERROR references a character named "Cosmo Valdemar", and one of the tales in TALES OF TERROR is "The Case of M. Valdemar"--I'm sure that was more than a coincidence. I also believe Subotsky noticed the wave of American anthology TV shows of the early 1960s such as THE TWILIGHT ZONE and ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS. Like those shows, the stories in DR. TERROR feature a "twist" ending.

The "linking" story in DR. TERROR (that is, the story that links all the other tales together) concerns five strangers in a train compartment (played by Christopher Lee, Roy Castle, a very young Donald Sutherland, Alan Freeman, and Neil McCallum). The five are joined by the mysterious Dr. Schreck (Peter Cushing), who proceeds to tell each of the men their futures through the use of the Doctor's deck of tarot cards. The fates of the men are dramatized in five separate tales--"Werewolf", "Creeping Vine", "Voodoo", "Disembodied Hand", and "Vampire". As one can tell by the titles, the tales are rather simple and to the point.

I feel the best of the stories is "Disembodied Hand", which has Christopher Lee as arrogant art critic Franklyn Marsh. Marsh is publicly embarrassed by artist Eric Landor (Michael Gough), and the critic is so angered by this he runs over Landor with his car. Landor has to have his hand amputated as a result, and since he no longer can paint, the man commits suicide. Landor's hand, however, refuses to die....and it comes back to wreak vengeance on Marsh. The segment is very creepy and well-directed, but what makes it work is Christopher Lee's portrayal of the snide, stuck-up Marsh.

The other stories are okay, not great. Five stories may have been one too many (the movie has a 98-minute total running time). It is the linking segment that makes the biggest impression. Peter Cushing takes an obvious "spooky" character in Dr. Schreck (schreck means "terror" in German) and underplays him in a wonderful manner. Instead of the usual scary trappings, Cushing uses subtlety to make Schreck into a quietly sinister figure. Peering out from under Schreck's bushy eyebrows and wide-brimmed hat, Cushing's penetrating stare does more than a hundred pounds of monster makeup. Cushing walks away with the film, despite the fact that he spends most of his time sitting in a train compartment surrounded by five other actors. It is a brilliant example of Cushing's acting talent, and how he could do more with less.

All in all DR. TERROR is a more important film than a great one. The movie started Amicus on its run of several horror and science-fiction films over the next decade. Amicus became a major rival to Hammer Films, and Milton Subotsky would always go out of his way to denigrate Hammer. Subotsky may have been a bit jealous, because Amicus used many on and off-camera talent connected to Hammer. DR. TERROR director Freddie Francis had already made films for Hammer, and of course Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee became famous from their association with the company. DR. TERROR has other actors familiar to Hammer fans, such as Peter Madden, Katy Wild, Michael Gough, and Isla Blair. Makeup artist Roy Ashton, who created many of Hammer's best monsters, also worked on DR. TERROR, and he would go on to have a long career with Amicus.

I first saw DR. TERROR on television back in the 1980s. Obviously it wasn't shown in widescreen back then. Watching a pan-and-scan version of DR. TERROR is a waste of time, because Freddie Francis and cinematographer Alan Hume filled the 2.35:1 frame with all sorts of striking compositions. When Francis used the 2.35:1 aspect ratio (as he also did with the 1965 Amicus film THE SKULL), he really used it. DR. TERROR simply has to be seen in widescreen, and that is why it has been so frustrating that the movie did not have a proper American home video release until now. I had a VHS release of DR. TERROR that not only was pan-and-scan, but also had a terrible print of the film, and a cheap looking video box design.

Even when DR. TERROR would show up on TV in recent years, the print still looked bad. This Olive Blu-ray will be a revelation to those who have not seen DR. TERROR in a long time. It is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen and it is the best I have ever seen this film look. The transfer is very colorful--just check out Schreck's tarot cards--and it really brings out Freddie Francis' set-ups. (The Paramount logo is even at the start of the film.) The sound is clear and full as well.

This Blu-ray release has no extras. That's a bit disappointing, but I think the important thing here is the release of the movie itself. As I stated at the beginning of this post, DR. TERROR has long been on the "Most Requested Blu-ray releases" lists. It may not be the best Amicus anthology film (for the record, my personal pick is THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD), but it is a major part of classic horror film history, and it is one of the most famous of all the Peter Cushing-Christopher Lee team-ups.

The Universal Pictures Blogathon--HERE COME THE CO-EDS

This is my contribution to the Universal Pictures Blogathon hosted by Silver Scenes (silverscenesblog.blogspot.com)



Out of all the great Hollywood studios, Universal, by far, is my favorite. That should be no surprise to anyone who has read a few of my blog posts. I am a lifelong classic monster movies fan, and nobody did classic monsters better than the Big Globe. One could say that Universal created and defined the classic American Gothic horror film.

But there's more to my love for Universal than just monster movies. Even before I became an "official" movie geek, I was watching Universal product. When I was a little kid, TV stations like WGN Channel 9 in Chicago showed Universal films constantly--especially during weekends. Two series in particular--the Sherlock Holmes movies with Basil Rathbone and the Abbott & Costello comedies--I remember seeing over and over again.

I'm sure most of my Sunday mornings as a youngster involved me checking out a Sherlock Holmes adventure or Bud & Lou getting into another mix-up. I own most of those films--and the Universal monster classics--on home video, and they are as familiar to me as the roads in my neighborhood. Most of Universal's on and off-camera talent in the 1940s worked in all three series, which gave the movies even more of a "old friends" type of feeling.

As I grew up and began to learn about the history and the making of these Universal classics, I started to see them in a new light. A certain performer who I knew from the Universal horrors would suddenly wind up being a foil for Abbott & Costello, while someone who played a straight role alongside Bud & Lou would turn up as a suspect in a Sherlock Holmes mystery. Directors, screenwriters, and producers would also bounce between the series.

The result is that when one watches any of the Universal series entries now, one appreciates even more the talent involved in making them. Universal was a full-time working studio and they churned these movies out at an incredible pace--but these pictures still entertain (and gain new fans) in the 21st Century.

HERE COME THE CO-EDS, released in 1945, isn't one of Universal's most famous films--it's not even considered one of Abbott & Costello's most famous films. But it happens to be a favorite of mine, and whenever I take part in a blogathon, I try to choose a subject that may not be well-known.

HERE COME THE CO-EDS has Abbott & Costello going to an all-girls school. If you have any lewd thoughts, put them away--this isn't a 1980s raunchy sex comedy. (The person that gets the most romantic action in this story is Lou Costello!)

Bud Abbott (as Slats) and Lou Costello (as Oliver) play taxi dancers at a ballroom. Slats' sister Molly (played by the lovely Universal starlet Martha O'Driscoll) also works at the ballroom, and Slats tries to get her some publicity by running an ad saying that Molly is only dancing to earn enough money to go to Bixby College. Bixby's free-thinking Dean (Donald Cook) reads the ad and offers Molly a scholarship. Molly accepts, and gets Slats and Oliver hired as campus caretakers.

Of course having Bud & Lou take care of anything is asking for trouble. The head caretaker at Bixby is a big, ornery cuss named Johnson. He is played by none other than Lon Chaney Jr., who at the same time was playing the Wolf Man, the Mummy, and the leading roles in Universal's "Inner Sanctum" series. It may seem strange for Lon Jr. to be in such a role--he doesn't even get any special billing--but the erstwhile monster man is perfect as a comic villain. Lon spends the entire movie in a ticked off mood--was he angry that the studio stuck him in this part?--and his byplay with Lou is fantastic. Lon Jr. would more famously co-star with Bud & Lou a few years later in ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, and I'm sure many viewers of that film don't even realize that Chaney had already dealt with A & C.

Lou Costello, Martha O'Driscoll, and Bud Abbott

Bixby College is in trouble--the stuck-up Chancellor is mad at the Dean's forward-thinking ways, and the school is in danger of being closed. Slats, Oliver, Molly, and the students decide to try and raise money to save Bixby, and a big basketball game is planned with rival Carlton. Slats and Oliver bet big money on Bixby to win, and gamblers hire professional women basketball players to serve as ringers for Carlton. (Can you imagine what the NCAA would think about this?) Oliver winds up serving as a ringer himself, and after he is hit on the head and knocked out by the ball he is convinced that he is the greatest female basketball player of all time.

Many legendary film comedians, such as Chaplin, Lloyd, and Keaton, had great athletic prowess, and Lou Costello was no exception. Most people assume that since Lou was short and chubby, he really was a klutz....but Lou was a fine athlete as a youngster, and he even worked as a stunt man in Hollywood during the 1920s. In every A & C movie Lou had to perform several pratfalls, and there's more to physical comedy than just plain falling down. Costello was a pratfall artist, and HERE COME THE CO-EDS gives him numerous opportunities to show off this skill. Even before the big basketball game Lou has to go through a wrestling match, and even though doubles were used for most of the scene, Costello still takes a beating. The basketball match really gives Lou a chance to shine. Lou was a semi-pro hoops player in his younger days, and he pulls off many trick shots during the scene.

The basketball court scenes were actually filmed on Universal's famous Phantom Stage (did Lon Jr. appreciate the irony of this?). During the halftime of the game a musical number is staged featuring Peggy Ryan as Patty, the co-ed who happens to be Oliver's love interest. Peggy Ryan is as cute as a button in this film (so cute that the viewer doesn't mind that she is about 20 years younger than Costello), and she and Lou make a entertaining couple. Ryan and Costello even get their own song and dance number, "Let's Play House". Peggy Ryan made a number of musicals at Universal with Donald O'Connor, and during HERE COME THE CO-EDS Lou even mentions that he feels like O'Connor. The other musical numbers in the film are provided by Phil Spitalny's All-Girl Orchestra, featuring Evelyn and her magic violin (seriously, that is how they are billed in the movie). A & C fans always feel that the musical numbers in their films are intrusive, but at least here it makes sense that an all girls college would have an all girl orchestra.

Martha O'Driscoll is very appealing--and very photogenic--as Molly. She's so gorgeous you have to wonder how Bud Abbott could be playing her brother. O'Driscoll would go on in 1945 to co-star again with Lon Chaney Jr. in HOUSE OF DRACULA.

Director Jean Yarbrough had already directed an A & C film--IN SOCIETY--and he would direct them in the future, including some episodes of Bud and Lou's TV show. Yarbrough also directed such Universal thrillers as HOUSE OF HORRORS and SHE-WOLF OF LONDON.

Is there anything particularly special about HERE COME THE CO-EDS? Well, maybe not...but if you watch the movie, you'll have a good time. There is a lot of prime A & C material here--such as Lou swallowing Lon Jr.'s trick dice, resulting in Lon and Bud "shaking" Lou and betting on the outcome. A funny scene is Lou trying to tell some of the students a joke concerning a whale, only to have Bud totally ruin his story. The basketball sequence is a treat, and there's even a wild chase scene after that. Peggy Ryan is a happy bundle of energy, and monster fans will enjoy seeing Martha O'Driscoll and Lon Chaney Jr. in "ordinary" roles. Universal may have cranked out these type of movies like a factory, but the fact is that HERE COME THE CO-EDS is now 70 years old, and it still does what it was designed to do--entertain you and make you laugh. You have to give the Big Globe some credit for that.


(Most of the information in this post comes from Bob Furmanek and Ron Palumbo's excellent book, ABBOTT & COSTELLO IN HOLLYWOOD.)

CRIMSON PEAK

Guillermo del Toro is one of the few interesting film directors regularly working today. His latest effort is CRIMSON PEAK, a dark Gothic romance thriller set during the turn of the 20th Century.

Many have consider CRIMSON PEAK to be del Toro's tribute to Hammer Films, since the surname of the lead character is "Cushing", and lead actor Tom Hiddleston, in his Victorian costumes, very much resembles a young Peter Cushing. I feel, however, that CRIMSON PEAK is very reminiscent of the Italian Gothic chillers of the early 1960s, particularly those directed by Mario Bava and Riccardo Freda. CRIMSON PEAK not only has the sumptuous art direction of those Italian horrors, it also matches them with a storyline featuring false marriages and perverted family secrets.

If you are looking for a hard-core horror tale, CRIMSON PEAK is not it. The movie name drops such authors as Jane Austen, Mary Shelley, and Arthur Conan Doyle, and the three main characters are all archetypes of classic Gothic romantic fiction--young, innocent, repressed heroine, mysterious English aristocrat, and intimidating older sister.

The imaginative Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), who aspires to be a writer, is swept off her feet when the dashing Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) comes to America to ask Edith's father for help in restoring the Sharpe family's mining operations. Edith's father doesn't trust Sharpe, or his imperious sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain). Mr. Cushing tries to bribe Sharpe into leaving his daughter alone, but the elder man is viciously murdered, and Edith winds up marrying Sharpe and going to England to live in the Sharpe family manor.

That manor is, as you might have guessed, not exactly your normal house. As a matter of fact, it is the real star of CRIMSON PEAK. It is the old haunted house to end all old haunted houses--the production design on it is so striking that it overwhelms those living in the place. The house is so baroque that it almost veers into Tim Burton territory.

And that may be the biggest problem of CRIMSON PEAK. Several times while watching the film I kept looking past the actors to check out some detail in the background. The movie looks fantastic--maybe too fantastic. Del Toro and his cinematographer Dan Laustsen use color in a way very few filmmakers do anymore. Usually what happens with 21st Century movies is that colors are de-saturated, and that is something I've frankly grown tired of. There's a lushness to CRIMSON PEAK that you just don't see from too many pictures now.

As for the supernatural element of the movie, there are a few spectral appearances--but I've never been able to be impressed by CGI ghosts. The real horror in the story is brought on by flesh & blood humans. The phrase "Crimson Peak" doesn't refer to blood--it refers to the Sharpe family manor being built on top of a large deposit of red clay. This causes the house, and the grounds, to "bleed"--a nice touch, if a bit over-obvious.

CRIMSON PEAK has fine, if understated, performances by the three leads. Tom Hiddleston may still look somewhat like Loki here, but don't expect any Loki-type histrionics. This type of movie really needs classic horror film stars to make it work. It could also do with a shorter running time--119 minutes is overlong for this kind of material.

CRIMSON PEAK is a film that appeals more to film geeks than a general audience. The movie did not open very well, and that's not surprising, especially considering that it is not anything like a PARANORMAL ACTIVITY or a FINAL DESTINATION style of thriller. I believe that it is worth seeing for its visual quality alone (but make sure you see it on the big screen at the theater). I liked CRIMSON PEAK, but I can't help wondering what the movie would have been like if it was made in 1963, and directed by Mario Bava, and starred Peter Cushing as Sharpe and Barbara Steele as the raven-haired sister. Now...that would have been something.