Tag Archives: 1960s horror movies

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: CHAMBER OF HORRORS (1966)

0
Posted on by

“Beware the fear flasher! And the horror horn!”

If you’ve seen CHAMBER OF HORRORS (1966), you know what these words refer to, a gimmick used in this 1966 film to warn its audience of upcoming scenes of violence that were so horrific that you just had to turn away!

Except that they weren’t. None of the violence is shown on camera. Shhh!!!

When I was a kid, CHAMBER OF HORRORS showed up on television quite a bit, both during the day and in the wee hours of the night. It was one of my favorite horror movies back then, and it still is today, even with its silly fear flasher/horror horn gimmick, where the picture would freeze, and the screen would flash red while a loud sound effect blasted. Even as a little kid, I never averted my eyes, so I saw pretty quickly that this was just a gimmick, and the violent murders were not shown. But I still loved it!

CHAMBER OF HORRORS was actually meant to be the pilot for a TV series called “House of Wax” in which the proprietors of the wax museum, the dashing Anthony Draco (Cesare Danova), the very British and intellectual Harold Blount (Wilfred Hyde-White), and the diminutive dwarf Pepe (Jose Rene Ruiz, or as he was billed in the film, Tun Tun), who were all also amateur detectives, would solve various crimes. In this movie, the villain is Jason Cravatte (Patrick O’Neal, in a devilishly scene-stealing performance) who chops off his own hand to escape the police and returns to Baltimore months later to seek revenge on those who sentenced him to prison, including our hero, Anthony Draco.

The film received a theatrical release rather than play on television because it was considered too gruesome for TV back then, How times have changed!

CHAMBER OF HORRORS is wonderfully atmospheric, and while it takes place in 19th century Baltimore, it has the look and feel of a Hammer Film. And while the murders aren’t shown on camera, they are lurid and creative, as Cravatte purchases a series of unique attachments for his missing hand, including a hook, an axe, and even a gun. Yup, Cravatte is an imaginative killer and even whistles while he works in this dark little thriller with a good sense of humor.

Most of the humor comes from Patrick O’Neal’s performance, in a role which would have suited Vincent Price quite nicely. O’Neal is terrific here, and while he did appear in other villainous roles, mostly on television, it’s a shame he didn’t star in more horror movies. He’s really, really good, and for my money, he’s the best part of this movie.

Cesare Danova is the handsome hero, and the film does a nice job pitting the two leads against each other. I mentioned Hammer Films, and there’s a Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee vibe throughout, as Danova’s Draco is in pursuit of O’Neal’s Cravatte but remains one step behind the killer, until the film’s final reel, which plays out in exciting fashion as the two battle it out on the floor of the wax museum.

Speaking of the museum, CHAMBER OF HORRORS utilizes many of the same wax museum sets used in the Vincent Price movie HOUSE OF WAX (1953).

Wilfred Hyde-White and Tun Tun are also very entertaining as the two other members of the crime solving team. It’s a shame this movie didn’t catch on and spark the TV series, as it would have been a lot of fun. Not really sure what happened, because supposedly CHAMBER OF HORRORS did very well and made a lot of money back in 1966.

Future M.A.S.H. star Wayne Rogers is also in the cast as police sergeant Jim Albertson, and he turns in a memorable performance. The leading lady is Laura Devon, who plays Marie Champlain, a young woman hired by Cravatte to lure his intended victims to their doom.

There are a lot of neat scenes in CHAMBER OF HORRORS, directed by Hy Averback, including the opening scene where Cravatte forces a trembling minister to perform a marriage ceremony between Cravatte and a woman he murdered; the confrontation between Cravatte and Sgt. Albertson, and the climactic battle between Cravatte and Draco.

Stephen Kandel wrote the screenplay based on a story by Ray Russell. It has an exciting plot, contains memorable and oftentimes humorous dialogue, and also creates neat characters.

The film has an atmospheric and energetic music score by William Lava.

CHAMBER OF HORRORS may not have spawned a follow-up TV series, or gone on to be a classic of the genre, but it is more than just a gimmick movie, in spite of the fear flasher/horror horn. It’s a damn fine horror movie, one of the more atmospheric thrillers from the 1960s not made by Hammer Films.

It was one of my favorite horror movies as a kid. It remains so today.

Looking for a museum to visit? Check out CHAMBER OF HORRORS. But remember, when you see the fear flasher and hear the horror horn, look away! Yeah, I know. There’s nothing to look away from. But it still makes for a bloody good time!

—END—

SHOCK SCENES: DRACULA’S DEMISE- A Look at the Hammer DRACULA Endings- Part 2

0
Posted on by

dracula-prince-of-darkness-movie-poster-1966

SHOCK SCENES:  DRACULA’S DEMISE- A Look at the Hammer Dracula Endings

Part 2

By

Michael Arruda

Welcome to Part 2 of our look at the endings to the Hammer DRACULA series, where we examine how Dracula met his demise in the various Hammer Dracula movies. In Part 1, we looked at the endings to HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) and THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960).  Now, it’s on to Part 2.

And remember, if you haven’t seen these films, there are major spoilers here, so proceed with caution.

 

DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966)

Although THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960) was a sequel to HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), it didn’t feature Christopher Lee.  DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS did.

And that’s because Lee had avoided reprising the role of Dracula like the plague to avoid being typecast, but after years of unrelenting Hammer pressure, he finally gave in and agreed to play the role again, providing fans a chance to be terrified once more by their favorite blood-sucking vampire.

DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS was released eight years after HORROR and the story takes place ten years after the events of the first movie.  It was once again directed by Hammer’s top director, Terence Fisher.  DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS probably comes closest to any of the other sequels to duplicating the feel of the original, although it certainly lacks its potency.

Dracula is absent for the entire first half of the movie, as the film uses this time to build up the dramatic rebirth of Dracula.  This in itself is a good idea, but the problem is, once resurrected, he’s only in the film for about 20 minutes before meeting his demise once again.  To me, Hammer would have been better served not to destroy Dracula at the end of every movie.  After all, he had survived hundreds of years before Van Helsing finally caught up with him and destroyed him, so wouldn’t it make sense if he survived that long again?  Wouldn’t it make him scarier if it really were that difficult to stop him?  Of course it would!  Plus, when Van Helsing defeated him, it made sense because Van Helsing was a brilliant scientist, a one-of-a-kind adversary for Dracula, but in the subsequent movies Dracula’s opponents  are less and less impressive, yet they still destroy him.  But I digress.

The ending to DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS is actually very memorable, but not quite as powerful or as visually impressive as the ending in HORROR.  Once more, Dracula is chased back to his castle, this time by the knowledgable Father Sandor (Andrew Keir) and the dashing young Englishman Charles Kent (Francis Matthews) as they try to rescue Kent’s wife Diana (Suzan Farmer) from Dracula.

As Dracula’s coffin lay on ice by the castle, having fallen there from the back of the horse-drawn coach at the end of the exciting chase, Charles attempts to drive a stake through Dracula’s heart before the sun goes down, but he’s too late.  Dracula bursts from his coffin and engages Charles in a physical battle on the ice.  Diana urges Father Sandor to shoot Dracula, but he tells her it would do no good, because as we all know, bullets cannot harm vampires.  But Diana grabs the rifle anyway and fires a shot, which rips a hole in the ice, which gives Father Sandor an idea:  according to vampire lore, vampires cannot cross running water (who knew!) and in this movie, they can’t swim, either!  How convenient!

So, Father Sandor shoots around the ice, allowing Charles to escape but trapping Dracula on the quickly sinking slab.  Dracula tries to hold on, but slides screaming into the underwater grave beneath the ice of Castle Dracula.  While it doesn’t contain the eye-popping special effects from the HORROR OF DRACULA ending, it’s still a pretty unique and impressive ending to a Dracula movie.  And director Terence Fisher gives it style, as the last part of Dracula to fall into the ice is his cape in a dramatic last shot.  We even get to see Dracula submerged in his icy grave as the end credits roll!

dracula prince of darkness end

Dracula (Christopher Lee) slips into his watery grave in DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966).

It would also prove quite convenient for resurrecting Dracula.  After all, Dracula was reduced to ashes which blew away in the breeze in HORROR OF DRACULA.  It took half of DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS to set the events in motion for his resurrection.  It would be much easier in the next film.  And there would be a next film because DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS made lots of money at the box office.  There would be no turning back now for Christopher Lee and Hammer.

As Dracula movie endings go, the conclusion to DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS is very, very good.  Definitely worth a look.

dracula-has-risen-from-the-grave-movie-poster-1968

DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968)

The third Christopher Lee Dracula film for Hammer was the aptly titled DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968).  Terence Fisher did not direct this movie, making it the first Hammer Dracula film that he did not direct.  In fact, Fisher wouldn’t direct any future Hammer Dracula films.  While he helmed HORROR OF DRACULA, THE BRIDES OF DRACULA, and DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS, from here on out Dracula would be in the hands of other directors.

For DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE, it was Freddie Francis, a respected camera-man who also directed many horror movies.  While I’m not as big a fan of Francis’ work as I am Fisher’s, Francis struck gold here with DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE.  In terms of style, it doesn’t come close to the Fisher Dracula films, but it boasts a strong script by Anthony Hinds in spite of it being a simple revenge story.

DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE was so successful at the box office that it remains today Hammer Film’s biggest all-time money maker.  Dracula was Hammer’s bread and butter, and because of this, there would be four more Christopher Lee Dracula movies over the next five years.

Dracula (Christopher Lee) shows up much quicker this time around than he did in DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS.  A pair of priests go to Castle Dracula to perform an exorcism to keep Dracula’s spirit confined forever, but one of the priests, a cowardly sort, loses his way (literally and figuratively) and slips and falls on some ice, banging his head, cracking the ice where we see Dracula resting below.  The blood from the priest’s head wound seeps below the ice and makes its way to Dracula’s lips, reviving him.

While I do like DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE a lot, its ending isn’t the strongest part of the movie.  It’s okay, but it certainly falls several notches below the endings in the previous movies.  This time the hero is young atheist Paul (Barry Andrews) who’s trying to rescue his girlfriend Maria (Veronica Carlson) from Dracula.

Dracula forces Maria to remove the cross by the door to his castle, placed there by the priests at the beginning of the movie. She throws it off a cliff, where it lands upright, which is about as realistic as having Dracula spend an entire movie chasing down Maria in the first place to get her to remove the cross from his front door when he could have hypnotized anyone from his neighborhood to do it in about a minute’s time.

Paul arrives, he scuffles with Dracula, and they both fall off the cliff.  Paul is fortunate enough to grab onto some bushes, breaking his fall, but Dracula is not so lucky, as he lands directly onto— you guessed it!— the cross sticking out of the ground.  Yup, Dracula is impaled on a cross.  Sure, it’s somewhate dramatic, although like I said, it’s rather far-fetched.  There’s lots of blood dripping from Dracula’s wound and eyes as the cowardly priest, who had been turned into Dracula’s slave, redeems himself by reciting a prayer to help destroy Dracula once again, and he is destroyed, this time being reduced— not to ashes– but to gallons of blood.

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave ending

Dracula (Christopher Lee) gets a bad case of heartburn in DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968).

Not a bad ending, but also not one of the best. Still, the rest of DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE is excellent, and this one may be the most satisfying and entertaining sequel of the entire series.

Okay, that’s it for now.  Join me next time for Part 3, when we look at the endings to the next films in the Hammer Dracula series, including TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA (1969).

See you then!

—Michael

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Quotable Cushing: ISLAND OF TERROR (1966)

0
Posted on by

island-of-terror-1966

Welcome back to The Quotable Cushing, that column where we look at some of Peter Cushing’s most memorable lines in the movies.  Why, you ask?  Because I grew up watching Peter Cushing in the movies, and his performances in horror movies from the 1950s-1970s is a major reason why I write horror fiction today.  I will never stop celebrating the career of Peter Cushing, mostly because I want to share his work with fans, old and new alike.

Today on The Quotable Cushing, we’re looking at a very entertaining science fiction horror movie from the 1960s, ISLAND OF TERROR, a gripping tale of cancer research gone wrong, as mutated creatures that devour human bone run loose on a small island, terrifying its inhabitants.

It’s a fun role for Peter Cushing, as he plays a scientist— of course he does.  It’s a rare thing that he’s not playing a doctor or scientist— named Dr. Stanley who along with the younger and more dashing Dr. West (Edward Judd) tries to figure out a way to stop the creatures.  It’s an enjoyable role because in this rather taut and suspensful thriller by director Terence Fisher, Cushing gets most of the good lines, many of them humorous, which is a good thing since this flick remains tense even today.  In fact, uncharacteristically, Cushing’s Dr. Stanley seems to be cracking jokes at every turn.

Let’s check out some of these lines from ISLAND OF TERROR, screenplay by Edward Andrew Mann and Allan Ramsen.

A lot of the humor stems from Peter Cushing’s Dr. Stanley being very aware of how much danger he and everyone else on the island is in, and how frightening their situation is.  For example, as he and Dr. West return to the building where they first discovered the creatures, specifically the basement of the building, Stanley quips:

DR. STANLEY:  I’m not very keen on going down in that cellar  again.

Another time, Dr. West’s girlfriend  Toni (Carole Gray) protests to Gray about being left alone in the car, a sentiment which Cushing’s Stanley agrees with.  Let’s listen:

DR. WEST:  Toni, you stay in the car.

TONI:  I’m not staying here with all those things running around.

DR. STANLEY:  Oh, let her come. I wouldn’t want to stay out here alone, either. It’s too damn creepy.

island of terror trio

Peter Cushing, Carole Gray, and Edward Judd in ISLAND OF TERROR (1966)

He possesses the same self-awareness in this scene with Drs. West and Landers:

DR. WEST:  Brian, hold it! Come back to the car. If there is something in there, we’d better not get too close until we know what we’re up against.

DR. LANDERS:  What do you think is in there?

DR. WEST:  I don’t know. But let’s not take any unnecessary risks.

DR. STANLEY:  Yes, especially with me!

 

Cushing’s Dr. Stanley also has a very playful side.  Take this sequence, for example, where he gets in this zinger, having some fun with his friend Dr. West and West’s girlfriend Toni.

DR. STANLEY:  What the devil did Napoleon do on that island to keep himself busy?

DR. WEST:  He invented solitaire.

West’s girlfriend Toni then leans into West and says to him in sultry voice.

TONI:  I’ve a much better game in mind.

To which Dr. Stanley quips with a sly grin:

DR. STANLEY:  Can three play?

 

At another point, after being treated for his injuries, Stanley has this to say:

DR. STANLEY:  One more transfusion and I’ll be a full-blooded Irishman.

And it’s some injury.  ISLAND OF  TERROR provides Peter Cushing with one of his more memorable on screen moments, when his Dr. Stanley is attacked by one of the creatures on the island, and to save him, his friend Dr. West has to chop off Stanley’s hand, since the bone-sucking creature has a tight grip on Stanley’s wrist.  It’s the most jarring moment in the movie, and as always, Peter Cushing nails it, grimacing and yelping in extreme agony.

And since Dr. Stanley is such a playful fellow in this one, he has this to say to his buddy Dr. West after the amputation:

DR. STANLEY:  Watch it boy, or I’ll sue you for malpractice.

ISLAND OF TERROR is one of the more thrilling horror science fiction movies from the 1960s, a must-see for Peter Cushing fans.  In addition to the memorable lines shared here, there are many more exciting moments in the film.

So, that’s it for now.   I hope you enjoyed this look at Peter Cushing’s memorable lines in ISLAND OF TERROR.  Join me again next time for another installment of THE QUOTABLE CUSHING where we’ll look at other fine quotes from a Peter Cushing movie.

Thanks for reading!

—Michael

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: THE TOMB OF LIGEIA (1964)

0
Posted on by

tomb of ligeia - posterThis is a reprint of a column that originally ran in the October 2007 issue of The HWA Newsletter, on the Vincent Price movie THE TOMB OF LIGEIA (1964). It’s reprinted in the current October 2015 issue of the HWA Newsletter as well as here.  And don’t forget:  if you like this column, you can read 115 more in my IN THE SPOOKLIGHT collection, available both as an EBook (www.neconebooks.com)  and in a print-on-demand edition (https://www.createspace.com/4293038.).

Enjoy!

—Michael

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT

BY

MICHAEL ARRUDA

I prefer horror to be an emotional experience, which is why, sometimes Roger Corman’s Edgar Allan Poe adaptations don’t work for me.

THE TOMB OF LIGEIA (1964), starring Vincent Price, Corman’s eighth and final Poe adaptation, is a perfect example.

Technically, the film is flawless.  It’s arguably Corman’s best job at the helm.  The film looks phenomenal, there’s great use of locations, and the camera work is extremely stylish.  For these reasons alone watching THE TOMB OF LIGEIA can be as rewarding and mouthwatering as reading a good novel.  Your intelligence won’t be let down.

It also has a decent screenplay by Robert Towne, which lives up to its source material.

However, THE TOMB OF LIGEIA has never been one of my favorites because as it plays out, it’s as cold as a corpse with about as much life (unless of course you’re talking vampire and zombies, which get around rather well, but there ain’t no vampires or zombies here!).  Perhaps this is on purpose, and perhaps it’s just another sign of Corman’s genius.  Could be.  But for me, the fact remains that as I watch THE TOMB OF LIGEIA, and as I recognize while watching that “hmm, this movie is extremely well made,” I also realize I’m not emotionally invested in the characters or the situations.

THE TOMB OF LIGEIA tells the story of Verden Fell (Vincent Price) who’s— what else?— brooding over the death of his wife, Ligeia.  When a new woman, the Lady Rowena (Elizabeth Shepherd, in a dual role, as she also appears as Ligeia) expresses interest in Verden, the ghost of Ligeia takes offense, setting off the usual, standard ghostly shenanigans.  We learn that Verden isn’t mourning his deceased wife— he’s afraid of her, afraid that she’s not really dead.  Turns out Ligeia was a bold, energetic woman who had asserted she would never die, and she definitely got inside Verden’s head.

It’s this part of the film that works best for me.  Is Ligeia really a ghost?   Or is it Verden?  So mind-washed by his deceased wife that he himself is causing the mayhem?  On this level, the film works well.

And the performances by the two leads are terrific.  Price stands out as Verden.  His look, with the dark brown hair and dark glasses, to shield his ultra-sensitive eyes from the light, is unique to this movie.  Price moves through this role effortlessly, as if he could do it in his sleep.  Elizabeth Shepherd is just as good as The Lady Rowena.  Her portrayal of Rowena as a strong woman who is not intimidated by evil spirits is refreshing.  Tomb-of-Ligeia-Price

But THE TOMB OF LIGEIA fails to connect on an emotional level.  Price’s Verden isn’t that likeable, and while Shepherd’s Lady Rowena is, she’s not a central enough character to carry the movie on her own.  I don’t really care about these characters, and as a result, I don’t care all that much about what happens to them, which makes for a lackluster movie viewing experience.

THE TOMB OF LIGEIA is a mixed bag, which for Halloween, is OK.  In a trick or treat bag, chances are you’ll get candy you’re not crazy about along with your favorites, but still, it’s candy, and you’re not going to throw it away.  Likewise, THE TOMB OF LIGEIA is a stylish, almost beautiful horror movie that is pleasing to the eye and to the intellect, but not so attractive to the heart.  For those of us who tell tales, the heart can be the difference maker.  Still, it’s Corman, it’s Price, it’s Poe, it’s candy.

It’s Halloween.  Eat up.

(October 2007)