FMWL's Hammer Films Month Screen Grab Giveaway Challenge!

Ever since I started this little corner of webness, I've been incredibly proud of all the support I've gotten from all of you who read this darn thing.  But, with Hammer Films Month underway, I've come to the realization that a lot of people simply don't know Hammer Films as well as they could.  And this realization made me stop for a minute to ask myself a question.  I said to myself - "Self, how can you help your readers love Hammer more?"  And, like a giant ray of awesomeness, my self spoke back to me with the appropriate answer:

"A GIVEAWAY!"

So, here's the plan.  Below are 40 screen grabs from 40 horror(ish) movies that I totally love.  Some of them are good, some of them are bad, some of them are famous, some of them are obscure - but all of them bring a smile to a guy named The Mike.  And I figure that the people who can name the most of these 40 movies should probably get themselves a prize that will help them love Hammer like I do.

The Rules: Send an email to frommidnightwithlove at gmail dot com (but, without the at and the dot and with a @ and a .) with your guesses as to the title of each film.  Make sure to clarify year if you think it's a film with multiple versions, because I haven't perfected my mind reading skills yet.  I will be giving prizes to the top TWO title namers.  (In the event of a tie between two folks who got the same amount of titles right, prizes will go to the FIRST person to get their entry in.  So, time AND accuracy are muy importante.)

(Also, please don't post answers in the comments below.  They will be deleted, and you will be ineligible to receive prizes.  PLAY NICE!)

The Prizes:  The Runner-Up (aka: Second Place; aka: The First Loser) will receive.......

Warner Brothers' Four Film Favorites DRACULA collection, featuring FOUR! Hammer flicks that star Christopher Lee as Dracula!

The WINNER (aka: Numero Uno; aka: The Grand Poobah) will receive the same prize as the Runner-Up.  PLUS the winner will receive......

Universal's Hammer Horror Series DVD set, including a whopping EIGHT Hammer flicks!

That's TWELVE fabulous Hammer Horror Films to the Winner, FOUR marvelous Christopher Lee Draculas to the first loser....and all you have to do is NAME THESE HORROR(ish) MOVIES!!!!!!!

(Also, all prizes are in the form of US released Region One DVDs, so apologies to those outside of The U.S. and Canada.  You can play if you want, but I can't promise these prizes to y'all.  THE MIKE STILL LOVES YOU!)

As an annoying professional wrestler would say (Seriously, how many times did they let this guy beat The Rock?  REALLY???) - TIME TO PLAY THE GAME!!!!!!

Number 1!

Number 2!

Number 3!

Number 4!

Number 5!

Number 6!

Number 7!

Number 8!

Number 9!

Number 10!

Number 11!

Number 12!

Number 13!

Number 14!

Number 15!

Number 16!

Number 17!

Number 18!

Number 19!

Number 20!

Number 21!

Number 22!

Number 23!

Number 24!

Number 25!

Number 26!

Number 27!

Number 28!

Number 29!

Number 30!

Number 31!

Number 32!

Number 33!

Number 34!

Number 35!

Number 36!

Number 37!

Number 38!

Number 39!

Number 40!

There they are!  I tried to make the more obscure films easier and the more known films harder - for the most part - but I'm not gonna make it easy for you!  Get your responses in by Friday October 22nd, whence the contest will end!  And come back in the meantime for more Hammer Films Month posts!!!!!

(Oh, and I just MIGHT be giving away some hints on FMWL's Facebook page over the next couple of weeks, so you just MIGHT have a better chance at winnin' if you sign up over there.)

Hammer Films Month - Never Take Candy From a Stranger

When I started to look through the Hammer movies I own that I could cover for this month long festival of awesome, there was one title that stuck out from the others.  It didn't stick out because of the cast, the director, or any kind of horror credential - it stuck out because it seemed like an odd departure from anything else I'd ever seen from the great studio.  The film in question was entitled Never Take Candy From a Stranger, and promised to be a "chiller about a small town terrorized by an elderly child molester".  I'm no expert on British culture, but it seems like the film (released in 1960) jumped the gun for addressing these kind of topics by a couple of decades.

Produced on the cheap in black-and-white, Never Take Candy From a Stranger is pretty straight forward as a dramatic thriller, leaving any supernatural or science-fiction trappings out of the mix.  The film opens with a brief message that reminds the viewer that this story - set in Eastern Canada - is completely fictional, but could happen in any town in the world.  I would imagine that the choice to set the film in Canada (despite the fact it was filmed entirely in England) was a way to control controversy over the topic with native audiences.  If British or American viewers got too worked up over the insinuation that molestation may be occurring in their town, they could always shrug it off and blame Canada.

Though the film's tagline promises that you will "See a little girl molested!", there's no on-screen representation of the acts that set our plot in motion.  The film begins with two young girls playing in a wooded area.  Jean is new to town, her father having just become the Principal at the local school, while Lucille is a life-long resident.  When Jean realizes she's lost the purse that holds her candy money (a whopping 35 cents!), Lucille reassures her that she knows a place where they can get a lot of candy for free.  The camera pans to a secluded hillside manor, and a title card reminds us that the children have stepped into stranger danger territory.

We don't see the crime committed, but spend most of the film dealing with the aftermath.  Jean's parents are shaken badly by her report that the old man asked the girls to dance without their clothes on, and struggle to cope with the situation.  The film represents their cycle of emotions well, starting with the father's rage, the mother's confusion and insistence on holding the perp accountable, and Jean's grandmother's old-fashioned insistence that they need to just let it go because "no real crime was committed".  Things are further complicated when the parents do raise a complaint, because the old man in question (a silent yet imposing Felix Aylmer) is a valued patriarch of the town.  At one point, a town official even states that "school principals come and go", but this family is an institution.  The struggles to bring light to Jean's troubles lead to a Grisham-esque courtroom scenario, and the film maintains the intrigue of the situation by keeping its hand on the hot-button topic.  Meanwhile, little Jean struggles to deal with the terrors of what she experienced.

The first two acts of the film stick to psychological drama, but the final act brings some strong psychological terror.  The girls are back to playing in the woods, but this time Aylmer's creeper isn't waiting for them; he's bringing the candy to them.  The result is a chase scene across the woods that packs some pretty solid tension, and is followed closely by a good old-fashioned man hunt as the town realizes the girls have gone missing again.  The wrap-up of the film is surprisingly abrupt and dark, but really hammers home the distress of the situation.

Much of the film's power comes from the performances of the young girls, who don't disappoint.  Francis Green's Lucille isn't on-screen a lot, but her character seems to be a focal-point of the film's moral twists.  Janina Faye's Jean, on the other hand, is on-screen for most of the film.  She does a fantastic job of relaying the confusion a youngster would feel in this situation, and I wondered if the filmmakers ever really told her what the movie was about (information that it isn't uncommon to hide from child actors).  Regardless of the filmmakers' tactics, Faye plays the victim marvelously, and makes up for the slightly wooden portrayals of her parents by Gwen Watford and Patrick Allen.  I've mentioned Aylmer a couple of times, but it bears repeating that he is fantastically creepy as the silent villain.  (Also notable, at least to me, is the appearance of Michael Gwynn as the prosecuting lawyer.  Gwynn would go on to appear in a lot of film and TV, but is most memorable to me as Lord Melbury in an episode of Fawlty Towers.)

Never Take Candy From a Stranger (or, Never Take Sweets From a Stranger in the UK) is a well-shot and well-acted dramatic thriller that overcomes a slight script to deal with a controversial issue well.  The film's definitely dated - we've unfortunately seen concerns like this permeate or cinemas and television sets over the years - but it's a notable step in addressing the issue for its time.  This is another atypical Hammer film, but it's one that is pretty relevant and shows off the studio's range of topics.  Never Take Candy From a Stranger will definitely be a Hammer I remember for a long time, because the power of those scenes of the girls running for their lives in the woods won't fade.  Definitely a recommended viewing for anyone who wants to see the studio's take on a real life monster.

Midnight Movie of the Week #40 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires

If you're like me, the first thing that you ask when you hear about 7 Golden Vampires is if finding one gets you free admission to a Vampire Chocolate Factory.  The second thing you ask is probably "Wait, what?"  The latter response is pretty appropriate for the film, a unique collaboration between England's Hammer Films and Hong Kong's Shaw Brothers.  By now, readers of this site hopefully known a bit about Hammer, but the Shaw Bros haven't been a hot topic at FMWL.  If you must know, the easiest way to explain them is to say that Shaw is to Hong Kong kung fu cinema as Hammer is British horror cinema.  Yeah.  THAT good.

So, what could bring these two super-powers, the Balboa and Creed of their generation, together?  Money, of course.  With Hammer's reign fading in 1974, the studios combined efforts on the production, which would mix the gothic horror aspects of Hammer with Shaw's Chinese kung fu magic.  Directors Roy Ward Baker and Chang Cheh, both experienced in their own studios, came together to produce the film on location in Hong Kong.  The idea was that Hammer could get some of the martial arts market - booming in popularity thanks to Shaw's films and the late Bruce Lee - and keep their classic series of Dracula films alive.

Recently, I've caught myself saying that Dracula A.D. 1972 and The Satanic Rites of Dracula were the final Dracula films produced by Hammer.  That's not a slight on this film, it's just that I often forget to include this film in that discussion. That's probably because this Dracula seems to be from an alternate reality than Chris Lee's - even if Peter Cushing pops up as Van Helsing to lead the charge.  Drac is played here by two actors: John Forbes-Robertson bookends the film by portraying The Count as a make-up wearing, widow-peaked fellow with a voice like James Earl Jones; Shen Chan (or Chan Shen, depending on your dyslexia) plays Kah, the Chinese Vampire with the Fu Manchu hairdo who Dracula possesses so he can reign over the golden vampires in their native environment.  Regarding the plot, I'm not quite sure why Dracula needs to switch bodies to leave Transylvania.  In terms of the film, it's so the vampires can be of the Eastern variety that hop around and fight in acrobatic measures, I think.

Definitely not the Dracula I know and love.

So, Van Helsing - accompanied by his son (Robin Stewart), a wealthy Scandinavian widow (the striking Julie Ege), and seven brothers and one sister who vow to destroy the seven golden vampires that have plagued their country for ages.  Foggy flashbacks of their story, as told by Van Helsing to a class full of cynical students, show the golden vampires and their rise from the grave to take power; yet only these few really believe in the curse that the group is in search of.  Van Helsing also explains some differences between the vampires he's used to and these, such as the fact that the cross is useless against them - but a Buddha is very powerful due to their native religion.  It raises that age old question about how to stop an Atheist vampire, but I'm too scared to ask it.

Along their way across the countryside to the Golden Vampires' lair, Carl Douglas' song is validated - because there is plenty of Kung Fu Fighting.  The action is frantic and entertaining, and even the Europeans like Cushing and Ege get in on the battle.  The Golden Vampires are visually gruesome and enjoy sacrificing maidens, which makes them a fine villain for this type of film.  The scenes of the vamps rising from the ground are especially well done, and the film's execution of these moments shows a few hints of Fulci.  The plot stalls out in some of the fight scenes, a common factor in kung fu cinema which I tend to ignore when the fighting is good.  This film definitely falls into that classification, so I'm not disappointed.

Probably the most unique film from Hammer (particularly because it's pretty much their half-child), the film is rich with orange, green, and gold lighting that provides a Hong Kong feeling throughout.  But the Hammer staples are there, and Baker's camera still produces some of the same shots it did in films like Scars of Dracula and The Vampire Lovers.  The film was cut to a 75 minute run-time and retitled as The Seven Brothers Meet Dracula for American audiences, because the production ran a little too far toward Shaw's territory at times.  Thankfully, the full version of the film (along with that truncated version) are restored on DVD (in a sad, non-anamorphic transfer), and Baker and Chen's combined vision of the film provides a lot of action and fun.

When you put it all together, almost everything in this film works for me.  It's a completely serious film despite its silly plot, and the tone adds to the film's charm.  In fact, I'd put it right alongside the likes of Flash Gordon and Starcrash as one of the most awesome bits of cheese from its era.  The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires might not be classic Hammer, but it's a fun alternative that always makes me smile.

(Note from The Mike: Sadly, an RIP must be said for Roy Ward Baker, who died today at the age of 93.  Baker directed several other Hammer films, including the cyclopic Bette Davis comedy The Anniversary and the infamous Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.  He also was popular with Hammer rival Amicus Pictures, directing Asylum, And Now the Screaming Starts, and The Vault of Horror (among others); directed many episodes of The Saint and The Avengers, and was behind the Criterion-preserved Titanic film A Night to Remember.  A fond farewell to you, Roy Ward Baker.)

Hammer Films Month - Crescendo

I fully admit to knowing next to nothing about music.  In fact, there are few things I remember from my time in the music industry, because "my time in the music industry" is my way of saying I was in the high school band.  I couldn't read music, and thus played the bass drum - which allowed me to create repeated loud thuds and call it music.  One of the few things I remember, learned during a brief and tragic stint with a tympani, is the term crescendo".  A crescendo, in musical terms, is "a passage played with a gradual increase in volume or intensity" - and gradual was never my strong suit.  The Mike likes it loud.

In Hammer Films terms, Crescendo is one of the last in a line of thrillers (commonly called "Mini-Hitchcocks") that were produced by the studio in the '60s.  This one, released in 1970, stars Stefanie Powers as a student of music who moves in with the family of a departed composer to study his work.  She, like me, is not a musician; she simply loves the topic.  Of course, when she gets to the estate in the South of France, with its beautiful scenery and available swimming pool, she gradually becomes less interested in music than she is in the odd family of the composer who lives there, particularly the handicapped son of the late composer, George (James Olson), who promises great massages.

As a fan of all things Hammer, Crescendo is a surprisingly uncommon film.  The production more resembles an American thriller than one of Hammer's films, and the setting and characters show hints of the Italian horror movement that would sweep through cinemas in the decade (the mother, specifically, reminds me strongly of Suspiria).  The plot brings Powers' Susan into a web of intrigue that includes vague recollections of an accident, a nubile young servant with dark desires (Jane Lapotaire, fitting the French Maid role well), and some dark and ominous dreams of sex and murder.  (Most exciting to The Mike? The features a young Joss Ackland, best known as 'Diplomatic Immunity Guy' from Lethal Weapon 2 as one of the servants in the home.)

While the film doesn't look like your average Hammer film, it's worth noting that the striking Ms. Powers belongs in any conversation of the most beautiful Hammer women.  She would later become famous in America as the star of TV's Hart to Hart, but here she fills the role of frightened young lover perfectly.  It's not a great performance by any means - and most of the cast is simply adequate in their roles - but her appearance definitely helped me stick with the film through a slow start.  As the film gradually builds, the imagery becomes darker and more violent, and we get to experience some vivid dreams from George's perspective that lead us to a final reveal.

Though the plot is standard thriller territory, Crescendo pushes the envelope with its focus on drug use and sexuality.  Though there's little blood shown, the female nudity and explicit heroin use (AHHHHH!!!!! Needles!) would give the film a strong R rating even by today's standards.  The film was actually edited down to a PG rating for American theater and video releases, but the current DVD (from the Warner Archive Collection) offers the film in its unedited, international glory.  While Hammer's horror era was always facing challenges from censors, this seems like an extreme case in which they pushed the boundaries of their usual fare.

It's a shame the studio didn't make more films like Crescendo.  Director Alan Gibson would go on to make the final two Hammer Dracula films, both of which disappointed audiences and left the studio dying as it could not compete with the times.  Crescendo, on the other hand, feels like the kind of film you'd expect from the 1970s, and I have to wonder if more films like this one (if they could be released without edits) could have kept Hammer afloat in the decade.  This leaves Crescendo as an intriguing little slice of Hammer history, and it's one I won't soon forget.  This is a fine thriller that deserves to be seen, and has quickly become one of my favorite productions from what used to be Hammer's "final" decade.

I told you Stefanie Powers was freaky....

Hammer Films Month Midnight Top Five - Things About Hammer's Uprising You Might Not Have Known!

One of the struggles I've had with putting together Hammer Films month is the obvious one:  a lot of people simply don't know what Hammer Films IS.  I will admit, despite how much I love their films, I've missed out on a lot of their history too.  Until now.  Lately, I seem to be swimming in it. 

Thus, I present a relatively simple Midnight Top Five - compiled primarily by scouring Wikipedia and other potentially ill-repute sites, I admit - that breaks down some of the developments that interest me most about the beginnings of Hammer's reign in genre cinema.  I hope to make a similar post later in the month that covers the horror years of the company, but for now, let's just take a trip down memory lane.

The Very Beginning - The company was registered in 1934 by William Hinds, who named the company after his own stage name - Will Hammer.  The first film produced by Hammer was The Public Life of Henry the Ninth, which was released in 1935.  The company made five films between 1935-1937 (including The Mystery of the Marie Celeste/The Phantom Ship, which starred Bela Lugosi), but was forced into bankruptcy in 1937.  During that span, Hinds and Enrique Carreras formed their own film distribution company - Exclusive Films - which continued to function while Hammer was not producing films.

The New Beginning - The company was joined by the sons of the founders, James Carreras and Anthony Hinds in 1938.  Both men left the company to fight in World War II, but returned in 1946.  They began producing "quickie" films in 1947, which were primarily crime dramas and radio adaptations.

Hammer made strides toward its future in genre cinema in the upcoming years, hiring director Terence Fisher for the first time in 1951 (the film was The Last Page) and making their first sci-fi films in 1953 (Four Sided Triangle and Spaceways).  Most significantly, the studio began using the studio that would become the world famous Bray Studios in 1951, and it would become the home of Hammer Films through 1966.

The New Hammer's First Horror Wasn't a Monster Flick - While their Draculas and other monsters are well known, the beginning of Hammer's horror age was the production of The Quatermass Xperiment in 1955.  The film was directed by Val Guest, and became a huge hit - spawning the equally successful 1957 sequel Quatermass and the Pit.  The films have been identified as a childhood inspiration for future horror maestro John Carpenter, which clearly makes their existence wicked awesome in The Mike's eyes..

(BONUS FACT! Both Quatermass films were adapted from the works of Nigel Kneale, who would go on to work with Carpenter by writing the original script behind Halloween III: Season of the Witch.  However, Kneale would go uncredited on that film, as he objected to the violence and gore added by producer Dino De Laurentiis.)

Dracula Didn't Happen Next - Hammer's first take on the classic monsters was not their most famous one.  It was The Curse of Frankenstein, which was the first Hammer pairing of Christopher Lee (as the Monster) and Peter Cushing (as Victor Frankenstein).  (BONUS FACT! The two had already appeared in two other films together - Laurence Olivier's Hamlet and the original Moulin Rouge.)

The Film almost didn't happen, because initial scripts were hated by the producers.  A future Hammer hero rose, thankfully: Jimmy Sangster, who wasn't a writer two years earlier, rewrote the film and won over the producers.  Terence Fisher would direct, and Sangster would go on to write about 25 more films for Hammer.  The film was a huge hit, and was one of the first horror films to really focus on the letting of blood.

So, Dracula Was An Easy Follow Up, Right? - NOT SO FAST.  Universal was quite reluctant to give up rights to the Dracula tale, and no agreement that would allow the film was made - until after the film had been shot.  Even though Frankenstein had succeeded, Hammer had to battle to get funding for Horror of Dracula, and also faced trouble from those who felt its use of blood was inappropriate (the British Board of Film Classification wondered why "vampires need be messier eaters than anyone else.")  (BONUS FACT! The producers also were worried about the production design being so different from Universal's sets, and almost fired designer Bernard Robinson during filming.  Robinson would work on Hammer films for at least the next decade, including Curse of the Werewolf and The Phantom of the Opera.)

Of course, the film was a huge success worldwide, and Universal made a lot of money on distribution.  In August of 1958, it was announced that Universal had given Hammer "the remake rights to their entire library of classic films".

The rest, as they say, is history.  Until next time, that is.

Hammer Films Month - Let Me In

(Note from The Mike: THEY'RE BAAAAAAACCCCCKKKK!!  Yes, Hammer Films just released its first film in over 30 years, and The Mike couldn't be happier.  Seeing their new logo - which is reminiscent of the Marvel logo; showing images (in this case, the likes of Christopher Lee as Dracula and Raquel Welch from One Hundred Million B.C.) behind the letters before they're filled in with red - had me fist-pumping in theater.  The film?  Let Me In, the remake of a beloved modern horror hit.  The results?  That's in the review....)

(2010, Directed by Matt Reeves.)

You know how sometimes you just sense that someone is near you?  Or, do you ever have those moments where you just "feel" something and turn around to find that someone behind you is looking at you?  It may seem like an extra sense, but - surprisingly - it's just part of your brain chemistry.  According to most research (at least the type that's shared at universities in the Midwestern USA) a small area of your brain known as the amygdala is responsible for this.  In fact, these groups of nuclei are said to be responsible for social cognition, helping a person recognize distance between himself and others while helping start an emotional response to these stimuli.  (In simple terms, it's the part of your brain that lets you know when you might need to freak out.)

I mention this only because young Owen (played by Kodi Smit-Mcphee of The Road) gives his amygdala one helluva workout in Let Me In.  Playing a socially awkward 12 year old who is often bullied at school and has a distant relationship with his mother (to make this more evident, her face is obscured from the camera throughout the film).  When he does meet someone new that doesn't judge him, it's because he realizes they're standing right behind him, watching him.  That new acquaintance is Abby (Kick-Ass star Chloe Grace Moretz) who has just moved into the apartment next door.  She shares the apartment with a paternal figure played by the wonderful Richard Jenkins, who we quickly learn is involved in a series of murders.  We know that he is trying to harvest the blood of the victims, and it quickly becomes evident that Abby has a strange diet.  Meanwhile, Owen spends a large amount of time trying to figure out the non-verbal cues he senses in his environment, and the film places significant weight on the proximity between characters and the power of physical touch.

If you've seen Let The Right One In - the film Let Me In is based off of (or read the book of the same title) - none of this comes as a surprise.  Yet this story carries the same power that its predecessor had, partially because this take on vampirism is such a unique tale.  The American version takes some liberties with the story (the setting is now New Mexico of 1983), and specifically enhances its focus on the concept of good vs. evil.  Then President Ronald Reagan is featured giving a speech about the good and evil forces in his country, and the mother's religious beliefs are an obvious influence on young Owen.  As Abby's true nature is revealed, that V word that Bram Stoker made famous is never mentioned.  Owen just wants to know if she's evil.

(By the way, this is totally the first time I've ever made the biblical connection about the fact that a vampire must be invited in to one's home.  It makes perfect sense, though.  Like Adam and Eve, it's a situation where evil forces can not act on you, you have to let them in (hence, the title!) to your life.  I'm sure this was probably one of the intentions of that point in vampire folklore, but I never once considered it until today.  The More You Know, I guess.)

There isn't much of a physical battle between good and evil in Let Me In.  In fact, considering the overuse of Romeo and Juliet as a symbol in the film's romantic plot, I'd say Good and Evil are represented kind of like the Montagues and Capulets.  Owen and Abby's bond - and the differences between them that threaten to keep them apart - is certainly the crux of this film.  The film doesn't really aim to point out which side is right, it aims to point out the difficulties that people on different sides have when they make a connection.  There's a bit of bloodletting to keep it squirmy - this certainly ain't Twilight - and the film offers some great images of Abby and "The Father" in their predatory states to keep the tension level up.

In general, Let Me In is a very good horror film.  Director Matt Reeves, graduating from the handheld camera school at which he made Cloverfield, seems to have control of the film and really paints a beautiful picture while using drab sets.  Colors seem to pop off the screen a little more than they did in the original - an understandably American trait - but the film never becomes the type of flashy and spastic horror we've come to expect in today's American horror climate.  There are, unfortunately, some truly terrible special effects and CGI scenes that detract from the film at moments, but it's nothing that the film can't overcome.

If I were to ask horror fans what their favorite horror film of the last decade was, I have few doubts that Let The Right One In would carry an extremely large percentage of votes.  Yet, I can sense Let Me In (which has already drawn critical praise) becoming a hit in these crowds, because it is simply too good at what it does to be ignored.  This vampire tale - like Romeo and Juliet, for example - has a rich enough base that it's open to other interpretations.  Reeves and the folks at Hammer (who have a bit of a history of reviving beloved vampire tales) lost a bit of the poetry of the original in translation, but have kept the story gripping and interesting.

Connections to other films aside, I have few problems with Let Me In.  Moretz and Smit-Mcphee are both excellent as the leads, and the support of veterans like Jenkins and Elias Koteas only enhances the experience.  Michael Giacchino provides a fine musical score, and the camerawork of Greig Fraser is top-notch.  Hammer put together a wonderful team to relive this tale, and the result is one of the most effective horror films of the year, remake or not.

(P.S. - If you sense something behind you; something that tells you there's a problem with this remake: it's probably just your amygdala overreacting.)

Midnight Movie of the Week #39 - The Curse of the Werewolf

Hammer Films Month is officially underway at FMWL!  Most would start their look at Hammer with Dracula, or maybe Frankenstein. I have chosen a road less taken by most, but The Mike knows it well.  It's the road that proves that werewolves are happiness.

Like Universal Studios, Hammer added the werewolf to their repertoire only after they'd established Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Mummy in their catalog.  In fact, by the time Terence Fisher made The Curse of the Werewolf in 1961, he had already directed two Dracula films, two Frankenstein films, The Mummy, and an adaptation of Jekyll & Hyde (1960's House of Fright) - all within the previous four years.  If Hammer was nothing else, they were prolific.

Despite the large amount of work (those six films are among 11 films and at least 25 episodes for TV that he directed between 1957-1961), The Curse of the Werewolf still brought a fresh approach to the werewolf concept.  Based on Guy Endore's novel 'The Werewolf of Paris', Curse is unique because it spends more than half of the film setting up the lead character's affliction before even introducing the titular werewolf.  Instead of meeting the cursed Leon (played by a young Oliver Reed in his first starring role) as the film begins, we follow the journey of those who put the curse upon him.  The travels start with a beggar who's humiliated and jailed by the vicious Marques Siniestro (no relation to G.I. Joe).  The beggar sits in the Marques' jail cell for decades, only having contact with a young servant (played by the busty Yvonne Romain).  Eventually, she too is jailed by the Marques, and is raped by the beggar.  After killing her captor and escaping, the young woman is found near dead, and bearing child. 

That child is the young Leon, who is cursed as "an insult to heaven" by being born a bastard on Christmas.  I have to say, this is a new bit of folklore to me - but the film runs with it.  What follows is the childhood of a young werewolf, as the boy's adopted father (Clifford Evans) deals with the killing of goats around the village and removes bullets from his young child.  Through a lot of love and some steel bars on the windows, the youngster grows up to be a strapping young lad by the film's halfway point, when the classic werewolf tale kicks in.

Long before films like The Howling and Ginger Snaps added a sexual aspect to lycanthropy, Hammer's werewolf tale seems to be dripping of symbolism in that regard.  The young Mr. Reed has madly fallen for a young woman, yet when the moon is full loses control in more ways than one.  Perhaps my favorite sequence occurs when Leon, weary due to the newly full moon, accepts comfort from a young woman he meets at the party.  He doesn't have any conscious desires toward her, but the full moon quickly turns his helplessness into a carnal lust...and then something else.  That's not a stretch for the film, because you could argue, in this case, that lycanthropy is an STD.  It's a fine example of how Hammer - in a relatively tame manner - pushed the boundaries of sexuality in horror when they took over the classic monster blueprints.

Reed gives a fine physical performance as both Leon and the Wolf, and the rest of the cast - particularly Evans as the saddened father - do a great job within the story.  The Spanish setting distinguishes the film well from its vampire counterparts, and the film bares only a passing resemblance to Fisher's other Hammer horrors.  The finale, full of classic werewolf film moments, feels a little rushed, but has a lot of great moments.

The Curse of the Werewolf is often forgotten among more iconic Hammer films, but I think that Hammer's only werewolf opus is a fine example of the studio's efforts.  It didn't sell well upon initial release - dooming it to be Hammer's only werewolf film - but recent restoration via Universal's Hammer Horror Series DVD set has brought it back to light.  Fans of werewolf lore, fans of Oliver Reed, and (of course) fans of Hammer will all probably find something to enjoy in The Curse of the Werewolf.

Love Horror? Hate Cancer? Fright-Rags Has Something For You...

If you don't know of Fright-Rags, the New York based company making some of the coolest horror shirts in the history of mankind, you're severely missing out.  They're a fine group of folks who love what they do, and by all accounts do it well.  I hear that some of them love Halloween 5, which disappoints me, but I can let that slide.

Especially today.  Today, I received an email from Fright-Rags' "Guru of Gore-wear", Ben, who relayed the message that his site is offering a new shirt tomorrow.  This shirt, given the name 'We Belong Alive", is being released in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  The shirt is designed to raise awareness, but also to benefit those who suffer.  In fact, all proceeds from sales of the shirt, pictured below, will go to a friend of Ben's who is battling breast cancer and the costs that come with it.

While I'm often prone to rambling, but this is a cause that hits home for me, so I'm gonna just keep this simple.  If you'd like to offer your support to those who suffer, plus the people who love them, this shirt's for you.

The shirt can be purchased here, as of 10 AM EST on 9/1/10. 

(And, they have a lot of other awesome shirts too, BTW.)

Support Unrated Horror This Weekend? No Thanks.

If you've been around the horror community lately, you've no doubt heard the loud voices proclaiming this to be one of the most important weekends in the history of horror cinema.  If you haven't been around, allow me to explain.

Hatchet II, the follow up to Adam Green's breakout slasher from 2006, is being released "nationally" this week by AMC cinemas.  Moreover, the film will be released UNRATED - free from the censorship of the MPAA and their rating system.  According to many, such as horror bigwig Dread Central, this is a chance for horror fans to stand up and tell the world what they want to see (by giving the film money, of course).

With all due respect to those involved with the movie (I like Hatchet, and we'll talk about it more later), those involved with sites pimping this release, and those who disagree - I'm going to take my own stand.  Here are some reasons why I - and probably I only - think this ad campaign and the path of Hatchet II doesn't speak for all horror fans, despite their sweeping generalizations.

This "nationwide" release is nowhere near nationwide - I've been an employee of one of the nation's largest theater chains, and the moment Hatchet II's unrated release was announced I knew that it would never - ever - play in my home state.  Quite simply, most theater chains WILL NOT carry unrated cinema of any kind.  A look at the opening weekend venues of Hatchet II, as posted online, shows that only 20 of the 50 United States will play Hatchet II.  To the studio that probably doesn't matter, because AMC cinemas covers the major moneymaking markets.  But there are huge portions of the country that will not see the film.  Basically, the choice to go unrated is costing millions of viewers a chance to see the film.  I'm sure the filmmakers' will say that the film selling in these markets is what will change the other chains' minds.  Considering the mediocre results of online campaigns on past horror "sensations", I highly doubt they'll meet that goal.  It's another case of the entertainment industry separating the haves and havenots.

(Some people have been so bold as to even suggest that those of us from the 90% of America that won't see Hatchet II in theaters should blindly buy tickets on-line and support unrated horror in that manner.  In other words - "If you're interested in the vague prospect of more unrated horror films, buy this product sight unseen!".  I mean, we all want it that way, right? Send your money, and in return...well, in return you can spend more money to pick up the DVD at Wal-Mart!  That way, the studio's pocketbooks win twice!)

After Green's latest films, a return to Hatchet seems like a step back - Since the release of Hatchet - a flawed slasher that cut corners to create scares and was devoid of any real characters - Green has been a part of directing two fantastic horror thrillers, Spiral and Frozen.  These films show that Green has a lot of talent as a serious horror filmmaker.  Hatchet, on the other hand, felt like a glorified piece of fan fiction that was entirely interested in producing gore and showing breasts.  We like to claim that that's all horror fans like, but I know that most of us are bigger than that.  Hatchet is a fun film, and I'm sure seeing the amped up sequel on the big screen with a howling audience would be fun - but I still feel like it could be a step back artisticly.  Yet people are lapping it up, because it promises violence and gore.  Which leads to my biggest issue with the film's pitch...

The UNRATED label is a crutch - I know, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I fail to see any good reason why unrated horror is inherently better than any other horror film.  To me, the assumption that the film will be better because it hasn't passed the rating tests is absolutely ridiculous.  I can not, for the life of me, think of one time in my life when I've been watching a truly fantastic horror movie and stopped to think "You know, this movie would be sooooo much better if it were unrated!"  Not once.

It personally offends me when I see all these people clamoring that they won't see a horror movie because it's PG-13 and that those few extra seconds of gore will make or break a film.  Sites like Dread Central imply that horror fans - in total - are mindless drones who are interested in the gore and sex first and any cinematic qualities second.  We're being painted as a singular force with only one interest - which Hatchet II will meet.

Despite what some sites would have you believe, there are a lot of people who - wisely - don't believe that the horror genre peaked during the 1980s.  They're the people who fondly remember the classic horror films from Universal Studios, who swoon over Hammer Films, and who recall the intelligent horrors of the '70s as something special, unlike the commercial, paint-by-numbers efforts that filled the glam decade.  Those behind Hatchet - who proclaim their film to be "Old School American Horror" - seem to share the slim view of horror that values Kane Hodder over Vincent Price and Boris Karloff.

Currently circulating trailers for Hatchet II focus entirely on the fact that the film is being released with more gore and deaths than anything you've seen on the big screen in the last 25 years.  Does it mention the plot? Nope.  Who the characters are? Except for bland returning killer Victor Crowley, nope.  Anything about the film besides the fact it's unrated and extreme?  Not that I can see.  Check out the following trailer to see for yourself. (In case you can't guess, this preview is most certainly NSFW.)

I am a proud fan of horror cinema, and am glad to support artists everywhere in their quest to see their films made without interference.  But I'm also a fan of making up my mind on my own - and this tactic for pimping Hatchet II reminds me of why I don't blindly follow the "cool kids" in the horror scene.  Some people want to believe a sequel to a DVD hit is going to change the landscape of horror forever, just because there's no limit on the amount of blood sprayed.  I fail to believe that horror fans - on the whole - are so obtuse.

If you want to see Hatchet II, see Hatchet II.  (All the details are in the Dread Central post I linked.)  I'll probably see it on DVD, but I'll see it because I love that it stars Danielle Harris and Tony Todd.  I'll see it because I think Green is a fine horror director who has a lot of fun loving the genre, and because it's probable that the gains he's made as a filmmaker since Hatchet will make this a superior sequel.  I'll see it because I have little doubt it'll be a fun ride.  I will not, however, see it simply because it's being labeled as UNRATED - because I can't believe that it's necessary for a film to be unrated to be sufficiently violent.  If a filmmaker really thinks they can't tell a violent story within a system that allows the likes of Taxi Driver, Kill Bill, and Machete, that filmmaker should probably reconsider whether their story is really worth telling.

Horror has survived - and succeeded - for more than 40 years despite the MPAA.  Under their rules, William Friedkin made The Exorcist, John Carpenter made The Thing, and Wes Craven made A Nightmare on Elm Street. Maybe Hatchet II knows some secret to success that tops those films - and all the other great horrors that have come before it - I'd like to see it.  But I'm not going to blindly jump through the film's hoops because it promises to subvert the system.  And I'm kind of pissed off that people are implying that I should.

If that makes me less of a horror fan, so be it.

Frozen

(2010, Dir. by Adam Green.)

The skiing scene is something I've never been a part of.  When I think of skiing, I remember Better Off Dead's Charles De Mar telling Lane Meyer: "Go that way, really fast.  If something gets in your way, turn."  That's about my entire understanding of the slopes.  And that's even after I've seen and blindly loved Shredder (which I recently found the only other fan of!) a few times.

But when word of mouth caught fire about Adam Green's Frozen, I was more than ready to head to the ski lifts for a practical, character driven horror film.  It's an incredibly simple premise - even more than the much-maligned Devil - in that three kids get stuck on a chair lift, high above the slopes, as the resort closes down for the week.  It surely doesn't seem like enough to fill a 90 minute film, but Green and cast keep the plight interesting.

When I say interesting, I mean that it offers gripping brutality.  In the tradition of survivalist horrors that came before it, Frozen focuses on what these characters go through while trying to figure out an escape.  This gives the viewer their own chance to ponder how they would deal with this predicament.  In the home setting, this allowed me to shout at the screen and share the characters' pain with each frozen body part or broken bone.  This is the kind of horror that's set up for audience participation, and I'd imagine couples or friends watching it will have a lot of queries for each other and chances to howl in unison at some graphic effects.

(My escape route?  I'd immediately pull a Tango & Cash.  If you don't know what I mean, check in with Misters Russell and Stallone and come back later.)

The cast do an excellent job of presenting victims we can relate with.  Kevin Zegers (Dawn of the Dead remake, Wrong Turn) and Shawn Ashmore (Iceman from the X-Men films, ironically) play childhood best friends enjoying a traditional weekend getaway.  Newcomer Emma Bell plays Zegers' character's girlfriend (a first-timer on the slopes), and the film does a fine job of presenting the characters' relationships.  Bell and Ashmore play off each other very well, and their differing relationships with their friend are crucial to the human element of the story.  The film also includes cameos from Green, horror director Joe Lynch, and stunt coordinator/ex-Jason Kane Hodder before the trio's predicament.  Green's wife, Rileah Vanderbilt, also appears in a bit role as a potential love interest for Ashmore in the opening scenes.

It took me a while to get in to Frozen - the build up is a little too "rich kids with rich problems" for me - but the film takes off when the characters have to make choices about how to face the situation.  As the tension escalates, Green never cuts corners.  The film still takes time to build its characters in the face of adversity - because, really, what else is there for them to do while they're trapped on a 5 foot wide chair high above the slopes?

Frozen is successful, unlike Green's wildly-popular-yet-maddeningly-silly slasher Hatchet, because it stays simple and doesn't try to go overboard by winking at the audience.  It's not one of the most shocking films I've seen of late, but it's pure entertainment that should be fun to pop in with friends so you can watch their reactions as the plot unfolds.  While Hatchet promised it, I feel like Frozen is my kind of "old-school American horror".

RIP Gloria Stuart (1910-2010)

It's almost shocking to think that, in this day and age, we're bidding farewell to someone who starred alongside Karloff and Rains in the films of James Whale.  Rest in Peace, Ms. Stuart.

Stuart in Whale's 1932 horror, The Old Dark House

Stuart with Boris Karloff in The Old Dark House

Stuart with Henry Travers in The Invisible Man (1933)

Making an entrance in The Invisible Man

Stuart with Claude Rains - The Invisible Man.

Hammer Films Month (Preseason Week) - Scars of Dracula

I told you all that October was going to be Hammer Films Month at FMWL, but I'm chomping at the bit, as they say.  There are a lot of freakin' movies I want to talk about this month, so I figured it'd be OK if I do a post or two to warm up as September winds down.  So, tonight, we're gonna talk about Scars of Dracula.  Just pretend this is a scrimmage.

Scars of Dracula
Release Date: November 8, 1970
Directed by: Roy Ward Baker
Starring: Christopher Lee, Dennis Waterman, Jenny Hanley

If there's a Hammer film I've seen more than any other, it's probably Scars of Dracula.  In fact, I saw it and Dracula: Prince of Darkness many times before I finally got around to the original Lee/Dracula film.  Scars of Dracula stuck with me as a teen, because it featured on odd mix of classic and modern horror trappings.  Scars was the fifth film Hammer produced starring Lee as Dracula, and this is the last film that keeps him in the classic Transylvania setting (the last two Lee/Dracula Hammers, Dracula A.D. 1972 and The Satanic Rites of Dracula, would move him to modern day London).  Released late in 1970, Hammer offers increased amounts of blood, sexuality, and perversion in this outing. 

In the film, Dracula is still residing in his famed castle, but he's joined by a servant named Klove (Patrick Troughton, who later played the priest that warns Gregory Peck in The Omen) and a betrothed female (Anouska Hempel).  Like the series, the film makes a point that Dracula is the last surviving member of the Dracula family.  Lee's Dracula seems to be carrying a heavier cape these days, and there are times in the film when he seems to be wary of his immortal curse.  I'm not sure how much of this is intentional and how much of it is Lee being tired of playing the Count, as he's known to have been disappointed in some of these sequels.  (When he recorded a commentary for the region 2 DVD, he stated it was the first time he'd ever actually seen the movie.)

Opposite Lee and his people are the trio of Paul and Simon Carlson (Christopher Matthews, Dennis Waterman) and the young and beautiful Sarah Framsen (Jenny Hanley).  Paul is a comical playboy character who, while on the run after being caught in bed with the daughter of the Burgomaster, ends up at Dracula's castle for the night and meets a grisly demise.  Despite warnings from the people around the castle, Simon and Sarah go hunting for Paul, and the Count becomes enamored with Sarah.  (It's understandable, I did too.)

Unlike prior films in the series, there's a lot of depravity in the flick.  The viewer gets long glances at the Burgomaster's daughters naked bum in an early scene, and all of the women in the film wear low cut dresses that are more revealing than is common from Hammer.  The film does seem to focus on the sexual nature of the Dracula tale, particularly when Hempel's vampish character comes into contact with Paul, but it still seems a little out of place compared to the previous films.  There's also a weird torture subplot with Klove, who is punished by Dracula when he fails his Master.  The film seems to be blatantly going for the extreme, particularly with a late scene where Dracula's trusty bat - which is not Dracula himself - rips a cross from Hanley's cleavage and leaves bloody claw marks.

Like I said earlier, I've loved this film for a while.  It was a fine intro to the series - even if there is no Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, or a Van Helsing of any kind - because it offers corny horror charms with the trademark Hammer beauty.  Unfortunately, the combination of age and exposure to the rest of Hammer's catalog has resulted in the film not aging well for me, and I found myself bored with it at times during tonight's revisit.  I can still see all the things I loved about this one then, but the flaws are that much brighter with time.  Thankfully, it's still a bloody beautiful film (and Ms. Hanley is about the prettiest thing Hammer ever put on screen that wasn't named Caroline Munro).

I still recommend Scars of Dracula for its entertainment value, but if you're looking for substance in your Hammer Dracula film you better stick to the original Horror of Dracula or the Lee-less Brides of Dracula.  This one, sadly, foretells the fall that Hammer took in the 1970s, reminding us of the change in time that led to the studio's (temporary) demise.

Also, I'd just like to take a moment to point out this guy - who looks like Borat - and his ridiculous sideburns.

Monsters

(2010, Dir. by Gareth Edwards.)

Haunting and poetic, Gareth Edwards' Monsters is one of the most gripping sci-fi films I've ever seen.  The film, which follows two characters on their journey across alien-infested sections of Mexico and the Southern U.S., has drawn comparisons to last year's sleeper hit District 9, though these seem unfair when looking at the final product.  While that movie was a action-packed effort, Monsters plays more like Lost in Translation would when mixed with the plot of War of the Worlds.

For about 80% of the film, viewers will probably struggle to figure out why the film is even titled Monsters.  It opens with title cards that explain how aliens were discovered in our solar system, came to Earth, and caused the government to Mexico an "Infected Zone", yet the creatures appear on screen for mere moments of the 93 minute film.  The opening sequence, in which Army forces attack one of the towering, tentacled creatures is about half of the action we're going to get in the film.  The creatures are incredibly realized when they are on-screen - they definitely look better than the effects I've seen in most independent films - and the few encounters with the creatures had my eyes glued to the screen.

These monsters need to step aside, however, because the stars of the film are Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able (who co-starred in the doomed indie horror All the Boys Love Mandy Lane).  The two aren't big names, but they spend almost every second of screen-time playing off each other, and do so perfectly.  McNairy plays Andrew, a photographer who works for the girl's father and has been assigned to bring her home to her fiancee, and offers a jaded view on the events that have occurred over the past six years.  Able's Samantha doesn't seem to trust the photographer as their journey begins, as he hits on her despite her engagement and talks about the benefits he gains from the destruction around them.  One of the most telling exchanges occurs when he explains that he gets paid well for a picture of a child killed by the monsters and doesn't get paid for a picture of a smiling child.  Samantha seems to be hiding from the world around her (an attempt to stay pure, perhaps?), yet Andrew insists that she recognize the sad truths around them and accept that things have changed for the worst.

As I watched these two characters together on their journey, I couldn't help thinking about how well their relationship is drawn out.  I mentioned Lost in Translation earlier, which seems like an odd comparison to make with a sci-fi film, but that film - like Monsters - builds its central relationship on the principles of proximity and stress.  Think back to the last job you had where you worked as part of a two-person team with a stranger.  Things probably started awkwardly, but when you're stuck together facing a common goal, connections are often formed.  At times this just means you agree to disagree and move on toward the goal, but at times deeper friendships are forged because people adapt to each other well.  Lost in Translation succeeded in showing how two strangers can become close in this type of situation, and I think Monsters focuses on the same ideas when dealing with its characters.  Through Edwards' script and direction, McNairy and Able succeed in presenting a realistic connection that doesn't turn the realtionship into your average Hollywood story.

Edwards served as director, writer, and director of photography on the film, and his control of the film seems masterful.  The camera lingers on wide shots that show the grand scope of the monsters' destruction, and is complemented beautifully by Jon Hopkins' musical score.  The dialogue, like the characters, seems pretty natural - Andrew does occasionally sound like he's trying to hammer home a message to Samantha, but it's a minimal complaint.  I mentioned that the monster effects are strong, but it bears repeating - a final act reveal of the creatures is among the more beautiful things I've seen onscreen in a long time.

There are also some obvious commentaries about society and immigration at work in Monsters.  I could stop to focus on them, but I don't need them.  I can settle for what the film offers with its two main characters dealing with an other-worldly adversity, and how it becomes one of the most resonant relationships I've seen in a genre film.  Monsters took my breath away, yet kept the titular creatures on the side of the picture, appearing to be almost a third wheel.

Available now for rental on VOD/XBOX/Amazon/etc. (and coming to theaters October 29th), Edwards' simple approach to this tale makes Monsters the most fascinating film I've experienced this year.

Coming this October to FMWL.....

I've already announced my plans for October on FMWL's marvelous facebook page, but I've been holding out on all of you who actually read the blog.  Yeah, I know.  Total weaksauce.

So, if you must know.....October will officially be FMWL's first HAMMER FILMS MONTH!

That's right!  Throughout October, The Mike will focus on the film's of England's horror cathedral, the place where Dracula and Frankenstein returned to their European roots.  We'll cross paths with Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Raquel Welch, Caroline Munro, and plenty of other stars, and we'll do it in style.  The curtains will blow in the night's wind, the countryside will become engulfed in fog, and we'll witness some of the most beautiful and haunting images ever put on screen.

Dracula and Frankenstein aren't the only famous folks we'll encounter.  We'll meet other famous monsters, see sci-fi thrillers, and even travel back to ancient times!  Films I plan to cover include, but are not limited to:

• The Abominable Snowman - Peter Cushing travels the Himalayas in search of Yeti!
• The Phantom of the Opera - Herbert Lom haunts in the classic tale!
• The Curse of the Werewolf - Want a classic wolf man tale?  Oliver Reed's got you covered!
• Never Take Candy From a Stranger - An elderly child molester haunts a village!
• Night Creatures - Sailors defend a coastal town against phantom skeletons!
• She - Ursula Andress stars alongside Lee and Cushing as an ageless love goddess!
• Plus Crescendo, These Are The Damned, The Snorkel, and more!!!

 By the way, did anyone ever tell you that great minds think alike?  Well, it's true.  Last night, as I spent some time at Turner Classic Movies, I found that cable's classic cinema leader had the same idea.  So, if you're not well versed in Hammer horror, and have a cable connection, you'll have a fantastic chance to keep up with FMWL's trip through Hammerland.  Here's an ad that shows off some of the films TCM will be showing through October, many of which I've already planned to cover here at FMWL!

 Of course, this is also a chance for Midnight Warriors far and wide to stand tall and speak out!  If you want to join the Hammer Month festivities, just let me know via any of those ways of contacting me (like the email, or the facebook, or the twitter).  I'll gladly link any posts on Hammer horror, and am more than willing to accept any guest posts about your favorite Hammer films or stars, your experience with Hammer, or any other thing you feel like writing about on the topic!  I want Hammer Month to bring together many perspectives, because I want to hear from those who love their product as much as I do!

If you're not into Hammer (read as: If you're EVIL!), there's gonna be more to October!  I also plan to use a few posts throughout the month to focus on everyone's favorite mama's boy, Norman Bates and the Psycho films.  My goal is to cover all four Psycho films (What remake?), including the Blu-Ray release of Alfred Hitchcock's original masterpiece.  I also hope to get a look at The Psycho Legacy, a comprehensive documentary about the series, which hits DVD via the wonderful Shout! Factory on October 19. 

There are a lot of other horror related things going on in October, obviously, so I won't be focusing entirely on these topics, but I do hope to make them the meat and potatoes of my output for the month.  I can't wait to get started (may do some "preseason" posts in the next week so I'm ready when October rolls), and I hope you all will enjoy the ride!  October's gonna have BITE!