The Ghost

This week I continued my Italian Gothic journey with Barbara Steele in:

The Ghost (1963).

The movie is set in Scotland in 1910, where we meet the ailing Dr. John Hichcock (Elio Jotta) and his wife Margaret (Barbara Steele). John is crippled and bound to a wheelchair, and is undergoing an experimental treatment of his own design administered by young and handsome Dr. Charles Livingstone (Peter Baldwin). The treatment is an injection of poison followed by drinking an antidote. The ongoing treatment requires Dr. Livingstone to live with the Hichcock's in their large sprawling mansion. To no ones surprise, Margaret and Charles are having an affair, and furthermore, she's pushing him to kill her husband. Not only would they be free to be together, but John is also extremely rich. Complicating this is the housekeeper Catherine (Harriet Medin) and the meddling Canon Owens (Umberto Raho). The couple need to be very careful to pull this off...

This is the basic setup, and if it sounds a bit familiar, well, The Ghost is directed and co-written by Riccardo Freda who also made last weeks movie The Horrible Dr. Hichcock. Clearly Freda had a thing for that name. The Ghost has also been compared to Les Diabolique (1955), and I can see why, but I don't think its an entirely fair comparison to either movie.

The Ghost is a very isolated movie, taking place entirely in the house and in the local cemetery. In fact the cast is only eight actors, keeping the focus very tight. The story isn't the most original, but it is one of the more solid versions of it.

The actors are fine, again Barbara Steele in particular. Unlike the last movie, here she is not a poor innocent victim, she is a villain through and through, and she is marvelous! She can flip from fear to fury in a heartbeat with only her eyes. Great acting in other words.

Unlike a lot of Gothic movies that rely on the atmosphere and the drama, The Ghost has some very nice horror elements that go beyond just the norm. Again no spoilers, but it was a pleasant surprise. Of course the atmosphere is excellent, thick with fear, intrigue and paranoia.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I can honestly say I do. If you've been thinking about experiencing Gothic cinema, The Ghost is a good place to start. It is pretty much as close to Poe as you can get without it being actual Edgar Allan. I'd like to say more about this movie, but I can't without spoiling it. Of the three Barbara Steele movies I've reviewed lately, The Ghost is the best so far.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Horrible Dr. Hichcock

Following on from last week, I watched:

The Horrible Dr. Hichcock (1962/1963).

This is the second of Barbara Steele's Italian Gothic's, and is directed by Riccardo Freda. Beware some spoilers going forward.

We're in London in the mid 1880's, the home of Dr. Bernard Hichcock (Robert Flemyng) (constantly called professor not doctor), a famed surgeon. He has also invented an experimental anesthesia that greatly improves the patients chances of survival. However, he harbors a dark secret; he has necrophiliac tendencies. He controls these urges by drugging his willing wife, Margaretha (Maria Teresa Vianello) before sex, but one evening he gives her too much and she dies. Devastated by the loss he leaves his housekeeper Martha (Harriet Medin) in charge of the estate and disappears for twelve years.

Upon his return with his new wife, Cynthia (Barbara Steele) they move in to his mansion. Cynthia, an already nervous young woman soon starts to see terrifying things, including the ghost of Margaretha. The doctor assures (dismisses) her that she's only imagining things because of her nerves. Things escalate, mysterious happenings become common and we hurtle towards the end.

The Horrible Dr. Hichcock was filmed in only fourteen days, with three small crews working at the same time and sadly it shows. The shots are mostly fine and the actors are competent, but scenes jump around, they start and end abruptly, frankly it is a mess. Not a catastrophe, but definitely noticeable. I really wish they could have takes a few weeks more to smooth out the wrinkles and plug the plotholes. Steele herself took just ten days off from filming Fellini's 8½ to make this movie.

The story is not bad at all, but it isn't all that original either. There are shades of House of Usher (1960) and Tomb of Ligeia (1964), though that one was released the following year. The dead wife haunting the new one is old, but to be fair, The Horrible Dr. Hichcock uses the trope well. There is also the aspect of the doctors unpleasant appetites that have not gone away. The movie really does a great job showing his struggle and agony in trying to resist the horrible urges.

Barbara Steele is yet again the focus and main star, and she is great. Unlike her roles in Black Sunday, The Long hair of Death and An Angel for Satan, here she has no power. She's not possessed by a powerful ancestor, she is completely vulnerable and she does a great job showing that. This being a Gothic horror, she faints all the time. Despite her weak condition she still has the courage to investigate and try to discover the truth. I just wish she didn't faint quite so much.

So, do I recommend this movie? To hardcore fans of Gothic horror, yes. Casual fans are honestly better off watching the other movies I mention above. The Horrible Dr. Hichcock is not bad, but it has a lot of problems which is a bit heartbreaking. The story is good, but it needs more time and a more delicate touch to develop properly.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

An Angel for Satan.

I was in an odd mood so I watched:

An Angel for Satan (1966).

This Italian Gothic with its terrific title, was directed by veteran Camillo Mastrocinque and stars the amazing Barbara Steele, Anthony Steffen, Claudio Gora, Mario Brega and many more.

The story is this; It is the late 1800's, and artist Roberto Merigi (Anthony Steffen) arrives at a lakeside manor in order to restore a statue from the 1600's that's been retrieved from the lake. The local villagers are terrified as the statue is said to not only be cursed, but also be the likeness of a witch, who was also the local countess. Merigi meets his employer, the Count Montebruno (Claudio Gora) and later on the new owner Countess Harriet Montebruno (Barbara Steele). Harriet, the count's niece has been away in England for her education since being a little girl. In no time, people start dying and Harriet starts to behave very strangely. That the statue retrieved from the lake is the perfect likeness of Harriet can't be a coincidence, right? Ultimately the question becomes, is the curse real, is it all a mundane conspiracy, or maybe both?

An Angel for Satan marks the last of Barbara Steele's seven Italian Gothic movies that started with Mario Bava's wonderful Black Sunday (1960). This movie is not as elegant as Black Sunday, but it is pretty good nevertheless. I find that more often than not, you have to critique a movie within its own genre. Sure, some elements of any film are universal, such as sound, editing, cinematography etc, but I can't compare a movie like An Angel for Satan with The Great Escape (1963). This is a Gothic horror and as such it has to be judged.

The story is serviceable and solid if not terribly original. The “person who might be possessed by an ancestor” trope is old indeed, but it's good when done well. Here it works fairly well, but I question a couple of plot points I don't want to spoil. Essentially this is what makes me question if the presented solution at the end really is the whole story. Like with The Innocents (1961), everyone has to make up their own mind.

Mechanically An Angel for Satan is solid and very competent. Nothing stands out as either superb or subpar, leaving you with a movie that stands firmly in the middle of the road. What really pushes this movie above average is the atmosphere and the actors.

The atmosphere is delightfully Gothic but it doesn't overdo it like Roger Corman had a tendency to do. Sure, if you're going to do it, do it properly and all that, but sometimes a bit of restraint is a good thing.

The actors are first class. Admittedly, the obligatory dubbing was at times so over the top that it detracts a bit from the final result, but that is not on the actors.

So, do I recommend this movie? If you like old Gothic movies, absolutely! Although the start is a bit slow, once things get going you are going to get a really nice movie. There's something about An Angel for Satan that evokes a sense of Giallo, a genre that basically took over once the Gothic era ended. Solid all throughout, I had a very good time, and I may just watch a few more of it's kind in the near future.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

The Internecine Project

This week I watched:

The Internecine Project (1974).

We meet American economics professor Robert Elliot (James Coburn), a high level government advisor who lives in London. He uses a small network of varied people to spy on businessmen in order to make an illegal fortune for himself. He receives word that he is to be given a very prestigious and powerful job back in the states, but this presents a problem: his network. These people; Ian Hendry (Alex Hellman) a highly placed official in the Foreign Office, a masseur in a very prestigious club, Bert Parsons (Harry Andrews), a scientist, David Baker (Michael Jayston) and luxury call girl Christina Larsson (Christiane Krüger), can all incriminate him. The professor simply can't take the risk of being blackmailed or exposed for his illegal activities, so there is only one solution: they must all die. Being a very clever person indeed, Elliot devises a plan to have all four people kill each other on the same day.

This isn't a spoiler by the way, this is the standard synopsis everwhere. The Internecine Project is one of those interesting movies that is all about the experience. Being along for the ride as it were. Short of detailing every minute of the 89 minute runtime, this movie can't really be spoiled, it has to be watched.

The director, Ken Hughes, who also wrote and directed movies like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) and Cromwell (1970), handles The Internecine Project with great style. The movies oozes competence in every scene. From cinematography to dialogue to music, everything is where it should be. It is solid expertise rather than eccentric genius, but often enough that is better.

The fact that you are following all the manipulation and murder from the wrong side of the fence really makes this movie stand out amongst the plethora of great 70's thrillers. Normally when you watch the murderer creep up on the victim, you sympathize with the victim, you want them to escape, but in The Internecine Project I found myself wanting the complicated murders to succeed. A weaker script and less competent director would have made this movie a complete mess, but they pull it off beautifully. Sure, the ending is a bit weak but only compared to the rest of the movie.

I have seen reviews complaining about the movie being boring and too talky, but I can't agree. This is not an action movie. Would you add a long car chase to Halloween? A martial arts fight to Psycho? Of course not. The Internecine Project contains what it needs and nothing more.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. It has never been so tense and exciting to follow people committing grubby murders since I saw The Day of the Jackal (1971). The Internecine Project isn't a masterpiece but it is great in its own way. If you can stand a bit of talking and a lack of explosions, do yourself a real solid and watch The Internecine Project. Oh and I had to look it up, it is pronounced Inter-nee-sign.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Sketch Show

It's no secret that it is really hot in a lot of places right now. When it's too hot it is hard to concentrate and it's sometimes hard to keep the mood up, so in that vein I'll keep this short and present The Sketch Show.

This British comedy show ran between 2001 and 2004 and starred such comedy legends as Lee Mack, Tim Vine, Ronnie Ancona and Jim Tavaré amongst others. 

I'm linking the (I think) entire show below as well as a couple of examples to see if it is to your liking. 

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week and try to stay cool.

Full series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUE3IiYyJSs&list=PLpRd8kgrJXzp2MBQZbXYolkuk1wwYHj7v

 

Defense of the Realm

While digging around on Letterboxd again I found:

Defense of the Realm (1985).

This British political cold war thriller stars Gabriel Byrne, Denholm Elliott, Greta Scacchi, Robbie Coltraine and many more familiar faces from British cinema and TV.

Nick Mullen (Byrne) is a hard nosed reporter who doesn't let go once he sinks his teeth into a story. He gets put on a story about an MP who at best cheats on his wife and at worst sells information to the KGB. Nick's colleague and friend Bayliss (Elliott) begs him to sit on the story for a while since he knows the MP personally and can't believe he is a spy. Soon sinister things start happening. Strange men root around in Nick's desk, peoples flats are burgled and tossed but valuables don't get stolen. The more Nick digs, the darker things get and you have to ask: is it paranoia if you really are being watched?

Defense of the Realm has an amazing atmosphere, absolutely first class. The 80's may be remembered for its riotous colors in fashion, but in reality it was a gray decade. Defense of the Realm really uses this in scene after scene. Gray streets, gray buildings and gray people. This gloomy atmosphere is elevated into sheer anxiety and unease by the perfect score. It varies from music to soundscape and is used skillfully to hammer home the fear that lurks around every corner. Something as simple as the appearance of headlights in the background becomes threatening, and this is not something that is easy to pull off. If the delicate balance is off, then the paranoia becomes farcical but Defense of the Realm does it to perfection.

The actors are solid to say the least. Pretty much everyone is either a veteran or about to become a veteran. Defense of the Realm is the second directors credit of David Drury who up until 2017 had a good career in television, both with movies and shows. Defense of the Realm was released in theaters in '86 but is sadly a bit forgotten today. For what is essentially a low budget movie, it is wonderfully shot and put together.

My one and only critique is the lack of a proper cohesive explanation in the end. You do get most things explained, but I missed the significance of the MP in the beginning, and had to look it up afterwards. The one annoying flaw in what is otherwise a great movie.

So, do I recommend it? If you haven't picked up on the glowing tones, then yes, absolutely. Defense of the Realm is one of those movies that makes me upset I haven't watched it sooner. I'm going to have to watch it again to see if I can pick up on things I missed the first time. If you have any interest in political thrillers and the cold war as a setting, please do yourself a solid and watch Defense of the Realm.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Child 44.

While browsing movies on Letterboxd, I found:

Child 44 (2015).

A movie set in The Soviet Union starring Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman sounded amazing so I sat down and gave it a go.

The story with mild, mild spoilers is this: Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy), hero of WWII is an officer in the MGB, the pre-precursor of the KGB. He is married to the love of his life Raisa (Noomi Rapace), and he is good at his job. A child is found dead, clearly murdered, but Soviet doctrine states that there are no murders in paradise, and that serial killers are a product of capitalism, so the verdict is accidental death. Shortly thereafter Leo falls from grace and is sent to a small industrial town with Raisa. Another kid turns up dead, and he just can't ignore it anymore, state or no state.

If that sounds familiar, the story is inspired by the hunt for real life serial killer Chikatilo.

I was really hesitant to even write about this movie. Child 44 is an interesting mix of quality and problems. The actors are amazing. Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Charles Dance (one scene only), Vincent Cassel and more is a great cast. No complaints there, they knock it out of the park.

Visually, Child 44 is amazing. The props department outdid themselves. Everything looks amazing. Sure there are some errors, but unless you are an expert, you really can't tell. Full points here.

The script? Now we're in trouble. The movie is 137 minutes long and it wastes so much time. The initial setup is good, the introduction of Leo and his colleagues is good, but then it goes off the rails a lot. Child 44 is based on a novel with the same name by Tom Rob Smith and I saw a reviewer claim that they took a real page turner and made a clunky, slow and boring movie. I don't agree with that statement, but I can see where that person is coming from.

My biggest problem with the story, is focus. It should be about catching a depraved serial killer in a land where that can't happen, but that is almost a side note when you look at what they spent time on. In the end the inhumanity of the Soviet system is far worse than a person who kills children, bizarre a statement as it is.

Child 44 goes back and forth seemingly unsure of that to do. There are scenes that are really good, and I love Raisa who goes from an unhappy wife to an equal partner essential to the story. But on the other hand they set up things that go nowhere, and other things aren't explained at all.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. I'm still very conflicted. The good parts are really good, but that bad parts come so close to taking over. I do not regret watching Child 44 but it should have been so much better than what we got. I also can't help compare it to Citizen X (1995) which is about the real life hunt for Chikatilo, and is a better movie. In the end you should watch it if the subject matter interests you, otherwise give it a miss.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!