Terror Creatures from the Grave

This week I finished the list of Barbara Steele's Italian Gothic movies with:

Terror Creatures from the Grave (1965).

This movie is a US/Italian coop, which means that depending on the version you watch, the director and cast may have Americanized names, which might cause some confusion. The director, Massimo Pupillo was credited as Ralph Zucker and actress Mirella Maravidi was credited as Marilyn Mitchell. You know, just to make it a challenge.

A lawyer, Albert Kovac (Walter Brandi) arrives at a lonely manor and finds the doorbell broken and no one answering the door. As he enters the house anyway, he meets the maid Louise, who brings him to Corinne Hauff (Mirella Maravidi), who brings him to meet her stepmother Cleo Hauff (Barbara Steele). He tells her that his business partner received a letter from her husband, Dr. Hauff who wants to draw up his will. However the partner is unavailable so Kovac came in his stead. Cleo is mystified since her husband died a year ago. Trapped by a storm and unsure of what to do with the letter, Kovac sticks around. The next day he meets the new town doctor, Dr. Nemek (Alfredo Rizzo) who joins him on his quest to figure out what's going on. They soon learn of the plague spreaders who back in the day, well, spread the plague and are rumored to haunt the area with a creaking cart and pox-ridden hands.

People die in mysterious circumstances, the mystery deepens and everyone is in grave danger.

First off, Terror Creatures from the Grave is in rough shape physically. There are scenes that are too dark and some that are horribly over exposed. I was very worried that watching this movie would have been unbearable, but these scenes are fortunately not too many and most of the movie is okay.

The actors are fine, and the movie is competently shot, but the music is problematic. At times the score is good, but they completely overused a theremin to make the typical ghost sounds. Once you notice how frequently it appears it becomes a lot more distracting than atmospheric.

Compared to most of the Italian Gothic's I have explored lately, Terror Creatures from the Grave has one of the best plots. The central mystery that starts with a letter from a dead man is really cool. The following investigation is a lot of fun, and the horror deepens at a good pace. I don't know if they were unable or unwilling to go further, but I think this movie could have been a real horror classic if only they had done and shown a bit more. The ending falls a bit flat due to this lack of content.

So, do I recommend this movie? To horror fans yes, to others maybe not. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time with Terror Creatures from the Grave, but more omnivorous film fans are probably not going to have that good of a time. Still, I don't want to tell anyone to not watch it. If Terror Creatures from the Grave sounds fun, have a it.

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

 

Nightmare Castle

This week I watched:

Nightmare Castle (1965).

There are minor spoilers in the synopsis, but nothing serious.

Dr. Stephen Arrowsmith (Paul Muller) discovers his wealthy wife Muriel (Barbara Steele) in the arms of the gardener, David (Rik Battaglia). He captures them, tortures them and kills them, but not before Muriel gleefully informs him that she has made her half sister (stepsister?) her sole heir. Stephen extracts their hearts and uses their blood to rejuvenate his housekeeper and lab assistant Solange (Helga Liné), turning her from an old crone to a beautiful young woman.

That done, Stephen marries Jenny (also Barbara Steele), the half sister of Muriel, in order to get the castle and the money. Jenny has spent a lot of time in a clinic for her sanity's sake, and Stephen and Solange plans to drive her insane. But, in order to have a plausible alibi, they invite Jenny's doctor from the clinic, Dr. Derek Joyce (Marino Masé) to stay. This is when things take a very sinister turn.

Okay, spoilers done, not that anything I said isn't either mentioned in the official synopsis or obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Nightmare Castle is a strange movie. Most of it is actually more of a conventional thriller than a Gothic horror movie, but when it does go Gothic, it goes hard.

Everything that is there is pretty good. The music, the acting, the cinematography, its all fine and solid. Some critics at the time called it uninspired, but I think that is more a question of genre fatigue than the fault of Nightmare Castle. This did get me thinking though. The Girl Who Knew Too Much was released in 1963 and Blood and Black Lace in '64. In other words, Mario Bava had given birth to the Giallo genre and it was grabbing all the attention. The same things happened to Hammer Horror although they pushed on until 1979. Dracula isn't that scary once you've seen The Exorcist, and I think the same thing was happening in Italy but a bit earlier. How can a slow burn, black and white Gothic horror movie that is honestly fairly tame compete with full color blood, sex and murder?

But back to Nightmare Castle. The director Mario Caiano who also co-wrote the script made the movie just to be able to work with Barbara Steele and I think he did a good job. When you compare Nightmare Castle to the earlier Steele Gothic's I've talked about, you can tell his passion for his star, but also a, perhaps subconscious, desire to kick it up a notch. We do get a lot of the classic tropes, but the addition of the torture scene, tame as it is, shows in my opinion a shift in both tone and content. Nightmare Castle is a bit nastier than its predecessors, but don't expect anything too dramatic.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. I think Nightmare Castle could appeal to a wider audience than many of its contemporaries. The thriller elements and the horror elements are more main stream than genre pure, which could be more to the taste of the average horror viewer. Nightmare Castle does what it does, and it does it well.

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

 

Castle of Blood

I've kept on exploring Italian Gothic Horror with:

Castle of Blood (1964).

Here we meet a young journalist, Alan Foster (Georges Riviere) who takes a bet from Lord Thomas Blackwood (Umberto Raho) that he can't last one night in the Blackwood castle. It is November 2^nd and apparently this is when the dead can walk the earth. Foster is a cynic and completely unafraid so happily accepts a ride to the castle gates. He begins to explore the castle and its grounds, all dusty and ruined. Suddenly he meets a lovely young woman, Elisabeth Blackwood (Barbara Steele) who is very friendly. He meets more people who appear and disappear suddenly, including a scientist, Dr. Carmus (Arturo Dominici) who explains to Foster the horrible danger he is in. Little by little Foster's nerve is worn down until he is struggling for life and sanity against the grim inhabitants of the castle.

Castle of Blood was supposed to be directed by Sergio Corbucci, but he had to bow out after just one week due to scheduling problems. Veteran director Antonio Margheriti took over instead.

Visually Castle of Blood is a treat by using the black and white format to its advantage. The part where Foster arrives at the castle is extremely heavy with darkness pressing in from all sides, creating a suffocating, almost claustrophobic effect. The fact that he is completely unfazed reinforces his cynicism without really trying, which then contrasts nicely with his descent into horror.

The actors are all solid as usual. Steele is a bit underused, but her role is crucial for the plot, and I get why they kept her a bit on the back burner. I enjoyed seeing Arturo Dominici as he played the undead henchman in Black Sunday which set Steele on her Gothic career.

We do need to talk about the music. In most of the other Gothic's the music has been fine, doing its job in the background. Here it varies between a good blend of music and soundscapes that elevate the mood to tunes that are pretty inappropriate for this kind of movie. We don't need jaunty tunes in a castle of terror (alternative title for this movie). A mixed bag in other words.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes if you're a fan of Gothic horror. I enjoyed it a lot, but I get it if Castle of Blood is a bit too dense for casual viewers. Overall there was only one flaw in this movie, and that is the incredibly denseness of our hero. Over and over again the inhabitants of the castle tell him exactly what they want from him, and yet Foster keeps yelling “what do you want from me?”. Maybe an engraved plaque would help him get the message. This was genuinely frustrating, but it was the only real negative in a movie that deserves to stand amongst the giants of the genre.

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

 

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!