The Long Goodbye

During the last couple of years I have really learned to appreciate 70's cinema. So when the mood struck me again, I looked up a list of famous thrillers of the decade and found one I hadn't seen:

 

The Long Goodbye (1973).

 

This Robert Altman directed neo-noir is both a spoof of the old school, hard boiled noir detective and a film version of Raymond Chandler's book of the same name moved to the 70's instead of the 40's .

We meet Phillip Marlow (Elliot Gould), a down on his luck, chain smoking wise-ass private eye. He does a favor for an old friend which leads to Marlow getting arrested, and then threatened by a mob boss, while also searching for an alcoholic writer who' s gone missing. The movie throws things at you in a rapid succession which is a bit bewildering at times, but that is how the old noir movies worked. In fact, if you haven't seen any of the old Bogart classics, The Long Goodbye is going to be even more confusing.

What really stood out to me was the amazing cinematography. It is absolutely first class but at times so subtle that you can easily miss it if you don't pay attention to it, and in some ways that is the job of cinematography. I love the scene where a couple are arguing in a room, but the scene is shot through a window so you can follow Marlowe on the beach in the reflection at the same time. So beautifully shot.

A note about the music. The title song, The Long Goodbye was written for the movie by John Williams (yes, that John Williams) and Johnny Mercer. The song appears throughout the movie in many different styles and performances. A really clever way to keep it going without being repetitive. It even shows up at a funeral played by a Mexican band.

The actors are all great. From Elliot Gould whom I had only seen in the Oceans movies to Sterling Hayden who plays the Hemingway-esque drunken author, they are all superb. You will even find a very young Arnold Schwarzenegger in a non speaking role.

What did throw me off is the way the movie bounces from genuinely funny scenes to really dark moments. This was pretty jarring and left me momentarily wondering what I was watching. Don't worry though, it will make a sort of sense in the end.

Speaking of the end, I had to look up a synopsis to fully understand everything that happened. Everything does hang together, but things move so fast at times that it can be hard to follow. That is really my one and only complaint. The story could have been clearer, but again that is how the old noir stories were. You just have to roll with it.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. The Long Goodbye is not the easiest movie to watch, but it rewards you if you stick with it. Like so many films from that era, it was made to be watched, not as something to have on in the background while concentrating on your phone.

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

 

They're everywhere!

 As a history lover I have often heard the name Habsburg, but beyond the fact that they were monarchs, I didn't pay too much attention to them. Until recently that is. I mean we're talking about a family who has at one time or another ruled most of Europe and beyond. Check out this list of their domains:

Central & Eastern Europe (Austrian Branch / Habsburg Monarchy)

Austria (Core hereditary lands)
Hungary
Czech Republic (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia)
Slovakia
Slovenia (Carinthia, Carniola, Styria)
Croatia (Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Poland (Southeastern parts / Galicia-Lodomeria)
Ukraine (Southwestern parts)
Romania (Transylvania and northern regions)
Serbia (Vojvodina) 

 And: 

Western & Southern Europe (Spain, Italy, and Low Countries)

Spain (Spanish Empire)
Portugal (Ruled in a dynastic union from 1580 to 1640)
The Netherlands (Austrian/Spanish Netherlands, including modern Belgium and Luxembourg)
Italy (Parts including Milan, the Mezzogiorno/Kingdom of Naples, Sicily, Tuscany, Lombardy-Venetia, and Trieste)
Germany (The Holy Roman Empire)

With: 

Global / Overseas

Mexico (Briefly ruled by Emperor Maximilian I of the Habsburg-Lorraine line from 1864 to 1867)
Colonial territories across the Americas, Asia, and Africa tied to the Spanish and Austrian empires.

Sure they were also at times stark raving mad, horribly inbred and completely out of control, but I can't simply ignore them anymore. I found a documentary that serves as a good first step to give an overview of this immense family, and although I believe it's AI voiced, it is still a good start. You can't just sit down and absorb this much history in one go. I liked it and I hope you will too.

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

 

Cyberpunk 2077 2.5.

Cyberpunk 2077 just got a massive new update. Lets talk about it.

This happened really quickly. Last Tuesday I saw a Youtube video that stated that CDProjectRed was about to drop update 2.5. The video, I sadly can't remember whose it was, also stated that there would be an official livestream the following day on Wednesday, and there was.

The patch then dropped on Thursday and I want to go over what it is about and my opinion of it.

Patch 2.5 which is a celebration of Edgerunners season 2, is a very fun patch. In no particular order it includes:

• Previously unavailable hairstyles that have been present in the game, like El Capitan's hairstyle.

• Several new outfits available in a few different stores amongst other sources. Check around because they are not all available in the same places.

• Two new missions, I'll go more into them below. Not that much there at the moment, but I'm sure more will come. 

• Mod support for consoles, available in the main menu. This also works on PC.

• A plethora of new graphical settings, which to me are pretty confusing, but options are always nice.

• Cosmetic options for arm cyberware available from glamdocs. The glamdocs are near ripperdocs and sell colorful (or not) modifications for your arm weapons like gorilla arms and mantis blades. Sadly no other cosmetic options for V. A lot of people want the option to go further and replace an arm for example, but maybe that can come later. Who knows?

• The big one, dual wielding pistols! This applies only to power handguns, so no smart guns or tech pistols.

The dual wielding is amazing, it is so much fun. I will say that you do need powerful pistols, but once you do, you cut down enemies really fast. They also stagger enemies which is a fun bonus.

The missions. Unfortunately, I've only had time to do one, Welcome to Paradise. This mission is a well told story that takes you across most of Night City and is really good for new and returning players. It starts at some point after you hit Street Cred 15.

The other mission, Clampdown, is available from the fixer Wakako once you've done at least two jobs for her. Both missions also require you to have done The Heist, which his understandable since most of Night City is unavailable until The Heist is over.

You don't need to worry about finding either mission, since both come to you over the phone which is handy.

Considering that the developers, CDPR, are working on Cyberpunk 2 I am amazed that they continue to drop these massive updates on us. They show up out of nowhere and contain so much good stuff! I will say that the game has been a bit glitchy since 2.5 dropped. My PC is by no means weak and it still sometimes struggles to draw the world in time and I have even gotten load times in menus. There was a small patch on Friday which has helped, but I'm sure it'll get ironed out. Even so the new stuff is well worth a glitch or two.

If you haven't played in a while this is a great time to try Cyberpunk 2077 again, it really is preem my chooms.

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

Colt 38 Special Squad

Last night I watched:

Colt 38 Special Squad (1976).

This Italian poliziotteschi crime thriller is directed by Massimo Dallamano, whose movie What Have You Done To Solange (1972) I wrote about a few weeks ago. He was also the cinematographer on A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and For a Few Dollars More (1965) amongst others. This explains a bit about Colt 38 Special Squad because the cinematography in this movie is excellent.

The story in a nutshell is this; Marsigliese (Ivan Rassimov) is a criminal mastermind who has a plan to hold the city of Turin hostage for a lot of money. In his way stands his arch enemy Inspector Vanni (Marcel Bozzuffi) and his bike riding, revolver toting special squad. That's what you need to know about the plot.

Not only is Colt 38 Special Squad beautifully filmed, it is well directed and wonderfully suspenseful. The chases are excellent and easy to follow, nor do they last too long. A good chase has to be just long enough to be meaningful but not so long as to become tedious.

The actors are competent but nothing really stands out. I do like the villain Marsigliese, he is completely ruthless and very cunning. In a movie like this everything stands on the quality of the villain. If he's weak, the hero can't shine and the whole plot falls apart. Not so here, Marsigliese is believable and terrifying. Some poliziotteschi villains are pretty cartoonish but this is first rate villainy. Opposite him is Vanni and they really hate each other. What I do like is that neither criminal nor cop lose their professionalism just to get the other. Good solid writing.

Overall the story is good, with a couple of minor plot-holes that basically don't even matter. Though a special mention must be made for the stunts. There are a couple of very good car stunts that are worth mentioning even on an international level. Driving a car down the length of a moving train is awesome! Sure the train cars are for car transports and the surface was covered to allow a smooth ride but still... That was something else!

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely! Colt 38 Special Squad is quality from beginning to end, whether you like 70's Italian cinema or not. I want to say more but that would be spoilers. I will say the movie surprised me more than once in the best ways possible. Do yourself a favor and watch this wonderful crime action drama.

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

 

Armstrong and Miller

Today I want to highlight the British comedy duo; Armstrong and Miller.

They have a lot of sketches, so I chose the WWII British pilots who speak and act like petulant modern teenagers, as well as the kid's show hosts apologizing. Then further below, I'll link a longer list of their work.

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

 EDIT: When I posted this entry, all the videos broke, so I'll have to link them instead. 

WWII Pilots: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcwyI-NlvI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1S4eoIBOfU 

Apology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mVvRluNJpM 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIqkP8GDLNU 

 

 Longer list: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2fLw7fLMrE&list=PLQTAXw5ECeFJxMoha6GjO6mcGkw3Mh_Ie 

Masters of Rome

It's been a long journey but I have finally finished

Masters of Rome by Australian author Colleen McCullough.

I started the first book on December 23^rd 2025 and finished the seventh and last book on September 29^th this year. It took time because I mostly read in the evening when I go to bed, and the seven books have an average total page count of 5500 pages. This depends of course a bit on editions etc.

So what are the books about? The late Roman republic is the short answer. The long answer is the entirety of Rome at that time. The series starts in 110 BCE and ends in 27 BCE. We start with the Rise of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, see the birth of Gaius Julius Caesar, his invasion of Gaul, his murder and the rise of and struggle between Marc Antony and Gaius Octavian Caesar.

I have learned more about Roman customs, laws, religious rites, military and more than I ever thought I would. McCullough did over ten years of research before writing the first book and it shows. Historians have praised the books for their authenticity and attention to detail. McCullough herself admitted that she stuck to history where she could and filled in the gaps with measured imagination where necessary. At the end of the day, these books are fiction and an entertaining story has to come first, but she respects the history. I only found two instances where she changed established details, and in the end that doesn't matter too much.

Critics have pointed out that McCullough was a massive Caesar fan, and they are right. She does portray him as almost perfect, but I can't blame her too much. If there is one ancient Roman almost everyone can name it is Caesar. Her idolization also makes it easier to hate on his enemies both political and military, which again makes the fiction more compelling.

The ongoing thread in the background is the fall of the republic. The inflexibility and sheer stubbornness of the conservatives, the rise of political violence and demagogues together with the growth of Rome from a small city state to an massive empire puts the republic on a slippery slope it never got away from. The last book, Anthony and Cleopatra (2007) ends with the senate hailing Octavian as Caesar Augustus, essentially confirming him as emperor in all but name.

Something I found very compelling was seeing people be born and then suddenly realize who they would grow up to be. Names like Octavian, Brutus, Marc Anthony, Cicero, Cato the Younger and more stand tall in Roman history, and you meet them all as children. See them grow and become the famous adults they were. All super fascinating stuff.

What I found hardest to deal with in these volumes are the names. Early on there are so many families, and they all give their children the same names over and over. Take the Julii family. Almost all the boys are called Gaius Julius, and all the girls are called Julia. The Gaius Julius Caesar's father was Sextus Julius Caesar, his uncle and grandfather were Gaius Julius, his aunt was Julia and so was his other aunt but she at least was called Julilla. Now do this with more than a dozen families and it is hard to keep track of. By the mid part of book two I was somewhat familiar with them and by the end of book three it wasn't a problem any more. Handily McCullough added a long list of persons and terminology in every book, so you can check there to help you stay on track.

So, do I recommend these books? Oh yes!! They are magnificent. I learned so much and had such a great time learning. There are also many similarities with modern politics and can help the reader understand why some things are being said and done today. A massive seven part masterpiece you'd do well to read if you like ancient Rome.

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

 

Madness

This week I went obscure, really obscure. I watched:

Madness, aka Gli occhi della luna, or The eyes of the moon. (1971).

Three madmen escape from the asylum using the oldest trick in the book. Two are irrelevant, it's the third one, Paolo Lupi (Thomas Hunter) that is important. He is tall and handsome but unfortunately also a deranged and violent sex maniac. Eventually, desperate for shelter and food, he makes his way to an empty villa somewhere in the Roman countryside. At the same time we meet a group of young party animals. They are planning a party in a villa owned by the family of one of the girls. Once there, they want to party and experiment with LSD. Yes, obviously it is the same villa.

Alright, so Madness is considered a “lost Giallo” since it vanished shortly after its theatrical release in 1971. One rough copy was discovered in 2007, and I do mean rough. The reason for its disappearance isn't known, but it is the only movie the director, Cesare Rau made. He also has two second unit or assistant director credits and that's it.

The movie isn't badly shot at all, and the actors are decent. The music is unusually good, but very repetitive. Besides a couple of pieces of soundtrack, Madness features “She's a Stranger” by the Italian band Capsicum Red, which is a good song, but they play I over and over and over. I mean a group of cool kids go partying in a villa and they bring one song? The story is good, but I don't think the scriptwriters or the director were really up to the task.

The movie wastes so much time, its almost criminal. The beginning especially is rough, spending so much time in a club with people dancing and then after a bit, it goes back just to show more people dancing. Lupi's escape is fine, but there as well the balance is pretty off. He meets a middle aged man and helps him with his car, a scene that sort of does nothing. I say sort of, because you can argue it illustrates Lupi's attitude towards men vs how he sees women. Still it drags pretty badly. Overall, I think the editing is the problem. The movie jumps back and forth, repeats itself and spends time on scenes that are completely irrelevant, and no one needs that. I have in fact left a lot unsaid, because I don't want to be too negative.

Overall, it is easy to dismiss this movie as cheap sleazy trash, but I don't think that is fair. For all its problems they tried really hard, and I think that shows. There is real effort here but everyone can't be Dario Argento, who's directorial debut was the celebrated The Bird with the Crystal Plumage.

Once I was done watching, two things struck me. Minor Spoilers Ahead. Lupi has moments of clarity, and once another murder happens he is horrified and begs God to cure him. He doesn't want to be a killer, but he is and soon loses control again. At the end we realize that one of the party kids who can't keep his hands of girls starts giggling in the same way Lupi did after a murder. It is subtle but really nicely done. I don't think its meant to be a passing of the torch type thing, but rather an illustration of how certain types can easily go too far and become something dangerous. A slippery slope.

So, do I recommend this movie? Not really. Madness isn't even really a Giallo, if that matters to you, but genre adjacent. What I have been trying to say is that there is a good story hiding in a clumsily made movie and that is frustrating. I don't dislike Madness, but there isn't all that much to like either. That said, you should make up your own mind, but there are so many better movies out there.

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

 

What makes a Giallo a Giallo?

It is no secret that I love the Giallo genre. I have written enough about them to make that obvious. However the question: "what makes a movie a Giallo?" is always at the back of my mind. There is no clear answer to this question. Yes, there are movies like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970), Deep Red (1975), Lizard in a Woman's Skin (1971) and The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh (1971), to name a few, that are undeniably Gialli, but where does one draw the line? What is necessary for a movie to be a Giallo? The sex? The gore? The killer in black gloves? Well none of those things hold the key by themselves, and although those tropes are extremely common in most Gialli, they don't define the genre as such. 

There is some mix of Noir, Thriller, Horror, Mystery and Exploitation that needs to be balanced just right for a movie to truly be a Giallo. Late stage Gialli seem to drop most of the Noir in favor of Horror, and most fans will rate those movies poorly, and even if they do like them, they aren't always considered true Gialli. Stagefright (1987) is one such. It isn't a true Giallo, but it is close, and I do like it. 

I would argue that there can't be too many or ideally any supernatural forces at work for it to count as a Giallo. In Lucio Fulci's The Psychic (1977) we have a woman who sees glimpses of things to come, but that is pretty much as far as the supernatural can go. Once you start mixing in ghosts, zombies, witches and magic, you are firmly in Horror territory. This is why Argento's Three Mothers trilogy cannot be considered Gialli. You can have fake supernatural forces though, that has been done successfully.  

Yesterday I tripped over a documentary that does a good job at answering some of these questions. Officially it is a documentary about Dario Argento who's career includes some of the highest rated Gialli in movie history. He did not invent the genre, but he set the bar and he set it high. 

Unfortunately there are heavy spoilers for a lot of movies, so if you are looking to dive into the Gialli genre yourself DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO! Three years ago I posted a two part video from the wonderful TheKingInGiallo channel that explores this in a spoiler free environment. 

That post is here: https://eccentricspheres.blogspot.com/2023/10/what-is-giallo-really.html

If however you are a veteran of the genre, or are mostly curious to learn more but have no intention of watching the movies yourself, have at it. I found it really interesting. Again, it contains a lot of SPOILERS!

This is the Argento documentary Yellow Fever, and I'll embed it below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDOJC1pxF4 

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

 

 

What have You Done To Solange?

This week I knocked a Giallo I've been meaning to watch from the old watch-list:

What have You Done To Solange? (1972).

We open on a couple, Rosseni (Fabio Testi) and Elizabeth (Cristina Galbo) floating in a rowboat while making out. She sees a glimpse of a knife and what could be a murder and is too freaked out to keep having fun. This is when we learn that she is in the final year of Catholic school, and he is her gym teacher. Yeah... Then we find out that he is married to another teacher at the same school, Herta (Karin Baal). The next day Rosseni learns that there was a murder and the victim was not only a student at his school but also his girlfriends classmate. Rosseni becomes a suspect and in typical Giallo fashion investigates the killings himself even though he has neither the authority or the training to do so. I'm not going to spoil anything further, but there are a lot more murders and other grisly scenes.

What have You Done To Solange? is usually listed with the seedier Gialli, and is often paired up with What Have They Done to You Daughters? (1974) which I have seen before. The main reason I wanted to watch Solange is so I can stop mixing up which of the similar sounding movies I had seen. There is also a third movie in this “series”, Rings of Fear (1978), but I know nothing about it.

What have You Done To Solange is directed by Massimo Dallamano, who apart from his directing career also worked as cinematographer on A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More. His own cinematographer for Solange was again Joe D'Amato, tying neatly if unintentionally into last week's movie.

Solange is a well made Giallo, the music is by Morricone, the cinematography is solid and functional and the actors are competent. The star of the show though is the plot. Naturally I can't go into detail, but I was kept guessing throughout, and I still failed to figure it out even though I was on the right track.

The aforementioned seediness is absolutely there, not just because a married man in his thirties (I'm guessing) is dating an 18 year old, but because someone is repeatedly spying on the girls in the shower, which means that Solange has a lot of nudity. The gore factor is middle of the road with quite a lot of the red stuff, but the camera doesn't linger on it.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, to Giallo fans but no to most others. What Have You Done To Solange? is a fairly average Giallo in many ways, but there is a darkness here that left me feeling a bit weird afterwards. This is not a mark against the movie, rather I wasn't ready for it. Hardcore thriller fans should still be able to enjoy it. I might be overselling a bit here, but without being able to go into details, this is the best I can do.

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

 

A Quiet Place to Kill

This week I stepped back into the world of Giallo with:

A Quiet Place to Kill (1970).

We meet Helen (Carroll Baker), a race car driver who has a bad crash. Upon leaving the hospital she gets an invitation from her ex husband Maurice (Jean Sorel) to stay at his villa to recuperate. She takes the invitation, and upon arriving discovers that the invitation was sent by Maurice's new wife Constance (Anna Proclemer). Maurice is an incorrigible flirt and is very keen to “get to know” Helen again, despite her reluctance. Soon Helen finds herself embroiled in two potential murder plots as Maurice and Constance are not happy together.

A Quiet Place to Kill is directed by Umberto Lenzi, perhaps more famous for his horror movies like Cannibal Ferox. He does have a pretty varied career with several Gialli, lots of horror and even a few sword and sandal movies. Fun fact, the main camera operator for A Quiet Place to Kill is Joe D'Amato (as Aristide Massaccesi), who went on to have quite a blood drenched directorial career himself.

A Quiet Place to Kill is a very muted Giallo, with a minimum of blood, no black gloved killer stalking the victim, and only some mild nudity. In many ways it comes across as Hitchcock passed through an Italian filter. This is not a bad thing, I thoroughly enjoyed the tension. The chemistry between Baker and Sorel is very good, you can absolutely believe that their characters were married, bitterly divorced but still hot for each other. Sorel does a fantastic job as the charismatic ladies man, always confident and smooth yet completely untrustworthy. Baker does an equally great job portraying a woman who goes from confident to increasingly paranoid with nerves stretched to the breaking point.

The rest of the cast is good, the music is perfectly correct and the movie is very nicely shot. Personally and perhaps unfairly I always compare Gialli cinematography to The Fifth Cord (1971), because that movie has multiple scenes that belong in a museum of art. The cinematography in A Quiet Place to Kill is competent, if unremarkable, and doesn't get in the way of the movie.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. A Quiet Place to Kill is a great starter Giallo, it's not too convoluted or too horror adjacent for a general audience. Like I mentioned above it is very Hitchcock-esque, and although somewhat slow at times, it does a great job throwing curve balls at you when you least expect it. A Quiet Place to Kill is nowhere near one of my favorite Gialli, but I am really pleased to have seen it. If you're in the mood for a quality thriller give A Quiet Place to Kill a chance.

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

 

Play the Role.

Last week we looked at the history of the first person shooter, and this week we'll look at the history of the CRPG, or computer role-playing game.

I myself am a life long role-player, both tabletop role-player (ttrpg) and in CRPGS's, and the genre is very dear to my heart. Of course, there is a tendency to call every fantasy game that isn't a strategy game an RPG, but nevertheless there have been so many fun games in this lovely genre. So, enjoy this history of CRPG's.

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

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o3i10OuMFQ 

 

 

Where it all began.

Back in the day when I as a kid first played the Wolfenstein 3D demo, I had no idea how influential this game would be. Concepts like first person shooter wasn't in my vocabulary at all. Later titles like Doom and Doom II were massive favorites of mine, and then later on games like Duke Nukem 3D and Blood were likewise games I spent hours playing. This is the start of the entire first person shooter genre. 

But where did this all come from? Today's video takes a look at idSoftware and where the 3D first person shooter began. So please enjoy this documentary about old school gaming.

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIuCOsB4nHs 

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

 

 

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!