10 years after ‘Dracula’ and ‘Frankenstein’ took to theater screens, the groundwork for what is considered ‘Classic’ Universal Horror was cemented and running fine, and in 1941, that momentum would go from strength to strength with ‘The Wolf Man’

The plot?, Focusses around the tragic circumstances surrounding Larry Talbot, Larry has returned to his estate on hearing the news of the death of his brother in a hunting accident, and while reacquainting himself with his estranged family members he discovers a beautiful young lady working in the antiques shop across the way. after schmoozing her into going out on a date, the pair walk back through the foggy moors where Larry and his date are set upon by a wolf. Larry kills the wolf, but gets bitten in the process and on waking from being knocked unconcious, he finds that life isnt quite the same, and that sightings of a killer werewolf are beginning to come to light, could Larry and the killings be connected?! well…this is one of lon cheyney jrs most well known roles…so yes. yes he is responsible…he’s the wolf man.

I’ve always had a soft spot for not only this film, but the films that make up the tale of Larry Talbot, they play him as a very tragic figure, desperate for a solution to his troubles, but here, theres still at least SOME semblence of hope to Larrys character, which I think adds a nice contrast to his character, being thrown into a past he spent 18 years running away from.

To me? ‘The Wolfman’ feels like a refinement of Universals processes…and while I cant say its perfect, the polish is definitely there. The script is a little slow burn, but balances tone and substance about right, it paces out the action to help keep things fairly evenly distributed. while it is slow across the runtime, I cant personally say any one part was TOO slow for its own good. and the tone, while striving for straight laced macabre horror, finds itself constantly on the precipice of camp horror comedy (the LGBTQ symbolism and overtones are MORE than present here). Its not exactly subtle with its messaging or coding. But I appreciate that this is a film trying to do something that breaks away from the VERY repetative plotlines of the universal horrors that came before it.

The direction is atmospheric, engaging and interesting. they play with a more toned down take on the german expressionist work established in ‘Dracula’ and ‘Frankenstein’ its probably closer in tone to ‘The Mummy’ but there are almost noir elements present here throughout also which kind of help mark a shift in the Universal monster movies away from european expressionism and more towards a US driven noir/thriller aesthetic. I can take or leave either honestly, but this seems to be the line in the sand in the transition between eras.

Non the less direction of the cast is solid, if not a little stiff at times, the action scenes are very well choreographed for the time, the set designs are moody, smokey and the lower lighting is very much welcome, though I do wish there was a touch more experimentation thrown into the mix, just to really help elevate things to the next level.

The cine is fine, as mentioned theres a clear progression from the early to mid 30s work here, shots are much less unique visually, but much more coherent in terms of sequence building and they utilise quite a bit more B-roll shots than previous entries. the shadow and texture work here is honestly some of Universals best outside of maybe ‘Dracula’ or ‘Bride of Frankenstein’ and the edit, while maybe a little TOO speedy on the cut front, feels fresher and more modern than its contemporaries.

Performance wise, while this is the role Lon Cheyney Jr. is often held in regards for, and I dont think his performance is BAD here, I feel like the character really fleshes out over the sequels to this movie. Here? his performance is fine, but its largely bewildered…and while I know thats what they’re going for. It leaves very little room for range in the performance, and does cause things to sag a little for me…Like I say, he’s GOOD at bewildered…and his wolfman performance is superb. I just wish they’d given him a bit more range, Claude Ranes as Sir John Talbot has a warmth to him at times that masks the more complex character underneith, I think he was a perfect choice for the role, and Bela Lugosi as ‘Bela’ is a brief, but equally wonderful cameo that I feel REALLY adds to the tone and atmosphere of the piece.

Ignoring that the backbone of this film is built on racism towards the ‘travelling’ community (because, this film is SUPER racist on stereotyping in hindsight) I really kind of like this one. I feel the wolfman sometimes has to fight for 3rd place in the Universal monster contest between ‘The Mummy’ and ‘The Creature from the black lagoon’ But at least on his first outing, I found ‘The Wolfman’ to be an engaging and interesting slowburn horror with some wondeful visuals and a fairly engaging script. its imperfect, but I enjoyed it, i’d recommend it, and I think if your getting into older horror, this is as good a place as any to build up your reference points.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-wolf-man-1941/1/

‘Cult of Chucky’ is (currently) the final cinematic outing for our unkillable rubber renegade and it feels very much like the end of an era, and the beginning of something much more exploratory. The ‘Childs Play’/’Chucky’ series has always had a vague continuity, but it never really went much beyond carrying a character over into the sequels, possibly referencing an event from a previous movie…really minor nods to fans who had stuck out 5 of these movies and earned a little treat for paying attention.

‘Curse of Chucky’ was the first entry to really stop and properly look back at the journey that this franchise has been on. FINALLY mining the world that Don Mancini has curated over the years to help build a more sturdy and interweaving narrative that makes all the films in this series feel much more close knit and interesting to me.

Of course, the risk a franchise has when it mines itself for content is it does rather run the risk of becoming a bit TOO self referential. callbacks and nods to previous entries are fine in small doses. But you really dont want to turn your franchise into a ‘Remember this KER-RAZY moment from ‘Childs Play 3?!?!’ WOW!!!!” type picture, or it runs the risk of going stale VERY quickly.

Mercifully, ‘Cult of Chucky’ for me, finds the perfect balance of bringing new elements into the series, while continuing to push the series forwards.

The film picks up 4 years after the events of ‘Curse’ with Nica committed to a mental hospital for her (alleged) involvement in the murdering of her sister and all of that side of her family. Of course, Nica didnt do it…Chucky did. But, who’s going to believe that a doll from the 80s suddenly came alive and murdered a bunch of people?! Well…Andy Barkley for one.

In the last 4 years Nica has slowly managed to work down from a high security facility to a more open one, and has been doing therapy thats aim is to gaslight her into believing SHE murdered her family and that Chucky isnt real. Andy (who’s mother ended up in the same situation) recognises whats happened and heads out to the facility to try and free Nica.

But when the doctor brings a Chucky doll into the facility to try and help Nica, it sets in motion a series of events that will bring terror to the clinic in greater ways than any other entry in this series has depicted before.

And what we have here is a really solid continuation from ‘Curse’ the script benefits from being a near enough direct continuation, meaning we dont have to build up ‘is Chucky real or not?’ or any of that kind of stuff. The film establishes he definitely IS real in the opening moments and from there, it just hops straight into the good stuff.

Probably the biggest addition to the series in this entry is the introduction (and mild spoilers here) of ‘Multiple Chuckys’ which is a real game changer honestly, it was teased to be the case in ‘Curse’ but ‘Cult’ more formally introduces the idea and begins to get the initial framework for it in place. Unfortunately, it stops short of really fully utilizing the concept (slowburn introducing it for most of the films runtime, before fully realising it about 15-20 minutes off the end credits.) But for the time its onscreen it really establishes a whole new layer to the world building and I believe this is really, fully developed even further in the spin off TV series.

Outside of that the scripts really solid in my opinion…Depictions of mental hospitals and mentally ill people aside, the pacings rock solid, it never gets dull or slows down too much. The act structuring is solid and given the amount of plotlines, subplots and other interesting bits going on, im surprised this thing is half as well balanced as it ended up being. The references and tie backs to the older films hit just the right level that it feels meaningful, without just fully going into pandering, the characters all are very well developed, though I am starting to notice Chucky is appearing less and less in these movies….which is a bit of a bummer. The slow reintroduction of several characters who were largely missing from the last 2-3 films was welcome and it didnt feel all that forced either, it felt like a natural progression of the narrative.

Tonally we’re still in the realm of Horror/Comedy, heavy emphasis on the horror this time around with some excessive gore scenes which felt like a development on the tone of ‘Curse’. I feel like they’ve really finally nailed the exact level of humour to scary ratio needed to make these films work best. and while I personally still lean more towards ‘Bride’ or ‘Childs Play 2’ for my specific favourite blend, this one really does a pretty solid job all things considered.

The direction was probably my least favourite aspect of this film if im being completely honest. ‘Curse’ embraced the early 2010s trend of grimey, dimly lit and overly simplistic, and ‘Cult’ almost inverts that, going for cold, semi grimey icy white ‘liminal space’ vibes that really didnt gel well with me. an increasing over-reliance on not particularly well done CGI also really pulled me out of the action…HOWEVER! BY contrast, I think the design of the puppet Chucky doll in this film looks a lot better than the puppet iteration from ‘Curse’ though, equally, I feel like the prop doll somehow looks even worse here.

Its just a fairly flat and ‘Void’ esq picture to me…I just wish there was more to it than that, but apart from an opening scene in a restaurant with Andy, and Andys log cabin sequences. everythings WAY to cold and minimalist for my taste.

I do feel however like direction of the cast saw a big uptick here, the actors all seem to understand the remit and tone pretty decently and have clearly been guided carefully through what they need to do within the scenes, while also being given just enough leighway to work with tone of delivery or set spaces. it results in a decent blend that for me, very rarely failed to deliver the goods.

The cine, as mentioned I personally felt was a little overly flat, the CG elements didnt really help, sequence structuring is solid, but a little basic and the edit was a bit wobbly at times too. However, the practical effects and particularly the ones that used CG more to smooth over the cracks than to be the center piece) I felt worked very well, composition was unremarkable for the most part, but did have at least one or two interesting moments. On the whole, I just found it a little to skittish to really truely appreciate it. But that doesnt mean I disliked it.

As for the performances? Brad and Fiona Dourif are back and on full form, with some superb Chucky deliveries and Nica now really getting into the swing of things. Im still amazed that 7 films in Dourif is SO easily able to make Chucky as a charcter work as effectively as he does. I sincerely believe he’s probably the most cohesive horror villain to make it out of the ‘Slasher’ era. The supporting cast were a little dry in terms of character and physicality. But their deliveries were generally fine and the whole thing felt believable enough. Very much an ‘It’ll do’ on that front.

And the soundtrack had moments, but for the most part felt like a fairly by the numbers horror score. Nothing I could particularly point to as a shining example of the genre, and fairly unremarkable (if not decent enough) for me.

‘Cult of Chucky’ is a flawed film, but a very enjoyable one non the less. Its rare to see a series get so deep into its entries and STILL have core characters who are still so switched on, engaged and entertaining, and seemingly only continue to get better as time goes on.

Switching things up from making this a self contained story, to bedding this installment into a more interwoven narrative I feel here, if anything, didnt get tapped into enough and leaves a LOT of scope for future development, especially given some of the revelations near the end (Which I wont spoil here). If ‘Cult of Chucky’ was the last entry in this franchise, it would have left me wanted even more. which…7 films in, is no mean feat.

Does this work as a standalone film? Im not 100% sure it does, it may work if you watched ‘Curse’ up front for the added context, but this is very much a film that picks up in the middle of the action, so I dont think I could recommend this to people who are new to the franchise. But if you’ve watched and enjoyed other Chucky movies? this is absolutely worth your time.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/cult-of-chucky/

The only thing slower than the titular ‘Mummy’ in this movie, is the plot. Jesus.

I’m going to keep this one brief, I’ve seen this film 3 times now. This was the ‘best’ watch to date. The one and a half star rating is literally all going on Karloffs performance, the lighting choices and the makeup.

Everything else about this film, in my personal opinion SUCKS…SO bad.

The scripts painfully slow and isn’t entirely clear up front about exactly WHAT the point of it is. When it finally does get going, it’s overly basic and generally unappealing. This whole film feels broadly like they just recycled a load of elements into a script to save money.

The tone is inconsistent and frankly bored me to tears, not to mention the casual quasi racism of the whole thing.

The films just a huge sluggish runaround to nothing that really just didn’t work for me.

Did you like the slow romance elements of ‘Dracula’? No? TOO BAD, the whole films in that style…he’ll we’ll just reuse half the soundtrack while we’re at it.

Did you like Karloffs turn of bringing Frankensteins monster to life on screen, while making him a semi emotional and relatable soul? TOO BAD! We’re gonna basically make him do the frankenstein thing again, only now he can talk, and he’s an asshole.

The direction and cine are fine. But feel generic and certainly don’t add anything to what was already tried in ‘Dracula’ or ‘Frankenstein’, the lighting is half decent and there’s a handful of ‘iconic’ shots. But a lot of this film could be summed up in two words ‘Slow Pan’.

Karloffs performance is fine enough, the rest of the cast are stuffy.

Basically, I there’s only 2-4 classic universal monster movies I haven’t seen yet…most of them ‘Mummy’ sequels. I consider this film to very likely be my least favourite of ALL those movies…and I include the REALLY bad late in the day ‘Dracula’ and ‘Frankenstein’ films in that list.

I just really don’t gel with ‘The Mummy’ it’s dull.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-mummy/

A near enough 10 year gap and we’re back again with another entry in the ‘Childs Play’/’Chucky’ franchise with ‘Curse of Chucky’ a film that I actually hadnt seen until fairly recently, and actually quite enjoyed for what it is.

The film opens at the home of Nika and her mum. Nicka is wheelchair bound and one night is awoken to the sound of a blood curdling scream, only to find her mother dead in the hallway, the only oddity? A goodguy doll that was delivered earlier that day.

The death prompts Nikas sister and relatives to drop into the house to begin arrangements for the funeral. But a couple of nights before the funeral itself strange happenings occur, mysterious deaths and injuries begin to pop up, and Nikas Niece ‘Alice’ begins to claim that the good guy doll she found at the house is the culprit. But….that cant possibly be true…can it?

And colour me pleasently surprised by this one. After being quite let down by ‘Seed of Chucky’ Don Mancini and co drag the franchise back to its roots with what is probably best described as a soft reboot (spoilers from here on in because I cant really talk about the movie without spoiling it…But if you wanna know my thoughts, I enjoyed it and would recommend it.)

The scripts a bit of a game of two halves, with the first half essentially playing out like a mash up of the first 2 childs play films, with Chucky going on a bit of a rampage and noone believing Alice that its the doll thats doing it. All of this then gets flipped on its head when, around the halfway point, the film pulls its mask off to reveal that it ISNT a reboot really at all, and IS in fact the film thats going to tie ALL the elements of the last 5 movies together into one coherent timeline. And im not going to lie, the first time I saw this I genuinely had a jaw drop moment that they pulled the rug from under me so well.

The childs play series has always had loose ties to one another, but this is the first film to solildly go ‘This is a world. all these films exist in that world and we’re going to be utilizing that now more fully’ and I think its wonderful for that.

‘Curse’ pulls back on the meta humour, its back to basics. Chucky roaming around picking off people in his way, which, given the madness of ‘Bride’ and ‘Seed’ I was grateful for that. It was nice to just get back to basics and see Chucky doing what he does best, with a slightly nastier edge that sits somewhere between how he is in ‘Childs play 2’ and ‘Childs Play 3’

The tone is back to ‘Horror Comedy’ through and through Horror with just a lick of macarbre humour to add a contrast. Which, after two films that tried to be a John Waters tribute act, I REALLY appreciated. the act structuring is a little clunky. Like I say, the first half of the film is a little slower burn than i’d have liked and not a lot happens, but around the 50 minute mark it really gets going, and from there. I loved it. I thought there were enough twists and turns to keep me invested, the characters were detailed enough to have meaning, but under developed enough that theres scope for growth. and the film ends in a genuinely surprising way that made me smirk…I quite enjoyed it honestly.

The directions a little over dark for me personally, I appreciate that was the style of the early 2010’s but it was a little to grim and grimey for my personal taste. This one also seems to be leaning more into CGI than previous entries with VERY mixed results (a shot of PS2 era CG chucky walking down a staircase is burned into my mind honestly) but on the whole its competent solid and creative, with the second half getting a more visual flourish than the first. Which is a bit of a shame as i’d have liked to have seen a bit more of the colour and ‘wow’ factor of the second half pulled into the first.

Direction of the cast is solid, this is probably the best set of performances the sequels has had to date honestly. I will say though as a point of contention I absolutely HATE the design of the ‘cleaned up’ chucky doll in this. he looks bloated and ill in most of the scenes he’s in. I will say though that the ‘Mangled’ chucky varient thats shown is probably my favourite version of that design in the series…So…talk about strong polar opposites!

The cines good, as mentioned the colours a little desatched for my personal taste, but compositions tight, the edit wobbles a little in places…Which is odd given this is a studio picture…but hey, im happy with what its showing, even if *I* personally wasnt happy how it was displayed!

The performances are rock solid with a near perfect turn from Brad and Fiona Dourif. Honestly im a broken record at this point, the rest of the cast are fine and just about cover the delivery and animation required for this kind of film…But those two clearly run away with the show for me.

And the soundtracks killer too! its kind of droney,orchestral stuff. But I dig it, its used really well here and gives the film a strong identity.

‘Curse of Chucky’ isnt my favourite entry in the franchise, while I really liked the second half of this, its a bit of a slog to make it through the first half to get to the good stuff. Definitely recommended non the less however. Its a fine FINE movie and a strong recovery after a long time away.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/curse-of-chucky/

[304 cigarettes a day voice] TOMMEH!!!! [/304 cigarettes a day voice]

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hack-o-lantern/5/

Every Halloween for the past 4 years i’ve promised myself i’ll watch ‘Evil Dead 2’ again, mainly because i’ve neglected rewatching it for so long (As if I need a reason to rewatch ‘Evil Dead 2’). But every halloween its just about managed to be squeezed off the schedule by one thing or another…Well! NO MORE I SAY! so tonight I cracked open my lovely new 4k remaster of this bad boy, and it proceeded to rock my world in strange and mysterious ways that non of my previous rewatches compared to.

The film kind of an indirect/direct sequel to the original. they remove all the characters in this take apart from Ash and his girlfriend Annie, with the film creating a new version of events of how Ash and Annie wound up at the cabin, before basically smash cutting straight into the end of the first film…Everything after that point could best be described as a collective fall into total madness. A work that would set up the blueprint of the franchise for WELL over the next 30+ years.

Its basically everything I want in an ‘Evil Dead’ movie and more. I honestly have very little to say, the scripts absolutely razor sharp, the action? breakneck. the characters? developed enough to make me care, but not enough to bog the story down. The plots thin enough that it can be easily digested at 84 minutes, but there are threads throughout that imply a much bigger, richer, deeper story to come (and they dont dissapoint on that!)

Ash’s fall into chaotic madness, which makes up a good half of this movies runtime is frankly ‘unique’ a hybrid of acid trip and demented disney cartoon gone wrong, and I love it for that. The tones erratic. swinging wildly from drama, to melodrama, to out and out gory horror, to slapstick comedy, to tragedy. its everywhere, but in a perfectly coordinated way. Its the textbook definition of ‘Organized Chaos’ a miracle of complex arrangements and tonal shifts that give the illusion of a hot mess, but the reality of a curated experience.

In fact, the only thing I didnt much care for (and this really IS splitting hairs) is, for me? they sometimes leant a little TOO hard into the comedy. to the point that it became OVERLY dumb…and not in a fun way, in a creaking and headslappingly dumb way. those moments were few, far between and slight, but they cant be omitted.

As for everything else? Astonishing. Thats the only word I have.

The direction? Astonishing.

Direction of the cast? Astonishing.

Cine? Genuinely genius.

Performances. There isnt enough metal on earth for the amount of awards Bruce Campbell deserves for this movie.

The score? Erratic, Frantic, loud, Perfect.

Honestly, I have no notes, outside of possibly ‘Brain Dead’ this is single handedly one of the goriest, silliest, fun and intense horror movies i’ve ever seen. Its a cinematic swan, gliding effortlessly above the lake, with a powerhouse beneath the surface. and I love it very dearly. I absolutely shalnt wait as long for the next rewatch.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/evil-dead-ii/

Watched on Tuesday October 22, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/ghostwatch/1/

Watched on Monday October 21, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/friday-the-13th-part-viii-jason-takes-manhattan/2/

A short but sweet review on this from me, Ever since I first saw this film 15 years ago I have had SUCH a soft spot for ‘The Invisible Man’ it’s almost certainly one of if not THE best classic Universal monster movie made during this gold run of pictures…and the funny part is, it’s not even *technically* an out and out horror film…Its really more of a science fiction ‘gone wrong’ comedy with some mild horror elements about a scientist (played PERFECTLY by Claude Rains) who accidentally Intakes an abundence of ‘Monocaine’ in an attempt to become invisible, succeeds, but fails to realise that ingesting a large amount of Monocaine comes with the side effect of turning you into an aggressive raving mad man. Cue a village full of plumby eccentric british people trying to take down an invisible crazy person while having their hats thrown in lakes, or their shop windows smashed.

And from start to finish, this things just an utter delight to sit through, it balances the comedy with some genuinely unpleasent and over the top moments for the time, the special effects work, for 1933, is frankly incredible. the tone of humour is PERFECT for this kind of picture, ranging from some genuine quippy moments to full blown slapstick. The scripts unafraid to bounce around the genres, but it glides in and out of each with such swiftness and elegance that I honestly barely notice the tonal shifts until they’re right on top of me.

The act structuring is pretty rock solid to, with near perfect transitions that blend seamlessly into one another with ease. I think this *probably* could have been a more solid picture at 60-65 minutes…But I suppose its gotta be 70 to be commercially viable…so thats the way it goes.

The characters are a little basic, but develop complexity across the runtime as our other characters slowly begin to lose the plot, the ending is about as well handled as it could possibly have been handled, though it does feel a little rushed and overly simplistic in my opinion…Almost like the writer got bored and just decided to ham an ending together with whatever he could muster to get the last 2-5 pages out.

Direction is razor, delightful for the time, less styalized than ‘Dracula’ or ‘Frankenstein’ but still utterly watchable, theres some decent lighting work present here and the cast direction is frankly flawless for what this things trying to do.

The cines amazing giving some frankly jaw dropping effects/model work for the time and delivering a tight production that sags slightly in the middle, but certainly never becomes dull.

Claude Rains performance as the mad scientist Griffin is a tragic, manic and aggressive turn that almost certainly inspired a whole shed load of tragic insane scientists (Omega from ‘Doctor Who’ almost immediately springs to mind) the supporting cast range from downright daffy, to just in it for the paycheque. But again, non of them are ever truely dull.

Throw in a pretty solid score and…I honestly dont have much more to say. ‘The Invisible Man’ is a smorgesbord of experimentation and almost effortless attention to detail. Its amazing this thing was made in 1933 frankly, and if you havent seen it yet, you absolutely should!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-invisible-man/

I’ve seen a handful of the ‘Carry on’ films over the years, but, to my own shame it’s taken me until now to get around to the one where they parody ‘Hammer’ horror in their cheeky and formulaic way. Well ladies and gents. I knew what I was getting into, and I wasnt dissapointed.

Harry H. Corbett plays Detective Sidney Bung, a brow beaten cop who’s put onto the case of a series of mysterious dissapearences of young beautiful women who wander out into the park at night. both he and his colleage Detective Sloebothom eventually arrive at the door of the ‘Bide-A-Wee Rest Home’ home to Doctor Orlando Watt and his Sister ‘Valeria’. It transpires that the two…STRANGE, rest home owners have discovered a form of immortal life linked to being charged up by electricity, and after recovering a kind of neanderthal throwback that died out 500 years ago, they use their techniques to ressurect him, setting him to work grabbing women in the park…they call him ‘Oddbod’

and…thats basically the film, a cat and mouse game with the ‘Watts’ always one step ahead of the ‘Bungs’ and every Oddbod and Gardener fending for themselves.

If your familiar with the ‘Carry on’ Films you’ll more than know what you’re getting into with this one. If you not, they’re essentially slightly raunchy and cheeky british comedies in the ‘old’ sense. meaning double entendres, innuendo aplenty, funny ‘double meaning’ names and mild titilation is the flavour of the day. Cheeky, a little near the knuckle on some entries…but, this things rated a ‘PG’ in the UK which is usually suitable for childred 10 and under if accompanied by a parent. thats about as ‘adult’ as these films get. They’re silly movies, not quite to the degree of the ‘Naked Gun’ flicks, but *of* that sensibility.

As such, the script is exactly that. 96 minutes of one liner after one liner, delivered at a ‘slower than the zucker brothers’ pace and with a distinct British sensibility to them. the parodying of Hammer isnt a million miles off, but the problem with trying to pastiche the Hammer films is that they were already quite campy and self aware as it is, thus rendering a parody of them (ESPECIALLY in the mid 60s when this was released) ultimately kind of redundent.

Thats not to say fun cant be had though! the tone and sense of humour is bob on perfect for this kind of film. the pacings a little on the slow side, but does pick up across the runtime deliving a 15 minute finale more than worth the price of admission. The characters are all rich and charismatic in tone and complexity, which I really quite enjoyed. Its hardly high brow humour here and there are plenty of ‘my mother in law’ style jokes…Its a picture very much of its time and the humour is dated. But if you are old enough to appreciate that era of comedy. Then im certain you’ll have a ball with this one. im not *quite* so sure how younger folks would get on with this though.

The direction feels essentially like imitation Hammer. Which is a shame in some ways because I feel had they been able to nail the feel of hammer a little closer, it could have really let things off with a bang. But conversley, the slightly rougher around the edges look and feel ultimately makes this feel funnier. Almost like they had to make the set design up on the fly. Dont get me wrong, some of this is very close to Hammer style direction and im certain some of the props shown in this film WERE being used in Hammer films at the time. but it just doesnt *quite* capture the grandness that Hammer so often deliverd.

Direction of the cast is not an issue, most of the cast starring in this film were regulars to the ‘Carry On’ series and at this point in time the franchise had been running for AT LEAST 10 years…if not longer. A lot of the cast play to character type in all these films, so at this point, they could basically do this in their sleep, and they do a damn good job of it too.

The cine is a little rushed feeling, but again, not awful. it looks and feels like Hammer fleetingly at time. It never quite consistently nails it though. That being said the edit is razor tight with punchlines and cuts, and the colour choices for Hammer are bang on perfect. So again, i’d give it a ‘Close enough’

As for the performances? I’d say Kenneth Williams and Harry H. Corbett are the stars of the show, giving a masterclass in one liner charisma driven acting that has to be seen to be believed. They’re animate, razor sharp on delivery and just uttelry delightful to watch.

Thats not to do a disservice to the rest of the cast however. Fenella Fielding as Valeria is a long standing childhood crush with a striking look and a kind performance thats utterly watchable. Charles Hawtrey and Bernard Breslaw never fail to amuse in their supporting roles here. And theres even a frankly bizarre minor appearence from Jon Pertwee playing a mad doctor thats…honestly probably the sanest performance in the thing.

The score is pretty standard ‘Carry On’ comedy orchestral music. It actually feels a bit out of place here, it would have been nicer to have something a bit more Hammer infused thrown into the mix. Sticking to the standard stuff here not only deminishes the power of the film, but it makes it feel like they couldnt afford anything newer…which is a shame.

On the whole? I liked this one. I think if you have an eye for British Comedy and are looking for something pre-python. This will more than meet the remit. But do temper your expectations. While I enjoyed it and would recommend it, it is a little slow in places and the humour a little past its sell by. I dont think i’d rewatch this one in a hurry. But I could absolutely see myself revisiting it in future.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/carry-on-screaming/