‘National Lampoons Vacation’ is probably the movie im least familiar with out of all the ‘Vacation’ series. Growing up it always seemed like ‘European Vacation’ or ‘Vegas Vacation’ were the ‘Late night movie’ of the time and this one, whenever it did get a rare outing always kind of felt a bit weird to me.

In a way thats kind of understandable, given that this is the first attempt at the ‘Vacation’ formula, a lot of elements that would later be refined to near perfection feel a little undercooked in this entry. Theres just weird little moments that either dont feel like they’ve aged *quite* as well other gags in the franchise or times where the characters still kind of feel a bit like a work in progress.

For those unfamiliar with the franchise, ‘National Lampoons Vacation’ follows Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo as Clark and Ellen Griswold and heads of the ‘Griswold’ family. each entry usually focusses on particular vacation that the ‘Griswolds’ will undertake, whether its a tour of Europe, surviving a large family christmas or a trip to Vegas.

Other than key characters (Clark, Ellen, Audrey, Rusty and Cousin Eddy) theres no continuity between the films. realistically you can watch them in any order, and the crux of the humour comes from watching the Griswolds attempt to navigate, what on paper, SHOULD be a pretty straightforward vacation plan…and Clarks volatile mental state essentially acting as a time bomb to when the films will well and truely go off the rails.

‘Vacation’ is probably the most straightforward of the series, with the Griswolds attempting a cross country road trip to ‘Wally World’ (basically a ‘Disney Land’ analogue) with all the highs and lows that come with tossing 2 teenagers, an aggressive dog, a blunt and rude aunt and a VERY volatile driver into a 2400+ mile road trip that will see them shot at in st. louie, robbed at the grand canyon and frequently losing there luggage.

Being completely honest, while this one may be the favourite of the franchise for many people. I struggle really to fully get into this one. The script is simple enough plot wise, but a film like this lives and dies by its pacing and the quality of its jokes, and thats kind of where things started to go a bit off the rails for me.

For a starters, the opening act is VERY slow to get going, theres a few visual gags…maybe one or two moments that I stifled a laugh at, but otherwise it spends WAY too long establishing the cross country premise. its something that realistically is pretty well established in the opening moments of the film. So the need for them to STILL be establishing the road trip premise 25 minutes in, when they said everything they needed to say by the 10 minute mark was a little frustrating.

The second act does manage to pick up the pace, with some higher calibre gags, a bit more ‘multi layer’ humour which I quite enjoyed and a few actually laugh out loud moments. But again, everything moves SO slowly in this film and the actual big laughs are very few and far between…with the more common humour being a mixture of barely smirk worthy visual gags, or jokes that 41 years on, are creaking pretty heavily due to the passage of time.

I also feel that a lot of the humour (particularly state-centric humour) might be lost on me as a European. I dont know much about St. Louie, and after this film. I feel like some in jokes were made that State-side folks may appreciate more.

Mericfully, the film fully finds its groove in the 3rd act, we have some very solid gut busters, the moments of slowdown pretty much resolve themselves and we’re left with a film that ends on a pretty decent high…barring the frankly BIZARRE plot twist in the closing 20 minutes or so where Clark is basically caught about to commit adultary with ZERO hesitation, and the whole things played for laughs…they’ll repeat that gag multiple times across the series. But its always played VERY distinctly that that aspect of things is more in Clarkes mind than an actual real world thing that could have serious consiquences.

On the whole, the scripts fine enough, but the pacing and tonal issues combined with a lot of dated gags, gross out humour and moments where the core characters go BEYOND their comedically demented depictions in later films into being just…mean spirited and unpleasent, was enough to really drag this thing down for me in a big way.

The direction and cine is pretty gorgeous with some captivating creative visions of roadside America. The Grand Canyon sequences are absolutely breathtaking here, and i’d be curious to see how the 4K version of this release really cleans up those scenes because the 15 year old bluray that I own makes them look amazing as it is.

I do have to take some umbridge with Ramis and Hughes however, as quite a few of the visual gags present in this film would end up basically being copy/pasted into scripts written and directed by Ramis and Hughes for the following 10 years. Thats quite naughty…even if the gags that DO get recycled end up being better in the later movies than how they’re handled here.

Shots are well composed and rich in vivid colour. But; as is the case with any comedy, its the editing that can make or break it; and I can honestly say the editing here is definitely up to snuff. With PERFECTLY timed gag pulls and to the frame cuts that make every gag, no matter how bad, land as best as it could do. Its a very well made film on a technical level, and while its maybe a bit safer than later entries. the richness of the scenery is always presented as best it can be.

On the performance front? both Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo have some beyond stunning moments here with perfect comic timing and line delivery, but as mentioned the script here actually presents them as more human and less cartoony/demented than they would appear in later films. As a result it means that Clarks ‘Freak outs’ (a staple of the series) do sometimes go quite a bit harder than they ever would again. And D’Angelo, who pretty much bites her tongue whenever Clark flies off the handle in later entries, here? actually gets to give as good as she gets a few times. These feel like much more well rounded characters than what was to come. But in some ways I feel that kind of ends up being a little dissapointing given that I come to these films for zany hyjinx, and here things are quite a bit more grounded.

Oh, and the scorings a bit weird here too…obviously Lindsay Buckinghams submissons (Holiday Road/We Went Dancing) are absolutely iconic inclusions here, but all the incidental music kind of flip flops between library sounding tracks and strange whirlitzer style pieces that kind of threw me. It feels a little slapped together honestly.

All in all? ‘Vacation’ isnt really my ‘go to’ I dont want to give the impression here that I think this is a bad movie, it really isnt by any stretch! But if you put all the ‘Vacation’ films down in front of me and asked me to pick one. This really wouldnt be my first choice. It has its moments, it looks really pretty and the performances are distinct, unique and have great comic timing. But it is a film thats starting to show a little wear and tear. Im sure anyone whos had to take a cramped car ride will appreciate the shenanigans in this one. But I feel like the best is yet to come.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/national-lampoons-vacation/

Tonight, I got to see something I NEVER thought i’d ever be likely to. Not ONLY did I get to see a HD, fully uncropped and solidly restored version of this film. But I got to see it as part of Severin Films wonderful ‘Game of Clones’ boxset. Not only did I get to SEE this film…But I now OWN it, its on my shelf and can be watched any time I want.

Given 18 months ago, the above wasnt just unlikely, it was generally accepted as downright impossible. With only VERY select US screenings from AGFA having ever actually taken place of this film. Im still honestly quite amazed that the rights issues have *seemingly* been resolved, to the point that this has finally been able to recieve a wider release.

Im likely going to elaborate further on the significant differences between the previous ‘multi-gen’ cropped version and this new release in future. But for now, I’ll say seeing this film in its original aspect ratio, with the original ‘caption’ elements reintroduced uncropped was both delightful and an almost alien viewing for me. Im so used to seeing the cropped cut of this film and so familiar with it, ACTUALLY getting to see the missing 33% felt SO weird to me. But in a good way.

While I will say, its a real shame that the only surviving film elements for this film was a VERY faded 35mm print (which in turn means the colours present in this film are quite a bit duller than expected) the work thats been done to ressurect this thing is nothing short of incredible. and I feel with a couple more rewatches, I’ll wonder how I ever watched any other version. Astounding work…it really truely is.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-dragon-lives-again/5/

The concluding chapter of Hammers ‘Frankenstein’ series sees us actually break with tradition and make a clean enough sequel…Though quite whether this is a sequel to ‘Curse’ or ‘Revenge’ of Frankenstein is a bit of a different question (and one that…in this humble critics opinion, hardly really matters).

The film is set many years after the events of ‘Curse’ and ‘Revenge as we open following Dr. Simon Helder, an up and coming practitioner obsessed with the late works of Baron Von Frankenstein. Frankenstein himself hasnt been seen in years and is presumed in hiding. While practicing one of the Barons experiments, the police get wind that Simon has been paying Gravediggers to steal corpses for his experiments. Simons arressted, charged with ‘Sourcery’ for his attempt to create life and the judge sentences him to 5 years in an asylum. Noting that Simons ‘Beloved Baron’ also had the same fate some years prior.

On arriving at the asylum, Simon seeks out the head of the facility and queries the Barons stay. the chief informs him the Baron passed away a few years ago and is buried in the courtyard…But not some 5 minutes later while getting hosed down in front of the inmates as an embarrissing punishment for breaking the rules. Baron Frankenstein himself (using the psudonym Dr. Victor) stops the punishment, and sends Simon to his quarters to be treated for various cuts and grazes.

While there, Victor reveals he IS non other than the Baron, and that he made an arrangement with the Asylum owner (details of which arnt fully revealed till near the end of the film) in which the Baron was allowed to fake his death, and take on work at the asylum as the facilities chief medical operator.

Simon tells Victor all about his work and studies into the Barons findings, and Frankenstein is curious about Simons enthusiasm, and so, decides to take him on as his medical assistant, working the wards while Frankenstein ‘Attends to other projects’…

As you can imagine. Victors other work is what we’ve known him for for the last 5 or so films…But now growing frail and increasingly unable to keep up with his work, Victor must rely on Simon to assist him in his extra activities, and the end result is surely the most terrifying achievement the Baron has managed to date.

And I actually really kind of had a soft spot for this one, quite understandbly at the time this was seen as a bit ‘old hat’ which, given this film came out a year after ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘The Wicker Man’ is actually quite understandble. Retroactively however, its quite easy to view this as a ‘throw back’ picture thats trying to capture the tone and energy of the early Hammer Frankenstein movies. And I think it largely succeeds with just TWO major issues in my opinion.

The script is a nice slow boil character piece as we see Simon, a somewhat naive but brilliant doctor find himself in for WAY more than he bargained for on meeting Frankenstein and seeing how far down the rabbit hole his nightmarish visions go. The asylum inmates are all fairly richly written, they have solid backstories that help give the film a real sense of life. and they even advance the Baron as a character a bit. giving him a more worn, colder edge that isnt quite as abraisive as his sudden character change in ‘Must be destroyed’ here? he still has that softer side. But you get the feeling that a lifetime of waiting for his final success has left him rather short on patience, particularly when the creature in this film begins to take longer than hoped to get the hang of the whole ‘being reborn’ thing.

The script itself is pretty solid. I think it manages to capture the tone and feelings of the first two films pretty well, it is a little on the slow side, but I feel like it evenly distributes plot and narrative nuggets across the three acts well enough that I didnt get bored or find myself clock watching.

Theres a wonderful rich macarbre comedy tone running through this thing that reminded me a little of films like ‘Theater of Blood’ or ‘The Abominable Dr. Phibes’ just eccentric character portrayls or snipey wordplay that I feel really helped give this film the edge over its peers.

At an hour and 34 mintues long, I dont feel it overstays its welcome, but one of the few flaws I do have with this picture is its ending. The film ends open ended with the audience being left to decide whether Frankenstein continues his work or not. and theres nothing inherently wrong with that ending. But the characters of Simon and Angel have just ALSO been told some VERY traumatic information, and at one point the Baron reveals a frankly hideous plan involving Angel. That I really feel the film should have closed off before ending. Just something to signal to the audience that the idea itself was abhorrent and that a line was crossed for both Simon and Angel. they feintly imply it via the on screen actions. But they dont commit, ending the film instead with the VERY real possibility that, despite the Baron clearly crossing SEVERAL VERY unsound lines in the closing minutes…That Simon potentially would have stood by him and carried on…Which did put me off the production a bit.

Direction is pretty rock solid, Terrance Fischer is back for a final time, not only for this series, but for his career. at the ripe old age of 70. I feel like his work here is solid, but a little on the creaky side given this film was released in the mid 70s. It visually feels like a much MUCH older film than the year it came out…Which works in terms of helping maintain a continuity with the earlier Frankenstein films…But in terms of trying to win over (then) modern audiences? Im not so sure.

There is a distinct stylization here however, I feel it looks great given the era of Hammer this came out in. and I feel the cast and crew work together relatively seamlessly.

Same goes for the cine, while colour and light play is very much minimised here, they have managed to make the asylum a decently grotty seedy looking place that I feel suits the tone of the film well. Composition is a nice return to form. But much like the previous couple of entries. I do feel it is rather lacking in terms of experimentation. This felt a little over safe to me. and given the OTHER problem I have with this film…decent chiascuro work and some choice shot experimentation proabably could have really saved this picture.

Because the OTHER thing I really didnt like about this film, the thing that totally pulls you out of the action…is the creatures design itself. Clearly jut a halloween mask, and a ‘muscle suit’ with fur stuck on it. The fact Prowse bragged that he could get ‘in and out of the makeup in under 30 minutes’ is not the ‘win’ you think it is. It looks cheap, the face is rubbery and barely moves, its lit really evenly and flatly for the most part which only exacerbates the issue. Id have honestly REALLY played with shadows to hide this thing as much as possible. Because honestly? its probably the worst ‘Creature’ design in the entire series…and THATS saying something.

The edit for this? is relatively solid, cuts are precise, they use B-roll well, as mentioned I feel with more considered lighting it could have really taken things to the next level. But its a competent and tight edit that does the best it can with the footage given.

Performance wise, this is Peter Cushings Swansong as Dr. Frankenstein. and I think its arguably one of his better turns. he really gives the character some much needed ‘aged’ weight here, and given he himself was suffering with illness at the time. I feel he brings that energy with him into the performance. Showing a man who believes his days may be up, with just a subtle frustration in knowing that hes aging and his work cant keep up with what time he has left. I cant say its the performance of his career. But it is a bloody good one.

Shane Briant as Simon really is the star of the picture, starting as a little overconfident in his abilities, and slowly fidning himself more and more out of his depth and Frankenstein pushes things further and further. He gets a real complex range of emotions to play with and brings a real ‘youthful’ streak to a series thats felt very much like an old mans interpretaiton of ‘youths’ for a while now. Hes infinitely watchable.

Credit to has to go to Dave Prowse as the creature and Charles Lloyd Pack as the creature and the professor respectively. the former doing his absolute best to make it through a difficult situation in all of that makeup. The latter a warm and charismatic figure who manages to give a rock solid range for the brief time he’s on screen. they’re both delightful. and its just a shame Prowse couldnt get more of his facial acitng onto the screen, as I feel that really would have made a big difference here.

Ultimately; despite being a bit of a flop at the time, I actually really quite enjoyed ‘Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell’ its far from a perfect work. But I think it compliments ‘Curse’ and ‘Revenge’ quite well. its structurally sound and apart from the few flaws I’ve mentioned here. I had a really good time with it. I think if you can look past the monster design. you’ll probably enjoy it too.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/frankenstein-and-the-monster-from-hell/

The Penultimate entry in Hammer’s ‘Frankenstein’ series. and after having a really bad time with ‘Frankenstein Must be Destroyed’ you can only IMAGINE the look on my face when I read some cursory notes on this film and was met with the information that:

A – This was basically a slightly tweaked remake of ‘Curse of Frankenstein’…so ANOTHER reboot to the franchise.

And B – That this one doesnt feature Peter Cushing, and as such has widely been classed as ‘Non Canon’ by Hammer horror fans.

So…this Standalone outing for the Baron and the creature was already making me feel woozy before i’d even hit play. But to my surprise ‘Horror of Frankenstein’ (while not AMAZING) does have some things working in its favour.

The film does pretty much follow the plot of ‘Curse’ with a few notable changes to the running order and who makes it to the end, its similar enough to ‘Curse’ that longtime Hammer fans may begin to feel a little *too* familiar with it’s plot beats, but different enough that, by the time the third act rolls around, you may begin to wonder how this thing is going to end.

The plot follows a somewhat more ‘Frat Boy-ish’ take on Baron von Frankenstein. Here? hes portrayed as more of a ‘spoilt rich kid’ who womanizes, gets what he wants and acts before thinking…We open with the Baron as a child and we’re introduced to most of the main players this way, before the film jumps 6 years into the future, everyones in their early to mid 20s and the Baron returns to his home town after an extended period studying with the creation of a living man on his mind.

And, for me? the big recurring feeling that this film gave me across the full runtime is ‘TV Movie’ vibes. The plotting, pacing, narrative structuring, it all feels like it was supposed to be some kind of multi part TV serial, thats had all the pieces stitched together into a 90 minute movie. As such, things do feel a little bit less distinct or lavish when compared to earlier Hammer offerings. But I do feel it handles its ‘reboot’ MUCH better than ‘Evil of Frankenstein’ it may not have the looks of ‘Evil’ but it carries a lot more heart and the story feels much better assembled.

The characters lack the depth and moral grayness of ‘Curse of Frankenstein’ but it makes up for that with a more humourous tone that I quite liked and somewhat quicker pace, which rather appealed.

In fact, barring the ending. Which I think was VERY out of left field, VERY rushed and ultimately was the thing that cost this movie another half star. I thought this was a cheaper feeling, but altogether very robust production. That did what it was aiming to do quite well, and only *JUST* overstayed its welcome in doing so.

Direction was reletively solid given this was a first attempt from Hammer legacy writer Jimmy Sangster, I wouldnt have guessed this was his first stab behind the camera had I not checked his credits. Its professional, shwos a clear creative vision and brings a level of style to what would have otherwise been fairly generic set designs.

The cine is a bit on the bland side, theres nothing here that really experiements or pushes the medium. Which is a bit of a shame, give theres ample opportunity to utilise strong colour and light play…but its simplicity is particularly solid, and as mentioned it only further made me think of TV movies for its simplicity on how it presented its dialogue exchanges.

The performances are kind of muted. I think Kate O’Mara really steals th show here as the housekeeper, with a cunning and border dazzling performance, she really oozed charisma whenever she was on screen. Ralph Bates by contrast, didnt really do it for me as ‘Frankenstein’ apart from the fact that the character just…isnt as complexly written as he ahs been in previous outings. Ralph plays the part mostly upbeat with very little onscreen menace. which makes th emoments wher he needed that flash of malevolence (whether physical or otherwise) distinctly lacking.

There are some decent supporting actors here like the Burke and Hair style gravediggers who offer some solid comic relief, or the lead professor with whome Frankenstein becoems obsessed with his head…who gives a warm and eccentric turn that I personally quite enjoyed.

Of all the ‘Frankenstein’ reboots, I think this one may be my favourite, an imperfect outing. but an enjoyable one non the less. I personally will probably stick with ‘Curse’ if I want an outing with ‘Frankenstein’…But this one definitely had charm, and I could easily see myself revisting this one again in future.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-horror-of-frankenstein/

Continuing a recent ‘Spree’ on the Hammer ‘Frankenstein’ movies I arrive at ‘Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed’ a DREARY little picture thats as dull as it is unwelcoming.

The film once again kind of severs with continuity, not revealing WHEN the film takes place, or if its connected to any of the other films…Not that that really matters because the film establishes fairly early on a strong character change for Baron Frankenstein. Where previously he’d been an ethically grey character with good points and bad ones, tarred with a very morally questionable practice…Here? Frankensteins just flat out malevolent and evil for most of the runtime. Very different from how he’s been seen previously.

The plot? is a bit of a confusing mish mash, not helped at all by the fact this things an HOUR AND FORTY minutes long…and the longest ‘Frankenstein’ movie up to this point. As far as I can recall, the plot involves the Baron blackmailing a young couple who are drug smuggling into a plan involving drugging insane asylum inmates and taking them back to Frankensteins makeshift lab for experimental treatment.

And thats the first problem this film has, a whole lot of subplots and not a whole lot to show for it. our characters spend most of the time planning out verious activities that then either never happen, or if they do take 10 minutes to plan and 2 minutes to orchestrate. Which is frustrating.

Mild spoilers here, but the total lack of a ‘monster’ through this only further drags the film down, I liked a morally questionable Frankenstein. I liked being able to have characters who, maybe wernt perfect, but at least had enough depth and complexity that I could wish SOMETHING…ANYTHING towards them.

Here? not one single character is likeable, noone does anything to really define what the films supposed to be doing. and given that the ‘creature’ in this film is actually just a slightly mind altered asylum patient. AND that that patient doesnt get to do anything till 15 minutes off the end of the film…Well, you best have a phone on hand because you are going to be bored out of your wits for at least an hour of this thing.

The tones all over the place, this is easily the most mean spirited Hammer Frankenstein film. Theres a rape scene mid way through that I really didnt think was needed (and nor did the cast and crew seemingly) and the finale is very underwhelming compared to the other entries (which again, is saying something!)

Similarly to ‘Evil of Frankenstein’ at multiple points through this film I stopped and asked myself ‘Whats the point of this film? why does it exist’ and the only answer I could really find after thinking about it is that they just…Hadnt made a Frankenstein movie in a while…and decided they should…but not out of a hunger of WANTING to make one…more out of a feeling of sheepish obligation to do one, just because they hadnt in a while.

As such, the end product feels bland, overly generic, runs AT LEAST 30 minutes longer than it should. is unlikable, and worst of all. DULL to sit through.

The direction and cine dont fare much better. for the most part this feels like a film thats almost parodying the style of earlier Hammer films. This thing came out in 1969, The same year as ‘I drink your blood’…and it LOOKS like a film made in the mid 50s.

Everything is underlit, to the point it becomes hard to make out what your actually looking at, colour use is underplayed and looks like a production going through the motions, rather than a film WANTING to impress. the direction feels largely on auto pilot for the most part. its ‘on the level’ in terms of a creative vision…But never rises above that.

There were allgedly tensions on set with this one. as director Terrance Fischer was not well, and was having chronic arguments with the distribution company, who seemingly had never SEEN a Hammer horror film, and didnt care to…Who wanted more nudity, sex and violence in the picture. to the point that Peter Cushing regularly refused to participate in the production if the changes pushed by the distributor had to be done.

Depite this, most of the cast involved said that this was one of their favourite movies to shoot. and that, barring the rape scene…which was allegedly the WORST thing they ever had to shoot. a lot of very good friendships were made on this set, and Terrance considers this one of his favourite films to work on…so im glad SOME good came from this thing.

The cine is just continual drab, lifeless sequences that dont really hang together well and regularly fail to satisfy. composition of shots was fine enough. But nothing here pushed the envelope and the final results are underwhelming to say the least.

Performance wise, noone really stood out barring Cushing. Who inverts his character here and comes across as genuinely inpleasent. While I applaud a truely nasty performance. its hard for me to enjoy a film where the lead is an antagonist with NO likable traits whatsoever, who doenst really get much in the way of commupence.

All in all, ‘Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed’ is a tired picture. a film seemingly made out of obligation rather than love or drive. its firmly planted a decade in the past and having decisions made on its behalf by people who dont care, and dont understand Hammer as a studio. Its a deathly boring film. and i’ll genuinely be surprised if things get worse from here.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/frankenstein-must-be-destroyed/

I last saw ‘Frankenstein Created Woman’ SO long ago, that rewatching it today I seemingly had absolutely no memory of it. I KNOW I did watch it…but it was such a new experience to me here, that im going to log it as a first time watch because…for all intents and purposes…it might as well have been.

Here? we see a return to form for the series. This one seemingly ignores ‘Evil of Frankenstein’ and is a sequel instead to ‘Revenge of Frankenstein’ picking up an undisclosed number of years from ‘Revenge’ and somehow the Barons Mustacheoed disguise failed (I cant imagine how!?) and he died under circumstances not really elaborated on…What IS important, is that somehow he’s been frozen and transferred to a new doctors lab. The new doctor promptly thaws him out, and within seconds, Frankensteins working wonders in the lab and discussing his work.

This is really where the main plot of the film comes in, as we follow Hans (a different Hans to ‘Revenges’ Hans.) and his love interest Christine. Christine has a deformity on her face, and the local ‘Toffs’ take great pleasure in mocking her furiously. Hans meanwhile is the son of an executed murderer and the town takes out their grief on him.

Chrstines father refuses the two of them to be together, but when has that ever worked? because they’re hooking up. When the Toffs go too far and accidentally murder Christines father, Hans is suspect number 1 and…well..the rest of the film will really be spoiled if I go any further.

But it really is something of a return to form, the script is punchy, keeps a really solid pace for most of the runtime, the characters are a little one note, but they contrast that basicness with some moral grey zone work which I think really works in the films favour, its not as grand as ‘Evil’ nor should it be trying to be.

I really like that it deals more in the ethereal of ‘What makes a person who they are’ and the concept of a ‘Soul’ rather than the last few films being too ground down in pseudo science and ‘brain waves’.

This film has a really solid 3 act structure, it mixes wonderfully bleak humour with macarbre horror. and most important of all, its FUN and it feels like it has something to say about humanity. Which really put it ahead of the last entry for me.

The direction and cine are a pretty strong return to form. While it is a shame we dont get quite the visual spectacular of ‘Evil’ for me? Hammer has never really been about that sense of grandness and whats presented here feels solid. With excellent colour use, interesting compositional choices and some wonderful scene and sequence building. Fischer being back at the healm really helps give this production a much needed boost in terms of whats seen, and whats explained.

The performances are frankly delightful with both Peter Cushing and Thorley Walters as Baron Frankenstein and Doctor Hertz delighting for most of the runtime. Robert Morris and Susan Denberg are equally wonderful as Hans and Christina. and everyone here seems to know the EXACT energy with which to play this. Its really quite wonderful.

Throw in a great score that perfectly punctuates the film…and while I feel the vision maybe isnt *quite* as sharp as ‘Curse’ or ‘Revenge’, ‘Frankenstein created Woman’ is still an absolute delight of a picture thats very well made, very well handled and really is must see hammer in my opinion.

That being said, I feel a wider discussion on whether this really truely IS a ‘Frankenstein’ movie is really rather needed…as to me? it felt less like a ‘Frankenstein’ picture…and more a ‘picture with Frankenstein in it’…Answers on a postcard.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/frankenstein-created-woman/

A recurring thought that crossed my mind throughout ALL of ‘The Evil of Frankenstein’s runtime was ‘Whats the point of all this?’ and its a question that…Really doesnt get answered.

The film itself is something of a soft reboot for the franchise, taking elements from ‘Curse’ and ‘Revenge’ of Frankenstein and slamming them together to create a new narrative from which THIS film spings forth.

In this films portrayal of events, Baron Frankenstein lives in a big ‘Mad Scientists’ castle on a cliff face, and years ago (without Paul) created a hideous monster that fled into the hills after killing a large number of animals, and eventually was wounded, and vanished. With the police wanting the Baron for murder, he fled the country, changed his name and continued his research elsewhere, eventually picking up an assistant called Hans. The pair in this film are now returning after a period in hiding to try and restart the works.

Only, on arriving back at the castle, its revealed the place has been ransacked. with the burgermeister (chief of police) having taken around 90% of Frankensteins possessions for himself. The baron is furious, but is subdued quite quickly when a local deaf woman reveals to him that his creation is in fact in tact, and had been frozen in ice since the day he was shot.

Enlisting the help of a stage hypnotist, the Baron once again begins his experiments in the hopes of proving his theories to the world.

And thats kind of the whole movie. and one fact I learnt about this one going in, is that around the time this film was greenlit, Universal pictures finally arrived at a firm distribution and work deal with Hammer studios and part of that agreement was that Universal would no longer take legal action against Hammer if they were to use themes and ideas from the Universal monster movies.

And thats basically what this feels like, like Hammer got the greenlight to use as much of the universal monster stuff as they wanted…SO without really thinking, they just rushed a movie out the door that did EVERYTHING Universals frankenstein movies did…just because they could…whether they SHOULD have however, is a different matter entirely.

I found this thing to be quite dull. the revisionism of the first 2 frankenstein films is annoying as I personally liked the direction they were going in, the plot itself is quite uninteresting and doenst really have any kind of firm direction, the title is quite misleading, as this is argably the nicest we’ve seen Frankenstein in ANY of the Hammer films. the characters all have little to no motivations, and are pretty base line developed.

The act structuring is loose and uneven, the tone is inconsistent and bland. The direction and cine are ‘On the level’ but dont really develop much beyond the kind of stuff we’ve seen previously.

Everyone looks quite bored here, and the HIDEOUS design for the Frankenstein monster itself REALLY brings down the films overall quality for me honestly.

A mid range uninspiring horror score really polishes this thing off as being just…really quite a dull viewing experience. Not Hammers finest hour, it feels rushed, unfinished and incoherent at times. Not one I can personally recommend. Not one I plan to revisit anytime soon.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-evil-of-frankenstein/

I’ve been down for most of the past week or so with ‘The Dreaded Lurgy’ and sleeping for between 12 and 15 hours a day isnt conducive to movie watching…So i’ve had to keep things light. While i’ve listened to plenty of episodes of MST3K over the past few days, today has been the first day that I’ve felt I could actually sit and watch something without sliding over for a bout of nap time… And ‘The Girl from Pussycat’. is pretty much the perfect ‘mid’ covid film because…there REALLY isnt a whole lot here to need to focus on.

Essentially this was the B-feature on the AGFA ‘She Mob’ bluray. its 61 minutes long and can GENEROUSLY be described as a ‘roughie’ about a girl gang who rob a bank and ‘get what they want!’ But in reality, its about 50 minutes of queer coded sex scenes married up to about 11 minutes of plot that gets surprisingly deep given that the rest of the film is rutting, or running about.

The quality of the print is a bit of a mess, which makes it hard to guage if the jump cuts were intentional and a sign of poor ediitng…or if just enough of the reel was missing that what we’re seeing is basically just ‘what survived…’

In either case, theres clearly a strong French New wave influence present here. with plenty of jump cuts, flash cuts and experimentation within the direction and cine.

The script is wafer thin, it cares not for act structuring, tone or resolution. it’s here to show beautiful women having softcore sex and attractive men undulating passionately.

The cine has that new wave flare of being a bit rough and ‘on the fly’ in terms of it zipping around the set and location following the girls as they do what they need to. The score is a jazzy little number that just about does the job.

If your coming to this one off the back of ‘She Mob’ and are looking for more of the same, you’ll be dissapointed. This is basically a girl gang picture hardened up with more nudity. I think as an extra though on the AGFA release…Just as a ‘nice’ thing you have the option of watching alongside ‘She Mob’ its inoffensive enough.

But as a standalone work? theres MUCH better out there thats worth your time. This was just a fairly flat picture with a few glimmers of good ideas sprinkled throughout that never really get realised…

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-girl-from-pussycat/

A bit of a ‘stop/start’ affair for me today as I had a few things going on. I’ve been meaning to catch ‘She Mob’ since it initially ran out of print with AGFA, recently it got a reprint. I picked that up. and nearly 4 years after its initial home video debut, I really regret not grabbing this one sooner.

The film predominantly revolves around a group of all Lesbian/Bisexual convicts (led by the VERY domineering ‘Big Shim’) as they try to plan their next move after a daring escape. The problem? the girls are bored and after a stretch in the pen, they want a MAN.

So; Big Shim gets on the phone and arrives on a friend of a friend ‘Tony’. Tony’s a gigalo who’s currently shacked up with the owner of a very prestigeous business…the problem is, the owner is already in a very public relationship, and the affair could break her business. She’s loaded and has basically been keeping Tony ‘on retainer’ to help her with all her ‘stressful’ situations.

Big Shim offers Tony good pay and a night of fun if he’ll come and entertain the girls. So he heads over, only to find that, once he’s confirmed he’s on the line to a very wealthy client, they kidnap him, tie him to a bed and basically commit to doing devious acts on him until the wealthy client pays a bribe to both have him released AND to keep quiet about the affair.

And the rest of the movie from that point on is Tonys repeated attempts at escaping and being Dommed by the convicts. All the while our wealthy client assigns scantily clad gumshoe for hire ‘Sweety East’ to get on the case of rescuing Tony.

This film is INCREDIBLY surface level, but a lot of fun all the same. The ‘She Mob’ are all overtly campy, WAY over the top and their aggressive outbursts OOZED a certain ‘John Waters’ charm that is quite hard to replicate in the post modern age.

The scripts pacing is pretty solid, though it is a bit repetative. Basically; if you go into this knowing what your getting, I think you’ll be fine. But without the awareness that this is a very OTT small budget production, you may think it drags a bit.

The dialogue is EASILY some of the best reasons to tune in, its just so effortlessly mean that I honestly really quite fell in love with it.

The direction is…unique, for lack of a better word. with a clear vision on display as the mob terrorize Tony…But whether that ‘clear vision’ is a good one will I feel largely be down to audience preference. I liked it. I thought it had the rough and ready gritty edge that these kind of Roughie pictures really quite thrive on. And I really enjoyed seeing an early example of role reversal within the Roughie genre (I.E girls throwing a guy about, rather than the other way around)

Cine is messy, but has a charm to it, the edit is VERY rough around the edges, in part because of the small crewing list for this picture resulting in people editing the film who wernt necessarily considered ‘Professional’ and in part because, over the years, the films lost a few inches off its reels, leading to jumpy and fragmented sequences where dialogue jumps all over the place.

The performances are SUPERBLY cheesy, given this was one of the first ‘Something Weird’/ ‘AGFA’ collaborations, I think they really chose a good one to get things started, to give you an idea of the kind of content ‘Something Weird’ is known to distribute. Everyone has a very blunt, loud and aggressive attitude in this thing. and for SOME bizarre reason, this is a film with a near all female cast where its actually more surprising to see a women DRESSED than it is nude.

The scores like an explosion in a Jazz factory. I really liked this thing on the whole, its badly made, weirdly written and paced, and outside of fetishists and weirdos who thrive on cheesy and strange cinema I dont know WHO this film was for ultimately, But I had a good time with it (especially when compared to movies like ‘The Violent Years’ or ‘A Smell of honey, A Swallow of Brine!’) and I could easily see myself rewatching it again.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/she-mob/

One of only a handful of ‘Adult’ features directed by John Hayes, and the ‘B’ feature on vinegar syndromes ‘peekarama’ set of Hayes work. ‘Hot lunch’ is a much more stable and traditional offering over some of his other works. The usual themes of group sex and voyeurism are present. But we have a much more refined offering vs his work on ‘Baby Rosemary’ 2 years prior.

And…for the record…its a bit of a misleading title and poster…they spend collectively about 10 minutes in a diner scenario, before the film COMPLETELY changes tact for the rest of the runtime…

The film follows ‘Andrew’, and opens with Andrew and his wife drifting into town to start afresh. They have no money and are crashing in a friends loft until Andrew can find a job to support the pair. His first outing? is to a dive bar restaurant offering ‘Hot Lunches’ that also doubles as a base for the local sex worker operations.

When things dont quite go to plan, Andrew finds himself fired on his first day as a dishwasher, and on returning home he finds his wife in bed with her two musician friends, who mock him for his attempt at dish washing going arwy.

Things get so bad that Andrews wife divorces him, and its here that the main ‘thrust’ of the movie really shapes up. Andrew is assigned a public defender who charges $75 an hour, when Andrew tells her he has $15 all together, and $4.50 of that is in his pocket right now. She tells him she can try and get him a job with a friend shes going to have a meeting with shortly.

The meeting goes well…a little too well infact. as Andrew is assigned a job selling encyclopedias to anyone who’ll buy them, but on the sly, Andrew is having sex with his potential customers in order to ‘seal the deal’. Andrews new boss catches on to his ‘practices’ and after sampling his wares for herself, she decides she can really run with the idea. quickly pushing her company up to ‘wall street’ levels. But…will Andrew ultimately be happy in a job where he’s trading his body for sales? well…keep watching and you’ll find out.

And…there really isnt that much to say about this one. It feels a lot more coherent than Hayes previous works pretty much across the board. Which in some ways is good, but in others does take away a bit of the sparkle that made things like ‘Baby Rosemary’ as ‘unique’ as it is.

The script for a starters actually has a full plot driven linear narrative, its a clean 3 act structure with reletively seamless transitions. The tone is largely light hearted, but they’re not afraid of confronting a little drama and introspection in the 3rd act which was nice. The characters get a little more depth than these kinds of films usually have, which was good to be stuck with for most of the runtime. It ends pretty satisfactorally and the dialogue (for the most part) is pretty solid, and even pretty funny in places. Though, the dialogue during the sex scenes is still honestly pretty painful. its SUPER cringey. and I know films from this era can go that way….But this really is bad.

The direction here definitely seems to have had more forethought put in. the non sexual scenes are competently structured and clearly have had some creative thought put into them. Its nothing ‘breathtaking’ they’re pretty basic scene structures. But theres been thought as to what to focus on, how long to hold in a particular shot type, WHY things are being focussed on. Which sounds basic, but when it comes to ‘adult’ cinema…its honestly a boon.

The sex scenes are much more stable and have definitely had more thought put into how they should operate. Given ‘Baby Rosemary’ was ultra shakey, or just shoved on a tripod in a mid wide for the full duration. This ACTUALLY has planned scene structuring, it gets up close to the cast when it needs to show intensity, you see facial reactions, it pulls back when it wants you to take in the atmoshphere. Its pretty solid, but not spectacular work truthfully.

The cine is also pretty solid, they’ve gone for a much softer lighting setup here, and they even experiement with soft coloured lighting for a scene or two, which I thought was a nice touch. it feels largely like a relaxed environment and given some of Hayes previous films have looked distinctly ill and floodlit, to get something softer and easier on the eye compositionally is a real win honestly.

The performances are a little hammy and over the top for the most part, but given its supposed to be largely a light hearted prodcution thats quite understandable. the sex scenes are professional, but as mentioned its a shame about the dialogue, both in terms of whats said, and how its said. If its improvised, it should have been blanked out, if it was planned, its awful.

All in all, this one was pretty solid, not a ‘must see’ by any stretch, but a good common example of 70s adult cinema, its fun, isnt taking itself too seriously and has enough of a plot that you’ll probably stick around past the naughty bits. soft recommended.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hot-lunch-1978/