It seems that lessons were clearly learnt during the production of 1975’s ‘Criminally Insane’ as 12 months later Nick Millard would return to work once again with ‘Satans Black Wedding’ a satanic vampiric romp that in some ways VASTLY out flanks his previous work…While in others really manages to come up short.

The plot follows ‘Mark’ a gent who’s been away from his family for a while who, on returning to attend his sisters funeral, finds her bedroom covered in blood and suicide note left offering little answer to what exactly transpired. Mark links in with a detective who says that the case is being examined. But it’s the housekeeper who seems to have the best measure on exactly what is going on. An evil presence is stalking the grounds of the house, and she desperately wants to cut her losses and leave while she still has her life.

Mark tries to piece together exactly what happened alongside his childhood friend Jean, which leads them on a journey of black mass rituals, satanic beings and an encounter with a mysterious rider of the devil himself. leading to a rather unsettling conclusion.

And, the first thing that jumped out at me with this feature is, when compared to Millards previous work, the technical ability seems to have massively improved across the board. Direction seems more considered, thoughtful and there seems to be more emphisis on showing rather than telling which is great. there seems to be a much more coherent vision present here.

Shots are stronger, better composed, utilise depth of field well and, for the most part it feels like scenes were actually structured rather than it feeling like they just got to the location, shot whatever they wanted, however they wanted and assumed it would just work in post.

B-roll gets a nice increase which helps the scenes breath a lot better. theres much more creatively inspired and solidly constructed lighting setups, which really help give the production much more professional flair! Colour use is much more cohesive here and results in a much more styalized production!

The edit is coherent, tightly cut with decent match cuts, much less repetative footage, and effects are utilized in a much more meaningful way offering a very solid base that the films works to. In fact, barring only a couple of instances of mixed to poor composition and occasions where scene building ‘crossed the line’ I thought this, considering what came before it, was pretty well put together by comparison.

That is also unfortunately where the vast majority of my rating for this film goes. As it seems that, in exchange for a much sturdier and solid technical production. The script has been allowed to wilt somewhat.

Make no mistake, this is an (at times) rather atmospheric little horror thriller. But the issues with the script here are plentiful. From revealing who the ‘baddies’ are pretty much immediately (thus spoiling the ‘mystery/surprise reveal’ element of this thriller) to ropey, dry and uninteresting dialogue. To really rather poor act structuring where we once again find ourselves with a solid first act, a decent 10 minute closer and about 30-40 minutes that AT BEST could be described as a ‘runaround’ with the occasional half decent atmospheric moment in it. This is a script that absolutely had potential, but has been ill thought out in its translation to the screen.

The biggest issue? is a mixture of pacing problems and an unengaging cast. The film starts strong enough out the gate with some genuinely interesting mystery fodder. But quickly devolves into a repeatative form of our core characters visiting a location, wandering around for a bit, learning a little bit of info (that we as an audience were clued into 20 minutes prior) before moving onto the next scene.

The tone is much more serious than Millards past works, which I think works wonderfully in the more atmospheric scenes where our characters are fleeing from vampiric satanists…But that seriousness becomes a millstone when we get to the ‘wandering around’ segments. with the lack of charismatic, interesting or engaging characters, this piece does become rather dry, rather quickly.

The dialogue is very heavy on explanation and plot detail, this is the kind of movie where knowing less about the mysterious force our characters are up against would have really worked in the films favour..No such luck though sadly, as we’re instead given explicit detail of their plans and how its going to be executed multiple times across the runtime.

Its also just…kind of boring. Its idle chatter dialogue…only it runs for 60 minutes when it really should have been used to help give the characters a bit more depth and complexity. Idle chatter can be essential to character growth when used SPARINGLY. And here, it very much isnt. relegating the actual INTERESTING plot points to a few mintues here and there in dribs and drabs.

The performances across the board are largely quite dry and uninteresting. a few good horror moments here and there really isnt enough to save this thing.

I feel kind of bad ripping into this one because the bones of a really solid idea ARE present here, and it DOES have some good solid moments. But it feels like a lot more effort was put into making this film look better than it sounded…and thats kind of a make or break for me.

I’d still say maybe check this one out if you can find it. Its really not bad. But just…temper your expectations on this one. I think this would play brilliantly with Bob Clarks ‘Deathdream’ as a B-feature. But is this ‘must see?’…well, its a no from me.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/satans-black-wedding/

I had heard about ‘Criminally Insane’ (Though, to me…it’ll always be known by its alternate title ‘Crazy Fat Ethel’) for years amongst the B-movie and cult enthusiast circles as a HELL of an oddity of a picture. So when Vinegar Syndrome recently announced a ground up HD remaster of the thing, OF COURSE I pounced on it to see what all the Hubbub was about…Frankly, I wasnt dissapointed.

The plots pretty much as simple and bizarre as it can be. The film follows ‘Ethel’ a morbidly obese woman who’s spent a number of years in a mental facility due to her psychotic episodes. After managing to subdue her with a combination of drugs and electro shock therapy. The doctors decide to release Ethel back into the custody of her grandmother. The doctors give careful instruction on how to take care of Ethel, alongside the suggestion that she start to seriously consider losing some weight, due to the strain it puts on her heart…

This will prove to be the catalyst for which the rest of the film unfolds. As, on returning home, Ethel almost immediatley goes into a feeding frenzy happily consuming entire ice cream cakes, and whole large packs of bacon with boxes of eggs. Her grandmother decides enough is enough and locks the food in a cupboard. Informing Ethel that she wont be allowed to snack between meals anymore AND that she’ll live on ‘modest portion sizes’ till her weight starts to come down.

Ethels response to this is to accuse her grandmother of attmepting to ‘Starve her to death’ before she picks up a kitchen knife and murders the poor lady, stealing back the key to the cupboard and eating the entire pantry in one sitting.

And…what follows from that is essentially Ethel trying to cover up her initial murder by murdering even more people in a hunger induced rage. While her sister Rosalie (who has returned to the house to lay low after escaping an abusive relationship) decides to use the place to work her ‘trade’.

And…thats basically the movie. Theres not much in the way of complexity, next to no nuance. Its essentially a bit of a proto slasher, with a one note fat joke embedded in it, running on dialogue that would make John Waters rise for applause.

The scripts ultra basic, the act structuring is pretty uneven. the opening act is fine enough, but, for me? This films biggest problem is that it gets into the second act (around the time Rosalie turns up and starts turning tricks) and the film just…locks into a pace and energy and never breaks out above or below that pace. It quickly becomes padded monotonous and repetative.

It has its moments here and there, but it feels very much like its stalling for time right up until the 3rd act…Which is basically the last 10 minutes or so of the film where they remember that this is a movie where they’re ALLOWED to have fun, and they just about stick the landing. With an abrupt cut to credits that made me audibly roar with laughter.

Idling for 30 minutes is a real shame here. But mercifully, everything else is pretty much how I wanted this to play out. its got a comedic, macarbre tone. the dialogue is SO rough and pacey, it reminds me of films like ‘The Baby’ or ‘Female Trouble’ for its ability to just throw out the most BIZARRE lines, scattergun style…it really does become a case of ‘Where do I even begin?!’

The characters are a little flat and one note, but mercifully that one note is campy and mesmorisingly strange. Seriously, this one doesnt let up. constantly pushing the characters into bizarre happenings and with both lines and line deliveries that frankly have to be seen to be believed. The second act may feel slow and repetative, but the quality of the characters on hand more than helped pull me back on track.

Due to the lopsided act structuring the pacing is a bit hit and miss, when its on a role, its superb. But when the film crawls, the pacing matches its speed and my mind quickly wandered to my emails quite frankly…Not that you’re going to miss anything here. Its a plus size woman mudering people in a psychotic blind rage whenever she gets hungry…it’s hardly Chaucer.

Technically? this things a bust. and EASILY the worst aspect of this produciton. Based on the ‘Apology’ note at the opening of Vinegar syndromes release for this one, it feels less like this film was ‘lovingly remastered’ and more like it was ‘recovered from oblivion’ Which does make it hard to gauge how much of whats here is poor direction/post work and how much of it is ‘This film was literally found unspooled in trash liners, where they’d sat for 30+ years…its a wonder they survive.’

Frankly speaking, the direction feels like someones first ever attempt at making a movie…which, given Nick Millard up to this point had basically almost exclusively worked in the adult film industry…I could believe this may have ACTUALLY been his first attempt at trying to string together a coherent narrative using his own creative vision.

scene construction here is an after thought. It feels like they planned a scene out on the day with no paperwork or thought as to whether it would cut together in post, they shot what felt right rather than what would work and then shoved it together as best they could.

As a result, nothing really feels quite cohesive, shots just kind of…happen. it feels mindlessly composed, with only a handful of shots seemingly consisdered…and thats less because Millard had something to say, and more because it couldnt ‘technically’ be shot in any other way.

As a result theres a lot of slow motion shots, repeating shots over and over again, weird effects like inverting the film, and instances of cuts overlapping poorly (though…how intentional that was is probably up for debate). Its bad. It doesnt really show creative story telling through the visuals…But. I need remind you that this film is called ‘Crazy Fat Ethel.’ I think you get the picture.

On the cine? its pretty poor, due to the lack of thought that went into the direction, shots are poorly composed, dont seem to have dominant subjects for a decent chunk of the runtime, and B-roll is almost exclusively saved for ‘kill scenes’ and thats it. NO time was taken to block sequences or work with ‘the line’. While it DOES have its moments here and there shot wise. im not 100% convinced Millard INTENTIONALLY planned any meaning behind this setup. with the one or two good shots being more ‘happy accidents’ than anything else.

As an editor…the edit made me wince. NO timed cuts, NO consideration for B-roll, NON of the match cuts ACTUALLY match. Everything cuts way too early. theres an EYEWATERING sequence near the beginning where Ethels Grandma goes to visit the doctor to get an update on her that could quite easily cause whiplash and a nosebleed given how fast the cuts between shots are. It feels like someone who’s never edited before in their life just decided to ‘have a go’. And given the chronic state of the direction, cine and lack of B-roll…I feel even a veteran would have REALLY struggled to make this thing hold together well…So to see someone just ‘attempt’ to put this thing together is frankly painful to me.

Pricilla Alden is ESSENTIAL to why you need to see this film. She has a wonderful grit and earthy ‘thud’ to her line deliveries which are entirely charasmatic and interesting…Honestly, I fell in love with her performance here, its a character piece and she nails the brief PERFECTLY. shes also surprisingly spry clearing a staircase multiple times without so much as a wheeze which, given I too am a ‘big boy’ I found VERY impressive.

The rest of the cast all basically feel like they were B-characters that fell off the truck of a Grindhouse flick. Not exactly ‘unremarkable’, but when you have such a strong performance in the form of Pricilla, its always going to take a bit of the shine away.

The soundtrack is a bleepy bloopy mess. and, for some reason, much like the edit. the sound edit on this thing is atrocious. theres a full 30 second segment at the beginning of this film where the audio is entirely missing…Noone knows where it went, and Vinegar Syndrome traced it back to the print used to make the copies that were distributed…So this was very likely an issue on the original print too…the adr works terrible, the sound effect work is poor…its frankly quite hilarious.

‘Criminally Insane’ is an incompitent production. Im quite confident of that. But the utter charm it has in its characters, scenarios and simplicity made it a feature I really, honestly quite enjoyed. a PRIME film to watch with friends and beers, I think this would pair up well with a John Waters movie or maybe something like ‘The Baby’ I think this one will grow on me even more over time. Its a TERRIBLE production on a technical level. but utterly watchable on a story and performance level. Definitely recommended.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/criminally-insane/

Watched on Sunday July 7, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bat-pussy/2/

Watched on Saturday July 6, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/night-of-the-demon-1980/3/

A personal favourite of mine, theres very little that I really dislike about ‘National Lampoons European Vacation’. Its a film that absolutely feels like it learnt and grew from the initial success of ‘Vacation’. While this film doesnt *quite* hit the gut busting highs of the first film. I personally find its hit rate and tone much more evenly distributed.

The plot, as you can imagine finds us once again in the company of the Griswolds, who this time have managed to win an all expenses paid trip around Europe stopping in England, France, Germany and Rome courtesy of the popular gameshow ‘Pig in a Poke’. Much like the first film Hi-jynx ensue as Clarke and the family rain chaos down on pretty much everyone and anything they happen to come into contact with.

and I find that, across the board, it feels like this entry has a much more comfortable and ‘settled in’ feeling about it. The script is a pacy 94 minutes or so long, and it feels like the decision was made to ‘cartoon-ize’ the Griswolds a little more in this one, which I feel was definitely a step in the right direction as, while we do ultimately lose a more ‘human’ element in this entry that was present in ‘Vacation’ I equally thought at times that ‘Vacation’ got a little too bleak in places and that pulled me out of the comedy.

European Vacation feels much more comfortable with its pratfalls, funny face reactions, dream sequences and stunts. As a European myself, I found the humour to be much more accessable over ‘Vacation’ which was a little too US-centric in places for me to really properly appreciate it. Our characters do get a little sanded down here, with Ellen Griswold basically being sanitized down to a long suffering housewife with not much pushback on show, and Clarke having his ‘manic break’ personality aspects toned way back. He still has some outbursts here, but they’re played less like a man in crisis and more ‘Tex Avery’ for lack of a better comparison.

Humour is of course subjective, and for me? I feel they’ve gone for broader comedy here, which means more jokes that are consistently funny, but a tone that doesnt quite hit as hard as the one or two jokes that REALLY packed a punch in ‘Vacation’…In some ways I actually prefer that though…as id rather consistently laugh for 90+ minutes and have a really good time, than have a mixed comedy experience of highs and lows where a full on laughed maybe a couple of times.

One thing I am a little iffy about is the tone of this entry. While im all in here on the goofy over the top cartoon craziness, this is a distinctly ‘hormonally charged’ film (read here: a LOT of partial nudity and sexually charged dialogue) With recurring rape and pedophile jokes…Im not against ‘Horny’ humour…but it needs to be used sparingly, and here it does get well and truely worn out by the 3rd act.

I also think the second act does seem to slow down a little bit pace wise…Around the time they get to Germany thing take a bit of a dip when the family visit relatives they’ve never seen before…But It makes sense why the film chooses to do that given the scene before and the scene immediately after are a little intense on the comedy front…but it could have just as easily been cut as similar ‘FOREIGNERS DONT SPEAK ENGLISH! HA HA!’ gags are repeated multiple times across the movies runtime.

But, on the whole. I like this script. I think it has a solid hitrate, I feel the characters better fit this scenario, he tone, while maybe a smidge problematic at times is ultimately rock solid for this kind of piece and it feels like the cast really threw themselves into this role.

The direction and cine are superb here with gorgeous shots of European locations circa the mid 80s. there are maybe a couple of scenes that dont quite seem to have come together in the final edit, but its undenyable that a clear vision was had here in realising this picture. it looks great, it largely hangs together great. the cine has a good range of rich and deep shots that are colourful and (mostly) really decently styalized and lit. Sequences hang together solidly and the edit (again for the most part) is pretty rock solid. With only a couple of scenes faltering a little, that I feel is less down to an inexperienced editor, and more down to a vision in planning that just couldnt be executed as intended.

Performances here are superb. Outside of ‘Christmas Vacation’ I think this is probably Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo at their finest. they have remarkable comedic timing, they’re on the top of there respective games here. they bounce of each other wonderfully. they’re frankly superb. Jason Lively is a tad overdoing it here as this films incarnation of ‘Rusty’ as is Dana Hill as ‘Audrey’ they’re VERY overanimate and are trying to play it cringe inducingly cool at times…But…I can kind of give them a free pass as the script is basically asking for a couple of slightly obnoxious teens who dont want to be on holiday, getting dragged on holiday. In that regard they absolutely nailed the brief…But I could understand how some viewers may find them a bit too much.

The supporting cast here though is where this film shines, with cameos from Mel Smith, Eric Idle, Maureen Lipman, Robbie Coltraine, Paul Bartel and Ballard Berkeley. and each and every one of them is just an absolute delight to see on screen, most of the above were still in there ‘golden’ age of acting. and even though most are only brief cameos, they really help raise the bar that this films working with.

Throw in a frankly AWESOME soundtrack with the iconic ‘Holiday Road’ getting a play or two alongside tracks from Dr. John and Network, accompanied by some fantastic orchestral thematic pieces that really help tie the film together and you have frankly a rock solid package that I feel most people will enjoy on at least some level.

Outside of ‘Christmas Vacation’, ‘European Vacation’ is probably my most rewatched of all the ‘Vacation’ films. I have a real soft spot for it. Its a comfort watch, and one I can absolute recommend to anyone unfamiliar with the ‘Vacation’ series, or anyone just looking for a good gut laugh or two. A screwball comedy at its finest. if you havent seen this one, you really gotta fix that as soon as possible.

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

Painfully dull, just 90 minutes of poor quality, samey sounding songs. Poor performances, weird camera angles. The sets designs are nice. But thats about as good as it gets.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/dr-seuss-the-grinch-musical/

Watched as part of a session brushing up on ‘Grinch’ related media ahead of a podcast. i’d always been kind of dismissive of 2018’s ‘The Grinch’. After being quite let down by the Jim Carey reimagining, I honestly couldnt think of a more unholy union than ‘Illumination’ taking elements of the 60’s original and the Carey version and slamming them together. it felt obscene.

But! tonight I actually sat down and watched the film for the first time, and y’know what? Its pretty alright…it has its problems, but for the most part, whats presented here is just a relatively solid modernisation of the original ‘Grinch’ story, with maybe a few extra bells and whistles thrown into the mix and some of the deeper messages softened a bit to make it more accessable to contemporary audiences.

The plot this time is split down the middle, with half the film following the traditional ‘Grinch who stole christmas’ plot of the curmudgenly green fellow getting riled up at the ‘Whos’ down in ‘Whoville’ for their capitalist gorging on gifts and roast beast. And deciding to take matters into his own hands to rid the town of christmas once and for all (Complete with a new backstory which basically explains he was ‘forgotten’ as a child at christmas while everyone else celebrated, leading to resentment)

While the B-plot more fully centers around Cindy Lou-Who, who in this film is a fully animated rambunctious little tyke who’s on a mission to make her mother happy in time for christmas, and when traditional letter writing fails, she resorts to setting in motion a plan to trap santa on christmas eve in order to ensure her request is heard.

Realistically? I have very little to complain about with this feature. The script has a very strong opening and closing act in terms of pacing and tone. it does sag a little in the 2nd act with some scenes introducing and then dropping elements or repeating the same gag with slight variation a few times. It’s got plenty of padding, particularly in the Cindy-Lou B-plot which I felt REALLY outstayed its welcome during the 2nd act. I think it pulled things back on track by the finale, but Cindy-Lou as a character was never really meant to be expanded on that much…by and large shes supposed to be an alagory for the wonderment and uncynical joy of the humanist condition. she’s supposed to be the analogue opposite of the Grinch realistically, and the oddity that causes the Grinch to re-evaluate its life goals.

Here? Cindy is pretty well rounded as a character, but elongated sequences of her planning her santa traps, riding around town and having idle chatter with her mum just, really didnt do much for me. The same can also be said for the Grinch in some of its scenes, such as when they go reindeer hunting or when the grinch is padding about his cave looking for something to kill time…they make the idea of the grinch killing time to get to chrismtas LITERALLY a way for the movie to kill time.

These are of course some minor quibbles however, the plot itself is pretty solid, the elements they take from the original are largely the better elements, the Jim Cary portions are equally some of the better parts of that movie, and a few portions from the Cary version have even been tweaked/reframed/retrofitted to work much MUCH better than they did originally.

I also greatly appreciated that they expanded on the moment the Grinches heart grew over any other version of this story, making it feel like much more of a reward than other films which seem to almost downplay the Grinch turning good for some reason…

On that note, probably my biggest gripe about this incarnation of ‘The Grinch’ is that he really just…isnt mean,smelly and nasty enough. he gets to do some *kind of* mean stuff in the opening of the film, but for the most part he just comes across as a bit grumpy and passive aggressive with a dash of snark. Its a shame really because it means that the journey this character goes on doesnt quite feel as dramatic a change as the older versions. It didnt quite hit the same as the others ‘redemption’ arc pieces which really showed a drastic transformation.

Here? our slightly grumpy character just transforms into…a slightly awkward and less grumpy character…and, thats about it. I feel had they leaned a bit harder into the mean-ness, made him look a little less fluffy and approachable and maybe played up more physical traits. it would have had a more powerful resolution than what we got.

As for the comedy? I think it hits more than misses…but there are clearly a LOT of gags in here that have been recycled from other ‘Illumination’ features. Topical gags that are already starting to show their age a bit and some stuff here is a little ‘lowest common denominator’ in terms of tone. Like I say, I laughed out loud a few times across the runtime on this one…But its inescapable to me that ‘Illumination’ do kind of a have a ‘one size fits all’ approach to these kinds of animated movies.

That being said, the dialogue was relatively strong throughout, I felt the finale explaining that ‘Christmas is more than just stuff’ was poigniant and handled in a way that modern audiences would likely better absorb. I had no major issues here truthfully.

Outside of that, theres very little else I can say. The direction and animation art style suits the works of Dr. Seuss down to the ground, and other than the aforementioned issue of making the Grinch look a little less presentable and cute and more rough around the edges and intimidating, I really dont have a lot to say about it, they reallly nailed the bried. it looks fabulous.

the performances are all pretty solid as well, with Pharell Williams excellently delivering as the narrator, and Benedict Cumberbatch bringing an animated and lively delivery to proceedings. All the cast members really bring their A-game to this film, with barely a weak link in the chain. if there ever was a fault with the cast here, it was more likely a dodgey joke or ropey line, rather thant he delivery itself.

The scoring is a bit strange, on the whole I liked it. But I have the sneaking suspicion that its going to age like milk in terms of the original pieces being VERY bedded into mid 2010’s style music and culture. it already sounds dated as of 2024. LORD knows how it’ll hold up 20 years from now…I liked it…but for how long? Who can say?

On the whole? While I think i’ll probably stick to the original, this is a rock solid attempt that…while imperfect, is still just a really fun modernising and refreshing take on the much loved childrens classic. Definitely recommended for kids of (most) ages and the rest of the family. This take could have VERY easily gone VERY wrong…but instead it delivers a heartfelt picture that tries and *mostly* succeeds in bringing the true spirit of christmas to the season. Its hearts very much in the right place and I highly recommend it!

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

‘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/