|
Post by pulphack on Jan 19, 2020 18:39:35 GMT
I know what you mean, Andy, but I have to say that love Dracula AD 1972 as its a wonderful example of middle-aged men trying to get their heads around the changes in popular culture as counter-culture stuff enters the mainstream. Pete'n'Chris wander amongst the hippes looking vaguely bemused (Pete) or stiff-upper-lip outraged (Chris - a Dracula bemused by the kind of outre sexuality he - CDracula - was a metaphor for (!!) a century earlier). And it has Stoneground, who were bloody awful and as Yanks must have wondered how their agent got them the gig. This and Satanic Rites Of Dracula are probably the worst Hammer Draculas in many ways, but they have their charms - Satanic Rites is more Persuaders/Department S than Hammer, which is why I like it and why it also doesn't really work.
The UK, which had started the Euro horror boom in many ways, did not adjust like the Italians or Spanish to a more (superficially) permissive society.
This echoes something I said about the charm of Biull Baker's Press Ed set-up somewhere else on here years ago, and which I was reminded of by the books I recently re-read and posted on. I find the defraction of swinging counter-culture by the mores of the men who attempted to cash in on it absolutely fascinating.
See, I still don't have a life nearly 15 years later!
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 19, 2020 19:51:07 GMT
I know what you mean, Andy, but I have to say that love Dracula AD 1972 as its a wonderful example of middle-aged men trying to get their heads around the changes in popular culture as counter-culture stuff enters the mainstream. Pete'n'Chris wander amongst the hippes looking vaguely bemused (Pete) or stiff-upper-lip outraged (Chris - a Dracula bemused by the kind of outre sexuality he - CDracula - was a metaphor for (!!) a century earlier). Now that is what I call a superb description! The tone-deafness of Hammer's description – in this case I assume Don Houghton, if he wasn't re-written – of the counter culture is baffling. (And a good clue why Hammer was losing it.) The little group doesn't even work as carricatures, they must be the most unconvincing hippies ever on the screen. But I guess it can be forgiven, as Cushing is marvellous and Beacham in her white dress is so breath taking. (I know I will be very alone in this, but after Beacham I never could take Lumley in her role in Satanic Rites as Jessica seriously.) I also have a soft spot for the last two of Hammer's Dracula, even if they don't work. At least they are not the total trainwreck To the Devil a Daughter was. I came late to Hammer. In my younger days of course I saw them and forget them, I only watched them on TV, I was too young to catch them in the cinema. Now I have most of them, digested them hopefully and a few I have even seen a couple of times. My favorites are still Vampire Circus – which comes as near to an Italian or French horror movie as is possible – and Quatermass and the Pit. And the Karnstein trilogy. I am that shallow on occasion :-)
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 19, 2020 20:01:26 GMT
If we are talking 1980s vampire films, then Near Dark (1987) would be my first choice. Serious and arty. And romantic. And scary. In fact, it is probably my all-time favourite vampire film. One of my favorite vampire movies. Lance Henriksen may not always have had the best instinct for his choosing of roles, I will never understand why his career didn't take off after Aliens, but here he shines.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jan 19, 2020 20:27:18 GMT
I re-watched Dracula AD 1972 around a year ago and while the script was terrible, especially from about the middle onwards, some of the visual setpieces impressed me with their dynamism and reworking of the Hammer house style. Rather than Satanic Rites, the film I contrast this one with is Captain Kronos which is vaguely Victorian (or Regency?) but departs significantly from the house style, with a tightly written, occasionally witty script by Brian Clemens. It also offered a genuinely novel approach to the vampire theme. Apparently the movie was sabotaged due to some weird hold-up in distribution, and when it started to go into theatres, the distro was extremely patchy. Some anecdotal material about how the movie's chances of success were ruined by circumstances that may have been related to the decline of the studio was collected in a special issue of Little Shoppe of Horrors some years back--it was a feature devoted to Kronos. Apart from Caroline Munro's cleavage it's quite different from the typical Hammer stock in trade. I thought it worked much better than other attempts they floated at trying out different styles, such as Straight on till morning and Demons of the Mind. A lot of people I know think of the latter now as a late Hammer masterpiece but I could barely get through it on my one viewing.
I'd like someday to see both Near Dark and The Lost Boys, two iconic vampire films of the period. While we do commonly speak of film history in terms of decades, I think much more significant is the role played by regions, directors and studios. Interesting, Andreas, that you mentioned Don't Torture a Duckling--I'd never heard of the film until maybe 3 or 4 years ago. All of a sudden, it's mentioned constantly on genre film groups as one of the great masterworks of the giallo genre. And I think Fulci has superseded Bava and Argento for some as the ultimate giallo master. I don't think I have seen any of Fulci's films at all. Interesting to read different perspectives as some fans don't care for his work at all while others praise him to the heights.
H.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 19, 2020 21:30:29 GMT
And I think Fulci has superseded Bava and Argento for some as the ultimate giallo master. I don't think I have seen any of Fulci's films at all. Interesting to read different perspectives as some fans don't care for his work at all while others praise him to the heights. Yes, especially the gore fans love him. I have found that his early work does more for me while movies like The House by the Cemetary tend to bore me. Don't torture a Duckling isn't a typical giallo, more a murder mystery, and is a disturbing and I guess unpleasant movie. Which is always a good thing. Also Fulci did a few nice erotic comedys and mainstream thrillers. But long before his later horror movies. Your observations on Kronos are spot on.But I never did like the movie. It's star was very popular at the time in Germany in a tv romcom series which I truly loathed. I just couldn't take him seriously in a Hammer movie.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Jan 20, 2020 9:54:38 GMT
If we are talking 1980s vampire films, then Near Dark (1987) would be my first choice. Serious and arty. And romantic. And scary. In fact, it is probably my all-time favourite vampire film. One of my favorite vampire movies. Lance Henriksen may not always have had the best instinct for his choosing of roles, I will never understand why his career didn't take off after Aliens, but here he shines. There's an often expressed view that Near Dark got overshadowed (if that's the right word in this context) at the time of its release by the flashier, more teen-centred, The Lost Boys (which came out only a couple of months before Near Dark). But Near Dark is a much better film, on every level.
|
|
|
Post by bluetomb on Jan 20, 2020 10:40:38 GMT
I'd like someday to see both Near Dark and The Lost Boys, two iconic vampire films of the period. While we do commonly speak of film history in terms of decades, I think much more significant is the role played by regions, directors and studios. Interesting, Andreas, that you mentioned Don't Torture a Duckling--I'd never heard of the film until maybe 3 or 4 years ago. All of a sudden, it's mentioned constantly on genre film groups as one of the great masterworks of the giallo genre. And I think Fulci has superseded Bava and Argento for some as the ultimate giallo master. I don't think I have seen any of Fulci's films at all. Interesting to read different perspectives as some fans don't care for his work at all while others praise him to the heights. H. I think other than Argento and Bava, Sergio Martino is more the major giallo purveyor than Fulci. Fulci's just really stand out for being a lot more serious and controlled than his later more outright wacky, hacky schlock. I'm a fan of Fulci in general, but I wouldn't mount strong defences of a lot of his work from Zombie 2 / Zombie Flesh Eaters onwards, whereas Don't Torture a Duckling, Lizard in a Woman's Skin etc. I might.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jan 20, 2020 17:18:02 GMT
I was inspired to watch THE BROOD for the first time since it was in theaters. I remembered very little about it, and was surprised to find how coherent and even slick, for a relatively early Cronenberg film, it is. In fact, it seems it marks the turning-point after which he was never very interesting again. (With the exception of DEAD RINGERS, which I like a lot.)
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 20, 2020 20:01:45 GMT
I was inspired to watch THE BROOD for the first time since it was in theaters. I remembered very little about it, and was surprised to find how coherent and even slick, for a relatively early Cronenberg film, it is. In fact, it seems it marks the turning-point after which he was never very interesting again. (With the exception of DEAD RINGERS, which I like a lot.) I haven't seen READ RINGERS for ages. In my memory it is a cold, depressing but fascinating movie.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jan 20, 2020 20:31:14 GMT
I haven't seen READ RINGERS for ages. In my memory it is a cold, depressing but fascinating movie. I have not watched it recently either, but I think you are spot on. But: 1. There are intriguing, specially designed gynecological instruments for operating on mutated women in it. There was once an avant-garde restaurant here in town that had cutlery that reminded me of those. 2. I knew a pair of twins with mental health issues that lived together, and, on an impulse, I recommended that they should watch this film. I immediately regretted it, of course---I am not a monster! I think they never did, however.
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Jan 21, 2020 11:07:11 GMT
I was inspired to watch THE BROOD for the first time since it was in theaters. I remembered very little about it, and was surprised to find how coherent and even slick, for a relatively early Cronenberg film, it is. In fact, it seems it marks the turning-point after which he was never very interesting again. (With the exception of DEAD RINGERS, which I like a lot.) I understand that "coherent", and "slick", and "on the turning point after which the very interesting is lost", is not necessarily a positive and enthusiastic opinion about the film. But more important, I hope at least that your nerves were on edge! I saw Dead Ringers once, and it was good. With excellent Jeremy Irons. Geneviève Bujold is impressive too. I about agree with andydecker's comment. I have actually never seen Rabid (1977). (Or have I? Maybe I forgot.) The old VHS box creeped me out, and what I read about it, and so it has remained. Never had a convinced desire to see this film. Watched a preview trailer for it last night, and it looked very similar to Dawn of the Dead (1978). Has anyone here seen Cronenberg's eXistenZ (1999)? Or A History of Violence (2005)? This late one has received very favorable reviews on Cronenberg film fan lists. I understand this is Cronenberg's commercially most successful film, and it was produced by a major Hollywood studio which means its contents are controlled. I have no desire to see the film if it is overly PC.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jan 21, 2020 11:38:10 GMT
It is true that RABID superficially resembles a zombie film. But an utterly demented one. I mean, it is about a woman who develops a phallic, blood-sucking appendage. In her armpit.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Jan 21, 2020 15:59:29 GMT
Has anyone here seen Cronenberg's eXistenZ (1999)? Or A History of Violence (2005)? This late one has received very favorable reviews on Cronenberg film fan lists. I understand this is Cronenberg's commercially most successful film, and it was produced by a major Hollywood studio which means its contents are controlled. I have no desire to see the film if it is overly PC. I've seen both of those. I should say at the start that I am not really a big fan of Cronenberg (or "body horror" in general). I've only seen eXistenZ once, when it came out in the cinema, so I don't remember a lot about it now other than it came along around the same time as a bunch of other sci-fi/horror films with similar themes (the dangers of "new technologies" like VR, the merging of humans with machines, etc.) - and I didn't think it had anything especially interesting or original to say about any of that. A History of Violence, I actually liked a lot though it isn't horror or sci-fi - it's a straightforward crime/thriller, with themes around whether people are defined by their past actions, or whether they can escape their pasts and become better people (if allowed by others to do so). I certainly wouldn't describe it as "overly PC", or as being PC at all - in fact, it's arguably more subversive than a lot of his other work.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 21, 2020 19:11:48 GMT
I confused eXistenZ with The Naked Lunch recently as a movie which didn't work for me. eXistenz I have no sharp recollection of except that it was something about Cyberspace when everything seemed already been said about Cyberspace. Also it looked cheap, a lot seemed to be lifted out of Videodrome visually.
A History of violence I never watched. Which in retrorespect was strange, as I am a big fan of John Wagner who did the comic. I guess Cronenberg just slipped of my list after a few disappointments. I can't image it being PC, as it had the luck being produced before it smothered everything.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 21, 2020 19:23:18 GMT
It is true that RABID superficially resembles a zombie film. But an utterly demented one. I mean, it is about a woman who develops a phallic, blood-sucking appendage. In her armpit. Seconded. But wasn't the Cronenberg which was often compared with Dawn of the Dead Shivers? Rabid too? On second thought, all those early movies are remarkably similar. A patient zero spreading some illness?
|
|