Tag: 1962

Directed by Herk Harvey [Other horror films: N/A]

From a modern-day perspective, Carnival of Souls may seem a bit pedestrian, as the ending seems quite easy to predict. Truthfully, though I’ve seen this once or twice before, I don’t love it myself, though that has little to do with the finale. I don’t doubt Carnival of Souls is a classic, but certainly tastes may vary.

Oh, and this review will have spoilers in it.

I’m not sure exactly where my hang-ups with this one arise from. The atmosphere and suspense are top-notch, and in fact, it’s probably one of the most atmospheric movies of the 1960’s, an amazing feat given the lower budget nature of this film. The suspense needs no explanation – there are multiple scenes throughout that pack a punch, and all without scare chords, which is a nice change of pace compared to more modern-day movies.

Even so, I can’t say that I’m not occasionally bored during this. The story is engaging enough, especially the abandoned pavilion that Candace Hilligoss’ character has a sinister attraction to, but because Hilligoss’ character is sort of hard to relate to, she doesn’t always make the most interesting protagonist.

There’s also the question of what’s actually happening at some points during the movie. Given the finale, I don’t quite know what’s happening during some scenes, and it’s not easy to expand on without spoiling anything, so warning, HERE THERE BE SPOILERS:

At the end, it’s revealed that the main character died due to the automobile accident at the beginning of the film (which took place in Kansas), and everything after was her soul attempting to move on. In one of the final scenes, we see her body in a car being pulled from the water.

We also see a police officer, minister, and doctor examining the last place she was seen after moving to Utah. She didn’t move to Utah until after she died, so therein lies my confusion. If she died, her physical body still in the car that went underwater, then I’d think everything after wouldn’t be reality as those alive know it. But it seems that her spirit is actually a physical form that moved and interacted, however frigidly and ineffectively, with the people she met in Utah.

All of this could have been solved if they had just removed the scene in Utah, as then the only relevant, real-world scene would be the car, with her body, being dragged up in Kansas. But they do show that she was apparently in Utah, so she apparently has two physical bodies, which is one more than I have, so in a way, that’s impressive. Even if it’s a Limbo situation, I wouldn’t think that would have an impact on the actual reality others live in and perceive.

I know this is a classic, but this point doesn’t seem nit-picky to me; it just seems logical. It doesn’t mean that the movie isn’t atmosphere or possessing of an occasional uneasy, dreamlike quality. It’s just something that bothered me when I first saw this movie, and something that still bothers me today.

Otherwise, though Candace Hilligoss’ character isn’t easy to relate to, the film is decent. It feels like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone, and as I said, it does have some pretty creepy and suspenseful scenes throughout to keep your engagement going.

Though I didn’t understand Candace Hilligoss’ character, I do think she gave a pretty stellar performance, and not only that, but she was about the only cast member who truly mattered. Sidney Berger did well as a pushy, annoying guy, and both Art Ellison and Stan Levitt are calming voices in what otherwise is a howling storm, but when it comes down to it, Hilligoss’ performance pretty much stands far above anyone else’s.

Naturally, Carnival of Souls is a classic, and there’s good reason for that. It’s not a classic that I’ve ever loved, but I have good friends who do indeed see the movie as a masterpiece. It’s decent, but as far as personal enjoyment goes, I don’t even know if this is something I’d give an above-average score. Plenty of things work, but some story elements befuddle me, so while many others may give this one a higher rating, I have to go with what I truly feel, for better or worse.

7/10

Directed by Owen Crump [Other horror films: N/A]

This is a pretty unassuming movie, and I can sort of see why I’ve never heard of this one before (aside from the fact that some refer to it as just a thriller), but it’s a relatively tight story, some solid suspense, and comes across as something of a rough gem. Before I go on, if you’re into 60’s horror and haven’t seen this, I’d recommend checking it out.

From the get-go, we know the killer is Grant Williams, and the film is really a psychological probe into his mental state (plot twist: he’s not particularly the picture of mental health), which is pretty fun, because his physique isn’t really what you’d expect. His killing style, a quick jab with an ice pick, is fun to watch. Just an average guy killing a random person in a crowded area, and you can see why he’d get away with it.

Williams here is great. I don’t really know him, but based off this performance, he might have been able to give a good Norman Bates performance a few years prior in Psycho. The others here, including Shirley Knight, Onslow Stevens, and William Leslie, all do well, but this is really the Grant Williams show, which worked fine for me.

As far as mentally unstable characters go, the one Williams plays is pretty fantastic. He’s completely detached from reality at times, and toward the end, he gives us a really stellar conclusion, and as I mentioned, pretty tense at times also.

Any black-and-white thriller/horror dealing with a psychopath made in the immediate years following Psycho would have a harder time gaining traction, but I’d still recommend giving this one a look. Sure, some aspects are rough, such as occasional camera-work, but The Couch was still a mostly solid film, and I’m glad I took the time with it.

7.5/10

Directed by Robert Aldrich [Other horror films: Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964)]

It’s been some many years since I first saw this movie, but I’m happy to report that, with a rewatch, this classic movie has lost exactly none of the magic. With a strong cast, an engaging story, and a rather dreary and helpless atmosphere, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is an utterly amazing movie.

A lot of the reason this movie works are the performances involved. Both Joan Crawford and Bette Davis do a fantastic job, Crawford as a wheelchair-bound character in a desperate situation, Davis as a long-faded former star, who’s slipping into deeper mental instability, probably not helped by her heavy drinking. Along with an early role from Victor Buono (perhaps most well-known as King Tut from the 1966 Batman series) rounding out the main cast, you can see the movie has a lot going for it already.

These three did a decent amount for the genre too, which I think’s worth mentioning. Davis later appeared in such films as Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (which I think makes a great double feature with this one, if you have five hours free), Scream, Pretty Peggy, and Burnt Offerings. For Crawford, she appeared in Strait-Jacket, I Saw What You Did, and Berserk. While Buono was more well-known for Batman, he did appear in both The Strangler and Lo strangolatore di Vienna (also known as The Mad Butcher).

Strong cast aside, the story here is deeply engaging. On the surface, it’s not overly complex, but they throw in a few surprises, and the relationship examined between the sisters brought a lot of emotion to the movie (especially regarding Davis’ performance, who’s character was both often heinous and often heartbreaking).

I suspect the biggest issue that some people would have with this film, or at least the largest hurdle they’d have before watching it, would be the length. At two hours and fourteen minutes, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is a long movie, but I personally don’t think any scene needs cutting, and I think the whole film is rewarding, especially the somewhat tonally different finale on a bright, sunny day on the beach.

The black-and-white is crisp in the film, and I think it helps loan the film some additional atmosphere (which the film certainly isn’t lacking on, but even so, every little bit plays it’s part). The suspense here is very solid, and with the story and cast, I can’t think of a good reason not to recommend this one.

9/10

Directed by Edward L. Cahn [Other horror films: Creature with the Atom Brain (1955), The She-Creature (1956), Zombies of Mora Tau (1957), Voodoo Woman (1957), Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957), It! The Terror from Beyond Space (1958), Curse of the Faceless Man (1958), The Four Skulls of Jonathan Drake (1959), Invisible Invaders (1959)]

I didn’t really grow up on many Disney movies, but the 1991 Beauty and the Beast was one of them, and I deeply love it. The 2017 version with Emma Watson is also quite enjoyable.

This movie is nothing like those.

For one, it’s not a musical. The plot is also significantly altered (unlike other adaptations, the Beast is only a beast at night – during the day, he’s a normal guy), and it occasionally has a darker tone, though I regret to say toward the end, it followed the original story more, leading away from any horror aspects to more a fantastical feeling.

There were some fun things here, though – the king’s father had a curse put on his bloodline by a sorcerer, and to find a way to end the curse, some main characters search through catacombs looking for the hidden tomb, which was a fun sequence. The transformation scenes were good also (he legitimately looked like the Wolfman for a bit), but there were a bit too many, alas.

While no one did particularly poorly here, only two cast members stood out. Eduard Franz (who hasn’t been in many horror films, but was featured strongly in The Four Skulls of Jonathan Drake) was a solid character, and I enjoyed almost every scene he was in. Stronger still was Walter Burke (a rather big name, I loved his Irish accent here, despite the film taking place in Italy), who played a sleazy side character who was glorious in every moment he appeared.

I wish they had kept darker elements toward the conclusion, as opposed to dropping much of the suspense about halfway through. The director, Edward Cahn, had done plenty of horror films before this, which are listed above. It is worth noting that this was his final film before his death in 1963.

When Beauty and the Beast had more horror-like moments, I think the movie stood out more. Regardless, I had fun still, and would recommend the movie to fans of the Disney animated film, if only so they can compare the two. It’s a bit light on horror, but is the movie mostly fun, aside from the somewhat played out conclusion? I rather think so.

7/10