Possessing a somewhat misleading title, Valley of the Zombies is an okay way to spend 56 minutes. It’s a lower budget film, to be sure, but it still has that snappy dialogue that made the time period so fun, and an occasionally interesting (if not original) plot.
From the title, one might expect some voodoo shenanigans (as that was the cause of zombies pre-1968, the most classic examples being I Walked with a Zombie and White Zombie), but that’s not what this is at all. There is someone who might count as a zombie, and there is in fact a reference to the “valley of the zombies,” but the bigger culprit is occasional hypnotism.
I don’t know the name, but Ian Keith did a pretty solid job as the menacing killer. He just has that face, and despite the cheapness of the film, did have a good presence. Not unexpectedly, Robert Livingston (Riders of the Whistling Skull) was a bit generic, but he still worked well with Lorna Gray, and the pair had some good snappy dialogue, which is always a joy to hear.
Of course, this being an older movie, Gray didn’t have that great of a range. She was great with her quips, no doubt, but she also got scared at the sound of a windowblind crashing down, not to mention fainting when she heard the word ‘zombie.’ Fainting. sigh Sometimes the sexism and racism (as Gray here took the place of someone like Mantan Moreland à la King of the Zombies) in these older films are hard to swallow, and I just wish they didn’t have to throw in “Oh, the woman is scared of everything” trash. It just gets old.
Otherwise, Valley of the Zombies is competent. The finale (taking place on a fog-covered building roof) was pretty solid, and like I said, Ian Keith did really good in his threatening role. It’s also quite digestible, at a solid 56 minutes. To be sure, there’s nothing spectacular here, but there’s also not anything making the film unworthy.
Really, this isn’t a good movie, but it’s definitely not what I’d call a bad movie. Even for the time, it might have been a bit outdated, but it was serviceable, and while below average, when it comes to 40’s horror, you could certainly do a lot worse.
Directed by J.S. Cardone [Other horror films: The Slayer (1982), Shadowzone (1990), Shadowhunter (1993), The Forsaken (2001)]
I can’t say that I love Wicked Little Things, because I don’t, but I do find it a moderately enjoyable film a lot of the time, and though I don’t think it’s great, at the very least it’s a movie that might be worth seeing a couple of times.
The emotional turmoil the main characters are going through (a mother with two daughters who has recently lost her husband) adds a lot of feeling to the film. Lori Heuring works great with Scout Taylor-Compton, and I buy the mother-daughter relationship. Throw in some political messages, and Wicked Little Things shows it has a bit more to offer.
Luckily, I don’t have much cause to speak about my politics in the course of reviewing movies. It may be relevant on occasion (The Thaw, for instance), but for the most part, the fact I’m on the far-left doesn’t really come into play. Here, though, we have children that were killed in a mine accident in the 1910’s coming back for revenge, which I certainly can’t fault them for.
Labor laws in the USA are still quite horrible (look at the lack of power so many unions have – any union that has a no-strike clause is functionally pointless), and if capitalism could get away with it, children would still be working in mines. You can work at 14 years old in many places (with restrictions). God bless capitalism, amiright?
Now, I think a fair point could be made that Wicked Little Things didn’t focus on this that much – even facing a descendant of the mine owner, none of this was on the forefront. Still, if you enjoy the eight-hour workday and the end of the worst of child labor, thank your local socialists and communists, as it’s due to their fight that we have those nowadays.
I wasn’t blown away by Lori Heuring (Hunger), but she did decent, and shined in her scenes with Scout Taylor-Compton (who went on to play Laurie in the Halloween remake). Taylor-Compton was perhaps my favorite performance here, on that note – she did great with the emotional scenes, and possessed a good strength. Chloë Grace Moretz (who later played Carrie in the 2013 movie, and also starred in 2018’s Suspiria) was decent as a child actress, though it’s hard to say that she really stood out.
Not a lot of other performances need be mentioned. I admit I liked seeing Geoffrey Lewis (The Devil’s Rejects), but he didn’t have a whole lot to do. Ben Cross did an okay job, and no doubt Martin McDougall did well as a dickish rich guy, but I do think his character could have done with, well, more character.
I do wish the movie had a bit more oompf come the finale, I admit. There were some elements that I was hoping would be delved deeper into, such as the miner’s lease or the relationship the Tunny family had with the mine-owners (the Carlton’s). I just got the sense a little more could have been fleshed out about some of this, and though the ending was okay, I feel it was weaker than it could have been.
Wicked Little Things isn’t above average, but I don’t think it’s really below average. I guess it’s fair to say, then, I think it’s average. I’ve seen this once before, and I think I enjoyed it more the first time I saw it, but that said, I didn’t have a bad time revisiting this. It’s not great, but it’s not awful, and certainly someone could do a lot worse.
Directed by Danny Pang [Other horror films: Gin gwai (2002), Gin gwai 2 (2004), Gin gwai 10 (2005), Gwai wik (2006), Sum yuen (2007), Chung oi (2007), Tung ngan (2010), Tong ling zhi liu shi gu zhai (2015), Mo jing (2015), Wang xiang zheng (2016), Warning from Hell (2022)] & Oxide Chun Pang [Other horror films: Bangkok Haunted (2001), Gin gwai (2002), Gin gwai 2 (2004), Sei mong se jun (2004), Gin gwai 10 (2005), Gwai wik (2006), Mon seung (2006), Tung ngan (2010)]
More than anything, I think The Messengers strikes me as being a particularly tepid movie. There’s an okay story here, sure, but the execution is quite weak, and if you leave this movie finding much of it forgettable, I don’t think you can really be blamed.
Part of the problem is that elements of the story aren’t well expanded on, such as the presence of William B. Davis’ character, or the full extent of John Corbett’s character, or why some of these spirits took the actions they did. This stuff wouldn’t be hard to flesh out (well, most of it – trying to make sense of Corbett’s character might take a bit of work), and I think any mainstream horror film wouldn’t have a problem doing such, but for some reason, that’s just not the case here.
As always, the flaws of the plot are of no fault of the performances. Dylan McDermott (Hardware) is perfectly solid as the father here, and Kristen Stewart (Underwater) does quite well as the troubled teenage daughter. Penelope Ann Miller (The Relic) didn’t really do that much for me, and William B. Davis (of X-Files fame), while nice to see, didn’t really add anything but more confusion, but hey, at least John Corbett shone a few times.
The jump scares generally didn’t do much for me. They felt just way too Hollywood, and while the spirits looked occasionally okay insofar as design goes, that stuttering way they moved got sort of old quick. Related to the ghosts, their angle here just sort of bothers me. It’s not the concept, which is okay, and has been done before well, but the execution just struck me as quite weak.
Really, The Messengers might be okay for a single watch – I certainly had an okay time when I first saw this movie. But it really doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny with a second viewing, and just feels quite tepid and disappointing, which is a shame, because the setting at least has some potential.
Directed by William Castle [Other horror films: House on Haunted Hill (1959), The Tingler (1959), 13 Ghosts (1960), Homicidal (1961), Mr. Sardonicus (1961), The Old Dark House (1963), Strait-Jacket (1964), The Night Walker (1964), I Saw What You Did (1965), Let’s Kill Uncle (1966), The Spirit Is Willing (1967), Shanks (1974)]
William Castle’s first delve into horror, Macabre is admittedly a bit light. There are some suspenseful scenes at times, and the atmosphere is on point, but ‘horror’ feels a bit strong. Nonetheless, I’m a liberal man, and have no problem considering Macabre a horror film, and more so, have no problem saying that while not great, it’s certianly a nifty one.
Primarily the film deals with the disappearance and abduction of a little girl who has been buried alive, and a chase to find her location before she dies. It’s tense, and being a mystery, occasionally convoluted, but that’s just part of the fun. Based on a novel titled The Marble Forest by 12 authors (each of whom wrote a chapter of the book), Macabre can feel stagey at times, but I still think it’s worth it.
Partially, that’s just due to William Castle’s charm – we’re warned at the beginning of the film to keep an eye out on those sitting around us, lest they show signs of extreme fright (as always, Castle’s films would have been a hoot to see in the theaters). I also like the story, though, and while the ending perhaps could have been executed a bit better, the overall concept is great, and the ending was definitely a nice surprise. Some flashbacks were also used to decent effect.
William Prince consistently reminded me of another actor, but I never could place who. Despite that, he did a very fine job as the lead. Jacqueline Scott was good as a potential suspect, which is something that can fairly be said for most of the cast, though I was hoping for something more from Susan Morrow’s character. It was sort of nice seeing Howard Hoffman here, a year before he played the butler in House on Haunted Hill. Related, Ellen Corby, who I’ve seen in films such as The Strangler and Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte was a nice surprise.
One thing that I do think helped this film is the fact much of it took place in a misty graveyard, with trees, vines, tombstones, the whole works. Some of the better scenes in the film took place in this setting, and I thought it brought with it fantastic atmosphere. This doesn’t come close to beating the creepiness of later Castle movies, such as the aforementioned House on Haunted Hill, but I did like it.
And another addition I found charming – the closing credits list the performances of the film divided into those who were dead at the end, and those who were still living. This was coupled with simple animation of hearses and, once we got to the living characters, people walking by. I mean, we’re talking early, black-and-white animation, but it was still just the thing I’m not surprised to see in a Castle movie.
Macabre isn’t anywhere near the calibre of Castle’s best work, be it House on Haunted Hill, Mr. Sardonicus, or Homicidal, but having seen it twice, it’s a nice little introduction to early William Castle, and for that reason alone, I do think that if you’re a classic horror fan, it’s worth seeing at least once, even if it’s not great.
Directed by Brett Leonard [Other horror films: The Dead Pit (1989), The Lawnmower Man (1992), Man-Thing (2005), Feed (2005)]
It’s possible that this movie is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. I don’t think Hideaway is a good movie, but I do find it occasionally decent, if only because of Jeff Goldblum’s presence. That said, it’s not a 90’s movie that I see attracting too many people for a plethora of reasons.
Based on a novel by Dean Koontz (though he was apparently quite displeased with the final product, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t that close to the source material), the story here is okay. It has sort of an Eye-vibe, what with Goldblum’s character sharing a telepathic connection with a serial killer. It’s nothing fancy, but given that we do have Jeff Goldblum, that does make it moderately more tolerable.
Which is even more useful when you consider that this movie is around an hour and 45 minutes. Had the central performance come from someone less engaging than Goldblum, I really don’t know if I’d have the will-power to get through this, but just because of him starring, that does add a lot.
Personally, I know Goldblum most from Jurassic Park, a movie I’ve loved since I was a child (and one of the few movies I actually own on Blu-ray), but he’s also known, by the horror community, for films such as The Fly, Mister Frost, and the television film The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. His performance here is pretty solid, and was actually one of the reasons I first went out of my way to see this movie.
As an antagonist, Jeremy Sisto (Wrong Turn, May, Dead & Breakfast, and Population 436) was pretty solid despite this being a moderately early role for him. He didn’t have that much in terms of agency, but he was suitably sinister. Alfred Molina (Doctor Octopus from Spider-Man 2) was nice to see, Alicia Silverstone (Batman & Robin, regretfully) had her moments, and though I don’t know her, Christine Lahti was okay.
One thing that’s particularly damning about this film, and this is something that I’ve forgotten since the first time I saw this, was some truly God-awful CGI. While this is mostly restrained to the first 15 minutes and the final ten minutes (not counting the post-credits scene), it was really laughable just how bad the special effects looked. It carried with it an almost hokey charm, but then it lasted longer than it should have. In fact, it reminded me a bit of Ghost in the Machine, another 90’s movie that’s a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, only I tend to enjoy that one a bit more.
I can’t think of a ton of reasons to really watch Hideaway. Sure, if you’re one who wishes to consume a large portion of Goldblum’s output, it’s worth a watch, and perhaps if you groove on subpar psychic-link horror movies, it’s right up your alley, but it’s just not a spectacular movie. I don’t think it’s abysmal, though – it’s watchable, and though maybe a bit longer than it needs to be, still reasonably suitable for a movie night. It’s just not that good.
Directed by Stuart Gordon [Other horror films: Re-Animator (1985), From Beyond (1986), Dolls (1986), Daughter of Darkness (1990), The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), Dagon (2001), Bunker of Blood: Chapter 5: Psycho Sideshow: Demon Freaks (2018)]
Castle Freak is a movie that I’ve long heard about from friends in the horror community, but didn’t see until October 2017. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and seeing it for the second time, I’m pretty certain this would be in my top 20 horror films from the 1990’s.
Possessing quite a dark atmosphere, complete with tackling topics such as alcoholism, child abuse, the loss of a child, and extreme guilt, Castle Freak isn’t one of those fun and light-hearted horror flicks from the 1980’s. There might be a lighter scene or two, but unlike some of Stuart Gordon’s past films, such as Re-Animator, this has an almost singularly serious aura, and at times feels downright tragic, almost depressingly so.
Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crampton (both of whom starred in Re-Animator and also From Beyond) were great here, Combs really giving a fantastically dramatic performance. Crampton’s character did bother me at times, but then again, we’re talking about characters who were in quite a difficult position, so I can’t fault them for that. Though she hasn’t done much else, Jessica Dollarhide really pulls everything together as the blind daughter of Combs’ and Cramptons’ characters. She shines beautifully toward the end, and the performances here just work.
But of course, most things here work. The film isn’t too grisly as far as the gore goes, but we do get some disturbing scenes, from a woman beating her son with a whip to sexual assault (including mutitilation, as a woman gets her nipples bitten off). None of this is played lightly – like I said, Castle Freak is a dark and dismal film, which I think works very well in it’s credit.
Also, it’s worth mentioning is that while the film does have a low-fi feel to it (it almost looks like an 80’s movie at times, despite being filmed 1994), the castle looked quite impressive, and the setting in a small Italian village was quite nice (and reminded me a bit of a personal favorite Mario Bava film of mine, being Baron Blood). It was a lower-budget film, to be sure, but never once did that negatively impact anything here.
Castle Freak’s title almost does a disservice to the movie, and may even be why I avoided it for so long. Just by the title, it seemed like a goofy film. There’s nothing goofy about the movie, though; Castle Freak has a quality dark atmosphere with a decent amount of tragedy and suspenseful sequences, and if you’ve not yet seen this one, from one horror fan to another, I’d recommend you do so.
Directed by Richard Brandes [Other horror films: Out for Blood (2004)]
One of the many movies that I saw a long time back, and remembered very little of going into a fresh viewing, Penny Dreadful was an okay experience. It’s not a good movie, really, but there’s no doubt in my mind that it does possess some decent elements. I don’t think it’s something I’d want to throw on again in the future, but for a one-time viewing, you could do much worse.
Where Penny Dreadful shines, at least in the first half of the film, is the tension, which is built up well. I do think it falls a bit flat the longer the movie goes on, but it can get pretty suspenseful at points. It’s nothing to shame Hitchcock or anything, but I was surprised by how well the tension was held. There were also some occasionally creepy scenes thrown in, which added to the fun.
Problematically, there’s not really enough meat to the story to justify an hour and a half film. For most of the movie, Rachel Miner’s character was trapped in a vehicle, being tortured by her own personal trauma (she has amaxophobia, or a phobia of cars) and a mysterious and violent hitchhiker. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I applaud the movie for being able to minimize their filming location, but I think it might have worked out a little better had the movie been tighter, maybe just 70 minutes as opposed to 90.
As it was, Rachel Miner did a pretty good job. Though she’s not a name I know (she was in Tooth and Nail, from 2007, but I’ve not seen that film in a long-ass time), Miner definitely had the ability to keep my interest in her character’s well-being alive. I was rooting for her all the way though. Mimi Rogers, in her limited screen-time, was solid. Others, including Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, Deadly Blessing, and many others), Mickey Jones, Chad Todhunter, and Tammy Filor, seemed to just be thrown in to add a little more time, and none of them were relevant at all to the story.
This isn’t a particularly gory movie – we do see some people get stabbed, be it in the foot (which was, on a side-note, probably the best kill of the movie) or multiple times in the back, along with the aftereffects of someone’s toe being cut off – but none of these are done in overly gory fashions. It’s more the suspense and surprise that could make these scenes stand out, though I doubt anything here would end up being that memorable.
Overall, Penny Dreadful wasn’t a terrible time. I think my limited memory of the film was worse than how it actually goes. At worst, this movie could be said to be pretty forgettable. It is below average, but again, I’m impressed with a few elements here and there. I don’t think I’d want to see it again anytime soon, but if you want an okay movie to pass the time with, you might as well give it a shot.
Directed by Herb Freed [Other horror films: Haunts (1976), Beyond Evil (1980)]
When I first saw Graduation Day, I found it underwhelming, but quickly forgot about it. I can’t say that I’ll remember it much better with this revisit, but I can at least say that it’s somewhat watchable, though far from a good movie.
One thing I did particularly enjoy about this one is the sheer amount of potential suspects. There’s a lot of characters here, and while the answer to who’s behind the killings isn’t an overly creative one, at least they had potential to do more with it.
What’s mildly more impressive is the amount of performances that I actually liked. It’s not just Christopher George (Pieces, Mortuary, and City of the Living Dead) and Patch Mackenzie (who was kick-ass in her moderately short screen-time); we get some decent acting from E.J. Peaker, Michael Pataki (of Grave of the Vampire; also worth mentioning, one of his scenes just cracked me up), Denise Cheshire, all along with a semi-early appearance of Linnea Quigley (Night of the Demons, Silent Night, Deadly Night, The Return of the Living Dead, and hundreds of others). It’s true that E. Danny Murphy’s performance falters at times, but even so, he was still at least okay.
Also, somewhat surprisingly, some of the sequences here were filmed in somewhat interesting ways. The first five minutes of the movie seem like some sports documentary, what with all of these impressive sporty things (pole vaulting, track-and-field type stuff) and concluding with a traumatic death during a run. There’s also a few other scenes, such as Cheshire’s character doing bar-hopping (I’m not remotely a sports guy – there’s these two elevated bars, and she’s jumping from one to the other in impressive fashion) or a juxtaposition toward the end of Mackenzie’s character running from danger to the opening death of her character’s sister. These are just small touches, but they do feel special, especially in comparison to the rest of this movie.
What isn’t impressive, and this is certainly problematic, are the kills. While there’s a decent body count, there are only three kills I’d personally label decent, and one is just barely counted, being a somewhat weak decapitation. There was a character stabbed through the throat with a fencing sword, though, that looked pretty decent, and another character who practices some pole vaulting and lands on some cleverly-placed spikes. None of the kills here are great, though, which is a damn shame, as the movie did have some things going in other departments.
Another problem is that the film, at an hour and 36 minutes, does occasionally feel padded. This might not have mattered had some of the kills been done better, or maybe less time was spent on red herrings (though I do personally love the cop who hides a joint in the barrel of his service weapon – quality guy), but as it stands, it just felt like it was dragging at times.
All-in-all, Graduation Day wasn’t a bad time. It wasn’t a great time, or even that good, but it was fine for a lower-budget Troma-released slasher. If you’re a slasher fan, I’d recommend giving it one viewing, but for most people, this isn’t something I’d really recommend them taking the time to see.
Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin [Other horror films: Devil’s Due (2014), Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’), Ready or Not (2019), Scream (2022), Scream VI (2023)], David Bruckner [Other horror films: The Signal (2007), Southbound (2015, segment ‘The Accident’), The Ritual (2017), The Night House (2020), Hellraiser (2022)], Tyler Gillett [Other horror films: Devil’s Due (2014), Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’), Ready or Not (2019), Scream (2022), Scream VI (2023)], Justin Martinez [Other horror films: Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’)], Glenn McQuaid [Other horror films: I Sell the Dead (2008), Chilling Visions: 5 States of Fear (2014)], Joe Swanberg [Other horror films: Silver Bullets (2011)], Chad Villella [Other horror films: Southbound (2015, segments ‘The Way In’ & ‘The Way Out’)], Ti West [Other horror films: The Roost (2005), Trigger Man (2007), The House of the Devil (2009), Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009), The Innkeepers (2011), The ABCs of Death (2012, segment ‘M is for Miscarriage’), The Sacrament (2013), X (2022), Pearl (2022), MaXXXine (2024)] & Adam Wingard [Other horror films: Home Sick (2007), Pop Skull (2007), A Horrible Way to Die (2010), You’re Next (2011), The ABCs of Death (2012, segment ‘Q Is for Quack’), V/H/S/2 (2013, segment ‘Phase I Clinical Trials’), Blair Witch (2016)]
I have to admit that, after seeing this one twice, I struggle incredibly hard to see the appeal. It’s not as though the base idea isn’t worth attempting, but the final product here comes across to me as a total mess.
Obviously, the biggest problem here is that almost none of the stories are good. Even the framing sequence is flimsy (and the low-budget British anthology Screamtime did a similar set-up better), and of the five segments (“Amateur Night”, “Second Honeymoon”, “Tuesday the 17th”, “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger”, and “10/31/98”), only two are passable, and that’s being damn generous.
The only thing “Amateur Night” had going for it were occasionally decent special effects, and they faltered horribly come the ending (those wings, tho). “Tuesday the 17th” struck me as a total waste, if I’m being honest. “Second Honeymoon” tried, what with the plot twist, but as the plot twist had little in the way of set-up, I’d say that it failed horribly. “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger” had the most potential out of all of these, but I found the ending laughably atrocious.
“10/31/98” was decent. I think what really pulled that one miles above the others here were the special effects. I didn’t love the story, but once the guys got to the house, we did see some creepy things (hands coming out of the walls, random birds flying by, that random type of stuff), and I appreciated the vibe. I do think the ending (which is also the final scene of the movie, because the framing story doesn’t frame around the final segment, because of course it doesn’t) was lackluster, but by this point, I’m just happy that the movie has finally ended.
And that’s another thing that needs to be mentioned. Not only are most of the stories severely lacking in enjoyable content, the movie is almost two hours. Most of that just had to be wasted time, as if you edit just the interesting things out of each respective story, there’s no way you get more than 15 minutes of content, and again, that’s being quite generous.
One last thing before hitting on one of the few positives of the film – there are almost no likable characters in this whole film. The framing story just gives us guys who routinely sexually assault women and laughs it off as a joke, which isn’t too different from the guys we got in “Amateur Night.” The characters in “Tuesday the 17th” were more generic-slasher types, and were at least bearable, but aside from a single character, there’s no one in V/H/S who is even worth rooting for.
That person is Emily (played by Helen Rogers), from “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger.” Rogers does a great job with her character, and gives us someone quite sympathetic, and her emotional performance near the end of the segment was great. Really, she’s the only performance in this film that even came close to standing out, so definitely I give kudos to her.
Otherwise, this movie is just awful. For the life of me, I cannot see why there seems to be a decently-sized contingent of people who enjoy this one. On the one hand, I am glad that there exists people who get more out of this movie than I ever have (as I have seen this twice now, and I wasn’t impressed either time), but on the other, I just don’t get it. I don’t see what’s impressive here, and when I wasn’t bored, I just felt that, save for some occasionally-good special effects, the story was uninspired.
V/H/S may just be one of those movies that wasn’t meant for me. I didn’t enjoy seeing it again, and I think it’s safe to say that there’s not many circumstances that exist that’d cause me to watch this again in the future.
As many of you may know, Vincent Price is one of my favorite actors in the horror genre. It’s hard to imagine not liking one of his movies, and The Last Man on Earth, based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend, is not only a quality movie, but one of the finest of the 1960’s.
Not only that, but it has to stand out as one of the most dismal. True, I think the ending of Night of the Living Dead is ultimately more depressing, but the tone of this film throughout is just one of hopelessness and solitude. It has a fantastic aura – the city void of any living beings, which just looked amazing – and for some quality atmosphere, you need search no further.
Of course, Vincent Price is great here. In fact, this is probably one of his best performances (at least out of the movies I’ve seen), and his internal monologue (with perhaps some of the best first-person narration in horror) was just depressing. There’s a scene where he’s watching some old home videos of his now-deceased family, and begins wildly laughing, only to soon turn into uncontrollable sobbing. A damn strong and emotional performance here, Vincent Price knocks this out of the fucking park.
Also worth mentioning is how the story is told. For the first 28 minutes, we get a look into Price’s current life, and how he fills his days (throwing bodies into a burning pit, getting some fresh garlic, searching for the hidden vampires to put a stake through their hearts – all that monotonous fun), and then we’re given a 24-minute flashback as to how the world got to the deserted husk we’ve been seeing. Once the flashback’s done, we come back to the present-day, and Price learns that he may not be as alone as he thought.
None of this is necessarily groundbreaking in terms of story-telling, but I did think that it worked out really well, and just gives a little more flavor to this movie (as though it really needed any).
Another unique aspect of the film is the nature of the antagonists. Technically, they’re vampires, and share many of the traits (can’t stand their reflection in a mirror, unable to operate in daylight, rather dislike garlic, need to be staked through the heart), but really, these things feel a bit more like Romero zombies (and as it’s four years before Night of the Living Dead is released, that is impressive). One thing I personally don’t care for is how these vampires can talk – one just bangs on a door all night and screams at Price’s character. It’s sort of funny, but the idea that this has been going on every night for three years borders on ridiculous.
There’s also something of a twist revealed in the last quarter of the movie, and while I didn’t necessarily love where the movie went afterward, the twist itself was fantastically dark and demoralizing. It’s something that Price’s character doesn’t have a lot of time to dwell on at the time, but it’s such a kick in the face, and I love it (and following the kick in the face that I didn’t love, being the dog, I appreciated it).
I don’t love how the movie ends, which is a shame, as I utterly adored most of what came before. Once Franca Bettoia’s character shows up, while it brings with it the aforementioned twist I love, along with some interesting ideas, I just don’t dig the movie as much, probably because Price is no longer the sole focus, and the sense of isolation (especially in the last 15 minutes) is entirely gone.
One last note is that I really enjoyed the conversations Price had in the flashbacks with Giacomo Rossi Stuart’s character – both are scientists, but Stuart’s character is more willing to believe fantastic theories and in fact, uses garlic and mirrors to repel the vampires before it became fashionable. I wish we had seen a bit more of that guy, because I enjoyed his chemistry with Price.
Were it not for the fact that I don’t love the finale (and never have – this is probably the third time I’ve seen this, if not fourth, and I never cared much for the last twenty or so minutes), this movie would be close-to-perfect. As it stands, it’s still a very strong movie, and I have a hard time imagining any top 15 horror films of the 1960’s not having this smuggled somewhere within it.
Jiggy's Horror Corner 