Category Archives: British Horror

Horror Express-1974

Horror Express-1974

Director Eugenio Martin

Starring Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #311

7780013

Reviewed December 30, 2015

Grade: B

Horror Express (1974) is a fun 1970s Spanish/British horror film starring legendary horror actors Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.

A horror version of Agatha Christie’s Murder On The Orient Express with a bit of camp thrown in, it is an entertaining late-night experience, on a low-budget level.

It is the early 1900’s, and while traveling from Shanghai to Moscow, via the Trans-Siberian Express, a British anthropologist named Professor Alexander Saxton (Lee) brings an enormous,  mysterious crate on board that contains a creature he discovered in a cave.

What we know is it has something to do with human evolution.

A fellow passenger, Doctor Wells (Cushing), and various other passengers become suspicious of the crate and demand to have it opened.

Things go awry and victims begin to be murdered by the creature (an ape-like monster) and left with eyes completely white with missing pupils and irises.

The best part of Horror Express is the setting. The cozy train is a perfect backdrop for the events taking place and it makes the film exciting as the different cars are set-decorated nicely.

This lends itself to a sense of entrapment and being unable to escape the creature as it roams freely from car to car.

For being a low-budget film,  the train sets are quite believable, as are the sounds of the train. It feels like the actors are on a real train as the tooting horns and the sounds of the tracks are authentic.

Having actors as big as Lee and Cushing gives the film respect in horror circles and both actors do believable work.

This film would not have been as good without the talents (and name recognition) of both.

There are also interesting supporting characters and I didn’t find the acting to be too over-the-top as is known to occur in similar types of horror films.

Specifically, the countess’s role and the appearance of Telly Savalas as a Cossack officer investigating events are interesting.

Fans of this genre of horror will understand that suspension of disbelief is necessary as the plot gets a bit goofy- something about the creature taking the information from the victim’s brain and the victims subsequently turning into zombies- it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Especially towards the end, as some drunken Russians and some weird resurrections happen, but that is somehow okay.

For a late-night viewing with some spirits, you can’t ask too many questions and Horror Express (1974) is a decent flick.

The Nanny-1965

The Nanny-1965

Director Seth Holt

Starring Bette Davis

Scott’s Review #256

70089620

Reviewed July 11, 2015

Grade: B

The Nanny is a 1965 Hammer productions thriller starring legendary film icon Bette Davis as a mysterious nanny caring for a ten-year-old boy named Joey.

Joey has recently been released from a mental institution and returned home to resume normal life, but has he been “cured”?

There is an obvious tension between Joey and Nanny, but the audience at first does not know what that tension is exactly. Why do they dislike each other? Why is Joey afraid of her?

As the plot unfolds the suspense and tensions thicken as various events occur and Joey’s parents and Aunt Pen are further fleshed out to the plot. Past events are revisited and the story becomes thrilling.

At one point, long before Joey’s return home, his younger sister has drowned and the circumstances are vague. It has devastated the family, including Nanny. Joey has been blamed for her death though he insists that Nanny is the culprit.

Nobody except the neighbor girl believes Joey and the audience is left to wonder who to believe and who to root for- Joey or Nanny? Davis, like Nanny, brings a warmness to her character, but is she sincere? Is it an act? Is Joey a sweet boy or maniacal?

These questions race through the minds of the audience as the film progresses. When the mother, Virginia eats tainted food, the obvious conclusion is that Nanny poisoned the food since she prepared it. But why? Did she do this?

As the plot is slowly explained, there are a few chills, though the ending is not all too surprising.

Any film starring Bette Davis is a treasure in my mind, though admittedly it is not her finest. Still, her finest is tough to match.

The Nanny is a good film, though not a great film. It is shot in black and white which is a nice touch for a thriller.

The main reason to watch is certainly Davis’s performance, which is always mesmerizing. Traditionally playing gruff, mean, or bitchy parts (especially in her later years), The Nanny allows Davis to play a traditionally sympathetic role.

She is seemingly sweet, proper, and well-organized. A perfect nanny on paper.

The role of Virginia, played by Wendy Craig, is a bit too neurotic and slightly over-acted. She is rather one-note as the fretting mother worried about her son. The character of the father is also a bit one-dimensional.

The Nanny is more of a classic thriller from the 1960s that is often lumped together with some of Bette Davis’s other films around the same period (Dead Ringer, Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?), and the aforementioned films are in large part superior to The Nanny, but as a stand-alone, it is a decent film.

The Wicker Man-1973

The Wicker Man-1973

Director Robin Hardy

Starring Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee

Scott’s Review #245

60021185

Reviewed May 31, 2015

Grade: B+

The Wicker Man is a cult horror film from 1973 that is considered one of the finest by horror critics.

While the film does not enamor me quite as much as some other favorites in the horror genre (Halloween, Rosemary’s Baby, The Shining, Dressed to Kill, and Suspiria) immediately spring to mind while thinking of 1970s-style horror gems, I cannot help but admire The Wicker Man’s creativity and religious overtones.

Despite not awarding the film a solid “A” rating, I look forward to viewing this film again and, perhaps over time, as some films do, it will see an adjustment in scoring.

Set on an island in the Scottish Hebrides, named Summerisle, a devout Christian (Edward Woodward) named Sergeant Howie travels to the island in search of a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison, thought to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

The inhabitants are vague, aloof, or hostile towards the policeman. He immediately is disturbed to notice the group worships Celtic gods and notices other strange acts of worship and sexual behavior (a naked dance), which he resists and disapproves of.

He is tempted by a gorgeous seductress, Willow, played by Britt Ekland- most notably known as a Bond girl in The Man with the Golden Gun, and butts heads with the island leader, Lord Summerisle, played by horror legend Christopher Lee.

As he attempts to locate the missing girl, he uncovers some very dark goings-on around the island as the annual Mayday harvest celebration is about to occur. He deduces that Rowan is slated to be the sacrifice at the celebration and he races to find her before it is too late.

But is there more to the island than meets the eye?

The Wicker Man is not mainstream fare and that is what I admire most about it, as well as its British flare. It strives to challenge the norm in horror and question who is right and who is wrong and who the audience should champion.

Religion and the occult have been portrayed in horror films for eons, but rarely given a normal face. Typically, the villains are scary, horrid, or even cartoonish, clearly defined as bad.

Despite all of the townspeople being in on the sacrifice, they are seemingly ordinary appearing. They raise their kids, farm, run stores, and teach the kids in a classroom setting.

On the surface, they appear wholesome and that is part of what makes The Wicker Man so scary. Rosemary’s Baby did the same thing.

Typically, any sort of satanic overtones or human/animal sacrifices, frighten audiences, especially if the culprits could be their neighbors, friends, or even loved ones. The realness is unnerving.

Differing, controversial, religious beliefs are a prevalent theme throughout The Wicker Man as are elements of good vs. evil.

The film is not predictable. It delves into questions of morals and beliefs- for example, Howie is a virgin- saving himself for marriage and trying to be a good, decent person.

He is the moral center of the film and, in his belief, everyone on the island is either perverted, crazy or a sinner.

By this logic, Howie looks down on others who are dissimilar to him and comes across as preachy. I do not get the impression that the film wants the audience to love Howie- or hate him.

The balance between the old gods (Christianity) and new gods (Celtic paganism) makes the film interesting.

The shocking conclusion involving an enormous, life-sized burning wicker man is terrifying beyond belief and by far the best part of the film, as the hero must come to terms with his fate.

The final thirty minutes are quite spectacular from the final twist through the ending.

My lack of an exceptional grade for The Wicker Man stems from it being a tad too slow-moving. Perhaps a few additional jumps or frights along the way would have been beneficial, but, on the other hand, it is not a scary film, nor does it try to be.

It is, however, quite intelligent and, I suspect will increase my enjoyment with each subsequent viewing.

A fine addition to the relics of classic horror, The Wicker Man (1973) is a creative, mysterious, and left-of-the-center film.

Madhouse-1974

Madhouse-1974

Director Jim Clark

Starring Vincent Price, Peter Cushing

Scott’s Review #233

220px-Madhouseposter[1]

Reviewed April 3, 2015

Grade: B-

Madhouse, a 1974 British horror film, stars horror icon Vincent Price who portrays a sympathetic Hollywood actor who is unsure of his sanity after the grisly murder of his trophy fiancé whom he may or may not have been responsible for murdering.

Mainly set in London, Madhouse also stars famed British actors in the latter stages of their careers, such as Peter Cushing, and is a treat for classic British horror fans.

The look of the film is stylistic and effective in the mood- the story, while silly, is also fun.

Paul Toombes (Price) is a famed actor notorious for his character of Dr. Death in a successful film franchise. He seemingly has it all and is the envy of his contemporaries- wealth, notoriety, and a glamorous blonde fiancé named Ellen.

After Ellen is murdered by someone dressed as Dr. Death, Paul is unable to remember the circumstances or his whereabouts during the murder.

After spending years in a mental institution in a confused state he is summoned to London to mount an acting comeback of sorts, reprising his Dr. Death alter-ego.

As the bodies begin to pile up, a whodunit commences- is Paul Toombes the killer, or is someone impersonating him?

The film itself is quite pleasing to a horror fan like me. The deaths, while silly, are fun and campy.

Mostly all female victims, a comical aspect is how the victims, when cornered by the killer, simply scream and stand there waiting to be sliced.

Wouldn’t they fight back in real life?

This film is certainly not realism at its finest but is a fun horror film. It is a bit exaggerated and over-the-top in a campy way but is also true to the 1970s style with the point of view scenes from the killer’s perspective.

A wonderful aspect of this film is real clips of old Vincent Price films (The Raven, The Pit and the Pendulum, and House of Usher) to name a few, featuring deceased horror god Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone.

Since the plot involves Price’s character being a former horror actor this is a wonderful opportunity to showcase long-ago classic horror films and it works perfectly.

I enjoyed the television scenes within the film plot as Paul revives his career and shoots a series for the BBC- the film chooses interesting, haunting sets and Cushing’s character of Herbert Flay and his zany wife reside in a spooky, vast mansion with eerie spiders that the wife is obsessed with.

The set pieces are great and very Halloween-like. And the spider-eating-flesh scene is excellent!

The tag team of Price and Cushing is fun to watch- both horror stalwarts connect well and both actors play off of each other successfully.

They had a ball while making this film.

Towards the end of the film, the plot becomes confusing and the big reveal as to the killer’s identity and the motivations surrounding is a disappointment.

The conclusion to the film is silly and makes little sense, although that is secondary to a film of this genre that borders on camp.

Madhouse (1974) is an enjoyable midnight flick starring two of the top classic horror icons.

Theatre of Blood-1973

Theatre of Blood-1973

Director Douglas Hickox

Starring Vincent Price, Diana Rigg

Scott’s Review #230

220px-Theatreofbloodposter

Reviewed March 23, 2015

Grade: B

Theatre of Blood (1973) stars Vincent Price, a long-time fixture in the classic/campy horror scene, as a demented Shakespearean theatre actor who enacts revenge on the critics who fail to recognize him with a coveted award that he cherishes.

Price, as always frighteningly good, delivers a campy, but not ridiculous, turn as the crazed actor.

Price’s appearance alone- tall, wiry, with sinister facial expressions, poises him perfectly to believability in any dastardly role he portrayed in his heyday and the performance he gives as Edward Lionheart is no exception.

Not solely a campy, melodramatic horror film, Theatre of Blood rises above that categorization with humorous tributes to Shakespeare and a unique chronicle of the Shakespearean works used to systematically off the critics one by one about the Shakespearean story- quite frankly in a comical and witty way.

Price eerily dresses in many different elaborate costumes to commit the murders- a wine-tasting expert, and a television host, among other interesting characters, and oftentimes, taunts his victims before permanently dispensing them.

The film is quite British in tone and humor and done in a tongue-in-cheek manner so that the murders are not to be taken at all too seriously.

The critics themselves- seven or eight of them- are deliciously fun. One is a loud boisterous fat man who always has his beloved poodles at his side.

What happens to him and the dogs is better left unsaid.

Another is an uptight, sophisticated woman (played by Price’s real-life wife Coral Browne). Several of the critics are created as comic villains so their demises are not all too devastating for the audience as they are rather unlikeable characters, to begin with.

I found myself rooting for Lionheart and looking forward to the next murder!

One criticism involves Diana Rigg, who plays Price’s daughter Edwina, accomplice to his dirty deeds. Well known for her starring role in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and the 1960s Avengers series, Rigg has little substance to do in Theatre of Blood.

Perhaps by 1973, her film career was on the downturn and she was not winning the coveted roles any longer. I would have loved to see her sink her teeth into a meatier role.

A side-kick, Edwina could have done much more.

The film belongs to Price and the unique storytelling of Shakespearean works made only possible by this great actor.

Not overly serious and played for some laughs, Theatre of Blood (1973) is successful in its telling of an interesting British horror story.

It’s a nice late-night treat for fans of the British horror genre especially.

Peeping Tom-1960

Peeping Tom-1960

Director Michael Powell

Starring Nigel Davenport

Top 100 Films #60     Top 20 Horror Films #16

Scott’s Review #127

848669

Reviewed July 22, 2014

Grade: A

Peeping Tom is a brilliant horror film from 1960 directed by Michael Powell.

It is a British film and was released the same year as Psycho and they sort of resemble each other as both have a more character-driven villain than many other contemporary horror films.

Both feature male killers with a sympathetic (to them) female.

Set in London, it tells the story of an assistant cameraman who kills his victims by using a camera with a spike on the end of it as he is videotaping the fear in their eyes, which he later plays back for his own psychological needs.

The killer has emotionally damaged himself and the film explores this aspect in depth; his father tormented him as a child with weird, traumatic experiments used on the boy for research.

I love this aspect of the film in contrast to most films of the genre, where the killer typically has no sympathetic aspects and whose motivations are usually explored minimally.

The audience has sympathy for this killer, which, strangely, is absurd and shocking.

Way ahead of its time, viewers were initially turned off by the film at the time of release, and director Michael Powell’s (ironically playing the terrible father in videotape scenes) career was ruined.

Anna Massey (later to appear in the Hitchcock masterpiece Frenzy) plays the sweet-natured, girl next door who develops a crush on the killer. Her blind and boozy mother is a fascinating character as she suspects and strangely bonds with the killer.

The film has an erotic and voyeuristic quality that has been unmatched in horror.

Peeping Tom (1960) is now considered a masterpiece and I certainly agree with that assessment. It is one of the most interesting and unique horror films ever made.

Girly-1970

Girly-1970

Director Freddie Francis

Starring Vanessa Howard, Michael Bryant

Scott’s Review #11

70132676

Reviewed June 14, 2014

Grade: B-

Girly (1970) is an unusual British horror film about an affluent, bored family, clearly deranged, who kidnaps victims and forces them to become “members” of the family by participating in game-playing escapades for their delight.

The premise of the film is appealing and intriguing as to how it will play out. The family members (Mumsy, Nanny, Girly, and Sonny) are played with gusto by the cast but are never over the top.

My favorite is “Mumsy”, wickedly played by British actress Ursula Howells.

The film itself has a fairy tale quality to it with the sets of the house they share. The main victim (a male gigolo) is a miscast (too old, not sexy enough) and begins a cat-and-mouse game of trickery, plotting the family against one another until the inevitable bodies pile up.

The film loses steam midway through and the ending is not satisfying.

Why the victims are not able to escape the vast property is weak (a 7-foot tall flimsy fence??).

“Curious” film that becomes a tad boring towards the conclusion.