Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

It is 1872 and Dracula (Christopher Lee) is finally vanquished. Unfortunately, a cultist collected his ashes and moved the stake that dispatched him to a churchyard. Fast forward one hundred years and Dracula must face the greatest horror: insufferable young people!

The movie jarringly transitions from a rural setting to mod London. The cultist’s heir (the appropriately named Johnny Alucard) involves his friends in a ceremony to bring Dracula back to seek revenge.

This film spends the bulk of its time with the crowd of hipsters rather than Lee and Cushing. At first glance we hate Alucard (Christopher Neame), what with his top hat, felt jacket, and ruffles. We eventually learn that he is a recent addition to the group of friends. Jessica (Stephanie Beacham) is the good girl of the group and target of Dracula, being granddaughter of Peter Cushing’s Professor Van Helsing and a direct descendant of the original Van Helsing.

Jessica was initially intended to be the Professor’s daughter (34 year age difference) but Peter visibly aged after his wife passed the prior year. He looked much older than his 59 years. A picture of his wife is seen on the Professor’s desk. Why Jessica was living with her grandfather was never addressed.

Lee called the script “appalling”, perhaps because of his reduced role. The group of friends aren’t terribly likable. It’s unclear if they were supposed to resonate with the hip mod crowd or serve as commentary about them. Also, the stake that killed Dracula earlier in the film was left in a rural churchyard. A hundred years later it is still there, undisturbed, and now inside the London urban area. There are details which shouldn’t be analyzed very much. And the scene where the professor makes the connection between Alucard and Dracula is silly. Here he claims to be an expert of the occult but apparently never watched Son of Dracula.

Dracula A.D. 1972 isn’t much of a film. Perhaps not appalling, but also not interesting. Hammer wanted another Dracula film and everyone just went through the motions. AMRU 2.5.

Horror Express (1972)

Professor Saxton (Christopher Lee) makes an amazing discovery in the Siberian wilderness: a mummified early human. To keep his discovery under wraps, especially from nosy rival Doctor Wells (Peter Cushing), Saxton locks it up in a giant box for the train ride home. When the baggage man is found murdered and the mummy missing, there can be only one explanation: the mummy has come back to life and is killing people. I mean, no other explanation even makes sense.

There is much more to the story and much of it is silly. This is saved by the fact that our principles play it seriously. No wink and nod, no sly grin. With the exception of Telly Savalas, who shows up in the third act for some reason. He looked like he was having a grand time.

Starring both Lee and Cushing and set almost entirely on a train, it has a very Hammer feel, although it’s not. Reportedly a minor cult classic, Horror Express has a lot going for it. I, however, found it to be just ok. I couldn’t get past the silly parts. AMRU 3.

She (1965)

Three veterans from the great war, Professor Holly (Peter Cushing), young Leo (John Richardson), and manservant Job, are in Palestine for some reason. When trying to score with a young hottie, poor Leo is shanghaied. He awakes in a palace and is greeted by the beautiful Ayesha (Ursula Andress) who gives him a ring and tells him to give it back to her when they meet again. It’s unclear why. To help him find her again, She gives him a map to a lost Egyptian city that is less detailed than a Denny’s place mat.

So our heroes go looking for this lost city and meet up with trouble as well as the young hottie from the first act. Turns out She, that is Ayesha, is thousands of years old and has been waiting for the return of her departed love. Ayesha is She who waits. Does young Leo look exactly like her departed love? Of course he does.

Based on the same book as the 1935 version, it is one of a dozen or so adaptations. Being somewhat closer to the source material, the setting and initial motivation differ, but the story is essentially the same. Immortal queen from exotic culture waiting for the reincarnation of her dead lover, plus mentor, manservant, and humble hottie along in tow. Leo tries to resist but Ayesha is She who must be obeyed. 

I’m not a big fan of the Hammer aesthetic. The ancient buildings all look freshly painted and the flora look plastic. I mean, they are, but do they need to look like it? It takes away from the atmosphere and attitude that the better of the old time films had. In fairness their intent was to look different and to trade in a small serving of sex appeal and gore.

The source material is a story of Eurocentrism and unabashed colonialism. Originally set in the African interior, Ayesha was the White Queen amongst, you know, those people. Now moved to Egypt and pretty much everyone in the lost city are honkies. Toned down somewhat for sixties audiences, it becomes more a story of the aggressive woman, sexually and politically. Something men of all times fear, Victorian era, the teens, the 60’s, and even today.

She (1965), as it stands, is fairly nonsensical. Why give Leo a ring for him to give right back (and then not take it)? Christopher Lee has so little to do it was a waste to even cast him. Ayesha is irresistibly alluring as well as frighteningly terrible, but we don’t really see it. They tried to touch on smaller story elements that you just can’t explore properly in a 100 minute film. As is, it’s an amusing distraction. Andress is great and all, but for my money I would have stuck with the hottie Ustane. AMRU 3.

The Mummy (1959)

A noted archaeologist plunders … I mean excavates the tomb of a beautiful Egyptian princess. While his young son (middle-aged Peter Cushing) nurses a broken leg, an Egyptian in a fez warns dad not to desecrate the burial site lest he incur the wrath of Karnak. But desecraters will be desecraters. Dad is alone in the tomb when something happens and he spends the next three years in a home for the mentally disordered (been there). Finally dad explains that he was reading a Scroll of Life he found when a mummy came out of nowhere and attacked him. The game is afoot.

I have never been too charmed by these Hammer horror updates. They are a brightly colored, slightly sexy and bloody, simplified versions of the originals, and The Mummy is no different. What they add in blood and cleavage they lose in creepy atmosphere. Here the story elements are mostly stolen from various Universal Mummy films with little new added. So, why was I so immensely entertained by it? The best reason I can figure is that after watching The Love Wanga, the high quality print, bright set pieces, flowery language, and decent acting was a very welcome change. There was no question how the story would end, only the details.

Once again Christopher Lee plays the monster while Cushing plays our hero. Kharis is doomed to stand guard over his beloved Princess because he tried to use that very same Scroll of Life to bring her back after she was embalmed, and if you saw the sexy, sexy embalming scene, you’d understand. Gosh, is Cushing’s lovely bride the spitting image of Kharis' long dead Princess? Of course she is.

Lee looks great at the Mummy. Distinctive from the Universal movies and downright menacing. Sure, the ending is dumb and it has the cleanest, least ornate, and most brightly lit ancient tomb on film, but I loved every second of it. The Mummy is by no means a great film. IMDb rates it lower than the Frankenstein and Dracula efforts, but based on my reaction on the night I watched, I rate it a bit higher. AMRU 4.

The Devil Rides Out (1968)

Some rich dude (Christopher Lee) and his buddy Rex discover that a young friend has joined a satanic cult. Our hero uses every method illegal to save him from a fate worse than freedom of religion. He calls up all sorts of arcane knowledge and artifacts to rescue him. And some chick.

Seldom did Lee play the hero (although I’d argue he was the hero of The Wicker Man) and here I could argue he was the villain playing a confidence game convincing his dim-witted friends and relatives of a non-existent danger. He asserts with authority how every action and object is part of satanic activity without providing much evidence, and bullies the doubters. Of course Satan IS at work. Hammer isn’t that deep, but for a while I was tempted to doubt the premise.

Renamed “The Devil’s Bride” for American audiences so we wouldn’t think it was a Western. Here as the lead satanist is Charles Gray who also played Blofeld in Diamonds are Forever (1971) and a Criminologist in some other film.

The Devil Rides Out was released at the start of a satanic panic that spanned the 1970’s and 80’s. Fanatical Christians went crazy seeing the work of the devil behind every activity, starting baseless lawsuits and ruining reputations. Mediocre films like this fed into the nonsense that sometimes rears its ugly head today.

But to be fair, it’s not a terrible film. It had a larger budget than most Hammers and Lee’s favorite of his films. But it is very two dimensional story-wise. Bad guy is bad, good guy is good, and the action is moved forward by the other characters being stupid. Also, they are menaced by a spider that is translucent in the wide shots. In the tight shots they did a close up of a tarantula crawling on a miniature set, which looked exactly like a close up of a tarantula crawling on a miniature set. Sometimes it’s better to forgo the effect if it doesn’t work.

Not scary, not terribly interesting. Just passable by my standards. AMRU 3.

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

The good doctor (Peter Cushing) is in prison waiting execution when he tells his story to a priest, and it goes something like this: Young Victor is rich, becomes an rich orphan, is brilliant, hires a tutor, somehow grows older than his tutor, then starts playing with things God did not intend. Then he goes to jail ...

The original took serious liberties with the source material, and Hammer films were threatened with a lawsuit if any of it's story or images were copied. So, we are left with the elements brilliant and privileged scientist, taking science too far, creation of a monster, and bad consequences. Mix elements thoroughly and bake for 45 minutes and you get a new version of Frankenstein. Or Jekyll and Hyde. Same deal.

TCM played a pile of Christopher Lee films a couple weeks after his passing. Because interesting films on TCM come in waves, I had filled my DVR with good stuff and had to be very selective what I saved. This was the lone Lee film that made the cut.

Formal, stilted acting, mostly unoriginal story, and a complete lack of actual scares or surprises is mostly saved by decent set design and photography, and Lee's performance. Very much a Hammer production. AMRU 3.5.

Christopher Lee: "I've got no lines!"
Peter Cushing: "You're lucky. I've read the script."

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Amateur vampire sleuths Harker (Nobody) and Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) look to end the reign of the evil count.

You know the basic premise. Here, we mix up the characters (Harker is betrothed to Lucy and Mina is married to Arthur) change the details (Transylvania? Never heard of it), lose Renfield, and film it in color. Now Drac has fangs and there is blood to spurt. No ta-tas like in later Hammer films, but it's a start.

Despite the campy feel, I liked this complete reinterpretation of the story. So many of these films are unofficial remakes anyhow, it's nice when it's done well. Fairly well, anyhow. And because it was such a departure from the classic story, you tend to throw the book comparison conversation out the window from the get-go. Christopher Lee makes for a better than average count, starting off as the dashing and mysterious type before showing himself to be the fiend he is.

Hmmm ... what more to say .... The title was changed from simply Dracula in America for the best reason I've seen so far: Bela's classic was still bouncing around theaters and they wanted to avoid confusion. I accept that. Arthur is played by Michael Gough, whom dedicated readers may remember from Horrors of the Black Museum but actually from Batman. Gosh, that's about it. AMRU 3.5.

The Crimson Cult (1968)

or Curse of the Crimson Alter. Have I mentioned that I hate it when they pointlessly change movie names?

Randy antique dealer Robert Manning (Mark Eden) is looking for his missing brother so he visits is last known location, a spooky mansion that appears to have an orgy going on. Lord Morley (Christopher Lee) never heard of him but he was welcome to stay and have a look around. He spends half his time looking for his brother and the other half trying to nail Morley's hot niece Eve (Virginia Wetherell), even though she's fifteen years younger than him.

So there's this legend of the blue witch Lavinia (Barbara Steele), Karloff as a witchcraft expert (along with his trusty man servant Kato), Alfred as a weirdo butler, and strange cut sequences to some bizarre S&M cult. At first the movie makes little sense, but it all works out, I suppose. As unremarkable as this Lovecrafty story is, it did hold my interest. Maybe it was the teaming of legends Karloff and Lee, maybe the supporting cast (underused Steele and Michael Gough), or maybe it was the chick in pasties with the whip. Who can say? Not a quality flick by any stretch, but I'm certainly glad I saw it. AMRU 3.

"It's like Boris Karloff is going to pop up at any moment."

The Wicker Man (1973)

Sergeant Howie from the mainland (Edward Woodward) receives an anonymous letter that a child on Summerisle has gone missing and nobody appears to care. He flies in to investigate.

At first the locals deny the girls existence, then when he finds out she does, he is told she has died. And the mystery deepens from there. But what concerns Howie most is the strange, unchristian behavior of the locals. Christopher Lee plays Lord Summerisle in a silly wig and sideburns, and Britt Ekland is hot dancing naked.

The main point of conflict here is Howie's tightly wound Christian beliefs against the pre-Christian sensibilities of the island folk. His authority is clearly limited to the investigation at hand but his judgement of the people rises above that.

Every now and again, I am pointed to The Wicker Man as a seminal work of horror. IMdb gives it high marks, and if you listen to the actors, they declare it one of the greats. Cinfantastique magazine called it the Citizen Kane of horror, which is more than a stretch. I don't count Kane as the greatest film ever, but it's flawless movie making was remarkable. There were more than a few flaws in Wicker. Lucky for it, the story was more interesting.

But maybe the movie would have been better had the original negatives not been immediately destroyed and the film cut to ribbons upon release. Apparently, British Lion was sold during the production of the movie and the new owners hated the film. Much has been restored, but there are apparently still missing scenes and significant film and audio quality issues.

I think what interests people most, apart from the delightful nudity, is it's ambiguity. Who exactly is the villain? The pagan island folk or the moralistic cop? Maybe a matter of opinion. Also, this may be the first film to accurately depict pre-christian culture and ceremonies.

The Citizen Kane of nothing, but still a movie very much worth watching. AMRU 3.5. Britt Ekland was hot.

"Sergeant Howie: Your lordship seems strangely... unconcerned.
Lord Summerisle: Well I'm confident your suspicions are wrong, Sergeant. We don't commit murder here. We're a deeply religious people.
Sergeant Howie: Religious? With ruined churches, no ministers, no priests... and children dancing naked!
Lord Summerisle: They do love their divinity lessons.
Sergeant Howie: [outraged] But they are... a-are NAKED!
Lord Summerisle: Naturally! It's much too dangerous to jump through fire with their clothes on!"

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

My oldest is a fan of Sherlock Holmes. So was I back in the day. I thought he might enjoy watching Grand Moff Tarkin and Count Dooku. He never got the chance. No television if you can't do your homework. The day before it was due, I watched it alone.

To be honest, I was a little iffy on this. I never read the story and really think Basil Rathbone when I think Holmes, and the 1939 treatment is really the definitive one. That said, Peter Cushing made for a better than fair Holmes.

Christopher Lee is Sir Henry, the heir to the Baskerville estate. He became the air when dear Sir Charles passes away, possibly done in by an evil hound. Seems this hound has made a habit of chowing down on the Baskerville heirs, starting many years ago with Sir Hugo, in punishment for slicing up this servant girl, who totally deserved it, what with her not wanting to be his whore and running away and all. Anyhow, family friend and physician Dr. Mortimer hires Sherlock to investigate.

Well, there is an attempt on Henry's life, an escaped convict, an abandoned mine, a hot crazy chick, and lots of good old fashioned Holmesian dialog. I understand there were some significant changes from the book, but again, I never read it. Maybe I will. Certainly I'll watch more Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately, with the exception of some TV work, Cushing never did Holmes again.

Not overly thrilling but engrossing never-the-less. I'm sorry my boy had to miss it. Maybe I'll get it again. AMRU 3.5.