cjh668908 Reviews

Chained (1934)

My Chained reaction

[10/10 · 24 January 2015]

Chained (1934) stars Joan Crawford, Clark Gable, Otto Kruger, and Stuart Erwin. This was the fifth of eight movies that Crawford and Gable made together. They were known for their incredible chemistry on screen, and Chained is no exception. This movie has romance, humor, and even some good atmosphere in parts. This movie is basically about a woman who is torn between two men and she needs to decide who she wants to be with. That's all I want to say. I don't want to give anything away. The movie was well shot and was directed by Clarence Brown. Crawford's acting is excellent. She turns on Niagara Falls several times in this movie just like she does in every movie she's in. Nobody in cinematic history was better at this than Crawford. Gable comes across as a little bit unconvincing in certain parts - his reaction to certain things that happen during the movie is as if it doesn't affect him the way you would think it would affect him. Overall, though, his acting is pretty good. Otto Kruger gives a good performance throughout - very solid.

When this movie was made, Crawford was at the peak of her career at MGM. This movie was made right after Sadie McKee (1934).

I give this movie 5 stars because of the basic story, plot, cinematography, quality of acting, and camera-work.

Strangers on a Train (1951)

Classic Hitchcock film noir

[10/10 · 2 July 2014]

For a synopsis of the plot, etc., read other reviews. I just want to give my thoughts on this movie.

Strangers On A Train (1951) is a great black and white Hitchcock movie that's very dark, quite scary, even terrifying at times, especially at the end of the movie. I won't reveal the ending. Watch to find out. This movie is presented in full screen and stars Farley Granger, Ruth Roman, Robert Walker, and Patricia Hitchcock (Hitchcock's daughter). I thought Pat Hitchcock gave a good performance. She's actually a pretty good actress. This movie features some pretty unique settings, such as a carnival, a tennis stadium, and of course a train. It also shows something that's typical of so many Hitchcock films -the dark side of humanity with an evil man going about his evil deeds, as well as an innocent man falsely accused. In my opinion, this is one of the better Hitchcock movies and is a personal favorite of mine, definitely in my top five. The camera angles, the suspense, the rather dark atmosphere, the darkness of the story - it all adds up to one great movie. The score is pretty good and the acting is great. The script is really good.

I highly recommend Strangers On A Train.

High Plains Drifter (1973)

The Man With No Name drifts into town

[10/10 · 3 May 2014]

High Plains Drifter (1973) is one of the best Clint Eastwood westerns I've ever seen, right up there with Unforgiven (1992), Pale Rider (1985), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966). Basically it's about a stranger who drifts into a dysfunctional Texas town and ends up........well, you'll have to watch to see how everything unfolds. I don't want to give anything away. The cinematography is great, the scenery is great, the camera angles are great, the music is great, and the acting is great. This movie has gained in stature over the last four decades and is now considered a classic Western. This movie has a little bit of a supernatural aspect to it with Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name character.

High Plains Drifter comes highly recommended.

Paid (1930)

Crawford shines on her first serious dramatic role

[10/10 · 22 March 2014]

Paid (1930) stars Joan Crawford, Robert Armstrong, and Marie Prevost, and was directed by Sam Wood. This was really the first serious dramatic role that Crawford received where she could really show her acting abilities. Crawford received the lead role when Norma Shearer, who was originally given the lead part, backed out due to her pregnancy. In stepped Crawford, who is outstanding as Mary Turner, a young woman who's convicted of a crime she didn't commit. She spends three years in prison as a result. Hardened by prison life, she makes plans for what she's going to do when she gets out, which is to get revenge on the person who sent her to prison. Crawford's performance is raw and gritty. That's all I want to say. Watch it to see how everything unfolds. This is a pre-Code film, so there are some things in it that aren't censored that normally would be if it would have been made after the Code was enacted. I think the Code was the worst thing Hollywood ever did.

This is an early talkie, so it has the feel of a stage play much of the time. Noticeably absent as well is a musical score, though it does have music in the opening and closing credits. This is how movies were done back in the late 1920s and early 1930s - music at the start, no music in the movie itself, then music at the end. This is an old movie, having come out in 1930, so there are a lot of "pops" and hiss throughout. Quite often the film is somewhat "wobbly" and "shaky" as well, with lots of scratches and dust. I love this. I love old movies that aren't in pristine condition, instead they're raw and full of imperfections. I do feel, however, that the movie is in good shape considering how old it is.

Paid pays off. Highly recommended.

Salem's Lot (1979)

Scary vampire/haunted house TV movie

[10/10 · 20 March 2014]

Salem's Lot is a made-for-TV horror movie that aired in November 1979, based on the novel by Stephen King. It's about a small town in Maine that has an old and creepy looking mansion on a hilltop that has a history of evil events happening within. The movie stars David Soul, who is superb in his role as Ben Mears, an author who is re-visiting his childhood hometown because he wants to write a book about the old house on the hill, which spooked him out as a kid. The acting in this movie is great, especially by Soul, Bonnie Bedella (who plays Susan Norton, a young woman who becomes Soul's girlfriend), and James Mason (the mysterious antique dealer and resident of the old house on the hill, Richard Straker). But I assure you - ALL the actors did an outstanding job. As the movie progresses, it is believed that the house itself could be evil and that anybody who lives there could inherit evil, and become evil as a result. At some point strange events start happening within the town such as sudden deaths, disappearances, etc. What is causing these events to occur? Watch to find out. The central vampire in this movie resembles the vampire from Nosferatu (1922). This is a huge deviation from the novel, which had the vampire looking more human. I personally like how the vampire appears in this movie - pure evil, very scary looking and resembling the Nosferatu vampire.

This movie came out at a time when a year earlier John Carpenter's Halloween had sort of revived horror movies and the public's interest in them. The late '70s and early '80s were the golden age of horror movies, and this was one of the better ones in my opinion. This movie screams 1970s horror and 1970s in general. It also has low tech special effects that are used sparingly. This is a good thing, because John Carpenter proved that you really don't need to incorporate lots of special effects, blood, and gore to make a horror movie effective. Salem's Lot falls into this category. This movie also benefits from the eerie and creepy atmosphere that is present in so many scenes. Even a lot of the daylight scenes are incredibly creepy. One of the great strengths of this movie is that the movie spends time on letting the audience get to know the town of Salem's Lot, Maine. Another huge strength is that a lot of time is spent on character development early in the movie. With this approach, the audience can connect with the characters and get to know them and care for them as the movie progresses. There are some "stories within the story" that play out, and this makes the movie drag a little at times, but it still holds my attention. But a lot of '70s and early '80s horror movies drag a little. The Exorcist, The Omen, The Shining, and The Changeling are good examples, but all of these have the same strengths that Salem's Lot has. Everything in this movie in combination works highly effectively - the plot, the story, the setting, the acting, the atmosphere, the character development, and the music.

Do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. It truly is not only a great vampire movie, but a great horror movie. Pop it in and turn out the lights. It's three hours long. Pay attention. You're in for a scare. It has an excellent musical score, also.

Rain (1932)

An actress out on loan

[10/10 · 14 January 2014]

Rain (1932) stars Joan Crawford and Walter Huston. Crawford, under contract with MGM at the time, was out on loan to United Artists to make Rain after the huge success of Grand Hotel (1932). The kind of role Crawford plays in Rain is unlike any of her usual roles she had played up to that point. She usually played heroic roles and shop girl roles. Now she was playing the role of a sinner, a loose woman, a hooker named Sadie Thompson. Audiences at the time couldn't accept Crawford playing such a role, so this movie flopped at the box office. Time has given this movie a huge boost, as modern day audiences accept this movie and Crawford's performance much more easily. Crawford herself didn't like this movie, probably because it bombed. She said that she overacted. I do agree that she did overact in some parts, but Crawford gives a great performance. A different role, yes. But her acting works so well for her character. Crawford looks the part as well, and her entrance in the movie is legendary. This movie is a good example of an actress showing her versatility, but unfortunately the subject matter of the movie and perhaps some tunnel vision by people at the time is what made this a flop in 1932. It's amazing how audiences can't accept an actor playing a different kind of role than what they're accustomed to.

One of the things I like about this movie is the atmosphere. It's a rather dark movie and it seems to rain a lot throughout (of course). I also like the way a lot of the scenes were shot and some of the camera angles. The movie seems ahead of its time.

In my opinion, Rain is one of Crawford's best movies from the 1930s. I think the movie holds up pretty well. I highly recommend it.

Possessed (1947)

Classic film noir

[10/10 · 10 January 2014]

Possessed (1947) stars Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, Raymond Massey, and Geraldine Brooks. Crawford also made a movie titled Possessed in 1931 while with MGM. Basically the movie is about a mentally unstable woman who is obsessed with her ex-lover. This 1947 Warner Bros. movie is very much on the dark side - film noir at its finest, something Warner Bros. excelled at in the 1940s. The opening shot of Crawford walking down the streets of the city in a daze is classic. This black and white movie has a lot of great camera angles to go along with shadowy and dim environments that make this a film noir classic. The acting is superb, with Crawford giving a career performance and Heflin giving a great performance himself. This is one of those movies that gets better and better as it goes along. Franz Waxman's musical score is great as well - dark and haunting at times.

Crawford was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance in this film, but didn't win (should have). This DVD has a great 10 minute feature about the movie and its status in the film noir category of movies. I also enjoy Dr. Drew Casper's enthusiastic audio commentary (as a special feature option).

If you want to see a quality movie that's on the dark side, see Possessed. Highly recommended.

Vampire Circus (1972)

Excellent Hammer classic

[10/10 · 5 March 2013]

Vampire Circus (1972) is an excellent Hammer horror film that mixes vampires and a circus. It stars Adrienne Corri, Thorley Walters, Anthony Higgins, and David Prowse (Darth Vader in Star Wars episodes IV, V, and VI).

Basically, the movie takes place in an Austrian village in the 19th century. A little girl is killed by a vampire, Count Mitterhaus. The villagers kill this vampire in revenge for killing the girl. Years later this village suffers from the ravages of the plague. Some fifteen years later, a circus comes to town which actually consists of vampires. That's all I want to say about the plot so I don't spoil everything for you. Watch to find out what happens.

This movie has lots of blood and gore, some full nudity, and some decent special effects for a low budget Hammer movie. The circus atmosphere and props are pretty decent, as are the costumes. The circus animals are amazing and appear to be well trained. Watch for the dancing tiger woman. She's a sight to see. This movie possesses a sort of dark fairy tale atmosphere mixed with pure circus horror. The movie has that classic low budget Hammer look and feel to it - somewhat cheaply made, but the cheapness is made up for with the story, attitude, and scariness.

I recommend this movie because it's one of the better Hammer films and is a film that ranks pretty high on the all-time list of best vampire flicks in movie history, according to many fans.

Circus of Horrors (1960)

Very daring for its time

[5 March 2013]

I really like Circus Of Horrors (1960). This movie takes place in England in 1947. It's about a circus leader who is a plastic surgeon and well..........you'll have to watch the movie to find out what unfolds during this rather bizarre movie. This movie is pretty risqué for a 1960 movie. This movie reminds me so much of the Hammer horror films with the use of vibrant colors on the sets and colorful costumes. The acting is good and is similar to Hammer films, as is the musical score. This movie has the hit 1960 song "Look For A Star" by Garry Mills in it. Real circus acrobats were used in this film. In fact, footage was used from actual circus performances. This circus has it all - lions, trapeze artists, clowns, elephants, horses, you name it. There are a lot of tense moments that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

This movie stars Anton Diffring, Erika Remberg, Yvonne Monlaur, Donald Pleasence, Conrad Phillips, Kenneth Griffith, Jane Hylton, Vanda Hudson, Yvonne Romain, and Colette Wilde.

I highly recommend this movie.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

There's nothing worse than shaky camcorder footage

[1/10 · 27 February 2013]

This "movie" is a "documentary" about the so-called Blair witch legend. It was marketed and hyped up as a true story, that three teenagers went into the woods in search of the Blair witch in October 1994 and never returned. Then their camcorder footage was found a year later.

The whole idea behind this movie was to scare its audience with the concept of making the audience get frightened of things they don't see. It's called psychological horror. Other horror movies of the past have accomplished this goal. The Haunting (1963) is a perfect example. The Haunting was a professionally made movie with a musical score, the whole nine yards. In contrast, The Blair Witch Project was filmed with a camcorder and a shaky one at that. There is no music in the film. It's raw. It has a skeletal budget. It has the sounds of the day and the sounds of the night and the sounds of profane teenagers. It's basically a "reality" film about some teens who are lost in the woods in search of a legendary witch that supposedly lives there. The fact that they're looking for a witch and lost at the same time makes them increasingly frightened and frustrated as the movie progresses.

The main problem I have with this film is that the footage is so shaky and amateur-ish. This movie is unwatchable. It'll make you dizzy and give you a headache. It's fine to use a camcorder. I thought it was a unique way to film a documentary "movie". But at least make the footage watchable. I can understand the camera shaking at times when the kids are running away from something that's scaring them, but to have shaky footage when they're just sitting around and talking or when planning their trip is really inexcusable. If I want to watch really bad and I mean REALLY bad and shaky camcorder footage, I can watch any one of the countless lame and shaky videos that people I know have made throughout the years. I don't know what's so hard about keeping a steady camera. This film would have been better if the camera-work was better. Instead of feeling scared, I found myself being distracted by the terrible camera-work and feeling dizzy with a headache, also. The bad camera-work robbed me of any scared feeling I was supposed to have when watching this film.

Suspicion (1941)

Only one acting Oscar. I'm suspicious.

[8/10 · 27 February 2013]

I'm kidding.

Suspicion (1941) is an Alfred Hitchcock suspense thriller/romance/comedy that stars Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine. This movie holds the distinction of being the only Alfred Hitchcock movie in which an actor won an Oscar for their performance. Hitchcock made so many great movies with great acting performances from top stars spanning so many years, so I simply find it amazing that only one acting performance won an Oscar out of all the movies he made. Joan Fontaine was great in this movie and deserved the Oscar, but I also think she deserved an Oscar for her performance as the second Mrs. de Winter in Rebecca (1940) a year earlier. I also think Judith Anderson should have won Best Supporting Actress in Rebecca as well. Oh well.

Some people have a hard time accepting Cary Grant playing a villain in this movie. When people think of Cary Grant, they think of him playing a certain type of character other than a villain. Myself, I don't have any problem with him playing a villain because what it comes down to is something very simple -- you just need to realize he's an ACTOR, and actors are supposed to be VERSATILE, not one dimensional. Really good actors have the ability to play all kinds of different roles, and really it comes down to just separating what he's done in other movies from what he did in Suspicion and ditching any preconceived view you have of him. It's that simple.

This is one of those movies that starts a little slow but gets better and more suspenseful as it progresses. You just need to be patient and let things unfold. So many of Hitchcock's black and white movies from the 1940s are great movies but are often overlooked in favor of the movies from his prime, which I see as the period of time from about 1951-1964.

Overall, this is a good movie with a great acting performance from Joan Fontaine. Cary Grant was great, also. I recommend it highly. If you're new to Hitchcock movies, I recommend starting with one of his classics from his prime years, such as Strangers On A Train (1951), Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North By Northwest (1959), Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963), and Marnie (1964). If you want to start in the 1940s, I of course recommend Suspicion as well as Rebecca (1940), Saboteur (1942), Shadow Of A Doubt (1943), Lifeboat (1944), Spellbound (1945), Notorious (1946), and Rope (1948).

Saboteur (1942)

Very underrated

[8/10 · 24 February 2013]

Saboteur (1942) is a somewhat forgotten Hitchcock suspense thriller. It stars Robert Cummings, Priscilla Lane, Otto Kruger, Alan Baxter, and Norman Lloyd. One thing about this movie is that it has some striking similarities to The 39 Steps (1935) and North By Northwest (1959). A man who is falsely accused of something is chased across the country with a climax that takes place on a national monument. This movie has some humor in it, but overall it is darker than North By Northwest. It can be classified as a World War II propaganda movie and clocks in at 1 hour, 49 minutes. Hitchcock recycled a lot of his movie themes and plots over the years, and basically I see this movie as a trailblazer for the superior North By Northwest, although Saboteur is a good movie, no doubt. I really like this movie's black and white cinematography and overall atmosphere, particularly the scenes at night. You never know what you'll encounter when you're traveling across the country at night. Watch to find out what's encountered.

The acting overall is pretty good. The musical score by Frank Skinner is run-of-the-mill. It does the job, but it's nothing that's very distinctive. The movie has a good dose of classic Hitchcock suspense. I find that the more I watch this movie the more I like it.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Good, not great

[8/10 · 7 January 2013]

Anybody who has seen or heard of this movie knows the hype surrounding Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger definitely "became" another person or character to the point where you would never know it's Heath Ledger under the clown makeup, because he drastically changed his voice and mannerisms in his own portrayal of The Joker. It's also hard to recognize Ledger PHYSICALLY because the black makeup around his eyes makes it harder to tell it's him, versus if he had white makeup around his eyes, like Jack Nicholson did. I must say that Jack Nicholson's Joker would have been even better if he would have changed his voice and mannerisms so it would be harder to tell it was him underneath that makeup. Ledger's Joker was not truly Joker-like overall, even if his portrayal is how the comic book Joker "supposedly" is (that's very debatable). His portrayal of The Joker was adequate for this realistic modern Batman movie. Cesar Romero's version was good for the campy 1960s TV series and the 1966 movie, and Jack Nicholson's version was good for the 1989 movie. But I often think of Ledger's famous line, "Why so serious?" I think that's a legitimate question he could have asked HIMSELF - "Why so serious?" Not enough laughing and clowning around for my tastes. Ledger did a good job ACTING, but the Joker should be funnier and live up to his name, The Joker. There should be a balance of evilness and dark humor. The Heath Ledger Joker was 85% evil, 15% funny. In contrast, the Jack Nicholson Joker was about 50% evil, 50% funny. But in defense of Ledger, he had to do what Christopher Nolan wanted him to do, for the most part. Unfortunately, Nolan's "realistic" approach to Batman doesn't allow The Joker to be truly Joker-like.

It was nice to see that this movie gave a tip of the hat to Cesar Romero during the bank robbery scene at the beginning of the movie. Heath Ledger is wearing a mask that is nearly identical to the one that Cesar Romero wore during the TV series episode The Joker Is Wild (1966). Romero wore the mask while singing opera at The Gotham City Opera Company during the Pagliacci performance.

I don't understand why the cops, after capturing The Joker, didn't wash the makeup off The Joker's face so they could see who's underneath the makeup. I would think that would be the first thing they'd do, but they didn't do it. If you like comic book movies with a lot of realism and seriousness to them where humor is almost nonexistent, then this will be your cup of tea. This movie has everything -- explosions, references to DNA, the latest technological gadgets, you name it. You know the setting is in 2008 when you watch it. I give this movie 4 stars instead of 5 because I think it fell short as far as having a true Batman comic book movie feel to it and for the lack of humor. I think this movie is way too serious and humorless. It tries to be so realistic, yet we've got Harvey Dent walking around with open wounds on his face, half of which is missing. Apparently there's no such thing as infections in this realistic world of Gotham City in The Dark Knight. Also, in a "realistic" world, if there was a guy roaming the streets wearing greasepaint on his face, people would laugh at him and not take him seriously and he'd get arrested easily, just like that "real life Spiderman" guy from a few years ago who appeared on the news climbing buildings. Any kook like that gets arrested. Easily. The same can be said about Batman, a guy dressed in a bat suit. People in a "realistic" world would laugh at him. If you're going to make a movie based on comic book characters, make it look like a comic book movie, not something that looks like a realistic and serious cop drama on prime time TV. On the other hand, if you insist on taking the "realistic" cop drama approach, you might as well go all the way with it. In other words, don't have anything in the movie that's unrealistic or unbelievable, such as Harvey Dent's face. Otherwise, the realism starts to get diluted and leaves you scratching your head.

Tim Burton got it right. He took the approach of making a comic book movie look like a comic book movie, which allowed him to get away with unrealistic and unbelievable things. Why is it that Christopher Nolan is ending the series after three movies, with The Dark Knight Rises being the final movie? It's very simple - he's running out of believable villains that he can use in his "realistic" crime drama world he's created. You can't have The Penguin in the realistic world he's created. You can't have Mr. Freeze, either. You can't have Poison Ivy, and on and on and on. Those are vintage comic book villains that simply would not fit into Nolan's Gotham City, which, by the way, looks too ordinary. Why does the Ledger Joker wear greasepaint on his face and green dye in his hair instead of being a guy who has white skin and green hair as a result of falling into a vat of chemicals? The answer is because in the realistic Nolan world, chemically discolored skin and hair couldn't happen. Why doesn't the Ledger Joker use a squirting lapel flower, a hand buzzer, etc.? The answer is because in Nolan's realistic world, these things would come off as unrealistic and campy. When you think about all the things I've mentioned, you can easily see that Nolan has sucked most of the character, life, feel, and atmosphere out of the Batman that we knew from the time period circa 1940 - 2005. Look at what he's done to the characters as well, including the iconic Joker.

The Woman in Black (2012)

Dark and creepy ghost story

[9/10 · 12 February 2012]

The Woman In Black (2012) is a remake of the 1989 TV movie of the same name and based on the 1983 book by Susan Hill. This remake is actually better than the original, a rare feat. From my experience, usually remakes of horror movies are nowhere near as good as the original. This is an exception.

The things that this movie have going for it are the dark, chilling, spooky atmosphere and the genuine creepiness of the haunted house from the Victorian era. You'll see classic components of a haunted house - cobwebs, paintings hanging on the walls, lit candles, a rocking chair rocking by itself, creepy looking dolls, music box melodies, and of course ghosts. Throw in the thunderstorm and the movie feels complete. This is definitely one of the creepiest and best ghost story movies I've ever seen. There are a lot of sudden scares that might you jump out of your seat. There is an occasional dose of comic relief sprinkled throughout the movie. The musical score by Marco Beltrami is decent.

This movie was my introduction to Daniel Radcliffe (I've never seen the Harry Potter movies). He does a commendable job acting. This movie is a triumphant return for Hammer Horror. Who can forget the classic Hammer horror movies from the 1950s, '60s, and '70s? Overall, this is a good Victorian ghost story that I highly recommend.

Marnie (1964)

A memorable Hitchcock movie

[10/10 · 22 March 2011]

Marnie (1964) is considered by many to be Alfred Hitchcock's last great movie. This movie is certainly different from most of Hitchcock's movies. Most of Hitchcock's movies have a certain signature Hitchcock "feel" to them, much like John Carpenter, Stephen Spielberg, and George Lucas movies have a certain signature "feel" to them that are vintage Carpenter, Spielberg, and Lucas. Marnie retains a lot of the Hitchcock feel, but this movie is a slight departure from his previous work. This movie really can't be classified into one category, such as a straight psychological thriller, a suspense thriller, a detective story, a mystery, a romance, etc. Whereas most Hitchcock movies put less focus on the characters and more focus on the suspense, Marnie puts most of the focus on one character and less focus on the suspense. This movie is highly personal and psychological. This movie stars 'Tippi' Hedren, Sean Connery, Diane Baker, Louise Latham, Mariette Hartley, Martin Gabel, and Alan Napier. Hedren plays the role of Marnie Edgar, a strange woman with psychological problems who is a professional thief and has an intense fear of men, thunderstorms, and even the color red. To sum up the plot in a nutshell, she empties her employer's safe and escapes. Sean Connery plays the role of Mark Rutland, owner of a publishing company that Marnie applies for a new job at. Marnie robs him as well. However, Rutland is infatuated with her. He tracks her down, but rather than turning her in to the authorities, he convinces her to marry him. While on their honeymoon, he realizes that she actually has a fear of men and fears intimacy. He gets more aggressive with her, resulting in her attempting suicide. Her intense fear of men is rooted in a traumatic childhood experience she had. Watch to find out how everything unfolds.

The musical score by Bernard Herrmann is memorable and is one of the strong points of the movie. The score is one of the best of all the Hitchcock movies, in my opinion (my other candidates are Vertigo and Psycho). There are some suspenseful moments. The special effects and some of the sets are pretty simple and low tech, but this doesn't detract from the film at all, in my opinion.

The acting is excellent. Sean Connery was excellent. It was great to see Alan Napier in the movie. I thought 'Tippi' Hedren's performance was outstanding. Her acting in The Birds (1963) was great, but she takes things to another level in Marnie. Originally, Hitchcock wanted to cast Grace Kelly in the role of Marnie, but she had to turn it down. I think 'Tippi' Hedren was the perfect actress for the part, and she delivered. I also like Diane Baker in this movie. I have a weakness for movies with good looking women in them.

This movie did poorly at the box office when it was released, probably because audiences were used to getting movies that were less personal, less psychological, and more suspenseful from Hitchcock each time, and Marnie was a departure from that. However, this movie's stature has grown immensely since 1964. As for myself, this is one of those rare movies that drew me in right from the start and kept my attention, but multiple viewings might be required in order for one to fully understand and appreciate it for what it is.

The DVD's extras include a documentary called The Trouble With Marnie, which basically is about the making of the movie and the movie's historical status, a picture gallery called The Marnie Archives, and the theatrical trailer.

Overall, this is a good Hitchcock flick if you're into this type of movie, whatever it's classified as (Hitchcock called it a sex mystery).

Carnival of Souls (1962)

Low budget classic!

[10/10 · 8 January 2011]

When it comes to cult classics of the horror genre, I lump Carnival Of Souls into the same category as Night Of The Living Dead (1968). This movie had an extremely low budget - it was made for $30,000, or $17,000, depending on the source. Whatever it was, it was dirt cheap to make. But in my opinion, sometimes low budget movies are better than the polished big budget movies with top-of-the-line actors and special effects. When it comes to horror movies, a small amount of money can produce the same desired result as big budget movies, which is to scare the audience. The goal is to create an eerie and spooky and scary atmosphere that taps into a person's feelings of fear. You really don't need a lot of money to accomplish this. A lot of low budget B horror movies are very effective. Carnival Of Souls is one of them.

This movie was shot in Lawrence, Kansas and also at the Saltair Pavilion amusement park in Salt Lake City, Utah. This movie stars Candace Hilligoss as Mary Henry, a church organist who survives a car accident in which her two girl companions died. The accident was the result of a car full of guys challenging the girls to a drag race. The race turns tragic as the car goes off a bridge and plunges into a river below. Her two companions die in the accident, but Mary somehow survives basically unscathed. She then goes to Salt Lake City and takes a new job playing organ in a church. Throughout the movie, she often sees the ghostly image of a man (played by director Herk Harvey) practically everywhere she goes. This man seems to be haunting her. Nobody else but her sees this man. It isn't long before she seems to become non-existent to the people around her, all of whom don't see or hear her. Along the way, a fellow tenant named John (played by Sidney Berger) who lives across the hall from her takes a great interest in her. At first she pushes him away, then at other times she wants to be with him and goes out to dinner with him. But at one point he realizes that she is "off her rocker" and storms out of the room and never sees her again. Mary seems to be scared of unknown forces throughout the movie. It also seems as if what is living and what is dead is a blur to her. She can't tell the difference. She basically is caught between the living and the dead. She is even haunted by her own organ music, which changes from happier tones early in the movie to more sinister and darker tones while she's practicing at the church one night. It seems as though ever since she saw the pavilion she became drawn to it. As a result, she falls into a trance and sees, in her mind, zombies coming out of the water near the pavilion to delight in her sinister organ music. Suddenly the church minister appears out of nowhere and disapproves of her organ playing and fires her. At first it appears she's still in a trance. Then it becomes apparent that she's probably in shock about being fired.

Near the end, it seems as if Mary has been dreaming about these zombies at the abandoned carnival. The end of the movie has a bizarre ending that I won't reveal. Watch it to find out what happens.

This movie's score is 100% theater organ, performed by Gene Moore. That's it - an organ. The organ music is eerie throughout the movie and seems to be off key a lot of the time (intentionally, of course) and has an underlying, subtle carnival melody during a lot of the scenes at the pavilion. I must say I'm surprised that Candace Hilligoss only appeared in one other movie (The Curse Of The Living Corpse in 1964). She is nice looking, has very good screen presence, and can act pretty well.

This movie can be classified as having subtle, atmospheric psychological horror. This movie has no blood and gore. Instead, the music, camera angles, lighting, howling winds, shadows, and feeling of emptiness make this movie creepy.

This movie has been influential to many horror movie makers, including George Romero and John Carpenter. Notice how Herk Harvey (the man who keeps haunting Mary) appears in windows and then disappears. Michael Myers appears in windows and then disappears in Halloween (1978).

Do you like low budget B horror movies that are influential cult classics? Do you like simplicity when it comes to horror movies? Do you like horror movies involving carnivals? If so, then check out Carnival Of Souls.

The Shining (1980)

Classic horror movie

[10/10 · 8 January 2011]

The Shining (1980) is based on the novel by Stephen King. Director Stanley Kubrick gave us a masterpiece. I like nearly everything about this movie. I remember seeing it on cable TV around 1980 and 1981. This is a different kind of horror movie in that it is not over the top with LOTS of blood and gore and LOTS of killing. Instead, it's a movie that has a moderate amount of blood and killings (with the exception of the scene with the tidal wave of blood), but it's greatest strength is its reliance on atmosphere and the gradual buildup of tension and horror. Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) gradually becomes a madman over time. Wendy Torrance (Shelley Duvall) becomes increasingly terrified. Danny Torrance (Danny Lloyd) is effective as the son that possesses psychic abilities. The story and setting are very simple. The hotel itself seems to be a character itself. The atmosphere in the hotel is eerie with a sense of emptiness, but frightening. There's a feeling that strange and horrifying things are bound to happen in this huge vacant hotel. Again, the buildup to all-out madness is the movie's strongest point.

The camera angles that are used at times are very innovative.

The best acting performance in this movie was by Shelley Duvall, in my opinion. She was totally believable. Jack Nicholson also gave a great performance.

The electronic musical score is great and very memorable. It's the kind of music that crawls under your skin and adds to a tense atmosphere.

This movie is a classic that has stood the test of time. It's definitely one of the all-time great horror movies. Stephen King himself actually hated it, but horror movie fans generally like it. I highly recommend The Shining to all horror fans.

The Innocents (1961)

A haunting 1961 haunted house classic

[10/10 · 8 January 2011]

This black and white 1961 haunted house classic is a winner all around. Set in 19th century England, The Innocents has a haunted atmosphere throughout the movie that is perhaps unmatched. This movie is based on the novel "The Turn Of The Screw" by Henry James.

This is a ghost story that stars Deborah Kerr, who plays a governess who is caring for two orphaned children (Miles played by Martin Stephens and Flora played by Pamela Franklin) in a huge Victorian mansion. Throughout the movie there are ghosts that appear once in a while, such as a ghost of a woman who walks down a hallway, a ghost of a woman in a field, and the ghost of a man who appears on the roof of the house and outside a glass door. As the movie progresses and the ghosts continue to appear, the children's' behavior changes to the point of being strange and obnoxious. As a result, Deborah Kerr starts to wonder about what happened to the previous governess and her lover. The governess feels that it's possible that the ghosts of these people are trying to destroy the children's' innocence by possessing the children. On the other hand, the haunted happenings could be just her imagination. The children really get on the governess's case when she insists she's seeing ghosts and wants the children to notice them, but the children don't see them. The only thing I didn't like about the movie was all the yelling and screaming by the children. It occurred a little too often.

One of my favorite scenes occurs when Kerr is walking through the house with a candelabra in hand, investigating strange things that are happening. It is such a spooky scene with perfect lighting, shadows, and background noises. There are some classic haunting situations throughout the movie that are eerie and will scare you, some familiar, some innovative.

Just like The Haunting (1963), this movie's atmosphere benefits from and is enhanced by the black and white filming because to me, black and white makes it darker and spookier. There's just something about black and white that works. It elevates the creep factor by bringing out the shadows and darkness.

This movie is always compared to The Haunting by horror fans and critics. Why? It's because both films were released around the same time (1961 and 1963), both are black and white films, both are ghost stories set in haunted Victorian mansions, both are based on novels, both are extremely creepy, and both have innovative camera-work. I often have a hard time deciding which of these two films is better. Of course, the authors whose books these movies are based on (Henry James's "The Turn Of The Screw" and Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting Of Hill House") wrote stories that are night and day different. The movies, however, will always be compared due to the above reasons and simply because it comes down to what a person looks for and prefers in a haunted house ghost story movie. When it comes to comparing haunted house movies, I personally put the movie's atmosphere first and the story second. The next person might do the opposite.

If you're up for a good ghost story, buy The Innocents. You won't be disappointed. It's one of the all-time great haunted house/ghost story movies.

Dracula (1979)

My favorite Dracula movie

[10/10 · 8 January 2011]

I really like this 1979 Dracula movie. Personally, I like it much better than Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. I personally think Frank Langella is a great Dracula who portrays the character the way he should be portrayed - evil, mysterious, dark, romantic, stylish. He possesses supernatural powers, almost as if he uses The Force, like in Star Wars. The atmosphere in this movie can't be beat. For one thing, Dracula's castle is one wicked place. There is a Gothic quality to this movie that is unmatched. The atmosphere is outstanding. The props are outstanding. The costumes are outstanding. The special effects are outstanding. The script is outstanding. The musical score by John Williams is outstanding. The acting is outstanding. Sure, this movie doesn't follow the novel exactly, but I say...who cares. Take the movie for what it is - a Dracula movie with a great Gothic atmosphere. It takes place in England in the early twentieth century.

This movie also stars Donald Pleasence (Halloween I, II, IV, V, VI), the red hot Kate Nelligan as Dracula's bride Lucy, and Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, the vampire hunter who is out to put an end to Dracula's dark deeds. Everybody gives good performances. Donald Pleasance provides some comic relief because he is always doing a certain thing in every scene he's in. Watch to find out what it is. The movie is scary throughout. The ending of the movie is cool and will leave you guessing.

A lot of people complain about the color being deliberately dulled in the DVD transfer. Personally, it doesn't bother me. It's still in color, no doubt about it. I understand why some people are upset about it, because when the movie came out in '79 this movie was praised for its brilliant colors. Director John Badham originally wanted to film this movie in black and white, but then chose color instead. Some 25 years later when it was time to put the movie on DVD, he decided he wanted to tinker with the color to make it duller so it would flirt with coming close to being a black and white movie, which is what he originally wanted to film the movie in back in '79. But even with the duller color, it's still a color movie.

If you want to watch a really good undated Dracula movie that has held up extremely well over the years, then I highly recommend Dracula 1979.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Visually stunning

[8/10 · 8 January 2011]

This movie came out in 1992. I like this movie. It's visually stunning with great special effects, sets, and costumes. However, the movie doesn't follow Bram Stoker's novel exactly. I know a lot of people dislike this, but I don't mind when it comes to this movie and also Dracula (1979). I'm more fussy when OTHER movies out there don't follow the novel they're based on exactly, or they massacre the story completely, such as what was done in the "remake" of The Haunting (1999). Now that, I have a problem with.

How is the acting in this movie? It's very good, for the most part. I like Winona Ryder in her role as Mina Harker. She did a good job. Gary Oldman as Dracula was pretty good. I don't care for his long hair and sunglasses later in the movie, but I like when he's an old guy in the beginning of the movie. Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker was OK, while Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing was good.

When I compare the Draculas from this movie and the 1979 movie, my favorite is Frank Langella from the 1979 movie. He had more of the classic look of Dracula.

The Gothic atmosphere, darkness, and overall feel is hard to beat. The movie definitely has a Transylvania feel to it and is visually stunning. The night scenes are especially good. Excellent use of lighting, darkness, shadows, and everything macabre.

The musical score by Wojciech Kilar is good.

I think the second half of the movie isn't as good as the first half. I also think that Dracula got pretty wimpy late in the movie. To me, he showed tremendous weakness when it came to his relationship with Mina.

Overall, a good movie that should hold your attention.

The Haunting (1963)

Psychological horror at its finest

[10/10 · 8 January 2011]

The Haunting is no doubt a classic ghost story movie based on Shirley Jackson's novel The Haunting Of Hill House (1959). The movie is what is basically called "psychological horror," which means that it is horror that is created more in the mind rather than visually. In other words, the feeling of being scared of things you can't see. There is no blood and gore whatsoever in this movie. Instead, invisible ghosts and a mansion that seems like it's alive provide the scares. The brilliant use of lighting and shadows also help create the haunting atmosphere. Even though color movie technology had already been around for quite some time, this movie was deliberately filmed in black and white, because director Robert Wise felt that black and white would make it darker and more eerie. He was so right. Black and white works perfectly for this film.

The story is about four paranormal investigators (Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, and Russ Tamblyn) who go to a 90 year old New England house known as Hill House to study the supernatural happenings inside the house. What happens next is haunting phenomena that will scare you. This house is a huge mansion furnished with expensive, quality items, even though nobody lives there. The mansion is very plush and regal with lots of antiques.

Inside the mansion, strange and bizarre things happen. The house at certain times seems like it's alive, like it's breathing. The house actually starts to self-destruct near the end of the movie. This is the way a haunted house movie should be portrayed, in my opinion. It's what you can't see that is so frightening, rather than seeing an actual ghost or person on the screen. Rather than blood and monsters, there's knocks, bangs, and pounding noises. I love some of the camera angles used in the movie. I also like when the house is shown from the outside many times during the movie, with the camera pointed up toward the sky. It's meant to show that Hill House is staring at you. That is cool.

The acting is very good. Julie Harris plays Eleanor Lance, a rather unique character who has been repressed in her adult life. She whines a lot, but that is her character. The striking Claire Bloom plays Theodora or "Theo," a character who is a psychic and displays confidence and skepticism at times and fear at other times. Eleanor and Theo supposedly are lesbians in this movie. It is implied in a very subtle way. Richard Johnson plays the always curious paranormal investigator Dr. John Markway. Russ Tamblyn plays the skeptical Luke Sanderson who is supposed to inherit the house one day. He provides a little comic relief. Fay Compton plays the role of Mrs. Sanderson. Lois Maxwell plays Grace Markway, the wife of John Markway, and a non-believer in the supernatural. Valentine Dyall plays the caretaker of Hill House, Mr. Dudley. My favorite character in the whole movie is the housekeeper Mrs. Dudley, played by Rosalie Crutchley. She doesn't live in the house all the time. She and her husband live miles away in town. Her character is so dark and mysterious. Even though she plays only a very small role, she delivers the best lines in the movie in my opinion when she says, "...in the night...in the dark".

If you're a thinking person who has an imagination and doesn't need to be VISUALLY entertained at all times to avoid boredom, then this movie will provide psychological horror at its finest. On the other hand, if you're somebody who needs to be VISUALLY entertained at all times (such as needing to SEE the actual ghosts on screen in CGI form), then watch the 1999 remake, which, according to the vast majority of the public, is sub par and falls way short of the original on all levels.

Remember, in the original 1963 movie, it's what you don't see that is so scary.

This movie's musical score by Humphrey Searle is one of the most underrated and forgotten in horror movie history. It's outstanding, and really fits the haunting atmosphere. It's too bad it's not available for sale. I rank it as either my favorite or second favorite horror movie score ever (John Carpenter's Halloween being the other contender).

This movie is always compared to The Innocents (1961) by horror fans and critics. Why? It's because both films were released around the same time (1961 and 1963), both are black and white films, both are ghost stories set in haunted Victorian mansions, both are based on novels, both are extremely creepy, and both have innovative camera-work. I often have a hard time deciding which of these two films is better. Of course, the authors whose books these movies are based on (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting Of Hill House" and Henry James's "The Turn Of The Screw") wrote stories that are night and day different. The movies, however, will always be compared due to the above reasons and simply because it comes down to what a person looks for and prefers in a haunted house ghost story movie. When it comes to comparing haunted house movies, I personally put the movie's atmosphere first and the story second. The next person might do the opposite.

If you want to see a really good supernatural haunted house thriller, then I highly recommend watching The Haunting in the night............in the dark. :)

The Dead Matter (2010)

Great mix of horror and humor

[10/10 · 18 November 2010]

The Dead Matter...

This is the imagination of Gothic/Halloween band Midnight Syndicate founding member Ed Douglas at work. Being creative always starts with an idea and a vision. In the mid 1990s he had an idea. He had a vision. He had a dream. He had $2,000. He had...............a Super VHS camera that he borrowed. It was used to film the first version of The Dead Matter, released in 1996. You have to start somewhere. A decade later an opportunity to re-make The Dead Matter with a much larger budget was realized (about $1.5 million). The script was co-written by Ed Douglas and Tony Demci, just as it was in the original 1996 film. Shooting took place in August and September 2007 in the Mansfield, Ohio area. To make this movie, Douglas went to the well and drew on his many talents, knowledge, creativity, interest in horror films, and prior background as a filmmaker and musician/composer, not to mention a college degree in theater and filmmaking. The end result is a dream realized. An excellent independent horror film with excellent actors, an excellent musical score courtesy of Midnight Syndicate themselves, not to mention contributions from other artists in the form of rock & roll songs (Lazy Lane, Eternal Legacy, and HipNostic).

This movie stars Andrew Divoff (CSI: Miami, Lost, also movies such as Wishmaster, Air Force One, The Rage, Indiana Jones 4), Jason Carter (Babylon 5, Beverly Hills 90210, Angel, Charmed, Third Rock From The Sun), special effects legend Tom Savini (From Dusk Till Dawn, Dawn Of The Dead, Lost Boys 2, Grindhouse, Friday The 13th), Sean Serino (The Rage), Tom Nagel (North Mission Road, Beast Of Bray Road), CB Spencer (Passions, Ally McBeal, the movie Ballistica) Christopher Robichaud (the original 1996 version of The Dead Matter, plus voices on Midnight Syndicate albums), Brian Van Camp (New World Disorder), Donna Williams (The Rapture), Jim O' Rear (Hell House, Vampyre Tales), Meredith Beardmore (CSI: NY, A Family Matter), Kenyatta Foster, and "Big Chuck" Schodowski (American Scary), to name just a few, along with special effects/makeup artist Alan Tuskes (Star Trek, Vanilla Sky, The Rage). The narrator is Richard "Count Gore De Vol" Dyszel (The Alien Factor, Chainsaw Sally).

What is this movie about? It's about a grief-stricken young woman named Gretchen who will do anything to contact or "reconnect" with her deceased brother. She stumbles upon an ancient Egyptian occult relic that leads her into the dark world of vampires and the living dead. She gets more than she bargained for, as all hell breaks loose. Two warring vampire lords are in search of the relic, which can control the dead. A vampire hunter is trying to stop them from obtaining the relic. This movie is unique in that it mixes both zombies and vampires. If you're somebody who is a fan of the Halloween season and its darker aspects, yet also embraces the lighter side of Halloween, then this movie will entertain you, as it is both on the dark side and lighter side. This movie has horror, humor, twists and turns, and keeps you guessing. The atmosphere is dark and creepy in parts, while at other times everyday activities and locations are used, such as in houses, bars, office buildings, etc. Midnight Syndicate doesn't hesitate to embrace the lighter side of horror/Halloween once in a while, and this movie proves it. You can't go wrong. I don't want to reveal too much. Watch it and be entertained. It's destined to become a Halloween classic, one of those movies that you'll want to watch every year during the Halloween season or on Halloween night after the trick-or-treaters have gone home and the jack-o-lantern has been extinguished. While not that scary, it does have its moments that will catch you off guard.

Ed Douglas and Tony Demci were inspired and influenced by horror films of yesteryear, particularly from the '30s, '60s, '70s, '80s, Creepshow, and the Hammer films, but the bottom line is that The Dead Matter is ORIGINAL. The movie takes the "old school" approach of yesteryear, and it works. I personally think it's a great movie and I think you will, too. It doesn't take a lot of money to accomplish the primary goal, which is to scare or at least entertain the audience. Think of films like Carnival Of Souls (1962), Night Of The Living Dead (1968), and Halloween (1978). These are perfect examples of independent films that make their point and get the job done by scaring and entertaining you and creating the perfect atmosphere with minimal money.

The Dead Matter is 89 minutes long and is presented in widescreen format.

The extras on the DVD are excellent. There are two Midnight Syndicate music videos ("Dark Legacy" and "Lost", both of which appeared on The Dead Matter: Cemetery Gates album, released in 2008), three finalists' music videos from the Midnight Syndicate 13th Anniversary video contest, gag reels, audio commentary by Ed Douglas, Robert Kurtzman, and Gary Jones, a feature called Maximum Dead Matter that allows you to watch a scene in one corner of the screen while simultaneously watching the actual filming of the scene in another window, interviews with cast and crew members, locations, and concept art.

Robert Kurtzman (producer, From Dusk Till Dawn, The Rage, Wishmaster), Gary Jones (Xena, Hercules, Boogeyman 3), and Ed Douglas all co-produced this movie.

Yes, there is still hope when it comes to the making of quality horror movies. Thankfully, there are still a few people out there who actually have their own ideas and imagination. This is a standout independent horror movie gem released during the Age of Horror Remakes that we're currently living in. As good as this movie is, I believe that time will elevate this movie's status even more.