The Dunwich Horror (1970)

NIGHT 7

     "I never heard anything like that!"

 

The Dunwich Horror (1970) is a low-budget horror film directed by Daniel Haller, produced by Roger Corman, and loosely based on the short story of the same name by H.P. Lovecraft. After his last horrible attempt at directing a film, someone let him do another... and to surprising result! Also one interesting note: this film was at least partially written by Academy Award winning screenwriter Curtis Hanson who would go on to write L.A. Confidential (1997) and 8 Mile (2002).

The Dunwich Horror follows Nancy Wagner as she falls for the strange and mysterious Wilbur Whitley and fails to see he's got much more horrific plans in store for her.

The acting is this movie is either decently good or terrible. There's a huge divide. Ed Begley is great in his final preformance (wish they did more with him though...) and there's something I really dug about Dean Stockwell's version of Wilbur and even Sandra Dee as stranger bait Nancy was not bad either.

The Direction most of the time isn't bad at all. I liked how Haller interpreted the Monster's attack scenes and with nothing more than pure directorial skill, pulls off the effect he wants with next to no budget on the monster. It's pretty effective (in a 1970 kinda way). This is leaps and bounds better than his direction in his previous attempt at a Lovecraft film.

And over all most of this film is quite watchable. It's nothing profound, but it's actually successfully a very similar feeling to the Roger Corman-Poe epics. (I wonder if he studied them better this time, or just got more advice from Roger?)

Most of the dialogue is laughably bad (which as you know can be enjoyable in itself.)

And the rest of the acting is pretty freaking horrible, it actually seems like they picked non-actors right off the street for how bad some of these guys are. I must admit though, I did get kinda bummed when the grandfather dies because he's one of those actors that's so bad it's actually worthwhile every time he's on screen and after he died I knew the movie would be less funny after that!

As for the source material, once again this is pretty much very loosely based on the H.P. Lovecraft story. They took specific elements from the work and then basically made up their own story with those pieces.  Unfortunately they removed a lot of my favorite scenes from the original story and in it's place they added a whole lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. (Yay!) And riddle me this, why would you put this story in a contemporary setting? This is a story about spells and demons what part of that makes you go, "oh hey this would work better in today's world..."? I'm torn between thinking it was a lost drunken bet of some kind or because they had no money for sets and costumes and just shot with stuff they had. All in all the stakes just aren't that high throughout the entire film. And looking back it's just another mixed up (and less good) Satanic horror (just summoning a slightly different dark evil entity!)

I also think this story could have been more interesting if Nancy didn't just blindly follow Wilbur... she initially asks questions about his intentions and stuff and he just literally replies with random answers and whatever he wants (most of it's B.S.) and she just like... okay! Stranger danger lady! Jeez! Stranger danger!

Oh and lastly I have to mention the godawful ending that doesn't make sense at all! This movie just races toward such an abrupt ending in the end, like they were running out of film to use or something!

The magnificent thing about this one is how much better it is than Die, Monster, Die! (1965) and in only 5 years too, that's one hell of an improvement!

The Dunwich Horror (1970) isn't great but it is interesting and watchable, and probably far better if you MS3K it, or have a couple of beers first (...or do both!) ;)

2.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




My H.P. Lovecraft streak continues tomorrow on The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies as we jump a decade and move on to the 80s' classic, Re-Animator (1985).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Die, Monster, Die! (1965)

NIGHT 6

     "All that I see... is horror."

 

Die, Monster, Die! (1965) is a low-budget horror film directed by Daniel Haller, produced by Roger Corman, and very loosely based on the short story The Colour Out of Space by H.P. Lovecraft. Haller was a protege of Roger Corman and actually built and designed all the beautiful sets from the Corman-Poe films. For reasons that are beyond me, someone decided that Haller was capable of directing (I'm looking at you Corman) and this is his first feeble attempt. The film is in fact in the style of the Corman-Poe films, but obviously he didn't learn much from Corman, because this guy makes Roger Corman look like Alfred Hitchcock.

This film follows "American" Stephen Reinhart as he visiting his fiancee and meeting her family for the first time. However somethings very strange about this family, and no one seems to want to talk about it. But good 'o Stephen is going to investigate.

Surprisingly the mystery aspect of the film is not half bad that is if we cared about the characters we were following or it actually paid off in the end even remotely, fix those "minor" problems and the mystery would probably be worth it.

Boris Karloff isn't inherently bad in this role, but there's really not a lot for him to work with and clearly time hasn't been good to him. He does surprisingly well for 78 but damn, this surely one of his most forgettable performances in his long career.

All of these characters just aren't interesting. This is especially noticeable in the main character, Stephen. After 80 minutes with this guy I have no love for him and know pretty much nothing about him. The poor actor didn't get the memo that he was in a horror film either and plays the whole role like he's a film noir detective, determined to get to the bottom of this mystery.

Why is this England? None of your actors are obviously British. So why transplant Lovecraft's Arkham to England? Is there something about this story that woudn't work in America that I'm missing? Better yet, why pick this story? This is the second film EVER made based on an H.P. Lovecraft tale. You have his whole library of work to pick from and you choose this story which isn't an easy adaptation, and then use the most basic elements from the story and pretty much make up the rest.

There's a point where this story just gives up on the mystery and just de-evolves into a 1970 radiation scare film? (Talk about dating the film!) Is that why you chose this story because you thought it would be edgy and relevant? I bet they thought: "Yup, this is definitely going to be some profound art 30 years from now."

I think the biggest sin of this film is that it just isn't interesting at all. It's actually quite possible that the title is more exciting than any single point in this film.

And the cherry on top of the whole mess? There is a surprising number of really bad jump scares in this film! There was a couple minutes where I really thought I was watching a modern horror film. Way to be modern and a head of your time in the worse way possible!

Big surprise, can't find anything magnificent about this one. Except maybe that someone tried to ape Roger Corman's style and ended up failing horribly. That alone is kind of amazing when you think about it. You know it's bad when it's not even laughably bad, just miserably bad.

Die, Monster, Die! (1965) is a serious snoozer, pass on this one unless you... well no, just take my advice and pass on this one.

1.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




My H.P. Lovecraft streak continues tomorrow on The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies with The Dunwich Horror (1970), unfortunately by the same director as this stinker, but don't let that scare you away fortunately tomorrow's is quite a bit better!

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

The Haunted Palace (1963)

NIGHT 5

     "One becomes accustomed to the darkness here."

 

The Haunted Palace (1963) is an AIP horror film directed by Roger Corman and starring Vincent Price and Lon Chaney Jr. The film is considered part of Corman's series of eight films largely based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe, dubbed the Corman-Poe cycle. Unlike the rest of the Corman-Poe cycle though, this film is actually based on a novella by H.P. Lovecraft entitled The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. This is actually the first film adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft story ever made! As Roger Corman made more of these films he started to play with different things as he went on: Tales of Terror (1962) is an anthology film, The Raven (1963) is a comedy,  and The Haunted Palace only takes it's title from Edgar Allan Poe.

The story takes place in the town of Arkham where 110 years ago it's residents burned-alive a warlock by the name of Joseph Curwen. In present day Arkham a man named Charles Dexter Ward comes to town to inherit the property left to him. One problem, Charles Dexter Ward is the spitting image of his long dead ancestor, Joseph Curwen. And the people of Arkham do not want him to stay.

As with the rest of the Corman-Poe cycle the sets are great in this film, but dare I say they seem a bit more lavish in this one than rest of the series? I really dug the design of the mansion/palace sets here.

All in all, The Haunted Palace is a very fair adaptation of the H.P. Lovcraft story, It's not an exact telling, but they got the "gist" of the original story and worked from there. I think it works very well, Roger Corman did well to combine the spirit of the story with his already established style of the other Poe films he did.

Overall most of the acting is good, I could have done with better actors for the villagers but let's face it, they didn't have much of a role anyway. Debra Paget is particularly good as Ward's wife, Anne. And Lon Chaney Jr. is great as always, I only wish he had more of a role because essentially just a glorified henchman. He's effective though, he's got that "nice guy" charm that makes you believe whatever he says.

The biggest problem with this film is the loads of exposition needed to explain some of the finer aspects of the Lovecraft tale, and the details of the supernatural Cthulhu Mythos behind what's happening in the story. This film would have a hard time explaining it visually so it just has the characters lay out the necessary details which seems pretty awkward at points. And honestly, you'd be less truthful to the story but I'm not sure you need them to name the Great Old Ones and could have just said he's summoning a demon for all I care!

I also didn't understand why every single villager from one hundred years ago has a descendant that looks exactly like them, and remembers what the Warlock looked like 100 years ago. Come on, no one thought this through?

I really like the ending, but it is a very open ended scene to end on. Ending on that note actually makes it seem that the story isn't actually over in the slightest. I'm kinda surprised no one tried to make a sequel?

Vincent Price loves these kinds of roles and honestly he's the perfect guy for it too. It's hard to imagine this whole film working at all with a different actor playing those roles though so props to him. He plays both roles with a real level of conviction and it's not the "hammiest" role I've seen him in, but there's a bit of that too.

One thing I really loved was this story's focus on Ward's wife, Anne. They could have probably done more with her, because essentially she just does whatever her husband tells her... something I attributed to the timeframe this is supposed to take place in (but still we could have seen more struggle with obeying her husband). But letting the story focus on her (even partially) is an interesting move because as Charles gets wrapped up in the scheme, she's able to witness it all first hand. Kind of a cool idea.

The Haunted Palace (1963) is one of the better of the Corman-Poe films. If you're not into the big dark medieval horror epics like I am, you will probably find less to like here than I did, but it's in no way a horrible film and it's definitely very watchable.

4/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies continue tomorrow with a far less successful Lovecraft adaptation, Die, Monster, Die! (1965).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:
 

The Corman-Poe Cycle

1. The House of Usher (1960) (based on the short story "The Fall of the House of Usher")
2. The Pit and the Pendulum (1961) (based on the short story of the same name)
3. The Premature Burial (1962) (based on the short story of the same name)
4. Tales of Terror (1962) (based on the short stories "Morella", "The Black Cat", "The Cask of Amontillado", and "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar")
5. The Raven (1963) (based on the poem of the same name)
6. The Haunted Palace (1963) (based on H.P. Lovecraft's novella The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, using the title from Poe's 1839 poem)
7. The Masque of Red Death (1964) (based on the short story of the same name with another Poe short story, "Hop-Frog", used as a sub-plot.)
8. The Tomb of Ligeia (1965) (based on the short story "Ligeia")

Tales of Terror (1962)

DAY 8

Tales of Terror (1962) is the fourth of eight films based on the stories of Egar Allan Poe, and like most of the others in the series this film stars Vincent Price. This film is a departure for the series however because unlike the previous films which would use one of Poe's stories and then stretch them to feature length this film uses 4 different Poe stories to tell 3 separate parts in one film. This film tells the stories of Morella, then combines both The Cask of Amontillado and The Black Cat, and finishes with the story of The Facts in the case of M. Valdemar. This film also has another departure: The Black Cat is the first story in the series that's been adapted into a pure comedy, this would lead the way for the next in the series The Raven (1963) also starring Peter Lorre.

Like many other horror films this one has very beautiful and detailed sets (it's only a pity they did not light them better). And consistently my favorite part of the Corman-Poe films (besides Vincent Price of course) is the very beautiful costumes, they may be a bit lavish or not actually historically accurate but they always seem to fit the hammy dialogue and the creepy stories wonderfully.

I assumed that because this film was going to tell multiple of Poe's stories in shorter time, this was to pick smaller stories that would have been harder to stretch to a feature running time, and therefore they would be more accurate to the actual stories. Unfortunately I was wrong. All of these stories are VERY loosely adapted and usually only carry the same themes or basic ideas of their originally written counterparts. Truthfully I didn't really care too much for the new versions either. The first one I liked mostly because of Vincent Price's acting (more on that later), but the second story seems more like a test to see if it was possible and barely resembles titular story at all, and I actually don't care for the third story in paper or on screen but I thought the climax at the end was handled nicely.

Also I find it weird that Vincent Price plays roles in each story and yet they switch out the entire female cast for each part. Maybe the actresses couldn't portray different enough acting but I would like to assume that they could have given the chance. I mean I like Vincent Price a lot, it just seems weird to me that he's is in each story and we switch between 3 different blondes for each part of the film. Funny.

And the magnificent thing about this story? Vincent Price. I got hooked into the first story on his acting alone. Usually in the Corman films I feel like his performance has an undertone of humor to it, often being very playful and "hammy" with the lines. But the first story felt like a change from that. His acting is very grave and fittingly solemn. The whole time I was just thinking, "man, this guy can really act!" And then he follows it up with probably one of the goofiest performance of his career as the expert wine taster in the next portion of the film.

Also I need to mention that the way the three stories interconnect is very simply done with a simple voice over from Vincent Price talking about, what else? Death. Loved it.

Tales of Terror (1962) plays out more like a test than anything else but the results are interesting enough to give it a watch. 3/5 stars.

Happy watching!







Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links: