Tales from the Crypt (1972)

NIGHT 3

       "Who's next?"

Tales from the Crypt (1972), is an British anthology horror film directed by Freddie Francis and produced by Amicus Productions. It contains five stories all detailing the strange occurrences of someones death. The stories are also lifted from the EC Comics publications: Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror and The Haunt of Fear. 

Five strangers get seperated from their tourist group as they are visiting old catacombs. They encounter a hooded, old Crypt Keeper who tells each of them a story.

The acting overall in the film ranges from bland to good, that's kind of what you get with these kind of movies with such large casts. I think my favorite acting coincides with the darkest stories of the film the third story, "Poetic Justice" and the final "Blind Alleys," these are both really messed up and dark stories but they both wouldn't have been as effective without the strong acting preformances.

I would say the film is a little dated. It's definitely not as flashy and fun or exciting as some of the other ones on the list I'm reviewing this season, but there's plenty of other reasons to watch it.

And the effects are one of the places it's most evident, some of the makeup and props hold up but all of the 70s special effects look very tacky today.

Easily my favorite thing about Tales from the Crypt is the framing story. I love how the viewer is just as confused as the main characters at the beginning and if you're paying attention you start to realize the stories all involve death. Then you notice the characters who die are the ones represented in the cave and by the time you realize what's actually going on the film ends. It's everything I liked about the framing device in The House that Dripped Blood (1970) but pulled off much more successfully!

And (as if that wasn't enough) the stories themselves are really good too. It's hard for me to pick a favorite because I enjoyed them all! There's lots of films now that are tributes to EC Comics but this film is the first one that actually makes me feel the same way reading the comics do. These are very dark stories, really not intended for kids at all and nothing is held back. I absolutely love them, honestly all horror films should really strive to be as good as the stories featured here in Tales from the Crypt.

Tales from the Crypt (1972) is a great example of what an anthology films should be and the stories, all taken directly from old horror comics, still work beautifully to this day.

3.5/5 Stars.

 Happy watching!




This review is part of my 2014 run of 13 Nights of Macabre Movies! Tune in tomorrow as I review this film's sequel The Vault of Horror (1973).

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

The House That Dripped Blood (1970)

NIGHT 2

       "That's what's wrong with the present day horror films. There's no realism."

The House That Dripped Blood (1970), is an British anthology horror film produced by Amicus Productions. It contains four stories all involving previous tenants of a large house in the countryside who met their demise in a strange way, and the stories are connected by a framing story about a couple of police officers who are investigating the most recent death of a tenant.

Although it takes a while to understand what they're trying to do, one of the best things about this film is the interesting way it connects the stories. I have to say its definitely one of the most interesting ways I've ever seen to connect an anthology film, despite not being pulled off as good as it could have been. But there's also something to be said about a framing story that doesn't just lay its cards out in the first scene too. I do appreciate films like this where you have to get to the end to understand what is really going on.

The worst thing about this film is the stories. They're not written particularly badly, but they're almost all just so dull and uninteresting. They're all very reliant on each stories twist and almost all of them contain what we call a "Double-Shyamalan," which in its self isn't inherently bad and fits the genre well, but to see a double twist 4 times in a row gets really, really repetitive.

I also think the selection of stories is weird. Not to spoil, but the first two stories are non supernatural of nature, and the second two are. Which is weird to me because when I'm watching an anthology film I'm thinking about the common themes and tropes of the stories selected and put together. So when I watch two stories that end up being non-supernatural of nature, I'm really thrown off when the next two are? The least they could have done was switch them up so they were non-supernatural, supernatural, non... etc.

The acting in this film is also pretty terrible or dull at best. There's a couple exceptions I'll get to in a minute but otherwise they really just weigh down the already dull material. Even Christopher Lee seems like he's phoning in his acting, to the point where I couldn't figure out how his character was supposed to be feeling toward his daughter, which happens to be a major part of that story! Pretty un-excusable.

The two best things about this film are Peter Cushing and Jon Pertwee, and for two completely different reasons. Peter Cushing is the perfect counter weight to Christopher Lee. Where you can tell how much Chris Lee liked the source material based on his performance in the film, you'd never know with Peter Cushing because he really gives his all in every film I've ever seen him in! And even though I've seen him play a variety of roles, his acting in this movie is new to me, I've never seen him play a role like this and he really nails it.

Jon Pertwee on the other hand (yes Whovians, the third Doctor,) is really hamming up his role here and while I'm less familiar with his career so I'm not sure if this is intentional for this role or not, but he really sells his segment of the film. And it's also very ironic that he's playing an aging Christopher Lee-type role in a film that also stars Christopher Lee! So it's no surprise that these two actors really made the film for me and the second and fouth stories are my favorite of the bunch, easily.

The House that Dripped Blood (1970) isn't a great film, but it's probably a good stand alone example of the many Amicus Productions Horror anthologies.

3/5 Stars.

 Happy watching!




This review is part of my 2014 run of 13 Nights of Macabre Movies! Tune in tomorrow as I review one of Amicus Productions' most well know horror anthologies, Tales from the Crypt (1972).

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

Horror of Dracula (1958)

NIGHT 21

     "Sleep well, Mr. Harker."

Dracula (1958) (also known as Horror of Dracula) the second in a long line of Hammer horror films following The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), and like that film this film stars Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and is directed by Terence Fisher.

Jonathan Harker has traveled to Count Dracula's castle posing as a librarian, however in this version of the classic tale he already knows exactly what he's in for.

This is a solid retelling of the Dracula story, I love the way the film starts very much like the beginning of the previous films (and of course the novel) and then you realize that Jonathan Harker actually knows what's up already. From then on the movie keeps you guessing by doing things that are close to the original story but often twisted or changed a bit. And I'm happy to say most of those twists and changes are for the better and work very well in this film. I like the way our heros assume that Dracula is after Lucy because Jonathan killed his vampire bride. It's little changes like this that make me think somebody really went over the source material and was like, "how can we make this work better for an hour and a half film."

Hammer films tend to have the whole range as far as sets go and these early ones have some of the better ones. There's parts where the walls looked a bit fake and the forced perspective were a bit off but overall the sets in this film were really good, especially the sets of Dracula's castle.

My biggest complaint with this film is the characters. My friends and I had a brief debate during the beginning of this film on whether or not Jonanthan Harker is actually a Vampire Hunter as his profession. It would seem weird to me that he he would keep something like this from his family and yet it's very clear that Dr. Van Hellsing is a Vampire Hunter in this version (in theory, at the very least) and he is close friends with Jonathan. Yet Jonathan is the one who cares enough about the extinction of the evil Count, so much that he decides to martyr himself in attempt. (Note: he's not very good at it.) I could go either way but the problem is the film doesn't really seem to care either. As far as the characters are concerned the film has only the most basic understanding of who they are and what they want. And beyond what the actors bring to the roles the characters seem like shells of the characters from the novel.

There's also some really awkward moments in this film that are the result of bad staging. Hellsing realizes that Dracula is no longer in his coffin so he runs into the next room, where Dracula is no where to be found... then Dracula busts in from the door at the top of the stairs where he enters to fight Hellsing. Why did Dracula pop out like that? Just to make an epic entrance? Did he forget his cape in the other room? I understand what the director was trying to do, but the staging makes it very humorous.

Despite their not being much in the way of characters the acting in this film is really quite decent. It's super obvious from these earlier Hammer films why they led to a ton of sequels and spin-offs. Peter Cushing really does a lot with his limited material, you really feel for him and want him to succeed in his efforts and likewise I personally am a huge fan of Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula. He may not have much to go on and kind of is a shadow of a character in this one but he's really awesome, and pretty frightening for how little he actually does in the film. I also really liked John Van Eyssen's Jonathan Harker, it's unfortunate that he retired from acting soon after this because he really makes the small role quite memorable.

I love the practical effects in this film, some are testing the limits of early exploitation but most of them are quite fitting and almost all of them still hold up really well. I think these alone make the film still feels very modern. It's funny we lump these early ones in with the 60s' and the 70s' films and that should say something about how ahead of their time they really were. Compare it to the bad sci-fi films that Universal was making stateside during the same time in the late 50s' and these films feel a whole lot more modern than them. And despite the higher concentration of effects this film has that really awesome low-budget feel to it. It's the early days of the Hammer studio and there's more of a passionate, "consolidated" feel in this film, like everyone who worked on it wanted to be doing this.

Dracula (1958) is an early gem in a long line of Hammer Horror films. It's easy to see why the studio really took off after this one.

4/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




Tomorrow on the 31 Nights of Macabre Movies we'll do the animated Japanese classic that was originally inspired by these Hammer films, Vampire Hunter D (1985).

Be sure to check out Daimeon's review of this film too!

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