cinema history class: beyond the darkness (1979)

The session: Work-Aways

Four Movies with horrible horrible characters who remind Keith of some of our craziest work-away stories

(Note: I could not find the trailer on Youtube, so I am sharing this instead.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: Beyond the Darkness (1979)
Directed by Joe D'Amato

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A disturbed taxidermist can't bear to say goodbye to his deceased lover, so he preserves her corpse, keeping it hidden in his home. When his obsession deepens, he embarks on a series of increasingly gruesome murders to prevent others from discovering his secret.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The first thing that grabbed me about Beyond the Darkness was the music. Keith has shown us a bunch of movies scored by Goblin over the years, and their electronic soundtracks are always a treat—and I kind of got a kick out of the fact that this movie credits them as “The Goblins,” which somehow feels even more perfect. Between that pulsing, uneasy score and the absolutely first-rate gore effects (yes, including the cannibalism), the movie is constantly doing something to keep your attention. The effects work is genuinely impressive and often stunning, even by Italian horror standards.

Story-wise, it’s hard not to notice how much the film borrows from Psycho, especially in its setup and obsessions. That said, the plot still feels like it needed one more pass. The private investigator, in particular, feels underused—he’s introduced like he’s going to matter in a big way, but then he’s mostly just… there. When the movie finally delivers its “punchline” with him, it’s not entirely clear what point it’s trying to make, which makes the whole thread feel like a tease that never quite pays off.

Oddly enough, though, despite those narrative shortcomings, the movie does more character development than I expected. There’s an attempt to understand the people involved rather than just using them as fodder, which adds an unexpected layer. And honestly, between Goblin’s score and the relentless, beautifully executed gore, I was pretty much enthralled the whole time anyway—plot gaps and all.

Of course, Joe rated it a 10. But so did Ethan, and he's the toughest grader in the class. So maybe Joe's rating is actually justified this time.

cinema history class: death line (1972)

 he session: Work-Aways

Four Movies with horrible horrible characters who remind Keith of some of our craziest work-away stories

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: Death Line (1972)
Directed by Gary Sherman

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
When people begin vanishing in a London Underground station, the search uncovers a tragic, feral survivor living in the abandoned tunnels — a remnant of a forgotten disaster whose hunger drives the horror beneath the city.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

At first glance, Death Line may seem like fairly standard ’70s British horror—subways, missing commuters, gloomy lighting—but it turns out to be weirder, bloodier, and honestly more artful than I ever expected. The standout for me was the camera work. There’s a jaw-dropping 360-degree pan through the monster’s underground lair—one long unbroken shot that glides past corpses, debris, and our poor doomed characters. For a movie that otherwise feels small and grimy, that moment was gorgeous. I didn’t expect to call anything in this film “gorgeous,” but here we are.

The whole thing has a vibe very reminiscent of Texas Chainsaw Massacre—that same oppressive grime and sense that the characters have wandered into a forgotten pocket of humanity that really should’ve been left forgotten. But it’s actually gorier than TCM, which is saying something. The makeup work is terrific, too: the monsters look sickly, feral, and completely believable, like something that really could have evolved in the dark over decades.

Plot-wise, I have to confess: I didn’t fully get everything while watching. There are really only two monsters left, descendants of a group of workers trapped underground long ago, and they’ve only started grabbing passengers recently because the second one has died, leaving the last survivor desperate enough to venture out. Joe (or maybe Bobbo—I forget who gets the credit/blame here) laid all this out for me afterwards. It was in the exposition from the police, but somehow the meaning didn’t land for me in the moment. Not sure if that’s a flaw in the movie or if I was just having a slow night. Let’s generously say it’s 50/50.

What surprised me most is how oddly sympathetic the surviving monster is. Yes, he’s a cannibal and yes, he does terrible things, but the movie really leans into the idea that he’s more a victim of circumstance—lonely, wounded, and hardly articulate. There’s a strange pathos there that I wasn’t expecting, and it gives the whole story a little emotional dimension beyond “creature feature.” The cannibalism angle itself isn’t even played up that heavily; it’s there, but not milked for shock value.

The film also does a nice slow burn—creeping tension, a few genuinely well-executed jump scares—and then… well, the ending kind of just happens. After all the buildup, it feels a bit anticlimactic. Not a deal-breaker, but definitely a soft landing compared to the dread leading up to it.

A huge unexpected delight is Donald Pleasance as the police detective. He seems to be having the time of his life, tossing in dry humor, snapping at his assistant, and milking a running gag about tea that breaks the darkness just enough without feeling out of place. In a movie this bleak, a little comedy goes a long way, and Pleasance knows exactly how far to take it.

Overall, Death Line is a grimy, atmospheric slow burner with some surprisingly beautiful filmmaking and a memorable monster who manages to be terrifying and tragic all at once. Even with a muddled plot moment or two, it’s a fascinating little horror gem—and that 360-degree shot alone is worth the price of admission.

And Joe rated it a 10. Stop me if you've heard this one before...

cinema history class: antropophagus (1980)

The session: Work-Aways
Four Movies with horrible horrible characters who remind Keith of some of our craziest work-away stories

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Antropophagus (1980)
Directed by Joe D'Amato

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A group of tourists, stranded on a remote Greek island, discover that its inhabitants have been slaughtered by a monstrous, cannibal. As they explore further, they’re hunted one by one by the deranged killer.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Antropophagus is one of those grimy Euro-slashers that, at first glance, looks like it’s going to follow the standard “tourists stumble into trouble” formula — and for a while, it does. The first act feels almost poky, like the movie is wandering around the island with the characters. But slowly, almost imperceptibly, it becomes a genuine slow burn: the dread keeps tightening, the atmosphere gets heavier, and by the time the violence fully erupts, I realized I was basically holding my breath.

And when the gore comes…wow, they did not phone it in. This thing goes far beyond the usual knife-in-the-dark slasher kills. We get the disturbing “impromptu abortion” sequence, with the killer literally eating a human fetus, someone being pulled through the roof of a building by the scalp, and of course the finale where a monster sees his own guts spilling out of his abdomen and decides to eat them. It’s disgusting, yes, but it’s also surprisingly well-staged and legitimately unsettling. There’s a nasty kind of artistry to it.

The throbbing electronic score is another huge part of why the movie works. It worms its way into your nerves — pulsing, buzzing, vibrating beneath everything like a diseased heartbeat. Even in scenes where nothing is happening, the soundtrack insists that something awful is about to.

And for extra fun, the movie isn’t shy about wearing its influences on its sleeve. There’s a scene lifted so blatantly from Jaws that I half expected the characters to hum the theme. Later on, the film pulls a Carrie-style shock moment that feels like it wandered in from another movie but somehow still fits the vibe.

Antropophagus is revolting, often ridiculous, sometimes sluggish, but ultimately effective — a weirdly well-made piece of Euro-nastiness whose reputation is absolutely earned.

Joe missed this one, so he couldn't rate it a 10. He would have tried to give it a 12, but Bobbo wouldn't have let him

cinema history class: requiem for a vampire (1971)

The session: Odds and Sods
Four oddball Halloween-appropriate movies from different countries

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: Requiem for a Vampire (1971)
Directed by Jean Rollin

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
Two teenage girls on the run after a botched robbery find themselves lost in the French countryside and stumble into an old château inhabited by a vampire clan. Seduced and terrorized in equal measure, they become trapped in a strange mix of gothic horror and erotic surrealism. As the night unfolds, the girls must confront the castle’s master, who wants to make them part of his undead lineage.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Requiem for a Vampire might be the least talkative movie I’ve ever seen that still has a story you can actually follow. The two girls at the center of it barely speak to each other, which creates this weird sense of emotional distance—but somehow the plot is still clear. The silence ends up giving the whole thing a dreamlike, drifting quality, like they’re wandering through someone else’s half-remembered nightmare.

The movie kept reminding me of El Topo, and that’s not a comparison I make lightly. I didn’t like El Topo—that one felt like a fever-dream that forgot to include the plot part. Requiem shares that surreal, symbolic tone, but at least here I always knew what was happening. Even when things got strange (and they often do), the movie never fully dissolved into nonsense.

What it does dissolve into is imagery. This thing feels like an experiment Rollin decided to conduct with costumes, shadows, masks, ruins, and the French countryside. And honestly, it works better than it probably has any right to. The visuals are great—atmospheric, moody, and occasionally beautiful—but the trade-off is that the movie sometimes feels more like an art project than a complete story. I didn’t mind watching it, but it left me a little unfulfilled, like it was a sketch for a bigger, richer gothic film he never quite made.

If you squint, you can read it as a kind of fairy tale about transformation—innocence turning into experience, humans becoming monsters, girls becoming something new altogether. It’s not spelled out, but the vibe is there.

Anyway, fun to look at, interesting as an experiment, not entirely satisfying as a narrative… but definitely memorable.

And for the record: Joe would’ve slammed this one the moment it reminded him of El Topo, but he’d still give it a higher score than El Topo, because he recognizes when a fever-dream at least remembers it’s supposed to have a plot.

cinema history class: tower of evil (1972)

The session: Odds and Sods
Four oddball Halloween-appropriate movies from different countries

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: Tower of Evil (1972)
Directed by Jim O'Connolly

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A group of archaeologists investigates the grisly murders of several young people on a fog-shrouded island off the English coast. As they explore an ancient Phoenician temple beneath a lighthouse, they discover that something monstrous—and not entirely human—still lurks there, determined to kill again.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
It's not a masterpiece by any means, but Tower of Evil pretty much delivers what it promises: plenty of jump scares, a good amount of blood, and enough suspense and mystery to keep things moving. The plot—archaeologists investigating a creepy island murder scene—has that classic early-’70s British horror vibe, with fog, shadows, and lots of screaming.

That said, it’s hard not to notice that half the movie was clearly filmed on a soundstage. Every so often you can practically hear the echo off the studio walls, and there's just blackness all around. This kind of makes the “remote island” feel about as isolated as a BBC backlot. Still, there’s a weird charm to it all. At times it almost plays like a grown-up version of The Goonies—a group exploring tunnels, discovering treasures, and unleashing something best left buried.

When we meet the ancient Phoenician god, I had to stifle a laugh. The poor creature looks suspiciously like the squirrel from the Ice Age movies, if the squirrel had just crawled out of a vat of mud. And the fiery finale gave me flashbacks to Island of Lost Souls, with that same sense of wild, apocalyptic chaos. And, as we see the island in flames, I expected to hear someone say "Don't Look Back."

Joe missed this one, but I’m sure he would have given it a ten.

cinema history class: devil's nightmare (1971)

The session: Odds and Sods
Four oddball Halloween-appropriate movies from different countries

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: The Devil's Nightmare (1971)
Directed by Jean Brismee

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A group of travelers takes shelter for the night in a gloomy castle, unaware that their host is a cursed baron whose daughter, a succubus, preys on the seven deadly sins. One by one, the guests fall victim to their own vices as the demonic daughter exacts her infernal revenge.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Devil’s Nightmare is an interesting little morality tale. Each of the guests in an old castle represents one of the seven deadly sins, and each meets a death that supposedly reflects their vice. The idea is clever, but the execution is uneven—some deaths, like those tied to gluttony and greed, make perfect sense, while others feel like a stretch and are therefore forgettable. Maybe the writers lost track of which sin was which after a while—easy enough to do after seven.

None of the characters are especially likeable, so it’s hard to feel much when they meet their fates. On the bright side, that does make it easier to watch them die. Still, you can see a seed of the slasher formula that would blossom later in the ’70s and ’80s: people trapped in a confined setting, getting picked off one by one. The makeup effects are actually impressive, though, and they give the film a little extra polish it otherwise lacks.

By that point, though, logic had packed its bags and left the castle. And I have to admit, it’s a bit sad when you realize near the end that they killed the wrong girl at the beginning. That twist almost makes you want to give the movie more credit than it probably deserves.

And, as always, Joe rated it a ten!

cinema history class: mad doctor of blood island (1969)

The session: Odds and Sods
Four oddball Halloween-appropriate movies from different countries

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Mad Doctor of Blood Island (1969)
Directed by Eddie Romero and Gerry DeLong

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
On remote Blood Island, an American doctor discovers a mad scientist turning villagers into green-skinned killers with a bizarre serum.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Mad Doctor of Blood Island is a bit of a mixed bag. On the plus side, the scenery is gorgeous—lush jungles and tropical vistas that make you almost forgive the film for what comes next. Unfortunately, the camera work is a nightmare: the throbbing, rapid zooms during supposedly shocking moments are so relentless they’re genuinely nauseating.

The movie veers between silly and slightly impressive. The monster looks great in some shots but downright comical in others, and the comic book–like plotting makes it hard to care about any of the characters. At least the filmmakers bothered to give a plausible (if horror movie–plausible) explanation for the chaos, which is more than I was expecting early on.

There’s a surprising amount of explicit gore, which adds a curious touch of interest—even if I usually prefer the power of imagination over a flood of blood. Acting and dialogue are uniformly bad, but somehow, that fits the overall tone of absurdity.

At least Bobbo had fun watching it!

cinema history class: don't go to sleep (1982)

The session: Creepy Kids!
Four weeks of films featuring creepy kids. Or is it creepy films about kids?

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: Don't Go to Sleep (1982)
Directed by Richard Lang

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
Trying to get past the death of the eldest daughter, a grieving family move into a new home. But the daughter isn't quite ready to say goodbye.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Don't Go To Sleep is one of those rare TV movies that makes you blink in disbelief at how far it pushes television boundaries. It's an endurance test—so relentlessly creepy and emotionally intense that you almost wonder how ABC signed off on airing this in prime time. It’s a slow-burn family horror story about ghostly revenge, full of nail-biting discomfort and well-earned chills.​

The story, at its core, is a revenge tale, with the vengeful ghost of daughter Jennifer wielding supernatural payback against her family—the very people she believes are responsible for her tragic death. What makes it smarter than the average TV shocker is how everyone clings to the refrain "It was an accident. It was nobody's fault." The denial and buried guilt hang over the family like a toxic fog, all while Jennifer picks them off one by one in ways that are quietly nightmarish. It's striking how each character feels some measure of responsibility, hinted at in their conversations and in the flashback reveal of the fateful prank in the car.​

In class, we had a lively discussion about the events of the movie are paranormal or psychological. My money's on the literal, ghostly interpretation; the evidence for Jennifer's actual supernatural revenge feels more compelling. But there's enough ambiguity, especially with Mary’s mental unraveling, that a "mass psychosis" reading is defensible, and that tension gives the movie extra depth.​

A particular strength is how Don't Go To Sleep skillfully suggests gore without ever crossing into explicit territory. That pizza-cutter scene is anxiety in its purest form—your mind fills in the horrors as Mary menaces the stairway, and the watermelon-smash moment is a classic metaphor for violence unseen. It’s a lesson in the power of suggestion, showing that a well-placed image or sound can provoke just as much terror as any graphic set-piece.​

The film always felt like it was operating far above the usual "TV movie" tier. A lot of that comes down to the tight, clever writing—dialogue crackles with resentment and suppressed guilt, and the plot manages to keep you guessing right up to the final chilling image. Even the opening credits use music pauses and ambient sound, like cars passing, to create palpable dread right from the start. And let’s not forget the sly touch with the house number: 13666, a string of bad luck capped by what every horror fan knows as "the mark of the beast."

Don't Go To Sleep proves that the right mix of writing, casting, and atmosphere can turn a made-for-TV movie into an unforgettable horror experience.

cinema history class: the others (2001)

The session: Creepy Kids!
Four weeks of films featuring creepy kids. Or is it creepy films about kids?

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: The Others (2001)
Directed by Alejandro Amenabar

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
World War II has just ended, and a scared woman is living with her photosensitive children in a darkened mansion. She is sure the place is haunted -- and, in a sense, she's right.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The Others starts out slow, but it’s the kind of slow burn that makes every creak and whisper in that sprawling mansion feel like it matters. It’s a gothic, foggy setup—the classic sort where half the suspense is watching Nicole Kidman lock down every room, hiding her photosensitive kids from the sunlight like some paranoid Victorian ghost hunter. Honestly, for a while, I found myself wondering if anything huge was going to happen, but the tension ramps up beautifully until that big twist.

Now, about that twist—it’s cut from the same cloth as The Sixth Sense, and, like that movie, you know something supernatural and game-changing is coming. I figured out early on that the family’s relationship to the ghosts was off, but I couldn’t quite peg exactly what was going on. When they finally reveal that Grace and her kids are actually the ghosts haunting the place, it’s wild to realize you’ve been rooting for the haunting instead of the haunted the whole time.

If you’ve seen The Changeling (which we did a week earlier), the similarities can’t be ignored. Both films play with haunted house architecture—staircases and endless, shadowy hallways that feel right out of an Escher drawing. I noticed that off-kilter, looping quality while watching, but I didn’t realize that it was intentional until Keith pointed it out afterwards. It did a great job of messing with my perception of space. It’s almost like The Others is The Changeling flipped on its head: in one, the living confront a dead presence; in the other, the dead realize the living are the intruders.

Villains? Not really. The Others, just like The Changeling and The Sixth Sense doesn’t give you an evil monster or nefarious ghost to hate. Everyone in that gloomy house is a victim wrestling with loss and confusion. Even the infamous séance scene feels like an homage—pulled straight from The Changeling (and appropriately reversed), right down to the frantic pacing and eerie detachment from reality.

Honestly, this movie should have been a modern classic, and it’s a shame it never reached iconic status. It came out in August 2001, and the timing—it was right before the world changed with 9/11—meant it got overshadowed and lost in the shuffle. Some of the film’s mysteries get left hanging, but it didn’t bother me. The strange, claustrophobic mood and gradual revelation kept me hooked, and by the end, the twist on the classic ghost story trope left me utterly out of breath.

The Others is worth revisiting, especially for fans of chilly, intelligent horror with atmosphere galore and a satisfying, eerie payoff.

cinema history class: the changeling (1980)

The session: Creepy Kids!
Four weeks of films featuring creepy kids. Or is it creepy films about kids?

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: The Changeling (1980)
Directed by Peter Medak

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
After losing his wife and daughter, a composer moves into a remote mansion. There he finds he's not quite alone. As he investigates, he uncovers the house's dark secret.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Changeling grabs hold with suspense from the very start and absolutely refuses to let go; every creak of the sprawling mansion and every dark hallway left me clenched in nervous anticipation. Unlike so many horror films that lean on cheap scares, this haunted house story expertly builds tension through uncertainty and atmosphere, often making the most mundane moments intensely unnerving. Rarely has “waiting for the next shoe to drop” felt quite this electrifying—edge-of-your-seat is almost an understatement.

It's a wonder that The Changeling isn’t more famous, considering how well it outplays classics like The Exorcist in suspenseful storytelling. Much of the movie’s power comes from how it toys with expectations—a child’s presence looms early, leading to a quiet twist where the main character’s daughter steps aside and sorrow fills the space. You never quite know what’s lurking in the darkness, and the movie keeps cleverly misdirecting both its characters and audience right up to the chilling finale.

Even the supposed villain, Senator Carmichael, is handled with tragic nuance, becoming almost sympathetic as the truths of the haunting unwind. The Changeling does suspense so well it’s almost exhausting, and yet, that tension makes every scene impossible to look away from—this is the kind of horror that lingers long after the credits roll. 

cinema history class: the innocents (1961)

The session: Creepy Kids!
Four weeks of films featuring creepy kids. Or is it creepy films about kids?

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: The Innocents (1961)
Directed by Jack Clayton

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A governess takes a job caring for two children on a remote estate. But things turn sideways. Is the house haunted? Are the kids haunted?

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Innocents is one of those rare movies that manages to unsettle on multiple levels, and watching it feels a bit like stepping into a dream where every shadow might have a deeper meaning. Its haunting atmosphere instantly reminded me of The Woman in Black, not just for the ghostly elements but for the imagery. The presence of overt sexual undertones in The Innocents sets it apart—unlike the chilly restraint in The Woman in Black, Clayton’s film constantly hints at forbidden desires and tangled emotions beneath its gothic surface.

There’s also a strong Carnival of Souls vibe in the way the movie uses ambiguity and atmosphere. Instead of relying on cheap scares, it draws out long stretches of discomfort, where faces dominate the frame and silence feels loaded with meaning. Deborah Kerr’s performance is key here—all those tight close-ups of her fearful, searching expressions ramp up the eeriness. There’s something hypnotic and deeply creepy about her uncertainty, and those moments when you see her face fill with terror communicate so much more than any scream or jump-scare could ever do.

One of the film’s greatest strengths is how it refuses to provide any easy answers. Is the governess losing her grip on reality, or are genuine supernatural forces at play? This question does get resolved—or at least I think it does. But it’s in that ambiguity that the movie finds real power. The final scenes with little boy stand out as the most disturbing—I realized that he was speaking as though possessed of adult logic, engaging in arguments and debates that feel too mature for his age. I don’t recall if he was doing that earlier in the film. But this manner multiplies the discomfort, making it hard to pin down whether the horror is coming from ghosts or psychological breakdowns.

All of these elements create a movie that doesn’t let go of the viewer’s mind—even days after watching, fragments return in flashes: a child’s adult speech, Kerr’s haunted eyes, the suggestion that reality itself might be shifting. If The Innocents feels deeply creepy, it’s because it knows the most powerful hauntings don’t come from what’s seen, but from what’s left unseen and unresolved. 

cinema history class: the spider woman strikes back (1946)

 The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: The Spider Woman Strikes Back (1946)
Directed by Arthur Lubin

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
After accepting a job as assistant to a blind recluse, a young woman discovers that her boss is harvesting her blood to feed plants as part of some weird plot.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Despite the anticipation conjured by its title, this leaves much to be desired. The “spider woman” plot point was really secondary – or maybe even tertiary. And this was supposed to be Rondo Hatton month, but Hatton was severely underutilized as Mario, the title character’s mute henchman. His presence is unsettling but ultimately underdeveloped; I was eagerly expecting his signature screen menace and minimal but gravelly dialogue. So I was disappointed that his performance offers little beyond silent skulking. OK, I think there was also a strangling…but still…

The film’s overall pacing is one of its weakest points; it races through its story as if desperate to complete its runtime. This rushed feeling undermines any suspense or character development. From a brief documentary that Keith showed us, we learned that the film was made to complete a contractual obligation. And it shows.

Perhaps most misleading is the “Spider Woman” moniker, which feels more like a marketing ploy than an integral element of the movie’s narrative. Spiders occupy only a minor part in the story—overshadowed by a plot about blood-harvesting and carnivorous plants—rendering the titular promise almost moot and leaving viewers to wonder why the arachnid theme was emphasized at all. In the end, The Spider Woman Strikes Back stands as a minor and muddled footnote in Universal’s horror catalog, noteworthy mainly for its squandered talent and unfulfilled potential. 

cinema history class: the pearl of death (1944)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: The Pearl of Death (1944)
Directed by Roy William Neill

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
After the infamous Borgia Pearl is stolen from a museum, Sherlock Holmes must solve a series of brutal murders—victims found with broken backs amid smashed china—unraveling its connection to a master criminal, Giles Conover, and his sinister accomplice known as the Creeper.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
It's an odd thing to feel disappointment at seeing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. But this was Rondo Hatton month, and I wanted more Rondo.* Rondo, of course, wasn't a leading man type, so his screentime has been somewhat limited in all the movies Keith has shown us. But that's even more the case here. Clearly, this production was not created for Rondo; Rondo, as the villain, is not the star. His role is pivotal, but he is mostly seen in shadows.

But the team of Rathbone and Bruce were arguably the best Holmes/Watson combination. I do think they would be better if Watson weren't portrayed as a bumbler, but this film was typical of the team's work. The existence (however brief) of Rondo Hatton was a bonus.

*In fairness, Keith did tell us in advance that this was a Sherlock Holmes film starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Ahead of each session, he emails us to let us know what we'll be seeing. Maybe I should pay closer attention to these emails. Don't let him know that I missed that detail.

cinema history class: house of horrors (1946)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: House of Horrors (1946)
Directed by Jean Yarbrough

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A misunderstood artist saves a disfigured man from drowning and befriends him. He then proceeds to manipulate the man into murdering art critics.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Again, it's fun to watch Rondo Hatton as a brutish figure. He says very little, and he says it in a monotone, but it works. The Creeper, as portrayed by Hatton is a compelling antagonist -- one who you can simultaneously hate and sympathize with.  The plot is compelling -- almost noirish, though the dialogue lacks the speedy crispness of a film noir. It's efficient; there's no time wasted.

What bothers me most about House of Horrors, though I really shouldn't hold it against the movie, is something Keith told us a week earlier when he showed us The Brute Man. Apparently The Brute Man, though it was made later, was (in part) an attempt at creating an origin story for The Creeper. It doesn't really make sense, given the settings. I'm probably obsessing too much over continuity.

cinema history class: the brute man (1946)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: The Brute Man (1946)
Directed by Jean Yarbrough

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A disfigured athlete seeks retribution against those he blames for his condition. In his quest for revenge, he is aided by a blind woman who sees him for who he truly is.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
As a bit of background, it's important to know (and I didn't know until Keith explained it in his introduction, Rondo Hatton's life began normally enough. But after he was exposed to mustard gas during World War I, he developed acromegaly. As an aside, I didn't know that you could develop the condition as a result of chemical exposure, but I guess it kind of makes sense.

The thing I find most interesting about The Brute Man is the physical appearance of its star, Rondo Hatton. Because of his acromegaly (and, I think, creative lighting), he had a monstrous appearance that other actors would have achieved with makeup and prosthetics. He was not a well-trained actor, often barking very simple lines in a monotone. That fact was actually mentioned in a documentary that Keith showed us after the movie. The thing is, the way he gruffly barked his lines worked perfectly for his character. What's also interesting is the fact that Hatton's character developed acromegaly as a result of chemical exposure. I don't know if it was done on purpose, but the resemblance to Hatton's own life is obvious.

The movie itself is quite good, even if it's not particularly ambitious. It's an interesting and entertaining B movie. And it succeeds very well on that level. I probably would have been able to appreciate it better if I had seen some of the other movies Hatton had been in. Keith explained that this was, in a way, meant as an origin story movie for Hatton's "Creeper" character. Had I been familiar with some of the other movies, I might have been able to appreciate it more.

cinema history class: devil doll (1964)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 5 (Bobbo): Devil Doll (1964)
Directed by Lindsay Shonteff

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A sinister ventriloquist uses his eerily lifelike dummy and hypnotic powers to manipulate a wealthy heiress. Meanwhile, a reporter uncovers the ventriloquist's dark secret.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Doll immediately reminded me of an episode of Twilight Zone that involved a ventriloquists' dummy come to life. That set my expectation for the direction this film would take. Of course, my expectations were wrong -- in fact, they wdere a complete inversion. Which is fine, since the story itself held up pretty well.

This had a very small-time feel, though it did a very good job of building tension and making the viewer guess. In fact, if you you ignore the nudity, it would have done well has a long Twilight Zone episode.
 

cinema history class: the trial (1962)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4 (Ethan): The Trial (1962)
Directed by Ronald Neame

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I'd seen this once before, a year or two ago. So I was reasonably familiar with it.

Plot:
A mild-mannered bank clerk is arrested on charges that are never revealed to him (or to the audience), and finds himself trapped in a nightmarish and insane legal system.

Reaction and Other Folderol:.
The Trial is full of stunningly nightmarish imagery. At times it's intensely claustrophobic, while at other times it's expansive. It's dark and it's light. The dialogue is verbose and concise. The whole thing is an exercise in contradictions, and itkeeps the viewer  on his heals, confused and discombobulated. I'd say that the protagonist, Josef K, is living a Kafka-esque nightmare, except that the movie is based on a Kafka novel. I'd say it's Orwellian, except that that seems trite given the Kafka connection. But it is dizzying, confusing and surreal.

The one problem with this film is director, Orson Welles himself. There are times that it drags, as Welle's couldn't seem to remove extraneous footage. I'm told that that was a thing with him -- that he was too enamored of his own dialogue that his films were too long. And this one could have been 15 minutes or a half hour shorter. Still, however, a really good intense film.

cinema history class: the poseidon adventure (1972)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3 (Me): The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Directed by Ronald Neame

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I was already very familiar with this movie -- as I should be, given that I chose it for Bring Your Own Movie Month

Plot:
After their cruise ship capsizes, a small group of passengers struggle stay ahead of the rising water and survive long enough to  

Reaction and Other Folderol:.
I generally have a difficult time choosing a movie for Bring Your Own Movie Month (BYOMM). I have a mental list of possible movies, though it's always changing. And I annoy Keith with texts and emails asking "what about XXX." This year, Poseidon was on my short list of several dozen possibilities. And, truth be told, it would not have been my final choice if not for the fact that its star, Gene Hackman, died in February. He was one of the greats of his generation, but he didn't do a lot of horror or sci-fi movies. But he did do Poseidon.

The first half of the 1970s was kind of a golden age for disaster films, and those were the horror movies that I was into as a kid. I nagged my mom to take me to see Earthquake, which gave me nightmares. I nagged her to take me to see Jaws, which gave me nightmares. Same with Tidal Wave. I still haven't seen The Towering Inferno, but that's another matter. Anyway, I didn't see The Poseidon Adventure when it came out -- I was just a little too young. But over the years I saw it in bits and pieces on TV, and I liked what I saw. I don't remember when I first saw it in its entirety, but it is a longtime favorite.

One of the cool things about BYOMM is that I sometimes come away with new insights about old favorites. That comes about in part because I get to hear everyone else's thoughts about the movie, but also because I am looking at the movie with a more critical eye. One thing I noticed this time is the way Poseidon seems to be draw some inspiration from the Bible. Gene Hackman's character, a rebellious pastor, is a Moses-like figure. He leads his little entourage away from the water, through the ship and toward their rescue. But, like Moses, he never gets to enter the promised land -- dying before they cross over. And it almost seems that his death is the price of his rebellious nature. I also realized for the first time how great this film is as a character study. Something else I had never thought about until Ethan mentioned it is the fact that the rising sea water is a stand-in for a menacing animal that might be the antagonist in a forest-set movie wherein people are trying to find their way to safety.

Now I just have to figure out what to bring for BYOMM next year.

cinema history class: dracula (1931)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2 (Dave): Dracula (1931)
Directed by Tod Browning

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I was aware of this movie's existence, and of much of the plot points. But had never seen it.

Plot:
A mysterious Transylvanian nobleman, Count Dracula, travels to England, where he begins to prey on the blood of young women and is pursued by Professor Van Helsing, who suspects his true identity. As Dracula’s influence spreads, Van Helsing races to stop the vampire before he claims more victims.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
This, the first Dracula talkie, set the model -- both for portrayals of the titular vampire and for Bela Lugosi characters. Lugosi's vampire is a well-dressed, well-groomed, polite man of manners. The consummate gentleman, if you'll forgive the whole neck-biting thing. And that has been the dominant portrayal of Dracula since then. As for Bela Lugosi, the Dracula role defined and typecast him. I'm thinking, for example, of his role in 1932's White Zombie. His character, Legendre, was very clearly influenced by Dracula. 

Related to that, one of the most interesting things about seeing this was comparing it to Nosferatu -- the 1922 silent film that was based on the same material. The vampire in the 1922 film couldn't have been presented more differently. He was gangly, and gaunt -- appearing barely human. He had sunken eyes, pointed ears and rat-like teeth. His arms and hands were evocative of spiders. It was a huge leap to the suave gentleman of Dracula. Some of the aspects of the early part of the story bear strong similarities to Nosferatu, though the resemblance is much weaker in the latter half of the film.

Produced at a time when the industry was still trying to figure out how to do talkies, the movie seemed like it was part of a transitional creature. For example, there was a lot of use of printed narration for exposition. And the staging made it feel like a play -- much of it taken directly from the stage version (which had also starred Lugosi). That, Keith explained, was a big reason for the movie seeming to slow during the second half.

 But this was a visually interesting film -- especially when judged for its time -- with an interesting story and a compelling protagonist. I gave it high marks for all of that.

cinema history class: forbidden planet (1956)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"

As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1 (Joe): Forbidden Planet (1956)
Directed by Fred M. Wilcox

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Though I'd never seen this film before, I was aware of its reputation as one of the great sci-fi classics. I also knew that Anne Francis was in it -- because that fact is referenced in the theme song from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Plot:
A starship crew investigate a lost colony, and find a mysterious scientist, his daughter and a mystery.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
It's important to acknowledge how influential Forbidden Planet was on other movies and TV shows. Though I hadn't seen it, I was aware of its place as a cultural influence. And, in case we didn't know, Joe was very clear in pointing out that fact -- both in his remarks before the movie and by sharing with us clips -- one from Lost in Space and one from another movie whose name I don't recall -- to demonstrate. For my part, I noted that the Star Trek episode, "Requiem for Methuselah" borrowed heavily on the premise. So much so that I was convinced that the daughter would turn out to be an android. 

And it's because of that that I really wanted to like the movie more than I did, and why I came away disappointed by it. The special effects were, at times amazing (especially judged for its time). And the premise was kind of interesting. But there wasn't enough story to justify the movie's length. It was too ponderous, and there was too much emphasis paid to spectacle and visuals at the expense of storytelling.

cinema history class: milligan and company

Keith took us for a stroll down 42nd street and some exploitation flicks from the lenses of Milligan and company.

The Trailers:

Torture Dungeon

The Touch of Her Flesh

(sorry -- I couldn't find a trailer on Youtube)

Carnival of Blood

(technically, a trailer for a double feature)

Double Agent 73

Reaction and Other Folderol:

First, some bookkeeping: In the ratings section, I have been including "Bob-O." His real name is Bob, and I'm not sure why we call him Bob-O. At any rate, I have long regretted that I started fashioning his nickname as "Bob-O." I much prefer "Bobbo." So I have made the executive decision to switch.

In this session we got four very different types of movies -- a fairytale (Torture Dungeon), a stag film (The Touch of Her Flesh), a whodunit (Carnival of Blood) and a spy parody (Double Agent 73). But what they have in common is that they were all directed by big names in the world of tiny budgets. And their low budgets were reflected in their low-quality production values.

For the most part, I had a very difficult time appreciating what these films had to offer. The best of the lot was Carnival of Blood, which had an interesting plot, and some decent acting by the principles. Burt Young was really good in it. But the bad music and low production values made it very hard to enjoy. I really wanted to like it more than I did.

That's also true of Double Agent 73, which starred the inimitable Chesty Morgan. Chesty, who boasted a natural 73" bustline, played a spy in this James Bond parody. The key is that she had to take a photo of every enemy spy she killed -- using acamera implanted in her breast. So, throughout the film, she would kill someone, then remove her shirt and bra, and flick her breast. It was surreal. Also surreal, for me at least, was the fact that a lot of exteriors were filmed in Forest Hills -- a neighborhood that I visit frequently. So I kept saying things like "I used to swim in the pool in that building" and "I once dated a woman who lived in that building." That helped me enjoy what was otherwise a bizarrely bad movie.

The Touch of Her Flesh was, for the most part, a stag film featuring Angelique Pettyjohn (whom Star Trek fans will remember as Captain Kirk's drill thrall). If I want to be charitable, I can frame it as an interesting character study. But no amount of charity can frame Torture Dungeon as anything worthwhile.

I just had to keep reminding myself that these are movies I would never see otherwise...