cinema history class: frankenstein's bloody terror (1968)

 

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

Session: Crocker Picks the April Hits (Week 4)
Movie: Frankenstein's Bloody Terror (1968)
Directed by Enrique Lopez Eguiluz

Plot:

A pair of lovers accidentally release a wolfman who proceeds to wreak havoc on a village. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The first thing to understand about Frankenstein's Bloody Terror is that it's not a Frankenstein movie. There's a werewolf (referred to as a "wolf monster," I assume because of trademark issues), a vampire and a "ghoul woman" (who seems to me to be a female vampire). But no Frankenstein's monster. Keith explained the situation to us. Producer Sam Sherman had contracted to provide a Frankenstein movie for theatrical release, but his film was being held captive by a lab. So he took The Mark of the Wolfman, added a half-minute animated prolog to explain that a branch of the Frankenstein family had become werewolves and took the name Wolfstein. And that's the last time there's any Frankenstein element of the film.

Even putting that interesting bit of chicanery aside, this really isn't a particularly good movie. Other than Paul Naschy (more on him later), the acting was unimpressive. And the plot was both muddled and tedious. Monsters kind of show up without adequate explanation, and dance away at the end in a weird inexplicable display.

There was an odd mismatched quality to the film in that it felt very much like an 18th or 19th century period piece, but set in modern times with modern machinery such as cars. That just seemed disconcerting.

Naschy, for his part, does a good job in a bad role. His energetic performance was fun to watch. I think it was Dave who compared it to some of the old professional wrestling shows. I enjoyed the moments where we saw it as weird shadow puppets.

Ratings

Me: 5 or 6*

Bob-O: 9.4

Christina: 9.25

Dave: 9.7

Ethan: 6

Joe: 10

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "I just thought that was a really ugly Frankenstein's monster"

Cats: Again, no cats. But lots of dogs.

____________________________________________________

*If I'm judging this as a Frankenstein movie, it gets a 5. But it's not really the film's fault that Sam Sherman retitled it in such a deceptive way. If I'm judging it as the werewolf movie it's sup[posed to be, I give it a 6.

cinema history class: theatre of blood (1973)

  

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

Session: Crocker Picks the April Hits (Week 3)
Movie: Theatre of Blood (1973)
Directed by Douglas Hickox

Plot:

Insulted, snubbed and humiliated by the critics, a Shakespearian actor takes his brutally clever revenge. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

"The critics have spoken...their last words"

-- Joe

One way that I stand out from the rest of the class is that I'm not a big fan of Vincent Price. I suspect that's because  I tend to associate him with the gothic horror films of 1960 or so, and those don't really do it for me. But this, from the early 1970s and set in contemporary times, was right up my alley.

There's a good mix of humor and violence, and Vincent Price outdoes himself as the actor, Lioneart. In truth, it's a plumb role for someone like him -- Shakespearian-trained but turned to horror.

The whole thing borrows heavily from Batman, (the 1960s series) in its realization of elaborate mechanisms for murder. Of course, where it deviates from that series is in the outcomes -- no one seemed to die in Batman, but the critics die in this -- often painfully.

I especially enjoyed the use of music. There were these lush orchestral pieces accompanying gore in ways that made for some great incongruity.

There were a couple things that kind of personalized the movie for me.

Back when I was a smartass college student writing reviews for campus newspapers I sometimes took unseemly delight in unfairly harsh criticisms. Sometimes, in fact, we the critics would gang up on a movie or record because -- well, because we were obnoxious and we could. Of course we were insignificant so our efforts didn't derail the careers of Bon Jovi or the Smiths, but I do look back on those episodes with a degree of regret. ToB reminded me of that chapter of my writing life. And, fortunately, I don't have to look over my shoulder wondering when some artist, upset over my undue jabs, will exact revenge. Or so I hope.

Years ago a family friend died in a ranching accident. She was dragged to death by her horse, so one particular scene reminded me of that. She was 18.

And, finally, there was an episode in a Freshman English course in college when a professor asked me my opinion about a poem. Without going into detail, I'll just say that I won him over with my refusal to back away from an opinion I had expressed. Of course, I wasn't trying to win him over; I just didn't see any sense in saying "oh, yes. that's great" after already saying it sounded like a greeting card. Turned out it was a greeting card, and the professor was truing to see whether I had the conviction to stand by my judgement.

But I don't think the personal memories were necessary for me to enjoy this film. Everything about it was so well done. So, while I went in with low expectations, I was surprised. I wanted to find an excuse not to give it a 10, but I really couldn't come up with one.

I think it was Joe who once said  "the unexpected tens are the tenniest tens of them all."

Ratings

Me: 10

Bob-O: 10

Christina: 9.9*

Dave: 10

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "That trailer has a lot of screeching. Also, cute horsey."

Cats: No cats, but there are a couple of delicious poodles.

____________________________________________________

*If not for the poodles dying, Christina may have given this a 10.

my first slam

 Enough with taking classes. At some point you have to get out there and do. With that in mind I headed out for my first Storyslam.

The topic for the evening was sales -- there was a lot more verbiage to the prompt, but it comes down to sales. Phil pointed it to me, noting that the Angry Bob story I told at a class show could be adapted. I'd have to make some changes of course, since my story was eight minutes, and Moth Storyslam events have a six-minute time limit. And I'd have to refocus it. But I could manage.

And so I went with Phil, dragging Ethan along and planning to meet Blair there.

Since this is my first post about a Moth Storyslam, I'll take the opportunity to describe the proceedings. In follow-up posts I will assume this knowledge as background. Everyone who wants to tell their story fills out a form. Through the course of the evening, these forms are drawn from a bag to choose who gets to tell a story. In all, ten people get called. So if twenty people put their names in, each has a 50% chance of going up. At the end of the night, all those who weren't called get to come up and deliver their opening lines.

I had a fun evening, but it was anticlimactic, since I didn't get picked. But I could see that I can compete in this space.

At any rate, here was my opening line:

cinema history class: the beyond (1980)

  

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

Session: Crocker Picks the April Hits (Week 2)
Movie: The Beyond (1981)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

Some yutz decided to build a hotel in New Orleans right on top of one of the seven entrances to hell. Well, jeez, Louise! What do you think will happen? Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

"All your senses are attacked with this movie."

-- Bob-O

Bob-O got it right. this was just an all around thrill. The visual effects were stunning, and the score was the perfect enhancement.

In some ways this thing starts out slow. Or, at least, once you get past the ultraviolent prologue it's slow. But the tension builds, and you don't even realize how tense it has gotten until, like a lobster in a pot, you realize you've boiled over. By the end, it's heart-poundingly exciting. And the end -- I don't recall a better horror movie ending than this.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen this much gore. Well, maybe in such out-of-the-mainstream fare as Blood-Sucking Freaks, but never in a mainstream film. And, done with prostheses and makeup instead of CGI, it was very effective. I can't begin to count how many times during this movie the room was filled with giddy shrieks. 

Ratings

Me: 9.5

Bob-O: 10

Christina: 10

Dave: 9.9

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10*

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "I don't like the spiders"

Cats: No cats, but there's a big doggo named Dicky. Seriously, though -- who names a dog "Dicky"?

____________________________________________________

*Joe shouldn't really get to submit a grade, since he didn't actually attend class. But he was already familiar with the film, and actually rewatched it at home that night. A week and a half before this class he had already told us that he was rating it a 10, so there was not much surprise there. So I really want to leave out his grade. Or knock it down to 9.5 because he was absent. But I suppose someone has to save Nassau County's bus system.

cinema history class: andy warhol's frankenstein (1974)

  

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

Session: Crocker Picks the April Hits (Week 1)
Movie: Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (1974)
Directed by Paul Morrissey

Plot:

Baron von Frankenstein assembles a man and a woman in hopes of creating a master race that will obey his commands. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Joe Dallesandro is really fuckin' annoying. He can't act, and his undisguised New Jersey accent is completely out of place as stumbels his way through his role as the stablehand/butler. But he had the look that was needed.

There's a lot to like in this movie, as it was certainly an original take on the Frankenstein story. But it does take a strong stomach, given the way it handles injuries and sex -- and combinations of the two. Now, that's fine by me; it's hard to offend my sensibilities. But I spent a lot of the movie wondering what the actual fuck I was watching.

But the ending saved it. As the bodies piled up and characters faced their respective fates the whole thing seemed almost poetic.

Keith showed us the 3-D version of the film, even providing us the special glasses. I have to admit that that was the right choice. As Joe noted, it would be relatively easy for any of us to watch the flat version on our own. But as interesting as the 3-D version was, the colors were somewhat dull. Watching the trailer in its brilliant colorful glory had me wishing I'd seen the whole movie that way. And -- who knows -- I may have given it a higher rating  based on the brilliance.

Ratings

Me: 7.75

Bob-O: 9.6

Christina: 10

Dave: 9.9

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

Sharon's reaction to the trailer: "Gorryy..."

Cats: Bats, lizards and rats. But no cats.

sharon's cover art (new yorker edition) part ii

This is kind of a follow up to yesterday's post in which I shared a The New Yorker magazine cover design Sharon made for her illustration class.

When I posted it, I was unaware that the class assignment was to create sketches of three covers. Since they could make the covers about New York City or about politics, Sharon chose to create one of each and one that combined elements of both. Also, because they were supposed to do "sketches" which would be edited and cleaned up after they get feedback from the instructor. And that's why they may seem not quite complete.

All three are below. Sharon also showed me what some of her classmates submitted. Personally, I think hers are better than any of the others. But I'm biased. Of course, the fact that I'm biased doesn't mean I'm wrong.

The New York element of this first one is obvious:

This one combines a rat (the official animal of the New York subway) with a sunflower (which is a symbol of Ukraine):

And back to the one I posted yesterday, the Ukrainian flag with lots of animals on it:

sharon's cover art (new yorker edition)

 Not much to say here except that I'm doing the proud show-offy dad thing.

Sharon's illustration class was assigned to create a New Yorker cover. The subject of the cover could be politics or New York. Sharon created the following: