What Horror and Sc-Fi films have you seen lately?

[Mr. Arkadin]

The Brood & The Fly are two cases where effects go hand in hand with the storyline and help to translate (as well as transform) our perspective on the characters and their world. I am not a lover of gore, but I do understand that when such things are used correctly they can enhance a film rather than destroy it. As Shane would say, "it's a tool..."

[Western Guy]

That's my feeling, too, Mr. Arkadin. There is a certain artistry in Cronenberg's early films. He doesn't splash on gore simply for gore's effect. Unfortunately, too many contemporary horror films do just that.

[ChiO]

I love the original THE FLY. But Cronenberg's version surpasses it in my view. That, VIDEODROME and CRASH are films that, in spite of my inclination toward queasiness, make statements that allow me - force me? - to look beyond what otherwise I might find unsavory.

(Besides, it has Geena Davis.)

[Rita Hayworth]

FYI - I was never, ever was a fan of the THE FLY (1958) and it's sequels including the one that made in 1986 and 1989.

[Rita Hayworth]

Carpenter's THE THING is interesting. Again, I liked the film: the isolation and claustrophobia and mounting distrust among the men. But for a guy who went pretty mild on displaying graphic violence in HALLOWEEN and THE FOG, he pulled no punches in his sci-fi film.

THE THING is very interesting, loved the film, and it's has a great story that's tell it as it is. One of my favorite HORROR films made at the time it's came out.

[Joe Macclesfield]

I saw THE FLY (the remake) at a local cinema in December 1986. In my naivety I wondered who would play Inspector Charas. Of course, there is no Inspector Charas - it's a completely different yarn! In the original film the part is essayed by the wonderful Herbert Marshall; resplendent in a superbly cut, double-breasted chalk-stripe suit; the clever camera work niftily disguising the fact that Mr. Marshall only had one leg. The story's daft - but great fun; including Charas's line (delivered with the utmost sincerity by Marshall): "I shall never forget that scream!"

[Western Guy]

Ridiculous as the premise is, I still get creeped out by that final scene in the spider web. And I'm sure I've seen THE FLY more than a dozen times.

[Joe Macclesfield]

Hammer's THE MUMMY is quite a sober little outing compared to THE MUMMY'S HAND from 1940 - my nomination for Universal's best mummy pic - and I'm not forgetting the Karloff movie from '32. The comic-book approach works. It's got a lot going for it. Eduardo Ciannelli, for one thing, and the great George Zucco. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford make a very likeable (if unlikely) pair of archeologists. Cecil Kellaway (who doesn't convince as an Irish-American, but he's welcome, as always) and pretty Peggy Moran make a good father and daughter teaming. And Tom Tyler, in an incredible Jack Pierce makeup, is truly spooky as Kharis.

[Western Guy]

I agree completely about THE MUMMY'S HAND. Tyler is indeed an effectively frightening Kharis - more so than Chaney in those feeble followups. Found the Chaney mummy outings pretty dull going.

Incidentally, I think it was Forrest J Ackerman who once mentioned that he always had a doubt it was actually Chaney under all of that wrapping.

[Western Guy]

Speaking of mummy movies, just caught THE MUMMY'S SHROUD. Found it the very least of the three Hammer films featuring the bandaged ones. Slow and dull with only two highlights: the unexpected and surprisingly violent death of one of the movie's most sympathetic characters and a nifty disintegration scene. Can't understand why Andre Morrell was accorded first billing since his role is relatively small.

An interesting note, however: Dickie Owen played the mummy in Hammer's CURSE OF THE MUMMY 'S TOMB. In THE MUMMY'S SHROUD he plays Prem, the pre-mummy.

[Joe Macclesfield]

THE MUMMY'S SHROUD. Not seen it since I was a nipper. "Beware the Beat of the Cloth-Wrapped Feet"(!) Isn't that the one where Fred Clark christens Turkish Delight? On the subject of Chaney's mummy pictures; as much as I like Lon, they don't do him - or Universal - any favours. Reportedly, Jack Pierce used a time-saving mask, which only showed one of Chaney's eyes. In a lot of scenes, it could well be stuntman Eddie Parker.

[Western Guy]

Nope Joe, right tagline but wrong actor. You're thinking of CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB - where one of its saving graces (considering its utterly ridiculous storyline) is Fred Clark's "Robert Armstrong-like" showman portrayal.

Whether or not it actually is Chaney in those three Universal Kharis films, much of the effect is ruined by scenes where you can truly see it is merely a mask the actor is wearing.

[Joe Macclesfield]

I enjoy this. I rely on my memory a lot for these postings; and part of the fun for me is to see if I've got it right! It's a bit of a mystery to me just why the sequels are so sloppily plotted and executed, a real anti-climax after that slick and natty fun ride that is THE MUMMY'S HAND!

[Western Guy]

The Universal monster sequels are an interesting lot. It seems to me that in the beginning the studio took pains (and probably had fun) trying to maintain a smooth continuation between their films. Like Chaney's "resurrection" as Larry Talbot in FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN which was smoothly carried on in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Then there was an abrupt shift. The wolfman is killed by a silver bullet in HoF (the apparent absolute end for a lycanthrope) - but Larry Talbot "miraculously" appears at the doorstep of HOUSE OF DRACULA seeking a cure for his hirsute condition. Likewise Count Dracula - turned to toast at the end of his HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN segment. Finally Dracula is killed once again; Talbot is cured of lycanthropy and all ends happily ever after --- until ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. Dracula returns in a crate (without explanation as to how his remains - burned in a coffin in HoD - have remained intact - not to mention how John Carradine metamorphosized into Bela Lugosi)) and Larry Talbot (though alive and well and living in London) is once again cursed by the full moon. Well, I can accept Talbot's recurring problem; the poor guy's "cure" at the hands of Dr. Edleman obviously was only temporary. But Dracula's "rebirth" has always been rather questionable, harkening back to the original DRACULA. In DRACULA'S DAUGHTER the old bloodsucker's corpse is burned to ash on a funeral pyre but when we next see him in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, he's a fully-restored skeleton.

We can then switch to CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and its sequel REVENGE OF THE CREATURE. At the end of both films the gillman is shown obviously to be killed by gunfire (his body slowly submerging into the murky depths) yet he's alive and hearty in the final followup THE CREATURE WALKS AMONG US.

Among other glaring errors in their classic monster entries, Universal got lazy when it came to consistency. The studio should have learned by the time they did The Creature that sequels were inevitable.

[Joe Macclesfield]

The continuity between THE WOLF MAN, FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, HOF, and HOD, are handled so slickly, despite the absurdities, that they come off as satisfying entertainments. The contemporary MUMMY'S HAND sequels don't. A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN seems, even at the time, to have been regarded by the producer's as a case apart. Audiences at the time, apparently, followed that lead. Were Universal crediting the audiences of those days with more sophistication than modern critics might allow?