Reviews

As I wrote in my review of 'Jack the Ripper' (1959), it's only in recent years that movies about Saucy Jack have bothered with historical accuracy and providing a 'real' solution to the question of the Ripper's identity. The German silent productions 'Waxworks' and 'Pandora's Box' used the character as a sort of bogeyman, more akin to Dracula, Mr Hyde or the Phantom of the Opera than a real-life serial killer, and the various versions of 'The Lodger' and the aforementioned Jack the Ripper simply used Jack as a hook on which to hang entirely fictional mysteries, with no real people or situations in them.

'A Study in Terror' is no exception to this rule, and is all the better for it. This Herman Cohen-produced, James Hill-directed picture is an unpretentious little B-picture that pitted Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper a full thirteen years before Bob Clarke's big-budget, star-packed 'Murder By Decree'. While 'Murder...' is a good film, with a gripping storyline and strong performances from the likes of Christopher Plummer, James Mason and Donald Sutherland, it does take itself rather seriously in its attempt to present a supposedly surprising, and at the same time authentic, conclusion (which would have already been known to anyone who watched the BBC TV production 'The Ripper File', or read Stephen Knight's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution'). 'A Study in Terror' does not try to do this and is concerned only with giving the viewer an entertaining ninety-five minutes.

Interestingly, '...Terror' was the first Jack the Ripper movie to propose aristocratic involvement in the murders, eight years before the late Joseph Sickert came out with his somewhat similar, but allegedly true theory that covered much the same ground, involving not just an aristocrat, but a Prince, who married beneath him. Admittedly, Sickert's theory claimed that the murders were committed to keep the marriage a secret, rather than to avenge a wrong, but it does seem curious that the fiction and alleged fact are so similar.

Although this film does present the real victims killed by Jack the Ripper and does so in the right order, there are many inaccuracies, the most notable being that the actresses playing the unfortunate individuals, including Carry On and Eastenders star Barbara Windsor and Edina Ronay, daughter on the famous chef Egon, are, in the main, considerably younger and more attractive that the real victims (Windsor, who played Annie Chapman is, even today, at almost seventy, considerably better looking than the real 'Dark Annie'), but this is an exploitation movie, and eye candy is a integral part of this subgenre. In fact this is a perfect example of an exploitation picture when you examine its constituent elements. The makers exploited not only the 1960's horror boom, but also the perennial interest in Jack the Ripper and the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes perfectly.

For a B-movie, 'A Study in Terror' boasts a surprisingly strong cast, including Dame Judi Dench, John Fraser, Adrienne Corri, Robert Morley, Frank Finlay and Anthony Quayle, who all lend strong support to John Neville and Donald Houston as Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson. Crucially, Neville, like Basil Rathbone before him and Jeremy Brett after, not only looks right as Holmes, his strong, sharp features recalling Conan Doyle's description of the character, but his portrayal of the character is more in tune with the classic conception of Holmes than Christopher Plummer in 'Murder By Decree'. Similarly, Donald Houston gives an entertainingly blustering, Nigel Bruce-like performance as Watson, whereas James Mason's portrayal of the character was a little too low-key for my taste. Finlay and Quayle apparently enjoyed the experience of crossing Holmes and the Ripper so much that they came back for more in 'Murder by Decree', with Finlay repeating his performance as Inspector Lestrade. Personally, I think he's better in this film, and Anthony Quayle, as Dr Murray, invests his character with a quiet strength and dignity that is missing from his unsympathetic Sir Charles Warren. As Mycroft Holmes, Robert Morley is amusing in his scenes with Neville's Sherlock, particularly expressing his exasperation at his brother's less than tuneful violin playing.

One area in which 'A Study in Terror' holds the edge over 'Murder by Decree' is it's ending. Without giving too much away for anyone who has yet to see either film, '...Terror' has a thrilling, literally explosive climax that befits a film of it's type, whereas '...Decree' drags a little, again because the makers want us to take it so seriously. My suggestion is to watch both movies and make up your own minds on this subject

On the list of terrible crimes people have committed throughout history, in some people's eyes Dino De Laurentis' decision to remake King Kong ranks slightly higher than the Holocaust, 9/11 and slavery. Basically, this movie apparently has no redeeming features whatsoever. De Laurentis' decision to build a 40 foot robot Kong that was virtually unusable; the fact that Kong was mainly played by a man in a suit; the contemporary setting; the absence of dinosaur battles; the climax on top of the World Trade Centre; Jessica Lange's character's stupid name (what in the blue buggery is a Dwan, anyway?); if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Jack the Ripper, Hitler and Satan formed a gang and started burning down orphanages, they wouldn't receive the same level of criticism.

Personally, I have something of a soft spot for this movie, and consider it to be extremely underrated. Much like the 1998 U.S Godzilla, it's not as good as the original, but it's still a decent film. I suppose the reason I like it is because, like Godzilla, I saw the remake before the original, and as such I didn't have any preconceptions about what I should see; I wasn't expecting fights with dinosaurs, and so I wasn't disappointed when I didn't see them.

I suppose what people dislike about this film is that, unlike Peter Jackson's 2005 version, which is a faithful retelling of the 1933 King Kong, Kong 76 bears little resemblance to the original. It's set in 1976 and has a whole new set of characters who, it has to be said, aren't great. Charles Grodin's Fred Wilson is annoying and it's a relief to see him get splattered by Kong at the end. Jeff Bridges does better as Jack Prescott, but he's still fairly forgettable, and Jessica Lange just doesn't engage the viewer like Fay Wray. Fortunately, these three actors emerged unscathed and went on to have successful careers, unlike director John Guillermin, who ended up having to make the unnecessary sequel, King Kong Lives, which was seen by about three people. The contemporary setting just doesn't lend itself to the fantastical story, and having a petrochemical company at the heart of proceedings feels like the producers were trying to hard to be modern. Also, having Kong in a cage wearing a crown with the company logo on it just looks moronic.

The most vociferous criticism has been directed at the film's special effects which, given that they were done by Carlo Rambaldi and Rick Baker, ought to have been something really special, or at least better than those of a movie that even back in 1976 was over forty years old. To be fair, Rick Baker's Kong suit is a lot better than most gorilla suits seen in movies (see King Kong Escapes, APE and The Mighty Gorga for example of how bad these things can be) and at least he tried to make it look like a real gorilla, wearing contact lenses that looked like a gorilla's eyes and basing the muscle structure on real apes. The real problem is Rambaldi's 40 foot robot Kong; while this creation had tremendous publicity value (no one could ever accuse Dino De Laurentis of being understated) when it came time to actually use the thing, it was obvious that having a 40 foot tall robot that needed to be operated by an army of technicians rampaging around New York and climbing the World Trade Centre was ever so slightly unfeasible, and so the robot only appears in a couple of scenes, mainly where Kong is standing still. The only time the thing moves is when it lifts one arm and then it just looks like a big, unconvincing robot.

In spite of these criticisms, King Kong 1976 does have some good points, notably his NYC rampage and the finale still makes you feel sorry for the big ape, particularly the close-ups of machine gun fire hitting him. The scene where Dwan punches Kong on the nose is amusing and may have inspired Naomi Watts' feistier heroine in the 2005 version, and, in a strange way, making Kong look so stupid in that crown and cage actually increases viewer sympathy for him. Basically, this movie is not the Antichrist of cinema, and if you're in the mood for some big gorilla action, it's definitely worthy of your time, provided you don't expect a shot-for-shot reworking of the original.

As sequels go, 'Son of Kong' isn't exactly 'Bride of Frankenstein', 'Aliens' or 'Godfather 2', but it's an enjoyable little movie that, at a brisk sixty minutes, never outstays its welcome. Robert Armstrong returns from the original as Carl Denham, who is hiding from his creditors after King Kong wrecked New York and looking for some way out. He runs into Captain Engelhorn (Frank Reicher, also back for more) and there's something about diamonds mentioned at some point, during which time they pick up Hilda (Helen Mack), who makes for a feistier heroine that Fay Wray's Ann Darrow, and the villainous Helstrom, but that's not the important part.

What's important in this movie is the big monkey action, and although it's not as big as the original (Little Kong is only twelve feet tall), the stop-motion monsters (once again done by the legendary Willis O'Brien) are pretty good, including a Styracosaurus (the Triceratopsy-looking thing with the horns sticking out of it's neck frill) and a giant cave bear that battles Little Kong.

'Son of Kong' was cranked out very quickly to capitalise on the success of 'King Kong' and it shows, not least in the thin plot and short running time, but it still has a certain charm, not least thanks to the more humorous plot and the friendly, likable title character (no people eating for this guy). The cast do well, Armstrong's Denham likable as ever, and Helen Mack making a spirited leading lady. The rest of the cast do alright, and while Victor Wong's Charlie is still as stereotypical as in the original, at least the producers thought enough of the character to bring him back.

While there have been more giant ape films made over the years than any sane person needs (I can think of at least fourteen just off the top of my head), the 1933 King Kong remains the most significant of them, mainly because without Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Shoedsack's production, none of the other movies would exist. Peter Jackson's 2005 remake may have better special effects, and it's a fine film, but Jackson himself would be the first to acknowledge his debt to Cooper & Shoedsack.

The main reason this movie is still so fondly remember is Willis O'Brien's stop-motion effects, which are still impressive more than seventy years later. While they do look a little jerky in comparison to the fluidity of Peter Jackson's CGI Kong (particularly in the fight scenes with the dinosaurs), the first sighting of Kong, his emergence through the Skull Island gates, and the climactic showdown on top of the Empire State Building are images no one ever forgets. And let's be honest; we'd all rather have O'Brien's slightly jerky eighteen- incher than some nerk in a rubber gorilla suit, wouldn't we? Inevitably, the human stars are overshadowed by their tall, dark, not exactly handsome leading man (or should that be leading ape?), but that's not to say they are bad. Robert Armstrong's Carl Denham is a likable, charismatic individual, the type who can sell you an idea even though you know it's a bad one, and Fay Wray makes for an appealing heroine, defining the term 'scream queen' in style. Bruce Cabot isn't exactly multi-faceted as Jack Driscoll, but he makes a decent fist of the action hero role he is required to play. Some of the racial politics are a little iffy, particularly the stereotypical Chinese cook, who is reduced to comic relief status, and the Skull Island natives, who are portrayed as savages who are mesmerised by the sight of a white woman.

These minor niggles aside, King Kong is a great movie, a true spectacle and fully deserving of its iconic status. Shame nobody's been able to find the Spider Pit sequence, though.

As it states under 'Trivia', 'King Kong Escapes' was a tie-in to the Rankin-Bass 'King Kong' cartoon series, and to be honest, this film is very much a children's movie, featuring a cartoonish super-villain, a faintly ridiculous plot and comical fight scenes. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I hate the film, however. While it's not as good as Toho's previous Kong outing, 'King Kong VS Godzilla', it's still okay if you're in the mood for that kind of thing. I've never seen the cartoon, but the plot of this film is straightforward enough that you don't need to.

The film does have a number of flaws, the most notable being King Kong himself. I personally thought the ape suit from KKVG looked pretty impressive, but KKE's version is more than a little silly, particularly the face, with its wide, staring eyes and permanently open mouth, which makes Kong look like he's high. Also, the fights with the other monsters aren't overly impressive; the battle on Mondo Island (Kong had obviously moved from Skull Island after it was destroyed at the end of Son of Kong) with Gorosaurus is actually quite funny, particularly when Kong gets repeatedly drop-kicked, but the showdown with Mecha-Kong is a bit anticlimactic, particularly compared to the city-destroying smackdowns of KKVG and the best of the Godzilla series.

The plot is some silly gubbins about mining a radioactive element, and King Kong comes into the story after the evil Dr Who (not the time-travelling character from the long-running British T.V series) builds a robot ape, only for it to fail. He then kidnaps the real Kong, but he escapes (hence the title) and the usual Kaiju action ensues. The human element is rather bland, although this is probably the fault of the script rather than the actors. Linda Miller is the ersatz Fay Wray of this picture, her role generally consisting of being picked up by Kong and trying to save the big ape from getting into trouble. Rhodes Reason is solid if unspectacular, and Dr. Who makes a good, over-the-top villain.

Having said that, I do think it's a shame Toho never made any more Kong movies. Personally, I would have loved to have seen Mecha-Kong come back, perhaps in a Godzilla movie. Given that Godzilla battled so many monsters over the years, it might have been interesting if he had come up against King Kong again, maybe in a scenario that forced them to work together against one or more of the many monster that big G faced.

As I'm sure fans of this movie are aware, 2006 marks the 75th anniversary of the release of this timeless classic. I'm not sure of the exact release date (I'm pretty sure it was sometime in November 1931), but it's a testament to the film's quality that it's still held in such high regard seven and a half decades after its initial release. I wasn't born until 1979 and didn't see the movie until 1997, but it still blew me away. I've seen it dozens of times since, and I never get bored with it.

What makes this film so good? It's not particularly scary to a modern audience, but it still possesses a charm that belies its age, and while many regard Bride of Frankenstein as superior, you can't have a sequel without the original, can you? The thing about Frankenstein is that, unlike the 1931 Dracula, which is rather static and stagy, both technically and in terms of acting (I'm surprised that Universal were able to reuse so many of the sets in later productions, given that Bela Lugosi, Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye all seem intent on not just chewing the scenery, but devouring it), Frankenstein possesses remarkable depth and subtlety.

Volumes have been written about Boris Karloff's performance as the monster, and it is truly mesmerising, but credit must also go to the remarkable supporting cast, and foremost among these is Colin Clive (who was actually the star of the film, and not the then-unknown Karloff). Clive gives a superb performance as Henry Frankenstein, illustrating the character's obsessive side without ever losing touch with his essential humanity. Clive was sadly a real-life Jekyll and Hyde (he was an alcoholic) and in Frankenstein he reconciles the two conflicting aspects of the doctor's personality perfectly.

Dwight Frye as Frankenstein's assistant Fritz is also excellent, portraying the odd little hunchback with just the right sinister touch. Frye had played another oddity, Renfield, in Dracula, and he once again balances the differing sides of his character well, going from fear of the monster to tormenting him sadistically (which costs him dear eventually).

Edward Van Sloan's Doctor Waldman may not be as entertaining as Ernest Thesiger's wonderfully camp Doctor Praetorius in Bride, but he leads the proceedings an air of authority, his rational approach providing a good counterbalance to Frankenstein's madness. John Boles and Mae Clarke as Victor Moritz and Elizabeth are not as showy, and Boles is rather bland (note that the character did not reappear in Bride) but they are fairly likable and inoffensive. Frederick Kerr gives a wonderfully blustering performance as Henry's father and Lionel Belmore is good as the burgomaster (his argument with Kerr is quite amusing), but the real highlight is of course Karloff as the monster.

Whereas later Frankenstein monsters had a tendency to be somewhat robotic (which is why Karloff stop playing the character after Son of Frankenstein), Karloff's performance is remarkable for the humanity he invests in the character, something that never disappears under Jack Pierce's iconic makeup job. The important point is that Karloff plays the creature as an innocent, more sinned against than sinning. Although the monster does kill and kidnap, he does so not out of a sense of malice, but rather because he lacks the intelligence to do any better (his brain is after all a criminal one). Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the scene with Marilyn Harris' Little Maria; the way Karloff plays the monster's changing moods, from happy innocent to horrified when he realises the girl does not float like the flowers, is unforgettable.

Frankenstein is memorable not only for its acting, but also its technical and visual aspects. The set design is superb, from the spooky tower where Frankenstein conducts his experiments with its Kenneth Strickfaden-designed machines, full of sound and fury, to the burning windmill at the end, but the real credit has to go to director James Whale, who took over a project rejected by Bela Lugosi and featuring a mediocre script and turned it into one of the greatest movies of all time. The original script had the monster as nothing more than a savage beast (which is why Lugosi turned it down), but under Whale it was extensively reworked, with the pathos and humanity that have made it a classic added.

Although Frankenstein was not the first Universal horror movie, without it there wouldn't be the term Universal Horror, just a stagy vampire movie starring a rather hammy Hungarian. Because Frankenstein confirmed that audiences had a taste for this type of movie, it opened the floodgates for virtually every other scary movie made since 1931. While this may be a mixed blessing, at least we have this brilliant movie and that makes up for all the dross in the world.

Before Freddy VS Jason, before Aliens VS Predator, even before the clash of the titans that is Puppet Master VS Demonic Toys (but after Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, obviously), there was King Kong VS Godzilla.

Before I proceed with this review, I should point out that the version I have seen is the American one, which is dubbed and had several scenes added featuring a United Nations news broadcast. The original Japanese release was apparently much more satirical in tone, whereas the American version removes all the comedy. It is still enjoyable as a giant monster movie, though.

This movie originally began life as a stop-motion feature entitled KIng Kong VS Frankenstein, and was conceived by Willis O'Brien as a sequel to the 1933 Kong, gradually turning into a Godzilla movie after Toho studios got involved. Although there are some brief stop-motion sequences, it is by and large a typical kaiju ega movie (in other words, it's men in rubber suits). While fans of O'Brien's still-impressive stop-motion work on the original King Kong may be irked by the idea of the big ape being played by a Japanese guy in a suit, I personally think Kong looks pretty cool (it's certainly more impressive than the suit Toho used for their second Kong film, King Kong Escapes).

There are some inconsistencies, most notably the fact that King Kong and Godzilla were radically different sizes in their respective films, but Toho got around this by the simple expedient of ignoring it. We've got two great big monsters beating each other up, so who cares about details? Also, in the original King Kong, the big ape had no special powers beyond being very strong, whereas Godzilla has radioactive breath; Toho addressed this seeming imbalance by having Kong derive strength from electricity, whereas Godzilla is weakened by touching power lines. One point that bugs me a little is the fact that, although this is the third Godzilla film, and the second to feature King Kong, there seems to be no connection to the previous movies. When the two monsters appear, the human characters act as though they have no prior knowledge of them, which seems odd when you take into account Godzilla had twice previously tried to destroy Tokyo, and King Kong did make kind of a mess of New York. King Kong VS Frankenstein was intended as a sequel to the original, but this idea was obviously dropped from the movie it became.

The climactic fight between the two monsters is great fun, sort of a giant sized version of a WWE match, only with more believable physiques and personalities. Kong shoving a tree down Godzilla's throat and the big green guy responding by walloping Kong with his tail are highly entertaining moments; obviously not as spectacular as the scenes of Kong fighting the dinosaurs in either the 1933 original or Peter Jackson's remake, but that's not the point. King Kong VS Godzilla is an enjoyable example of this type of movie; if you're new to the kaiju ega genre, it's an excellent starting point. It's just a shame King Kong VS Frankenstein never got made. Maybe if we all ask Peter Jackson nicely....

Carnival of Souls is a one-off. Literally. It was the only feature film Herk Harvey ever directed (his other work was industrial training films) and it was the only film many of its actors appeared in. But what truly makes the film unique is the approach Harvey took to generating scares. While most early 1960's horror films were either cheesy drive-in fare of the 'I Was A Teenage...' variety, or a colour remake of a Universal horror film, 'Carnival of Souls' is an original tale that, in its subtle eeriness is similar to nothing of its time, and the only recent films that evoke the same, all-pervading sense of dread and impending doom are Japanese movies such as the Ring series. Like these recent Oriental efforts, CoS doesn't shout 'boo!' at the audience in the manner of other horror tales that mechanically produce scares (which are usually so predictable that they're not scary). Rather, Herk Harvey took his time and drew the audience in to a revelation that may seem predictable now, but at the time had a real impact (and it's only predictable because subsequent movies have stolen the idea, such as Jacob's Ladder and The Sixth Sense).

Candace Hiligoss makes for a compelling central character, her unconventional looks giving the character of Mary an ethereal, fragile quality, which makes the viewer sympathise a great deal with her plight as she comes to suspect she's losing her mind. The rest of the cast don't really get a chance to make an impact, with the definite exception of Herk Harvey himself, who plays the ghostly figure that Mary keeps seeing. The image of Harvey's white face with black-rimmed eyes is simple, but like Ring's Sadako, one that will haunt you for a long time after the film is over. If anything, the fact that so little is known about Harvey makes him more sinister. When you watch Frankenstein (1931) and the monster appears, you knows it's just Boris Karloff under a lot of make-up, because Karloff made over a hundred films and his face is well known, even thirty-five years after his death. Herk Harvey, by contrast, is a man whose face most people only know from 'Carnival of Souls', so it has much more of an impact.

This films isn't perfect, however. The final sequence, where the dead are chasing Mary along the beach, is a bit silly when it should be spine-chilling, and I have to admit that the ending confused me slightly. In Jacob's Ladder, it turns out that Tim Robbins was hallucinating just before he died, and nothing was real, but in CoS, things aren't so clear-cut. Was Mary a ghost? A Zombie? Something else? Her body never left the car after it went off the bridge, but she physically interacted with regular people in a 'real' situation, something ghosts aren't supposed to be able to do. Plus, she left handprints in the sand before disappearing, which meant she had physical form, but her body was in the lake.

One interesting sidenote is that Sidney Berger, who plays Mary's love interest, has only made two movies in his life and they're both called 'Carnival of Souls', the other being the Wes Craven-produced remake

The Spanish language version of 'Dracula' has attained cult status over the years, due mainly to the fact that it was hard to get hold of for many years (it may even have been considered lost, I'm not sure) and also because those who have seen it said it was better than the Tod Browning-directed, Bela Lugosi-starring English-language version.

Having recently seen the Spanish movie, I can say that, in many ways, this assessment is correct. One problem with the Browning movie is that it is very static, almost like a filmed stage play (which it is actually based on, more so than the original Bram Stoker novel). George Melford's film, by contrast, has much more of a flow to it, notably in the scene where Dracula is first seen in his castle, which, in Browning's version, is a static shot of Bela Lugosi plodding down the steps, whereas Melford has a crane shot go up to frame Carlos Villarias. It's not as spectacular as some people have claimed, but it is quite a nice effect. The fluidity of Melford's film-making can also be seen in the sequences where Harker, Van Helsing and Dr. Seward confront Renfield about his links to Dracula. In the English-language film, both sequences play out in Seward's sitting room, with Renfield slowly walking in on the three men, who stand around like statues. In the Spanish movie, these sequences move between the sitting room and the veranda, with Renfield's entrance in one being forced by Harker rushing to the door and hurling the madman into the room (David Manners barely moves in his scenes).

Another notable difference between the two Draculas is that George Melford's film runs a lot longer than Tod Browning's, with several scenes being longer, notably the exchange between Dracula and Renfield when the lawyer is sitting down to eat, and later when Renfield advances on a fainted maid. Both sequences are in the English-language film, but there have important bits removed, such as the eventual fate of the maid, and a reference to Renfield having destroyed all his correspondence.

The downside with this movie is that the actors playing Dracula, Renfield and Van Helsing are not as good as Bela Lugosi, Dwight Frye or Edward Van Sloan. For instance, when Renfield cuts his finger and Dracula advances on him, only to be thwarted by a cross around Renfield's neck, Bela Lugosi looks repulsed and horrified; Carlos Villarias looks like he needs more fibre in his diet

It's a matter of debate which version of Dracula actually is better, but the existence of both movie raises the idea of a great cinematic missed opportunity, that of a George Melford-directed Dracula with Bela Lugosi in the lead role. Maybe if that had happened, we'd have a real classic on our hands

There are two schools of thought regarding 'Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein'. The first holds that the movie represents the nadir of the Universal Monsters cycle, with three once-great monsters reduced to playing second-fiddle to a couple of Laurel and Hardy wannabes. The alternative view, which I hold, is that this movie is a classic comedy-horror, perhaps the best example of that hybrid sub-genre until John Landis' 'An American Werewolf In London' emerged in 1981.

'A&CMF' warrants classic status because it is probably the best Universal horror film since 'The Wolf Man' (1941); certainly it has a much stronger narrative thread, not to mention a better reason for the three monsters coming together, than either 'House Of Frankenstein'(1944) or 'House Of Dracula'(1945). The problem with those two movies is that Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man's coming together seemed purely coincidental, with Dracula not even encountering the other two in 'House Of Frankenstein' (which feels like two short films cobbled together, with only Boris Karloff's Dr. Neimann & J. Carroll Naish's hunchback providing a link between them) and 'House Of Dracula' only featuring a few scenes with more than one monster. 'Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein', by having The Wolf Man pursuing Dracula and the Monster, and also having Dracula plan to put Lou Costello's brain into the Frankenstein Monster (with the help of the duplicitous Dr. Mornay) provides an extremely satisfactory reason for the various characters coming together.

As for the acting, it has often been pointed out that this film works because the monster actors (Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr & Glenn Strange) play it straight, and this is very true, with Chaney's tortured soul act contrasting well with Lou Costello's one-liners (especially the famous 'you and twenty million other guys' joke). Lugosi, playing Dracula for only the second time, is wonderfully grandiose and even Glenn Strange, who is basically only required to lumber about, does what he does well, and he has a lot more to do than in the 'House of' movies. Abbott and Costello are very funny, using fewer verbal routines than normal, but doing some highly entertaining slapstick gags, and the supporting cast do very well, notably Frank Ferguson as the blustering McDougal, barely controlling his exasperation at Lou Costello's incompetence. Lenore Aubert as Dr. Sandra Mornay does well, and it's interesting to see a female mad scientist, particularly taking into account when this film was made. Charles Bradstreet and Jane Randolph have less to do in their parts, but neither of them drags the film down

All in all, 'A&CMF' is a movie that deserves a much greater reputation than it has acquired in some circles, and is probably the high point of the Abbott and Costello filmography

I've just come across Boo as an extra on the DVD of Frankenstein (1931) and, due to the fact I was watching it at well past midnight, I found it as strange as it was funny. It starts off with a bearded man with a strange expression on his face emerging from a jack-in-the-box and holding up the film's title, which is a weirdly disconcerting effect, particularly as I have no idea who this man was. The narration is rather outdated, not so much because it was recorded in 1932, but because of what is said (the reference to woman automobile drivers is ever so slightly sexist), but what I don't get is, while Universal included footage from its movies 'Frankenstein' and 'The Cat Creeps', the Dracula segments actually come from F.W Murnau's 'Nosferatu'. This seems strange, because I would have thought the studio would want to publicise its own, then-recent, Dracula movie (the one with Bela Lugosi). To conclude, Boo is an oddity that you probably won't find yourself watching unless you get the Frankenstein DVD, which you ought to own anyway

Question: When is The Evil Dead not The Evil Dead? Answer: When it's Demon Wind. I can only assume neither Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert or Bruce Campbell has seen this movie because, if they had, they would have sued the producers. Let's look at the evidence. The Evil Dead has a group of teenagers driving to an isolated cabin. So does Demon Wind. Evil Dead's storyline involves demons being resurrected. So does Demon Wind. Evil Dead features a character discovering a book with spells in it that resurrected said demons. Demon Wind.., well, you get the idea. There's even a sequence where two characters attempt to get away, only to find their path to freedom blocked by mysterious forces. To compound the Evil Dead plagiarism, this scene then features a female character who appears normal when glimpsed from behind, but when she turns around, she's been possessed by the demons. The only difference in Demon Wind is that the climatic demon assault on the cabin is derivative of Evil Dead's most obvious inspiration, Night of the Living Dead than it is of Sam Raimi's classic.

The major difference is that while Evil Dead is a classic, Demon Wind is a distinctly average horror yarn, with a hero who's barely Hal Delrich, never mind Bruce Campbell. The bit with the demonic cattle skull that eats the girl's head is mildly amusing, though

Remember the scene in An American Werewolf In London where Jack (Griffin Dunne) refers to the movie Remember The Alamo as 'very bloody', and the Chess Player (Brian Glover) remarks 'Bloody awful, if you ask me!'? Well, that would be a more appropriate title for the celluloid vomit that is Bloody Murder.

I expect slasher movies to be generic, but they should at least have, if not actual tension, then some gratuitous gore and/or sex. This movie has precious little of either, probably because the makers couldn't afford even half decent gore effects. The only remarkable thing about this movie is the way that the Trevor Moorhouse character manages to rip off three classic slashers in one go. He wears Michael Myers' jumpsuit, Jason's Hockey mask and wields Leatherface's chainsaw. To be exact, he has cheap, joke shop knockoffs of these items, with the hockey mask being made of plastic that a baby could break, and the chainsaw being a toy that probably doesn't even make a noise. All he needed was a glove with plastic, mock-metal blades on the fingers, and the makers of the film would have completed the set (but their budget, which was probably less than the price of a Big Mac, didn't stretch that far. Either that, or the prop guy couldn't find a knock-off of Freddy's glove in the joke shop.)

Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. You will end up hating the people who made it for stealing ninety minutes of your life. Do something more fun instead, like sandpapering your eyeballs. There's a sequel to this movie, sadly not called 2 Bloody Awful. It masquerades under various titles, the most blatant being Halloween Camp, but don't be fooled. It has nothing to do with that series of movies. Although I would like to see Michael Myers go to work on whoever keeps making these things

Prelude To Love is a movie I came across (no pun intended) by accident on satellite T.V in early 1996. It was a Saturday night, and I'd just gone to bed, and was channel surfing, when I was confronted by the sight of a voluptuous woman (Ashley Rhey) going at it with some guy. I watched the rest of the movie transfixed, and when it was repeated, I caught it from the beginning, which captured my attention straight away, featuring as it did Tamara Landrey's character Jennifer doing things with a male model backstage at a fashion show that I'm sure Stella McCartney wouldn't approve of.

The thing about Prelude To Love is that it's actually quite a good movie. The storyline (underhand dealings in the world of fashion) is entertainingly handled, with the cast performing very well, especially the aforementioned Tamara Landrey, who is a brilliant bitch as the double-crossing Jennifer (the guy who plays the evil owner of the rival modeling agency is also a good actor, although he looks about twelve)

Okay, let's get to the important bit. The sex scenes in this movie are all good, both in terms of frequency and length, although the music used in these scenes is lousy. The best scene of the lot is where the characters Eric and Carrie hook up. Actress Doria Rone has one of the best orgasm faces in movies, and her energetic trashing about is highly watchable. The final scene, between Lanie and Eric on a pool table, is good, even if at one point it looks like Eric is trying to apply some bizarre wrestling move