Style2

House on Haunted Hill (1959) Directed by William Castle

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:51 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 19 September 2009)

This movie isn't just being a straight-forward horror flick, it actually is a movie that got well written and relies more on its mystery and tension than on any gore or ordinary horror clichés.

The story has a couple of nice twists to it and while watching this movie it becomes obvious that the writers really spend some time penning it down. The could had easily turned this piece into an ordinary standard haunted house flick but luckily they didn't. For the normal genre standards this is simply one fine and above all also original entry into the '50's horror genre.

But yes, the movie is still above all things a real horror flick and it also does have some good scares in it. Due to it's build up and also original approach of the genre, the horror gets made more powerful and it's moments work out better. '50's horror flick aren't exactly known for their subtlety or credibility but this movie does a great job at putting down a convincing movie with a good story and characters to enjoy.

It's a movie that is more light and more enjoyable to watch than the average genre attempt from the same era, without loosing any of its strength as an horror.

It's of course also true that the movie benefits from the presence of Vincent Price. This horror icon appeared in many movies like this throughout his career, also often portraying the same type of characters. Like always, he's giving away one fine performance in this movie.

Some moments in the movie still feel a bit awkward. Some events within the movie simply are just plain unlikely, as are some of the characters responses. The females do nothing but screaming all of the time...not really a movie feminist would like to see.

An enjoyable, well written, original horror-flick from the '50's, starring the great Vincent Price.

8/10

Watch trailer

Salem's Lot (1979) (TV) Directed by Tobe Hooper

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 4:57 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 5 November 2008)

This review is of the longest available 184 minutes uncut version.
Being not the biggest fan of movies based on Stephen King novels, I must say that this movie was a rather good one within its genre. Especially when considering that this movie got made as a made for TV mini-series. This means that the movie is not as gory as other genre movies from the same time period but this doesn't mean that the movie isn't just as atmospheric and scary than any other movie.
The movie has a great atmosphere that is both mysterious and scary. Even though not a whole lot is happening within the movie, it still knows to be constantly perfectly atmospheric. Tobe Hooper is of course really a director who understand the genre (at least in the '70's he still did) and he directs the movie with lots of class and knowhow.
It's a quite original vampire movie. To be honest, in advance I even had no idea that this movie was going to be a vampire movie, while first watching it. I had heard about the title "Salem's Lot" and also about the Stephen King novel but in all honesty I had no idea what it was all about. In that regard the movie pleasantly surprised me with its concept and the overall handling of it.
But also it needs to be said that the movie isn't exactly the genre masterpiece some people make it out to be. It's way too flawed for that. For instance the pace. Well, I've watched the longest available 3 hour+ version, so perhaps it has something to do with that but the movie has a bit of a slow pace and has lots of points within the movie in which just basically nothing is ever happening. Also when looking back at it, the first hour of the movie or so seems pretty pointless afterward. Also some characters just come and go within the movie. The first halve of the movie is still mostly about the citizens of Salem's Lot, while the second halve is only mainly about the main character Ben Mears. Seems like all other characters are just simply being forgotten and abandoned within the script, without reaching a satisfying conclusion for them. A shame really, also since a lot of characters showed some good potential. Some characters are some typical good trademark quirky Stephen King type of character.
You could say that the movie is only truly good once the horror starts to kick in. The movie is effective with its horror and has a couple of memorable moments in it.
It's also made great by the musical score from Harry Sukman. It's a real great genre score and also quite well known in the horror circles, which is of course quite an accomplishment for a score composed for a TV mini-series. It was the last musical score he ever composed as well. He didn't died until 5 years later, so I guess he thought it was time to enjoy his retirement after finishing the score for this production. A great way to end his career!
A surprising good genre movie, once its horror kicks in, that also deserves some more recognition.
7/10


Watch trailer

A-Haunting We Will Go (1942) Directed by Alfred L. Werker

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 5:01 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 28 August 2007)

This movie is like all Laurel & Hardy's '40's movies; Too much talking and not enough slapstick. And has an overwritten story and it relies too much on the script, rather than on Laurel & Hardy's antics and talent. Yes of course they get some slapstick to do but it doesn't feel as anything new or truly great, though the movie certainly does have its moments, which help to make this movie worthwhile.

The story is rather weak but above all really uninteresting. The title is deceiving and certainly has nothing to do with the movie.

Dante, a magician from the 20th century is in the movie too but you can wonder why. Seems like just a publicity stunt for both parties to me, since it doesn't serve a too big significant purpose for the main plot-line of the movie.

Not that this movie is bad but by Laurel & Hardy standards it still is a rather weak and bad one, that really isn't among their best work.

6/10
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top