The House of Frankenstein -review by Lawrence S. Talbot

 

I love this silly movie. While this was made during a low point in the Universal monster series and is often seen as an extremely watered down, tired version of the classic horror characters, I’ve always been fond of it. It’s very wacky and not even the least bit scary, even by 1940’s standards, but it’s a lot of fun. It expands upon the “Monster rally” formula that was set up with the previous film, Frankenstein meets the wolf man (1943) and becomes the one that really seems to have it all, for better or worse. Universal’s three most famous monsters-Dracula, Wolf man, Frankenstein monster, return in this one. They are joined by original Frankenstein monster actor, Boris Karloff as a mad scientist, A hunchback played by J Carrol Naish, and even a gorgeous Gypsy girl played by Helena Verdugo.

The film plays as something of a series of misadventures, with the scientist, Dr Nieman (Karloff) and his Hunchback friend, Daniel (Naish) escaping from prison and hijacking a traveling chamber of horrors. They revive the three monsters along the way, in order to get revenge on the Judges that put them in prison.

John Carradine plays Count Dracula very well and with his top hat and Pencil thin mustache, he more closely resembles the Dracula in the Stoker novel than had been attempted before. He’s charming and Suave and while he never quite captures the creepiness of Lugosi;s take on the character, he’s still quite splendid. Sadly, Dracula is quickly dispatched by the first half of the film, before he even has the chance to interact with the other two monsters.

Glen Strange is serviceable as the more hulking and monstrous Frankenstein creature. While he doesn’t have the pathos of Karloff’s monster (as a result of the brain surgery performed on him 2 movies back), it’s neat to see Karloff literally standing face to face with the role that he made famous. It’s a funny commentary on Karloff’s career and of the role that he would never completely escape from. While you can’t deny the classic beauty of the original Frankenstein monster makeup, Strange had a broader face and is really cool looking in as the creature in his own right.

Chaney continues his tried and true shtick as the tormented Larry Talbot but unfortunately spends little screen time as his lycanthropic counterpart. The addition of a gypsy girl is nice because it not only recalls Esmeralda in The Hunchback of Note Dame, with Daniel acting as a lovestruck Quasimodo type, but also references the previous Wolf man movies. The film recalls a lot of the wolf man lore from before, while adding new ones. For instance, this is the first film that mentions that a werewolf can only be killed with a silver bullet fired by someone who loves him. While the moon had been shown in the previous film, this is also the movie that really cements the idea of Werewolves changing as a result of it. The classic wolf man poem is even quoted once again and is further expanded upon.

This movie attempts to juggle its monsters around in order the make everyone happy and for the most part, it manages to work. The first half is Dracula’s movie, while the second belongs to the Wolf man, with the mad doctor and hunchback being the glue that holds it all together. Despite the title, The Frankenstein monster doesn’t get much to do here. In the film’s defense, the character had already had four movies to himself and one costarring role with the Wolf man, and having been virtually watered down to the role of mindless brute at this point, his destructive revival at the climax is satisfying enough.

While the classic monster movies had been reduced to clichéd kiddy fare at this point in the series, this really is the sum of its parts. The combination of Karloff, Carradine, Chaney, all of the monster characters, the gypsy girl, appearances by Universal favorites, Lional Atwill and George Zucco- all peppered with a beautiful score by genre veteran, Hans J. Salter, it really is the ultimate Monster Rally. Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein may be a better movie all around, but This is the one that really has it all.

-Lawrence S. Talbot

Beyond the Darkness (Buio Omega) 1979/ review by the Director

 

The edge of Darkness:

Frank Wyler is visiting his beloved Anna Volkl in the hospital. She is very sick. As they kiss Anna dies in Franks arms. Tormented Frank is not ready to let Anna go. Now we go onto the darkness aka madness and beyond.

In the Beyond:

To give you a little backstory on Frank. His parents were quite wealthy. Frank has inherited their gorgeous villa, a lot of money, stocks, and investments. He is set for life. Frank has a passion for taxidermy, women, and jogging. He is a good-looking well dressed a stereotypical affluent out of touch with reality playboy. Frank’s home is taken if care of Iris, who clearly has concupiscence for young Frank. It’s clear early on she takes care of Frank beyond her household duties. Doing things for him like letting him nurse from her nipple and jerk him off when he is stressed. Nice of her huh? Frank still treats her like shit. He even slaps her around at one point, not a good thing to do to someone who practices voodoo.

Frank has a plan to keep his beloved Anna a part of his life. He is beyond devoted. You will probably figure out soon enough it involves his taxidermy skills.

Frank is quit the lunatic and will go to any lengths to keep his macabre tactics operating.

This results in several deaths and some truly gruesome dissections. I don’t mind gore but italian film makers use real organs in their special effects and it was difficult to watch while I ate my raisin bran.

Frank’s murders don’t elude police investigation. Iris helps Frank cover his murders up. She obviously enjoys the dastardly deeds they engage in. There is another man investigating Frank and he becomes a problem for Frank and Iris. How all this unfolds you can enjoy for yourself when you go beyond the darkness.

Acting: Frank (Kieran Canter) is very believable in this role. He is the highlight, carries the movie, and has voice over work by Ted Rusoff who works on several Joe D’amato Italian films for the english voice over. Ted does fantastic voice over work. I enjoy listening to him. Iris (Franca Stoppi) is creepy and steals her scenes. Other than them the rest of the cast are supporting and rather thin characters, but they don’t need to be well established for their small roles.

Gore:

This is a gore hound buffet. It’s a good example of video nasty. A reputation the Italian horror films earn quite deservingly. Very, very realistic needle injections, if those are fake I don’t know how they pulled them off. Close up stabs that look very real. Ripped off finer nails with pliers. Chopped up bodies and burned or disintegrated by acid baths which looks awesome.

A disgusting dissection scene you won’t soon for get. Great looking large scalpel incisions. Copious organ gore and it all looks very real, probably actual animal organs.

Nudity: Frank flashes his cock. Iris flashes her boob and four different girls get naked full frontal with large italian bush.

Two of the women are dead with they are striped, not so sexy. But lots of nudity!

Directing:

The setting is gorgeous. The scenes are well shot.

It’s classic Joe D’Amato. Good looking actors. A subtle sensuality about the film and the dread of madness through out. I enjoyed several scenes, the dissections, the grave robbery, the even, yet sort of slow, pace.

The dissections were particularly well shot, well lit, to maximize the great special effects. D’Amato did well keeping as little as possible hidden from the camera.
Classic ‘zoom ins’ for zingers on peoples’ faces for reaction shots. This was popular around this time because zoom technology on film cameras had taken a leap forward and Joe D’Amato loved to use his zoom. Reminds me of Bruce Lee films. If you like Joe D’Amato’s solid work you will see more of it here.

Music: The score is by The Goblins who are great. They have done the music for popular foreign films like Susperia where they really shine. Again the Goblins score in Beyond the Darkness is a great highlight to the movie.

Final Thought:

There is a slight drag in the movie about 60% of the way in. You pretty much know where things are going and you feel a little anxious for this creepshow to finally end. So I can’t give it a perfect score. The film holds up. Great score by the Goblins. It’s still gross and there is lots of nudity and madness.

It’s classic video nasty cinema and I highly recommend getting a copy.

-The Director

The Invisible Man (1933) reviewed by Rabid Fox

Invisible Man (1933) – Quickie Review

 

Overview: This is a Universal Classic based on the H.G. Wells novel of the same name. The story centers on Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist who’s experiments have led to his turning invisible. We learn that previous experiments have turned their test subjects mad and Dr. Griffin is no different. When his colleagues, police, and other villagers attempt to stop the mad doctor many of them meet an untimely demise.

After 80 (80!) years: 

Here’s what you might be thinking:

• This is one step from silent films, it can’t possibly be good.
• The acting is probably lame and the story can’t possible hold up to today’s horror films. 
• The “special effects” must be hilarious!

Here’s why you’d be wrong:

• First of all, Nosferatu is silent and still creepy as hell. Second, you might be very surprised by the body count in this film (I sure as hell was!).
• The acting is a bit melodramatic but can probably be compared to soap opera or stage acting today; and Claude Rains owns the role of Dr. Griffin. He’s not even on screen for most of the movie but provides a great voice to the invisible character and definitely has a creepy “crazy person” cackle and provides a great template for the mad scientist role. Sorry Kevin Bacon, the ghost of Claude Rains would still kick your ass (and that would make an awesome movie!).
• Dude. The special effects are surprisingly good for Invisible Man. When Griffin first unwraps part of his head bandage and we see through where his jaw would be, I was genuinely surprised. Then there’s a cool scene where he lights a cigarette and the floating lighter/cigarette and the puff of smoke from the invisible body are all really well done. A car drives off a cliff and explodes! Is that the first time that was done on screen? Anyway, these practical effects hold up better than some of the CG crap in today’s horror.

Conclusion:  This movie is awesome! It’s a pretty tightly written story that is well-executed with good effects and some good and hilarious deaths. The Universal Classics are like the cinematic grandparents of all modern horror and a must watch for anyone who want to call themselves horror aficionados. Oh and call your grandparents, it’ll make them happy.

          4 out of 5 Stabs 

-Rabid Fox

Tarantula reviewed by Lawrence S. Talbot

Directed by Jack Arnold

As time goes by and more films are reviewed, it’s going to become increasingly more obvious that I have a total love affair with classic horror and science fiction films from the 30’s to the early 60’s. When I was a child my father exposed me to a lot of them and I became absolutely obsessed with monsters because of it. As a result, these classics inspire a warm, familiar feeling inside of me that none of the modern horrors ever could. I’m determined to share my knowledge of them and to keep the memory of these near-forgotten classics alive for future generations. A lot of them require a further suspension of disbelief and less jaded viewership, but I think that for the most part, they’re all the better for it. There is an unmistakable charm to these films that could never be duplicated.

It may seem a little quaint today with all of the horrors that we endure on a day to day basis, but in the 1950’s the public was petrified of nuclear fallout and the threat of annihilation at the height of the cold war (For a bit of perspective, I highly recommend Joe Dante’s wonderful film, Matinee). Of course, various studios were very quick to exploit this fear and like all times of great turmoil, wondrous film monsters were born. The first monster movie to fully take advantage of this was 1953’s The Beast from 20,000 fathoms. The classic Ray Harryhausen film would feature an ancient dinosaur being reawakened by nuclear testing and wreaking havoc on its old stomping grounds in modern day New York City. The success of this film would inspire the original Godzilla the following year and create the entire landscape of Kaiju cinema over in Japan. The next year, Warner bros would produce the first giant insect film, the 1954 Classic, THEM, which featured a colony of gargantuan flesh eating ants. THEM! Is a surprisingly effective and occasionally haunting film and serves as a total high water mark for the genre. Like most trendsetters, it inspired a legion of imitators and in 1955, Universal Studios, known for its beloved legacy of producing some of the greatest monsters ever created, continued the big bug craze with Tarantula.

We begin in the desert where a grotesque, mutated man stomps down the hillside, suddenly collapses, and dies. Dr. Matt Hastings (Played by the always awesome, John Agar, the hero of many of Universal’s iconic sci fi pictures) a young, handsome, doctor and all around 50’s action hero, is summoned to take a look at the body and finds himself completely dumfounded by the man’s features. An autopsy is suggested as it is theorized  that the creature may Dr. Eric Jacobs(Played by stuntman, Eddie parker, who was most famous for portraying Klaris the Mummy in Abbott and Costello meet the mummy), who Hastings knew.  Driven to find answers, Dr. Hastings drives into the desert to speak with Professor Deemer (Leo G Carroll) at his lab and finds that he is experimenting with gigantism in an attempt to solve the growing problem of world hunger. In his lab we see a menagerie of horrors, from giant rats and rabbits to the titular giant Tarantula.

Deemer informs Hastings that Jacobs had been impatient and decided to try the formula on himself, resulting in a terrible case of Acromegaly. What Deemer fails to inform Hastings of is that Jacobs had also injected his assistant, Paul Lund with the deformity-inducing formula.

Deemer soon begins to show symptoms of the drug, becoming hideously deformed and bed ridden. Meanwhile,   Human and animal bones are found scattered throughout the desert and it is soon discovered that the giant Tarantula, being well fed, has grown to town stomping proportions. Can the military (including a cameo from a young Clint Eastwood) stop this eight legged horror? Will Professor Deemer get a facelift?

Coming directly off of his success of his immortal classic, Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) and its highly underrated Sequel, Revenge of the creature (1955), Jack Arnold does a fine job directing Tarantula. The cinematography and set design further expands upon his desert background work on  It came from Outer space(1953) as  further  advantage is taken of the desert landscape. The Joshua tree scattered desert would become a staple of monster movies for years to come and would eventually become almost exclusive to the lowest of budget affairs, including Ray Kellogg’s delightfully kitschy The Giant Gila Monster (1959).

What truly separates Tarantula from other colossal arthropod films is that it’s one of the few that doesn’t deal with nuclear radiation in any form. Instead, the beast is unleashed by completely different means and another fear is exploited, that of the ever growing concern of world hunger. Also of interest is the inclusion of several human monsters, victims of the same serum that created our giant Arachnid friend.

The makeup by Bud Westmore’s unit might come off as a bit silly to today’s jaded viewers, but at the time it was top of the line. The giant spider effects are serviceable and while not believable, have a certain charm to them. Some of them were achieved with puppets, which I absolutely adore, but the majority was done with a live spider and rear screen projection and overlapping. The majority of this is handled competently and never reaches the embarrassing levels of a Burt I Gordon production; Gordon being know for films such as the Beginning of the end, which featured live grasshoppers being filmed crawling on a picture of a building to achieve an effect.  While certainly dated, Tarantula is a few notches better than Gordon’s work, as well as many of its other contemporaries (films such as The monster from green Hell, earth vs. the spider, the giant claw).

What may keep Tarantula from being as great as some of the other classic science fiction films of the time is that it could be possibly be accused of lacking depth.  Many of the characterizations are a bit thin and you won’t find any of the haunting atmosphere of the quintessential atomic age horror, THEM. Nor will you find the political and social commentary of films like the Day the Earth stood Still (1951) or Gojira (1954). Also, without a leading lady like Creature from the black lagoon’s Julie Adams in her iconic white one piece, it could be seen as lacking the sexiness of some of the more well known B-movies of the time as well. However, anyone looking for such depth in a movie such as this is entirely missing the point. Tarantula is about having fun and enjoying the innocent thrill of watching a giant spider. At the end of the day, Tarantula is still a studio picture and its budget and direction keeps it from ever feeling completely laughable, especially when compared to some of the more hilarious flicks of the time(See It Conquered the World for example). It serves as one of the finer examples of the “giant bug” genre and is sure to please anyone who is a fan;  It’s never boring and more than delivers on its premise. I’d recommend seeing THEM! First as it’s truly a classic, but Tarantula is a good second feature to follow it up with. It lacks the suspense, mystery, and sense of dread of that famous ant picture and may be a bit closer to the typical Universal b-monster movie but what’s so wrong about that?  When it’s all said and done, that’s why we see films with titles like Tarantula and the Deadly Mantis. I would recommend checking out Jack Arnold’s other science fiction films of the period as well: Creature from the black lagoon, Revenge of the creature, Monster on the campus, It came from outer space,  and especially The Incredible shrinking man, which is one of the best and most profound science fiction films of the 50’s or another era.

   -Lawrence S. Talbot 

Frankenhooker reviewed by Director

       Frankenhooker

 

“Medical schools upset me, mother – I’m anti-social – I’m becoming dangerously amoral.” -Jeffery.

The Premise:

A medical student’s fiancé dies at her Dad’s birthday party. The young medical student Jeffery builds his father-in-law to be, a horrendously dangerous lawnmower or a tiller I’m not sure, but it’s remote control. Which is really cool. Anyone who has ever cut grass has dreamt of a radio controlled lawnmower. I suppose hardcore gardeners dream of radio controlled tillers. Daddy’s daughter is excited to show off the remote control feature. Oops she immediately runs herself over because she is a total moron. Everything is destroyed but her head. Fortunately that’s all her lover needs.

If you are still reading:

Jeffery is totally distraught over his fiancé demise. He feels he can put her back together. He not only wants to rebuild her, he wants to make her better than before. She was a foodie, she ate for comfort and had a fat ass. A fake fat ass, but a fat ass regardless.

Now where can he get sexy body parts for his lover that’s just a head floating in swishing magic purple water?

Prostitutes of course!

Jeff devises a semi-retarded plan. This is a guy who can perform reconstructive surgery even the worlds greatest surgeons couldn’t dream of. For the sake of multiple cheesy jokes and gaping plot holes, I’ll keep this moving along. Jeff gets his skank ho parts and uses crack cocaine with explosives to get his parts separated. The tramps smoke the hell out of that crack because, as we all know, hookers love to smoke the crack.

Half naked girls and glass pipes, I kind wonder if that’s what the producers had in mind at the pitch meeting. I can’t even imagine that pitch meeting. Who wouldn’t invest nearly a million dollars in a film called Frankenhooker?

A very angry pimp is after him for killing all his pussy hustlers but he is, like everyone in this movie, as smart as a box of hammers. It is of note I learned that not only is crack cocaine highly addictive it can also be laced with invisible explosives. One can also just sew any body part back on, give it a huge jolt of electricity, and it will work fine, it won’t even bleed.
The medical student Mary Shelly style uses lightning to reanimate his sexy corpse of stripper parts.

Parts he personally selected especially the blown off jiggly jugs.
Nothing good happens after this point to anyone. Hell nothing good happens to anyone in this bastard of a movie.

If you are a veteran of bad movies like Lawrence S. Talbot, Gorehound, and I are as we sat down to watch this 1990 pile of sheep vomit and you can make it to the end. It has a surprise (completely impossible) ending!

GORE:

Yes, the movie is gory, but it always comes soaked in absurdity and comedy. A freezer of rubber looking practical body parts from tits to toes. I never saw a torso though. I would have thought I would have seen at least one profusely bleeding torso. As disgusting as the idea is, it’s never gross. We witness six or seven escorts get blown to chunks by explosive cocaine. FrankenHooker kills everyone she tricks out, via electrical explosion. I think this movie has the most exploding mannequins in lingerie I’ve ever seen.

SEX:

No sex but plenty of naked boobs, breast groping, and scantily clade prostitutes. No full frontal though, what’s up with that? Frankenhooker has a smokin hot bod too bad if you try to bang her she bangs you apart like an M-80.

Acting:

Painful to watch.

Director:

He was really good at filming mannequins explode in various poses.

Music:

Was there music? I think it had random 1980s homemade keyboards and synth.

Final Rating:

Maybe really drunk and at a party with free drugs this would be mildly entertaining.

On it’s own, substance free, ouch. It’s so terrible but mildly funny to poke fun at. It certainly fails as a comedy and it fails as a horror movie. I think the first time I saw it, I was so engaged in how bad it was I was in a mild state of shock. It’s hard to believe ‘Unearth Films’ produces DVDs of this movie. Why would they want to be associated with Frankenhooker in any way? It can only damage your credibility and Unearthed has so many excellent titles. This is not one of them. This is a bad troma movie. Let that last sentence sink in.

 “durr watch this movie, impress your friends.”                   

-The Delicious Director