Scream and scream again (2 Stars)

I've known about this film for years, but I've been hesitant to watch it for now. I'd heard rumours that it was an awful film, one of the contenders for the "Worst Film Ever Made" award. Why should I believe everything I hear? After all, a film that stars Christoper Lee, Peter Cushing and Vincent Price can't possibly be bad. Can it?

Unfortunately, it can.

The problem isn't with the acting abilities of the three great stars of horror movies. It's the chaotic script. The story is told so badly that the film should be used in film schools as an example of what not to do.

In the opening scenes a jogger collapses in London. He wakes up in hospital, and one of his legs has been amputated. A creepy looking nurse gives him an injection. When he wakes up his other leg has gone. And the next time he wakes up his arms have also been removed.

That's it. We never see the man again. We don't see the nurse until ahe appears as a thief an hour later, and my reaction was "Huh? What's she doing here?"

There are a few scenes at the beginning set in a totalitarian Eastern European country. A couple are on the run. The army shoots the man. The two of them are tortured. When a general complains about the torture, a man, some sort of diplomat, gives him a Vulcan Death Grip, and he's dead. Not just stunned like in the Star Trek series. Completely dead. What was all that about? We have to wait over an hour to find out.

Then the main story begins. A serial killer is murdering young women in London. For about 45 minutes the police are on his trail. When they finally catch him, he jumps into a vat of acid. Oops. Now what's happening?

In the last 10 minutes of the film all the threads are tied together. It all makes sense. Everything was relevant. But it's very unsatisfying that we have to wait so long. I was sitting through the whole film puzzled by the man losing his arms and legs. When I finally found out what had happened I wished that the opening scenes had been left out altogether. They were unnecessary.

Vincent Price.

Peter Cushing.

Christopher Lee.

Three great actors. One awful film.

Don't let anyone tell you that it's so bad that it's good. It isn't. It's just bad.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Dr. Phibes Rises Again (4 Stars)

What is it about Vincent Price that's so imposing? Is it his face? Is it is voice? Or is it his physical presence? What ever it is, in this film he's terrifying, even more horrific than in the first Dr. Phibes film.

I vaguely remember seeing Vincent Price in different horror films on television when I was a child, but in recent years I've hardly watched any of his films. He made more than a hundred films from 1938 to 1995. Amazon Prime includes five of these films, Netflix includes zero. It never ceases to amaze me how bad Netflix is when I really want to watch something.

I'm also fascinated by Valli Kemp, who plays Dr. Phibes' assistant Vulnavia. I first saw this film on television at a friend's house many years ago, probably 1976. I missed the first few minutes, so I didn't know what the film was called. The scenes with Vulnavia stuck in my mind for 30 years. Valli Kemp's face was imprinted on my mind for 30 years until I finally rediscovered the film. Can you understand that? When I see these words in front of me as I type them it sounds crazy. Maybe I really am crazy. Or maybe Valli Kemp's face is so beautiful that she mesmerised me.

She only made four films in her acting career, and this was her biggest role. Here are some thoughts about the film that she wrote on her official web site:


I had just joined an agency called Berylle Seaton, and I heard through the grapevine they were casting for a comedy horror film in Elstree.

I thought the part was perfect for me. I only had £10 to my name at the time, and I had no idea how I was going to get home from the studios after the casting, but I went anyway, sat there among 200 or more girls, and I waited my turn.

I was the last one in to meet the director, Bob Fuest, and the producer, Albert Fennel. They said nothing as I approached, just stared at me, and then they asked me to do an ethereal dance. They still said nothing, then told me to go downstairs to the restaurant and wait for them.

I sat there very worried as to how I would get home, etc. A waiter came over to me and gave me the phone. It was my agent saying I had the part and a ten year contract! The director and producer were looking at me from around the corner, smiling. I had a great lunch and was sent home in a limo to get fitted for the wonderful clothes in the film, which has now become a cult movie. I still get fan mail from wonderful people all over the world.

On the first day I was very nervous about meeting Vincent Price, as I am really shy. I was sitting in the makeup chair having my hair done, when this very tall elegant man almost glided in, a huge smile on his lovely face, looking at me. He said, "So you are Valli, Vulmavia are you? You are very beautiful, my dear, but I bet your boobs fall down to your  feet, ha ha", to which I jumped up and pretended to smack him. It broke the ice, and we became firm friends after that.

Making the film was like having a family. We all got on really well. Bob Fuest, the director, was very charming and a genius, a talent way before his time. All of the actors were very nice, it was a pleasure to do.

I was almost playing myself, as I am very quiet and love mystery. Vincent was like a father to me, always keeping an eye out for me, sending me food by taxi to my flat to make sure I was eating.

He also found out that I was an artist and asked me to bring some paintings to work to show him, as he was an acclaimed art critic. He loved them and arranged an exhibition for me, where I sold 30 paintings in two hours! I was very happy about that and continued painting as well as acting and modelling. He was a very funny man and always had me in stitches. We were supposed to make nine more films, but the owner of American International Films died, so it was no more. A shame.


Nine more Dr. Phibes films? It's not just a shame that they were never made, it's a tragedy.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (4 Stars)

Unlike many other bloggers, who are more mercenary than me, I don't earn money from people reading my blog. I have deliberately chosen not to use Google's AdSense to earn money from clicks. I don't want to spoil the reading experience of my blog by embedding advertisements that distract from the content. The only money I earn from my blog is when my readers buy things from Amazon using my links. It's not enough for my readers to simply visit Amazon, they have to buy something.

I've mentioned this today because I've noticed a lot of purchases via my blog in America over the last two months. Many thanks for your assistance. I know that I have readers who are regular customers of Amazon. If you're one of them, use my links to visit Amazon, please. It will make no difference to you. You'll pay exactly the same price. The difference is that I'll be paid a small percentage of your purchase price, between 3% and 5%, depending on what you order. Yes, you can click on my link and then buy something completely different, not the film that I'm reviewing.

	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Try it. If you live in England or Germany, click one of these links to open Amazon in your browser. Then search for the product that you want to buy.

Dr. Phibes Rises Again (4 Stars)

Vincent Price was the undisputed King of Camp. Why act when you can overact? Of all the films he made, his two films as Dr. Phibes were probably the most extreme. It's like he's caricaturing himself.

I wrote most of what I needed to say in my last review. Click here to read it. Today I'll just add a few thoughts.

Which of the two films is better, "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" or "Dr. Phibes Rises Again"?

It's difficult to give a simple answer. It depends on what you're looking for in a film. The first film is better structured. It has a series of murders based on the ten plagues that Moses brought down on Egypt. The victims were chosen in advance by Dr. Phibes. In the second film the methods of killing are random, and the victims are also random, simply anyone who gets in Dr. Phibes' way.

However, the second film is more of a horror film. It has scary scenes that have haunted me ever since I first saw it. I would rate it as one of the scariest films I've ever seen. There's less to laugh at in "Dr. Phibes Rises Again". At most I smiled at the ridiculous eccentricities.

The clockwork musicians return from the first film. They're one of the most eccentric features. Their jazz melodies are upgraded this time round. The music is better to dance to.

The beautiful actress Caroline Munro doesn't rise again. She sleeps through the whole film.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Monster Club (3 Stars)

This is my Halloween Challenge film #29. I'm a big fan of Vincent Price. He was a magnificent actor who towered above his peers, and if anyone says otherwise I'll bite him with my rubber fangs. He made some brilliant films, such as "The Abominable Dr. Phibes", but he also made a lot of poor quality films in his career. He could have had his pick of the best films offered, but it seems like he didn't care. He had nothing to prove. He was the greatest horror film actor of his day, and he knew it. All he wanted to do was have fun making trashy little films. Like "Monster Club", made in 1981.

The film begins with the author Ronald Chetwynd-Hayes, famous for his horror stories, walking home at night. He meets a man (Vincent Price) begging on the street. He offers the man money for food, but the beggar doesn't want food, he's desperate for blood. The beggar takes a few sips of Ronald's blood, not enough to seriously harm him, then introduces himself as the ancient vampire Erasmus. When Erasmus finds out who his generous benefactor is he says he's a big fan of his books, and he takes him to a club where monsters meet. In the club Erasmus is kind enough to explain the differences between the monsters, based on their genealogy.

We have the primate monsters: vampires, werewolves and ghouls. Now, a vampire and a werewolf would produce a werevamp, but a werewolf and a ghoul would produce a weregoo, and a vampire and a ghoul would produce a vamgoo. A weregoo and a werevamp would produce a shaddy. Now, a weregoo and a vamgoo would produce a maddy, but a werevamp and a vamgoo would produce a raddy. Now, if a shaddy were to mate with a raddy or a maddy the result would be a mock. Frankly, that's just a polite name for a mongrel.

If a mock were to mate with any of the other hybrids, their offsprings would be called shadmocks.

It's quite simple, really. All you have to do is remember the basic rules of monsterdom. Vampires suck, werewolves hunt, ghouls tear. Shaddies lick, maddies yawn, mocks blow, but shadmocks only whistle.

As well as mating with each other, monsters also mate with human beings. The results are nearly always disastrous, but they will do it.

The genealogical chart taken from the film also includes a humegoo, the offspring of ghouls and humans. I suppose there are other variations, like shaddyhums, maddyhums and raddyhums, but Erasmus didn't want to confuse Ronald more than necessary.

From this point on "Monster Club" turns into an anthology. Erasmus tells Ronald three stories about the monsters in the chart. These stories are actually based on short stories written by the real life Ronald Chetwynd-Hayes. In between the stories various musical groups appear on stage, including UB40 and the Pretty Things. The songs are performed in full, showing that they are are as important as the stories themselves. I greatly enjoyed the music, but I found the stories forgettable.

Ronald Chetwynd-Hayes
30 May 1919 – 20 March 2001

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (4 Stars)

This is my Halloween Challenge film #4. It was made in 1971 and stars Vincent Price in the title role.

Today I asked myself what makes a film a horror film. The first thing I did was check Wikipedia, and a found an eloquent definition:

"Horror is a film genre seeking to elicit a negative emotional reaction from viewers by playing on the audience's primal fears".

That's merely an over-complicated way of saying "A horror film is a film that is made to scare the viewers".

However, I'm not sure if this says it all. Taking the 1931 version of "Frankenstein" as an example, it doesn't scare me at all, and yet I would intuitively call it a horror film. People might reply that the film is intended to scare the viewers, but in my case I'm not scared because I'm too hard boiled to be scared. I reject arguments like that, because that would mean that "Frankenstein" failed in its purpose, and the last thing I would do is call it a failure.

Then we have the problem that all films containing vampires are called horror films by default. Most people call "Twilight" a horror film, even though it has more in common with teenage romance films. Then what about horror comedies, which are intended to make people laugh rather than scare them? Is "Yoga Hosers" a horror film at all?

"The Abominable Dr. Phibes" has been called one of the best British horror films ever, but it's so campy that hardly any of the scenes scare me. Dr. Phibes wants to take revenge on the doctors that he blames for his wife's death by murdering them in ways relating to the ten plagues inflicted by Moses on Egypt. That leads to exaggerated murder methods which are more amusing than scary.

The film doesn't list the plagues in the same order as the Bible (Exodus 7 to 12). A Jewish Rabbi in the film says that scholars disagree about the order of the plagues, but I don't know why. The Jewish Torah must tell the story in a set order. It's more likely that the plagues were re-ordered to fit the plot better, and the scholars disagree argument was thrown in to stop people complaining.

Maybe the best definition would be:

"Horror is a film genre that deals with subject matters that scare people".

That's not a perfect definition, but it's certainly better than Wikipedia's attempt. People are scared of vampires, zombies and death, so films about these subjects can be classed as horror films even if  they're presented in a comical or romantic way. The Wikipedia definition is faulty because it excludes too many films, my new definition is faulty because it includes too many films. Cancer is something that scares people, but a film about someone dying from cancer isn't a horror film. Or is it? I welcome discussions on this subject. Please leave me comments giving me your personal definition of "horror movie". Try to give a definition in a single sentence, but if you need more it's okay.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Dr. Phibes Rises Again (4 Stars)

This is a sequel to "The Abominable Dr. Phibes". It takes place three years later, in 1928. At the end of the last film Dr. Phibes lay in a machine that replaced his blood with embalming fluid, which we assumed killed him. In this film the same machine puts the blood back in his veins, bringing him back to life. That's a lot of trouble to go to. Couldn't he just have gone into hiding for three years?

1928 is a very significant year. The planets Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon will be in allignment for the first time in 2000 years. This will trigger the draining of an underground chamber in an Egyptian pyramid, opening the way to the River of Life. Whoever drinks from this river will live forever. Dr. Phibes doesn't just want this treasure for himself, he intends to use it to bring his wife Victoria back to life.

Unknown to him, another explorer, Darrus Biederbeck, is also searching for the River of Life. A few hundred years ago he discovered a small quantity in flasks, and he's been keeping himself alive by drinking it until the planetary allignment occurred. Biederbeck and Dr. Phibes engage one another in a battle of wits, each trying to get to the River first. Biederbeck has a large group of people helping him, while Dr. Phibes only has his assistant Vulnavia at his side. Dr. Phibes kills the men in Biederbeck's group one by one with cunning machines. A gun or a knife would be far too simple.

Robert Fuest returned as director, but this time he had problems with the film. He wanted Dr. Phibes to have a new assistant, but the film studios insisted on Vulnavia returning. This was rather foolish, because Vulnavia was killed in the first film. No explanation is given as to how she miraculously re-appears in the opening scene. There was also off-screen tension between Vincent Price and Robert Quarry, the actor who played Biederbeck. Robert accused Vincent Price of over-acting. That's actually true, Vincent Price always over-acted, but that's what made him so good. However, Robert Quarry said it as an insult, and the two men never got on well together.

Vulnavia plays a bigger role than in the first film. In "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" we only see her occasionally, but in "Dr. Phibes Rises Again" she assists Dr. Phibes more actively in his murders. She's frequently used as bait to lure the men into traps, although the doctor himself is always the one to carry out the murders. He enjoys killing too much to delegate it to his assistant.

I saw this film on television many, many years ago. I visited a friend, Gareth, and he was watching it with his family. I missed the first few minutes and didn't see the film's title. It amazed me, and for years I tried to find out what it was. Certain scenes haunted me for years, they were unforgettable. Those were the days before the Internet -- yes, I'm that old! -- so I couldn't do a web search to see what films Vincent Price had made. It wasn't until 2004 that I finally knew what it was and bought both Dr. Phibes films on DVD. Better late than never.

Over the years several Dr. Phibes films were planned. Full screenplays were even written, but the films were never made. That's a shame. I would have liked to see Robert Fuest and Vincent Price reunited. It's too late now. I don't think any other actor could step into Vincent Price's shoes.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (4 Stars)

The picture I've used above, the cover of the soundtrack album for "The Abominable Dr. Phibes", has nothing to do with the film, but I've used it because it looks cool. It was common for posters and album covers in the 1970's to have irrelevant or incorrect pictures on them. These silly pictures sometimes found their way onto the cases of VHS and even DVD releases of the films. In the case of the picture above it's Dr. Phibes and his assistant Vulnavia, but they aren't in love, she just works for him. At no point in the film do they kiss one another. But you have to admit, the picture looks good, and the text on it is profoundly true.

"Love means never having to say you're ugly".

Now let's get to the film itself. In the early 20th Century Dr. Anton Phibes was one of the world's most brilliant organ players. In 1921 he had a car accident while driving with his wife. Anton was burnt to death and his wife Victoria was severely injured. Surgery was needed to save Victoria's life, but she died on the operating table. Anton and Victoria were buried side by side in the family crypt, his ashes lying next to her body. But as we see, Anton survived the crash after all. The ashes are those of his chauffeur. Nevertheless, his face has been badly damaged, and he has to wear a mask to look like a normal person.

Dr. Phibes wearing a mask.

Dr. Phibes without a mask.

The story continues in 1925. Dr. Phibes blames the medical team that treated his wife for her death. He says that they murdered her, so he wants to take revenge on the nine members of the medical team. He kills them one by one, each murder based on the plagues that God wrought on Egypt before the Exodus. If you know the Bible you'll wonder why there are ten plagues if there are only nine victims. I shan't give that away, you need to watch the film for yourself.

Vincent Price is an incredible actor. His performances in horror films, including this one, are so exaggerated and campy that he can hardly be taken seriously, and yet everything is just perfect. If he did anything else it wouldn't be him.

The film was directed by Robert Fuest. He's not a well known director, since he made less than a dozen films in his career, but he still made an impact on the film world with his distinctive style. His films always used bold colours with sharp edges, and his sets were characterised by straight lines with a minimum of curves. The characters in his films were just as bold and well-defined as the sets, easy to distinguish in their moral values. He directed several episodes of the final season of "The Avengers", which also show his typical style.

This film is considered to be a cult classic. I agree, even though I've never been able to find an accurate definition of that expression.