The Classic Horror Countdown (100 - 96)

• 100. BLOOD OF THE VAMPIRE (1958)
  
  Good Points:


• Renowned Shakespearean ham Donald Wolfit is evil personified with his light, Lugosi-esque makeup and devious, blood-siphoning machinations. Barbara Shelley, the first lady of British horror, is also wonderfully picturesque and very sympathetic. Surprisingly for a film of this type, there isn’t a poor bit of acting to be found.


• The plot is unusually gruesome and frightening, and would have been served equally well by a video nastie remake. The credits unspool over the image of bright red blood positively weeping out of a freshly-staked carcass, and it’s all downhill from there. In emulating Hammer’s boldness, the filmmakers surpassed their inspiration. Epitomising the film’s carnival seediness, a rat can be seen scuttling round in the background of one scene.


• The occasionally garish colour cinematography offers a welcome reprieve from the stilted sort of black-and-white that so frequently marred films of this class. The sheer multiplicity of sets is quite astounding as well, giving the tale the dynamic quality of a rip-roaring Gothic fairytale.
  
  Bad Points:


• Sadly, the budget must have tailed off at some point, because many of the sets look distinctly phoney. Ranging from poorly painted to threadbare to the spartan and austere, the majority of locations exude a bargain basement quality. That said, the courtroom is impressive in its surreal desolation.


• The traditional hunchbacked dwarf is something of a clown figure in this case. Although the striking image of a grotesque with one eye dripping limply down his chin appealed to monster-hungry kids of the 1950s, it’s more laughable than anything else today. Us Britons are just hacks when it comes to monster makeup.
  


• 99. MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM (1933)
  
  Good Points:


• We have the offbeat subversion of a truly gritty, depression-era atmosphere. This goes exemplified by some cutting-edge two-strip Technicolor photography (also used in 1932’s sister film, Doctor X). Mystery is usually cited as the first horror film to use a contemporary urban setting, and it exploits all the dark shadows and menace of twilight New York to grand effect.


• Lionel Atwill gives one of his most revered performances as tormented, Phantom-like sculptor Ivan Igor. He has the enviable task of establishing one of those sweeping horror clichés – drenching people with molten wax in order to add them to the chamber of horrors. Bud Westmore’s utterly repugnant makeup job rivals anything of the era, surpasses it for shock value, and its unveiling is perhaps the greatest "unmasking" scene in film history.


• The plot offers us a genuine mystery (the clue’s in the title, folks!). This bumps up the film’s classic status, drawing us in with all manner of intriguing details and clues. Unlike the remake, House of Wax (1953), the killer’s identity offers us a genuine puzzle. The final revelation is a jaw-dropper.
  
  Bad Points:


• The camerawork can be a bit cumbersome and flat, even for 1933. The drab colours are an interesting diversion at first (as with the masked ball in 1925’s The Phantom of the Opera), but fail to sustain an entire feature film. This wouldn’t normally be an issue, but when we have Michael Curtiz, the fabled director of Casablanca (1942), doing the honours, it seems rather peculiar. Maybe he was still honing his technique.


• Glenda Farrell hogs the spotlight with her performance as a fast-talking, wisecracking reporter. It’s not her fault, she does a good job, but an improved script would focus more strongly on primary victim, Fay Wray. The 1953 version improves this plot point.
  
  Tribute to Fay Wray, including footage from Mystery of the Wax Museum
  
  
• 98. TARANTULA (1955)
  
  Good Points:
  
• The special effects verge on being completely seamless. True, the spider does turn transparent at one point and often fails to cast a shadow, but this is more than forgivable within the context of such masterful perfection. Scenes are often startling in their believability. Effects man David S. Horsley curiously wasn’t recalled for The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), Jack Arnold’s masterpiece.


• Some very nice black-and-white photography by the legendary George Robinson, veteran of over fifteen Universal horror films. The sparkling clarity of office and lab scenes contrasts nicely with the subdued spookiness of those murky desert plateaux.


• Tarantula can get very icky and disturbing, which is unusual for a film of this vintage. I have only a mild aversion to spiders, but find the idea of them growing steadily more enormous, stalking the countryside and eating people rather sickly. The highlights on this front are numerous close-ups of the tarantula’s distressingly sharp, slime-dripping jaws. Aracnophobes, beware!
  
  Bad Points:


• The acting could do with a bit of work. Well, mostly John Agar, who’s as wooden and happy-go-lucky as ever. Fortunately, the literate naturalism of the script keeps his performance from being too much of an issue. Even Laurence Olivier couldn’t make this sort of movie ring with absolute authority.


• The plot does drag a bit, which is never a good sign when dealing with subject matter as ludicrously fascinating as this. With ten minutes of exposition discreetly cleaved out, this would be on a par with any action thriller.
  
  Theatrical Trailer for Tarantula
  
  
• 97. THE GHOST BREAKERS (1940)
  
  Good Points:
  
• Whilst much of the film is fluff, we have one of the best-realised sequences in horror cinema once we get to the haunted castle. Everything one could wish for is on offer here. Bats flutter, masonry crumbles, windows shatter, organs blare, ghosts rise and the dead walk. The incredibly dense, shadowy set dressings rival Castle Dracula.


• Noble Johnson is absolutely excellent as the zombie, bringing the part so much more than these tall actors usually do. The truly strange ambiguity of his performance (it’s never quite explained if he’s undead or not…) only adds to his aura of menace. A genuine element of threat invades the picture, similar to Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), because you’re constantly made aware that the monsters pose a risk to the protagonists.


• The photography is absolutely gorgeous. You could cut those shimmering, creamy whites with a knife and gorge yourself on those rich, glossy blacks for dessert. It really is that good. Kudos to Charles Lang, who also lent his talents to Hope’s lesser warm-up vehicle, The Cat and the Canary (1939).
  
  Bad Points:


• Bob Hope is not funny and never will be. Well, that’s a subjective thing, of course. One or two of his quips are amusing, but to me, he will forever remain the Ricky Gervais of the early twentieth century. Except that he doesn’t always wear the same clothes and grin like a Cheshire cat.


• The set-up of the film seems to go on forever, with hi-jinks in a hotel and on an ocean liner and in an enormous amount of interlinking rooms. Especially seeing as it contains lashings and lashings of Bob Hope. It is uniquely refreshing to see a black comedian portrayed in a non-stereotypical manner though… (All eyes on Mantan Moreland of King of the Zombies (1941), who seemed to delight in demeaning himself for the merriment of white people.)
  
  An example of a Bob Hope quip in The Ghost Breakers
  


• 96. THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (1932)
  
  Good Points:


• The marvellous jungle sets were borrowed from King Kong (1933), which was still grinding its way through production by the time of Game’s release. It’s tragic indeed that these mighty ferns, tree trunks and waterfalls exist. The copious use of mist and glass paintings gives the forest a remarkably sinister ambience, with the thought that anything could be lurking in the shrubbery.


• The unbearably tense and sadistic plot has gone down in film history, and it’s a cracking one – a demented nobleman starts hunting down and murdering his mansion guests on a private island, aided and abetted by a litany of guns, crossbows and bloodhounds. The film’s most famous moment comes when we see a rotting human head mounted on the wall. All very suspenseful. It’s been ripped off a great many times, and would make an excellent survival horror game.


• The action-packed, breakneck speed of the plot conspires with the ultra short running time to create something of a rollercoaster ride. Within the first five minutes, a ship is blown up and dozens of people are fed to sharks. And it doesn’t let up. There’s enough dazzling spectacle to pad out the most bloated of today’s three-hour, CGI bores.
  
  Bad Points:


• Pace sacrifices any empathy we might have with the characters. Fay Wray aside, they’re a pretty unlikeable bunch who we yearn to see fed to the dogs. Fortunately, this wish is fulfilled in one case. And you get so used to applauding the villain’s antics in these films that it’s annoying to find Leslie Banks’s Count Zaroff so unlikeable. Which I suppose is the point. But it would have been interesting to see the more charismatic Bela Lugosi give us his spin on it.


• Max Steiner’s musical score isn’t one of his best. It definitely shows its age, which doesn’t hold true for King Kong, Gone with the Wind (1939) or Casablanca… From most other composers, it would be an acceptable job, but I’ve come to expect more from the archbishop of film music.