Christopher Lee "Charlemagne: By The Sword And The Cross" [2010] Album Review

 

"Charlemagne: By The Sword And The Cross" is a an album by Christopher Lee, which was released on March 15th, 2010. I was able to listen to this on Spotify. 

Christopher Lee was, of course, a very famous actor, most known for his role as Dracula in multiple Hammer Horror Films. What some people may be surprised to know though, is that Lee was a classically trained singer, that like Heavy Metal. Though some sources state that he got into Metal after being included on some of the works by "Rhapsody of Fire", an article from Rolling Stone states that Lee liked Black Sabbath as early as their first album. I'm inclined to believe that he liked Metal for a long, long time. 

This album isn't completely Metal, and has much more of a symphonic tone to it, but what I found interesting, if not funny, was how Lee's parts were usually accompanied by some Metal riffs. 

The album starts off like a movie, grand and baroque. When I closed my eyes, I envisioned the scenes, like it was a musical. I really liked this, as it was like a radio drama. 

The album is like one big history lesson about King Charlemagne, which apparently Lee was related to. At the same time, apparently many people are related to the king in some way.  

Lee's voice is very rich and grand. You can hear how his classical training really came through.

In a way, the album is like another Christopher Lee movie. It starts becoming a little metal with the track: Act II: The Iron Crown of Lombardy". 

The metal on this album is more like a mixture of Symphonic and Progressive Metal. I can imagine fans of Dream Theater, or Devin Townsend being into this.

The album is interesting, and something I feel is good on have on in the background, while doing another activity like crocheting, studying, or sewing.  

For me, I'm more interested in the novelty of the album, that a huge star would create something like this, especially in their advanced age. I think it's great! If anything, it's a reminder that just because you're old, doesn't mean you can't create something for the world to see. At the time of the album's release, Lee was 87 years old. That's amazing! 

If you're interested in hearing Christopher Lee sing, or the history of King Charlemagne, then I'd say to check this out. 

"House On Haunted Hill" [1958] Movie Review

 

[Watched on Fawesome]

"House On Haunted Hill" is a 1958 Horror movie, that's commonly referred to as some sort of Ghost Story. Of course, it's most famous leading role is played by Vincent Price, who is, for the most part...a bad guy. Right?

 Vincent Price plays a perfectly sinister millionaire "playboy" that intends to scare his house guests, inviting them to stay the night with a $10,000 reward if they make to 8 am the next day. It was 5 people invited, so the payout would have been $50,000 overall. Adjusted for inflation, that 50K would be $571,777 in 2026. 

I like the concept of the movie, a creepy murder house that people are  trying to see how long they could stay. You hear a little background about each character, though it's not very much. Even though this was different time period, I think it would have been cool to hear more reasons as to why the people at the house were there. 

I wondered if the movie inspired the quest "Whodunit" from the game Oblivion, where the player has to pick off the guests at a party, one by one. 

 I found it interesting that there was the tale of someone who was thrown into a vat of acid, in the basement of the house. This similar idea was shown in the movie "Scream and Scream Again", which came out in 1970. I wonder if this movie inspired that. 

Some of the acting is pretty cheesy, and a bit stock, but it's funny. I also found it funny when the skeleton of the rat floated to the top of the acid, it was such a cheesy prop used!

The set did a great job at concealing Vincent Price's height. You really couldn't tell how tall he was!

The old lady ghost was funny to me, like some sort of witch without a hat. I found the semi-romantic notes between the characters Nora and Lance to be silly, though I guess that's what they had to do to keep peoples' attention.

 In a way, the movie reminded of the game "Clue", with it's sort of mystery elements around the house.

I'm surprised that they could show the body hanging at the stairs, considering the time period. Supposedly this and the movie poster showing the woman being hanged, caused it to be somewhat censored, but I didn't really see that in newspaper ads, at least. 

Overall, I really enjoyed the film, and found Vincent Price's talent was really highlighted here. He was the perfect "sinister husband" and was surprisingly not "The Bad Guy". In a strange way, Price's character was framed, like in the movie "Madhouse".  I loved the dynamic between him and Carol Ohmart, they were like a more sinister version of Gomez and Morticia Addams. 

I think that, especially today, the movie isn't scary. But that doesn't mean it's bad. Of course, nearly 70 years later, many of the things that society used to be scared of, are considered silly or normal now. I think this movie is one of those perfect watches for Halloween, and October in general. Interestingly, the movie was released in May of 1958, but it seriously has that Halloween vibe. 

I think that this movie is worth the watch, because the plot itself is really fun, and clever. It makes the viewer think of what would they do if in this situation, or how they'd write a story like this one. 

Looking through the newspaper archives, there weren't that many reviews for the film, though one I found was laughable. 

 

 

In a review by "Charles Stinson", he called the movie "inept". He wrote his review in a such a way that to me, it seemed like wanted to use some words that he recently read about in the dictionary, and wanted to seem intelligent. I suppose if he were paid by the word by the newspaper, this likely paid a fatter check. I'm not saying his opinion was wrong, I just felt like he tried too hard to prove how much he disliked the movie. 

 Many advertisements of the movie talked about "Emergo", which was supposed to be some type of interesting device. It was basically just the pulley system used to move the skeleton seen at the end of the movie. Wikipedia states that a device would be used in theaters to scare the audience too.

 I'm unsure if "Emergo" was ever used for anything other than this movie. 

 The house seen at the beginning of the movie is known as "Ennis House", which was built in 1925. The house has an interesting history, mostly due to it's constant need of repairs, since it was virtually built. One of the problems it had was the south wall bulging out. Apparently after this movie was released, there was a problem with young people coming to the residence, and screaming as loud as they could from the outside. 

 Strangely, and sadly, quite a few people from the cast had rather early deaths. First, was Alan Marshall, who played Dr. Trent, passed away in 1961 at the age of 52. He had a heart attack after a performance in Chicago. 

 Next, was the death of Carolyn Craig, who played Nora Manning. She committed suicide, from a self inflicted gunshot wound, and passed away on December 12th, 1970, at the age of 36. I couldn't find any obituary on her in the newspaper archives. 

 

And third, Richard Long, who played Lance, passed away December 21st, 1974, at the age of 47. He had-had cardiac problems due to contracting pneumonia at a young age, and had already had a heart attack in 1961. After a month stay in the hospital to treat additional attacks he passed away four days after his birthday. 

 

 

  But overall, I enjoy the movie, and think that it's well worth the watch. Yes, it's cheesy and not really scary, but I think that it's fun to see! A perfect Halloween movie. 

 3/5 on letterboxd 

"An Evening of Edgar Allan Poe" [1970] Movie Review

 

"An Evening Of Edgar Allan Poe" is a 1970 film which features Vincent Price, and Vincent Price only. He is seen performing 4 different pieces by the author, in what are very dramatic interpretations of the source material. 

The film is hard to find now-a-days, and I was able to watch it on youtube, though the upload of it was pretty low quality. It's hard to judge the film completely, when the only way to watch it is a video that's of potato quality.

That said, I did find Price's interpretations to be great. Simply put. What I loved the most, was how much emotion Price put into each piece. Watching this film, I really felt like Vincent Price was perfect for theater, and of course, Edgar Allan Poe's writings. I really loved watching this, because there are many films from the late 60's and early 70's with Price, that don't utilize his theater skills, like this film does. Movies such as "Scream and Scream Again", and "The Oblong Box" are way too subtle in comparison to how Vincent performed here. Truly, I believe that Price was a perfect stage actor. You can tell how much he enjoyed performing, as he really seemed to be enjoying himself while interpreting these pieces. Overall, I really enjoyed this, especially since it's almost lost media. I don't know where you could easily find a high quality version of this, unless you bought something second hand online. 

I couldn't find any reviews for this in the newspaper archives, but there were a few articles and ads for the showing. 

 

Most of the articles I found, usually mentioned this film in passing. The exact date that this was released doesn't seem to be known, but it seems to have been around the late spring-summer time period of 1970. That same year, Price also renewed his contract with AIP (American International Pictures). 

 

 

Another thing I found interesting, was that the news couldn't seem to figure out if the film was titled "An Evening With Edgar Allan Poe", or "An Evening Of Edgar Allan Poe". There were advertisements calling it both.

 

Not much more can be said about this one. I enjoyed it for what it was, and just wish there was a higher quality video to watch somewhere. I liked the idea of Vincent Price doing "solo" work. I wish there were more works of his like this. 

That said, I gave it a 4/5 on letterboxd. 

"Scream and Scream Again" [1970] Movie Review

 

"Scream and Scream Again" is a British movie release in 1970, though the genre for this one is hard. It starts off like some sort of Gothic Horror Crime Drama, but ends up taking another direction, then makes a right turn, then a left, and overall, leaves the viewer confused. 

 There are 3 main ideas in this movie, and they are barely tied together by the end of the movie. First, is a so called "vampire killer", where a man was targeting women, killing them, and seen sucking their blood (at least with one woman). Second, is a military initiative that very clearly resembles the Nazis. While it doesn't show any swastikas, the outfits and color schemes are the same. Why this was there, and what they were hoping to achieve, is never really explained. Some sort of "master race", but not in the Hitler way. Even still, why the movie was trying to emulate this, was never explained. 

The third plot point to the movie was a strange experiment of sorts, where a man who was seen running at the beginning of the movie, would be periodically shown with less and less limbs. 

The movie advertised big names such as Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing...though the three are never in a scene altogether. Peter Cushing is seen the least, literally only in one scene, where is killed off. Christopher Lee gets a little more screen time, and Price gets the most, but even he isn't seen that much. I don't consider this to be a Vincent Price movie, just one that he happened to be in. Halfway through the movie, I realized they probably couldn't afford to have all three in the movie, which is likely why they were barely in it at all. 

The movie runs too long, and should have definitely been cut in multiple areas. One of the biggest scenes is this police car chase, where the vampire murderer dude is wanted by the police. It's so time consuming, and acts like it's building up to his arrest, only to take a turn and have him get away. While it was interesting to see how the chase ended, with the unusual death, it was still very anti-climatic. The movie as a whole acts like it's building up to something, yet there is never really a pay off. 

The end of the movie is the most interesting, where of course, Vincent Price is revealed to be a bad guy. There is this Frankenstein element to his character, where he was having people murdered and brought to his lab to be experimented on. He was creating special human creatures that were constructed out of other peoples' elements, like the brain and limbs. Price and Lee's characters are revealed to also be of this created human type, though it's revealed only at the end. Price is killed off by being submerged in the same bath of acid (acid bath?) that the others were put in. 

One of the other characters asks Christopher Lee if it was finally over, and he, so cliched, says "No, it's just beginning.".  Then the movie ends. It was like as if they might have made a sequel, but thankfully, this never happened. 

Overall, the movie was very hard to follow, and rather boring. Lee and Price's acting was great, which is such a shame for how bad the movie is. It's cheesy, hard to follow, and pretty dorky. It's not scary or Gothic at all. The chase scene could have been 5 minutes, tops. The evil regime didn't need to be there at all. There was just too much going on, and by the end of it all, I asked myself, "What just happened?". 

 The movie could have been good if they focused more on the science fiction element. If they looked more at the human experiments going on, and maybe had more scenes of people being used for them, I would have found the movie more interesting. But it's hard to be taken seriously at all. 

Looking at some of the lore online, it appears that even Vincent Price was confused by the script. Very little of the writing makes sense at all. This is one of those movies were bad writing really broke the film.  

 I'm not sure if I would rewatch this movie. It's not horrible, but boring. It's not creepy, or gothic, or scary...it's just sort of there. 

 

I could not find any reviews for the movie when I looked for it on the newspaper archives. 

2/5 slimes 

"The Oblong Box" [1969] Movie Review

 

"The Oblong Box" is a Gothic Horror film released in 1969, based off of an Edgar Allan Poe short story of the same name. From what I understand, the movie is loosely based off of ideas to the story, while also incorporating elements that had nothing to do with Poe's story. One of these is the Voodoo "witch doctor". 

The idea to the movie is that Vincent Price, who played Julian, went to Africa with his brother Edward, but the latter was mutilated by a tribe in some sort of ritual. Because of this, Edward was never to leave his room in the top of their house, after returning to England. The film starts off in a creepy sense, but it goes on to become cheesy. 

Edward was buried alive, and Julian used a different dead guy who was commissioned to be killed, so that that body could be presented as his brother for the funeral. Of course, because of Edward's wrongful burial, he seeks revenge on the ones who did him wrong. Ironically, Edward was dug up by grave robbers, who were commissioned by Christopher Lee's character, a doctor that does strange experiments on the dead. 

Edward kills a few people, but in the end, he is shot by Julian and actually dies. But right before, he bites his brother on the hand, and it seems that the curse is passed on to his brother.

The movie wasn't terrible, but it wasn't really creepy to me either. I feel like it started out very interesting, it captured my attention, but then it dropped the ball. The movie was advertised with having Christopher Lee and Vincent Price, but the two only share one very small scene together, where Price holds up Lee's dying body. It was disappointing in a way, I think many horror fans would have loved to see an actual movie with the two interacting with each other more. 

  The movie becomes a cheesy, silly, mini slasher film, when Edward starts killing people. The scenes where he starts to stab his victims are very silly. The knives just touch the victims and blood magically appears. Granted, I think that this may have been due to the rules that the UK had against violence (this was made in the United Kingdom), so they probably couldn't show much more. One review I came across actually stated that the deaths were gorey, which I guess was just a sign of the times. 

 I could only find one actual review about the film when it came out, and the author didn't seem too impressed. Understandably, they stated that the movie was a poor use of Christopher Lee and Vincent Price's talent, which I completely agree. The movie didn't utilize the skill that both actors had, which I think was mostly due to the limitations of the script. I often felt like the writers didn't want to be too scary. If this were the case, then they shouldn't have case Vincent Price or Christopher Lee! By the end of the movie, it doesn't feel like a Gothic Horror film, it was more of a comedy. I like a good laugh, but I feel like the direction of the movie went a completely different way from how it started. 

 What I also found interesting, was the difference in filming this movie, from many of Price's older ones. This was the time where film started being more "in your face", than watching from afar. If you watch older movies from the 50's and 60's, they are more like watching a play. The scenes are like on a stage. This movie was much more up close. You could really see how tall Vincent Price was! He looked very handsome in this movie too lol.

 

 Overall, I gave this a 2/5. But it's 2/5 slimes. The movie just ends up being so silly and cheesy to me. I really wish that there were more moments with Price and Lee, but if you had this on in the background at a Halloween party, I don't think anyone would mind. 

 

 

  

"The Last Man On Earth" [1964] Movie Review

 

"The Last Man On Earth" is a Vincent Price movie, starring the actor in one of the few roles where he wasn't the bad guy. Sort of. To some, his character was a legend. 

This was the first Vincent Price movie that I ever saw, having watched it many years ago with my father. My Dad always loved films like these; another apocalyptic film he liked being "Panic In The Year Zero". I watched many apocalyptic/zombie movies growing up, such as "Night of The Living Dead", and "Dawn of The Dead". 

The movie is based off of the book "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson, which was released in 1954. According to the lore, the screenplay was partially written by Matheson, but apparently, he was dissatisfied, and only wanted to be credited under a pseudonym. The film was originally to be produced by Hammer Films in the 50's, but this didn't happen, and it was given to API. With the change of hands, it seems that this is where Matheson's dissatisfaction began. 

The plot to the film is that a viral epidemic breaks out, and wipes out humanity with the exception of Robert Morgan, who was played by Price. Morgan is a scientist that had tried to help find some sort of vaccine or cure to the disease, which basically turned people into vampires. Garlic and a mirror is hung on the front door to Morgan's house, which seems to drive the vampire zombies away. In the movie, the infected are like some sort of mixture between vampires,  and zombies. Undead, but can see their faces in the mirror, and hates garlic. What's strange, and unexplained, is that when people become infected, they eventually go blind, right before they die. But somehow, when they resurrect, they can see again? The undead can look at themselves in the mirror, and hate their appearance.... I'm not sure if anyone really thought that point out. 

Despite things like this, I find this movie to be among one of the best of all time, as strange as that might be. It's not because of how the film is conveyed, it's more about what the film conveys.  

Author Matheson stated that he felt like Vincent Price was miscast for the film, and years after, felt like Harrison Ford would have been a better match. I find this to be odd though, as Vincent Price was playing the role of a scientist, which I think he did well! Perhaps Matheson wanted his movie to be more action packed, which would make sense. The movie depicts the vampires as slow and dumb, much like zombies are, while apparently in the book, they were fast. Despite this, Matheson himself even stated that this movie was the closest and most faithful to his original work. I personally don't believe that Harrison Ford would have done a better job than Price. Ford's acting roles aren't typically as emotional and thought driven like Prices' were. 

According to IMDB, the movie became public domain due to a clerical error. So, ever since the 80's, this film is virtually free to see anywhere. I watched it on youtube, but you can find it across the internet. 

After I rewatched the movie (for this blog post), I thought about how it reminded me a lot of "Night of The Living Dead". It's funny that I even thought that, because apparently this film did inspire George Romero to create his film, which came out 4 years later! When you compare the two, you can see how Robert Morgan was an inspiration for the character Ben. Both are tragically killed, despite being good guys. Much of the idea of surviving an apocalyptic scenario in a house in paralleled here. It's unsurprising that I enjoy both films. 

I couldn't find any reviews for the movie in the newspaper archives, though it was advertised, of course. It was commonly advertised with the movie, "Goliath And The Vampires", which makes sense in a way, as "Last Man" is about a viral outbreak that turns people into vampires. I am unsure where you can even watch Goliath though, today. 

 

 

I found the idea of the viral vampire outbreak to be interesting, and liked the fact that there was some sort of attempt at trying to explain this form of vampirism. Once again, this film is a classic, as it definitely inspired many zombie films for the future, and games too, surely. How many zombie movies, games, and shows have talked about where the origin of the outbreak came from? This is something that's prevalent in the Resident Evil series, touched on in The Walking Dead show,  and technically, you even see an origin story for this in Return of The Living Dead, with the "typical Army fuck up". Hell, we even get a little bit of that with Dawn of The Dead, with the famous line of, "When there's no more room in Hell....". 

 It's funny though, this is one of the few films to unintentionally blend vampires and zombies together, and probably among the few to try connecting vampires to science. Typically, you see zombies looked at in the scientific angle...vampires are almost always seen as too mystical. At least to me. I give the movie credit for that. Of course, this is in hindsight. When the film was first released, it was the first of its kind in many ways. 

This was before many of the biological horror and zombie movies of today, or how the genre developed a decade later. While zombies were talked about in movies before 1964, they were more in the Voodoo sense, and not the commonly thought of brain eating Romero ones. 

Like much of Vincent Price's movies, much of the film is subtle, and of course, the violence isn't overt. A good example of this is in the scene with the dog, where it turns out to be infected too. You don't hear any dialogue spoken about what Price's character is going to do...you just see a scene where he is burying something afterwards.  

This was likely done as our culture was just so different back then. I imagine that many people didn't want to see any violence, considering how many wars were going on during this time period. Looking at films like these, it's clear that these types of movies were intended for older audiences, likely middle aged and up. I think that many of the subtleties would have been lost on younger adults. It also explains why the horror genre changed so much in the 70's. By then, the younger Baby Boomers were in their 20's and 30's, and their style was much more visual. There's a big difference between the horror depicted in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (created by Tobe Hooper, a Baby Boomer), and "Madhouse" (created by the generation before him). 

One of the things I do wish they did differently in "Last Man", was how the film was overdubbed. The film was created in Italy, and recorded in black and white to save money. The majority of the actors were Italian, with the only exceptions being Vincent Price, and the actress who played his daughter. All of the lines were added later, and the Italian actors had English dubbers. By doing this, it made the film look too cheesy, and it took away from the serious tone of the film. The lines to nearly everyone, except Vincent Price, the daughter, and Dr. Mercer, looked and sounded silly. Ben Cortman and Virginia Morgan's overdubs were especially cheesy and bad. They didn't sound very believable, and were quite stock. This is a shame, because Ben Cortman's actor, Giacomo Rossi-Stuart, was actually quite good! If the overdubbing was one of the reasons why Matheson didn't like the film, then I would completely understand. The choice to dub over, at least in this way, was definitely a detracting point to the film. 

What's strange though, is that the poster advertising the movie isn't faithful to what the movie is about. It makes little sense. There's a house pictured that's not even in the movie. So for some, that may have been misleading. 

I will say though, the fact that the movie was filmed in black and white didn't take away its impact for me. Actually, I felt that it emphasized the serious tone of it. 

But overall, I really enjoy this, and find it to be an incredibly important classic. It has so much potential to inspire, even to this day. This is one of those movies that makes you wonder, "What if?". The idea of something like this possibly happening is always on peoples' minds, perhaps even more so, ever since 2020.  

I gave this a 3/5 on letterboxd. 

"Twice Told Tales" [1963] Movie Review

 

"Twice Told Tales" is a Gothic Horror Anthology Film starring Vincent Price, who shockingly plays 3 different evil characters in the stories depicted. The three stories are loosely adapted from the originals by author Nathaniel Hawthorne, who is most famously known for the book "The Scarlet Letter". 

The three stories in this film are  "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment", "Rappaccini's Daughter", and "The House of The Seven Gables". As said before, Vincent Price is in all 3 stories for the film, playing sinister characters in each. 

"Heidegger's Experiment" was about how Carl Heidegger and his friend Alex go to the tomb of the former's passed away lover, Sylvia. They find some form of extremely pure water, which is used on a 38 year old pressed flower, which brings it back life, fresh. Carl then drinks the special water, and instantly de-ages, becoming a younger version of himself. Alex drinks the water, and becomes young again also. Carl then gets the idea that he should use the water on Sylvia, to hopefully bring her back to life, which works. Carl leaves the room and goes to retrieve her wedding dress, so that they can actually marry, as she mysteriously died the night before their wedding, which was nearly 40 years prior. 

While gone, it was revealed that Alex (played by Vincent Price), actually poisoned Sylvia, because they were having an affair behind Carl's back. Carl hears this, and they get into a fight, Carl getting stabbed, and turning old again right after. Alex ages as well, and when he looks over at Sylvia, she is just a skeleton. 

 "Rappaccini's Daughter" is the second story, and by far the best. I love the idea of ecological horror, and though this was created decades before Resident Evil 2, there is a sort of similarity here. I wonder if the creators to that game saw this movie, and were inspired, with the plant enemies...and the original plant plot to the game. 

The story, at least in the movie, is about how an evil Scientist turned his daughter into an acidic, radioactive bio-weapon, that cannot touch any living creature, or else they'd die. The reason? Because his wife left him, and he was bitter. He didn't want any man to touch his daughter, like the man that stole his wife. As silly as an idea this is...it was actually pretty interesting to see in the movie. 

While watching this story, it reminded me of "The Last Man on Earth", and the scientific research elements in that movie.  I love the idea of a mad scientist, perhaps I'm just a dork for concepts like this. I don't want to spoil the concepts for this story, because I think that this is the one that makes the movie really worth watching.

 The final story is "The House of The Seven Gables". I have always heard of this story, but had never read it (or any of the stories, by the time that I watched this movie). I didn't even realize that it was a ghost story, until watching this movie. 

I loved the idea of a sort of colonial witch trial that caused a generational curse. The idea of the story was fun, though I found that this story wasn't nearly as creepy as it could have been. The creepiest thing were the teeth that the sister had. I couldn't stop looking at them.  I think that the ghost-liness to this story was more cheesy, and not so creepy, but I was definitely shocked when Gerald killed his sister. I didn't see that one coming, somehow. 

I found the destruction of the house to be silly, and Price was really funny in how he died in that story. It was quite perfect, with Gerald's blood spilling on the portrait of his ancestor. In some ways, the disembodied hand reminded me of something from the PS1 game, "Clock Tower" (Clock Tower 2). I wonder if the creators of that movie watched this movie too. 

Overall, I liked the movie, and I think that it's interesting to watch, especially as a Vincent Price fan. I respect the movie for what it is, as it was still in that mode of "Theatrical" cinema, when many films were based on stories and plays that were brought to life. 

When I looked through the newspaper archives, I didn't find any reviews for the movie, though there were a lot of advertisements for it. It was typically advertised with another of Price's movies, "Diary of a Madman". 

 I gave this movie a 3/5 on letterboxd.

"The Christmas Carol" [1949] Movie Review

 

[Watched on Fawesome]

 "The Christmas Carol" is a 25 minute special that was narrated by Vincent Price, in what was one of his earlier works. A cheesy depiction of the Charles Dickens story, it spends nearly 2 minutes on the intro credits, and about the same for the end credits. The actual film itself is barely 20 minutes, when you get to the acting.

 I love the idea of Vincent Price just reading to an audience, which thankfully, later in his career, he did record a few pieces of literature. 

Scrooge isn't really seen as the typically depicted evil boss, I guess that at this point in film, things were more subtle in how scenarios were depicted. Much of the original story is skimmed over to get to the "main part", where Scrooge is haunted.

Scrooge's acting was really cheesy, in fact, much of the acting was cheesy. When the ghost of Christmas past tried to show Scrooge the woman who divorced him because of his greed, it was so silly to me, how Scrooge ran away.  

 I think that the special was intended for children, it's pretty silly, and not that serious. The sound effect for the dramatic moments was so loud, that it couldn't come off as anything but comedic. 

Not much was shown in the newspaper archives, though in the couple of clippings I found, Vincent Price was the main "advertisement" for the special. 

 A silly and short watch, interesting if you're curious about early film, and TV specials from that time period. 

 

The Fall of The House of Usher [1960] Movie Review

 

"The Fall of The House of Usher", also known as "House of Usher" is a movie that came out in 1960, which features Vincent Price. From what I understand, this was the first Edgar Allan Poe film he was in, the story being the same name as the movie. According to various lore, the movie went by both names, but from what I could find in the newspaper archives, it seems that the full title was used in the UK, while "House of Usher" was used in the US. 

The plot of the film is alright, where Philip Winthrop comes to the House of Usher to wisk away his fiancee, Madeline, but is essentially cock blocked by her brother, Roderick.  The Usher legacy is a grim one, full of evil, mad, cursed people. Roderick tried to convince Philip not to take Madeline back to Boston with him, but Philip insists on doing so. Before he can, Madeline "dies", but not really, only being entombed by her brother. She eventually goes mad and escapes, and the movie ends with the house burning to the ground. 

When it comes to the plot and writing of the movie, honestly, I didn't find it that interesting. I know that it was a different time period, but I didn't feel like this movie was very creepy, Gothic, or scary. I didn't feel sympathetic to Philip, and honestly found myself wondering why he was trying so hard to defy Roderick, when it was pretty clear that he was telling the truth. I didn't think that the actor, Mark Damon, was bad, but in many ways, I found his style of acting to be rather boring. I didn't care for him as a main character, and honestly just kept waiting for every scene that had Vincent Price in it. 

I think that the appeal of the movie has always been more about the setting, than the acting. The dream sequence was really cool, with the blue filter and foamy/water overlay. I'm sure that when the movie first released in 1960, this probably blew peoples' minds. 

It's funny, this movie was later used in clips for the 1974 movie "Madhouse". At one point, Price even called the house of usher a madhouse. It makes me wonder if he re-watched his own film to create that one. 

"House of Usher" is an okay movie. Even though Price is in it, he doesn't really star. If he wasn't in this movie, I don't think I would have liked it at all. 

When I tried to find reviews for the movie in the newspaper archives...there really wasn't much of anything. Which is strange, considering how successful it was financially, according to wikipedia. The movie apparently made 1.4 million dollars. The most I could find in the archives were just ads of the movie. One quick blurb said that it "could be more convincing", but that was about it. 

 I feel like this is one of those movies that a person would watch if they're either:

-Really into Vincent Prince

-Really into Edgar Allan Poe 

-Really into the history of Cinema and Theater.

 

I'm not sure how many people would be into this if they don't fit into any of those categories. Personally, I think that I fit into the Vincent Price one, but even still, I felt pretty ho-hum about this movie. 

2/5 

[Watched on youtube] 

"The Masque of The Red Death" [1964] Movie Review

 

"The Masque of The Red Death" is a 1964 movie starring Vincent Price, and is based off of two Edgar Allan Poe stories. The first is a story of the same name, and the second is "Hop-Toad". The character Hop-Toad and his dancer girlfriend Esmeralda are included into the story of  The Red Death, which actually seems to fit quite seamlessly. 

The movie is a perfect Gothic Horror film, that captivated me from the start. Vincent Price proved himself once again to be the superb Gothic icon destined to portray Poe's works. The two go hand in hand. 

The premise to the movie is that a Red Death is prophecy is about to come true, and in some way, Prince Prospero's reign of terror is to come to an end. The Red Death is a plague that isn't fully explained, but Prospero seems to be aware of the prophecy. He comes to a village and takes a girl named Francesca, to his castle. He also orders for her father and lover to be sent to his dungeon. 

Propsero, in the movie at least, seems to be some sort of athiest that believes god is dead, and in his place, he worships Satan. Francesca, a Christian, doesn't believe in his type of worship, but strangely, he doesn't kill her. He seems to believe that he can convert her. Either way, he keeps her at the castle to actually protect her from the plague that is afflicting the village.  

I don't want to spoil the whole film, in case someone hasn't watched it, but the plot was really well paced in my opinion, and the big reveal near the end was quite nice. I found that the incorporation of Hop Toad was really smart, and fit really well with the medieval setting that the movie already had.

While watching, I could see how this movie might have inspired Anton Lavey, from the main plot points about Satan, and Prince Prospero's dialogues about God, to there even being trapezoids on the door to Francesca's room. 

 

 

There was something very fascinating to me about the amount of candles used in the film, I think the colors used on the set were incredibly eye catching. The sets were very detailed and ornate, and looked like a real castle. I tried to find any information about where exactly they filmed, but it seems that everything was either borrowed from old movie sets, or created for the film, which is an amazing feat in itself.  

I found it funny, in a way, how the character Juliana burned an inverted cross into her breast, as a symbol of Satan. I didn't realize that this idea was in movies even back then. Of course, this is not a Satanic symbol, but actually St. Peter's Cross. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Saint_Peter ] Her death was really ironic, and I thought the way she came to her demise was very clever. It seemed that she got what she wanted. 

Looking through the newspaper archives, I was surprised to see that there weren't any reviews of the movie, when it came out in 1964. Of course, there were ads for the film, and it seemed to be advertised with the Boris Karloff film "Black Sabbath".

The movie seems to have inspired music in a few examples, such as the band, "And Darkness and Decay". At the end of the movie, the line from Poe's story is shown on screen: "And darkness and decay and the red death held illimitable dominion over all.". Which is at the end of the story too. The band's song "Scarlet Horror" seems to be about the film, judging from the lyrics, though the story might have influenced them too. 

 

Another example is the band "Bell Witch". They have a song called "Beneath The Mask", which uses a clip from the movie.  

 Overall, I really loved this film, especially with who was revealed to be wearing the mask at the ball. I highly recommend this movie, and gave it a 5/5 on letterboxd.

 

Madhouse [1974] Movie Review

 

"Madhouse" is a movie that was released in 1974 and stars Vincent Price. There are also multiple notable actors, names, and scenes to other movies in this one which seems to be a huge homage to the Horror movie genre up to that point. 

The premise to movie is that Vincent Price's character, Paul Toombes, is an actor most famously known for the character "Dr. Death". His character and Peter Cushing's, Herbert Flay, created the character together. Toombes acted as the character, while Flay wrote it. Paul gets into a fight with his fiancee in the beginning of the film, because it turned out that she started out her acting career in adult films. Paul misinterprets this as her just using him to boost her career, though she seemed to not actually be doing this. Not long after, she goes to her room, and is murdered, seemingly by Paul. 

Paul went to trial and was acquitted of the murder, and spent about 12 years in a mental institution. He didn't plan on going back to his role as "Dr. Death", but Herbert Flay tricks him into doing so, but inviting him to his house for what was originally believed to be a different project. 

 Various people are murdered in the movie, in similar fashions to what was done in the films from "Dr. Death". Most, if not all, of these clips are from previous films that Vincent Price actually starred in during this career. 

It becomes clear that Paul was being framed, and someone was trying to kill him. At the end, its revealed that it was a combination effort between the producer Quayle, and Herbert Flay.  Herbert signs a new contract to be the "new" Dr. Death, and takes home the final film of Paul Toombes. Only, when he plays it, Paul comes off the screen and into real life, where he asks Herbert why he killed all the people and framed him. They get into a fight, and Herbert reveals that he was jealous of Paul, saying that it should have been him to play Dr. Death. Herbert is eventually killed and falls into the aquarium tank that the spider lady has. Paul is seen putting on his makeup, to become Herbert Flay, implying that indeed...there could only be one Dr. Death. 

 --

I found the movie instantly entertaining with a great intro. The movie is very captivating and well written. The Vincent Price/Peter Cushing combo is spectacular. I had to remind myself to write the review, because I found it so interesting. 

The movie is very gothic, based off a book released in 1969 called "Devilday" by Angus Hall. The movie has elements that remind me of many Hammer Horror films, and there is a very similar tone between this one and "The House That Dripped Blood".  

Looking at reviews of the movie online, a lot of people don't seem to care for it that much. Strangely, I really liked the film! I love all of the nuances to it, such as the weird spider lady, who was apparently Paul's ex wife. I found the use of clips from old films, giving respect to passed on names such as Boris Karloff really great! 

I think that the film was among the last of its era, mostly. By 1974, Horror films became much more violent, scary, and gruesome. Much, if not all, of this film was recorded in the UK I believe, so the rules there for showing blood have always been different from we see in the US. 

In comparison from that same year, "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was released, though in October (Madhouse was released in March in the US, and November in the UK). It seems that the 1970's really began the era of scary Horror films, where the 50's and 60's were gothic. I think that people of today might find this film boring because it's not scary. It's much more like an Edgar Allen Poe story brought to life. 

In comparison, "Tombs of The Blind Dead" was released in 1972, and while not super scary, it was freaky with their undead costumes. 

 Then in 1971, "The Other Side of Madness" was released, a movie about the Tate murders. For many people, the Tate-LaBianca murders were still in their minds, and that was a real event which scared many. 

In some ways, I wondered if "Madhouse" and even the book that it was inspired off of was influenced by the Tate murders, as the first few murders in this movie were about murdered actresses. 

And of course, "The Exorcist" came out in 1973, and still scares many to this day. I just think that in comparison to other films from this time period, "Madhouse" was barely scary in comparison. But I don't think that it's bad. 

I don't think that this is the type of movie for someone who doesn't know much about Vincent Price, Peter Cushing, and their era of movies. They became famous during a time period where violence, blood, gore, and even sex were way too taboo to talk about or depict. "Madhouse" would probably be best described as a Drama, if it were released today. 

I think that the movie has great story telling elements to it, believe it or not. But I think that because they didn't want to go overboard for things like the makeup and the deaths, it likely disappointed others. I will admit, I do think that they should have put more effort in making the spider lady, Faye, more "ugly". Faye was a character who "used to be beautiful" but was burned in a car fire. The makeup for her character still made her look slightly pretty, with just a few cuts on her face. I wish that they would have tried to make her look more like a burn victim, instead of leaving as an implication. If the viewer didn't hear her dialogue, you probably wouldn't understand why she was the way she was. 
 

The movie is definitely cheesy, but I like it for that. Vincent Price still showed why he was such a great actor. I think that Horror and Comedy go quite well, and I laughed pretty hard at he close ups of people screaming in the movie. It was just so dorky. 

 

Believe it or not, I gave this a 5/5 on letterboxd. It's more than just a cheesy gothic film, it's an art piece. I really love how it pays homage to Horror of yesteryear. 

--

Looking at reviews from the newspaper archives, it seems that most people disliked it because there wasn't enough blood. 

 Other reviews for it were pretty lukewarm

 

There really wasn't much about the movie though otherwise. In the newspaper archives, it almost looks like the movie wasn't advertised that much.

 

Overall, I think that if you like Vincent Price and his movies, you'd probably enjoy this one. Just don't expect to be scared.  

[Watched on Tubi] 

The Fearless Vampire Killers [1967] Movie Review

"The Fearless Vampire Killers" is a 1967 movie directed by Roman Polanski, and the second of Sharon Tate's starring roles. I rented the movie on youtube. It was 1 hour and 47 minutes long.

While watching the movie, I wondered if it was possible that Polanski saw the movie "Viy", which had been released that same year, as both movies have a similar tone to them. I doubt that he did, but the theme between the two couldn't be unnoticed by me. There was definitely a similar idea from the book "Dracula" by Bram Stoker though. I also wondered if Polanski had possible been inspired by "Black Sunday/The Masque of Satan", which had been released in 1960. That movie was also inspired by the same story "Viy" which was written by Nikolai Gogol, that the 1967 movie was based off of. 

The movie in general has this tongue in cheek aspect to it, with some funny moments. I found Alfred (played by Roman Polanski) to have some funny reactions to certain scenes, like when Sarah (Sharon Tate) was kidnapped by the vampire.  Alfred's shriek when he saw Yoyek rise as a vampire was also pretty funny. Personally, I found some of the sexual jokes and undertones hard to laugh at, considering Polanski's career in the decades since the movie's release.

Despite being a comedy, or Horror-satire-comedy-type, it's not really as funny as one might expect. The title to the movie is the first joke, as Polanski's character and his Professor are two of the most wimpy vampire hunters around. This was surely intended. 

I really enjoyed the shots and set building to the movie. I think that was one of the shining points to the movie, I loved seeing the snow fall. 

The movie is a slow burn, taking its time to establish its points, which from what I understand, is pretty typical of Polanski's style.  Sharon looked absolutely beautiful in the movie, and I truly wish that she had been shown more. I found it almost a misnomer that she "starred" in the movie, when she really didn't have that much of the runtime. Majority of the time, you see Polanski on screen in the movie. 

 

 

 

A part of me found it pretty arrogant for Polanski to direct and star in the movie. Even though this was a different time period, and I know that many of the women in movies back then were just there to be ogled at, much of the plot to the movie would have made more sense if we saw Sharon more. Her character was seen just a few times, before Polanski decides that he had to save her. It was odd, why did he want to risk his life for a woman that he just met? 

The movie ran too long for me, and I think that some scenes could have been cut. From a viewer's position, there were just too many threads introduced that really didn't amount to much. In some ways, it was like Roman took a lot of funny ideas from TV shows from that time period, and tried to combine them into one long episode. If "The Fearless Vampire Killers" had been a TV show, I think that it would have been easier to digest, and more enjoyable. 

 --

Of course, during the time of filming this movie, Sharon and Roman fell in love, and got married just a few months after the movie was released. In 1968, the two were wed. You can kind of see how in the movie, some of the glances that Roman would take at Sharon, were him actually gazing at her beauty.

 And Sharon looked absolutely stunning in the vampire royal dance scene, where she was in her red ball gown. I would have loved to have seen more scenes with her in that dress. 

 I will be honest, I was scared to watch this movie at first, because of everything I've read about the Manson Family, and Sharon's murder. I didn't know if I would have been able to watch the movie without tearing up. But thankfully, I was able to go through it. As stated before, I actually wish that we could have seen Sharon more. 

Because of what happened to Sharon 2 years after the film's release, I couldn't help but look through the newspaper archives to see what was said about the film before and in the years after its release.

A 1967 article from The Daily News, that was more of a promotion piece for the movie.

1967 ad for the movie

1967 promotional article 

A 1967 article that talks about the movie a little bit. Apparently, it was originally cut and redubbed so much, that Polanski didn't want his name on it anymore. I couldn't find what the "original" cut of the movie ran for in theaters, but it seems that it was nothing like the original.

In various versions of these types of articles, it was stated that the movie was filmed in Italy and London, though the parts that were filmed in Poland, were not filmed/directed by Polanski "for some reason". Looking at the wikipedia article for the film, there were multiple issues with the movie's filming. Polanski believed that some of the Italian crew were "robbing them blind". 
 

 

 

1968 ads for the movie

 

There were a couple of ads for the movie in early 1969, January, though the news didn't really discuss it that much. 

 After Sharon's murder, the movie was especially advertised in the news, and played in theaters in August of 1969. In general, majority of the films that Sharon was in were replayed in honor of her.

 

 For those that don't know, yet are somehow reading this blog post, Sharon Tate was murdered by The Manson on August 9th, 1969. She was 8.5 months pregnant, very close to her due date, and begged for the life of her child. Tex Watson and Susan Atkins were the ones to kill her. Both were convicted and sentenced to death, though in 1972, this was commuted to life with the possibility of parole. Susan Atkins died in 2009. 

In 1969, "The Fearless Vampire Killers" was often advertised alongside "The Green Slime", a 1968 sci-fi movie.

 

"Vampire Killers" clearly stayed in rotation for years, because of the Tate-LaBianca murders, and the circus of the Manson family trial. Pictures of Sharon would even be printed next to some of the summaries of the movie in the papers, even as late at 1976. 

 Even still, the movie was still advertised and shown in the news, decades after its release. Any actual articles or reviews of the movie would always mention Sharon's murder by the Manson Family. In some ways, it seemed like Roman was keeping Sharon's memory alive by having the movie shown in decades since it was released, and her murder. The movie has been mentioned in the news in some way, every year, as recently as 2025 (it's 2026 as I type this). There are still places that show the movie to this day, in person. And of course, you can stream it online on services such as youtube and Amazon. 

I really couldn't find any actual reviews for the movie in the new archives, except one. It was from 1984, and pretty much said much of the same things I have. It's not a super funny movie, but it has good elements to it. In the decades since Sharon's murder, it's hard not to think what could have been for her, had life been different. 

 If you don't know who Sharon Tate, or the Manson Family were, I don't know if this would be a movie the average person would even think about watching. I don't mean that in a mean way, but in comparison to other vampire films (The Hammer Horror ones especially), you might think of watching something else. Truly, I think that this is the type of movie that a person like me, who has read extensively about Charles Manson and The Tate-LaBianca murders would watch. Seeing Sharon move and speak humanized her a lot, where books and movies such as "Helter Skelter" only seemed to remember her as the murdered pregnant actress. It was nice to see her alive, in her work, even if it was for a small bit of time. 

I gave the movie itself a 2.5/5, but that's because the story wasn't that great. It's pretty cheesy. But I would watch it again, for Halloween, in a party setting. 

 1995 Daily Mirror clip