I don't really want to write "reviews" of these movies just impressions without giving anything away. I am making an effort to watch movies I've never seen, and I've seen a lot of horror movies....
October 1, 2025
Watch? Yes
The Brood (1979) David Cronenberg
I thought I'd seen The Brood but I hadn't. I suppose there are innumerable movies called "The...SOMETHING" out there. The first impression is that...Damn, Oliver Reed was 41 or so when this movie came out. Lord he looks 15 years older but I suppose he lived in dog years. My next, immediate post-watch impression was "This seems ALMOST normal...for Cronenberg". The Brood isn't really...normal though, just for Cronenberg. He apparently wrote this after an ugly custody battle to which I say...DAMN.
It is a well paced, low key horror film that, at the half way point I had no idea what was going on. I love that in a horror movie so long as I still WANT to know what is going on. That is not always a given. It had a similar feel to films from earlier in the 70s like The Sentinel or even Don't Look Now. It doesn't try to explain too much but it explains all it needs to. That is always death for a horror movie--too much back story, too much explanation. They usually do it when they've gotten to a third or fourth sequel
Samantha Eggar (if you haven't seen The Collector watch it...) manages to be vulnerable, sympathetic and creepy in pretty much every scene she is in. Of course, Reed is always good, even in bad movies and this is a pretty good one. Its a well-paced, creepy horror film. Maybe not the director's best but still in the upper tier.
October 1, 2025
Watch? Yes
The Brood (1979) David Cronenberg
I thought I'd seen The Brood but I hadn't. I suppose there are innumerable movies called "The...SOMETHING" out there. The first impression is that...Damn, Oliver Reed was 41 or so when this movie came out. Lord he looks 15 years older but I suppose he lived in dog years. My next, immediate post-watch impression was "This seems ALMOST normal...for Cronenberg". The Brood isn't really...normal though, just for Cronenberg. He apparently wrote this after an ugly custody battle to which I say...DAMN.
It is a well paced, low key horror film that, at the half way point I had no idea what was going on. I love that in a horror movie so long as I still WANT to know what is going on. That is not always a given. It had a similar feel to films from earlier in the 70s like The Sentinel or even Don't Look Now. It doesn't try to explain too much but it explains all it needs to. That is always death for a horror movie--too much back story, too much explanation. They usually do it when they've gotten to a third or fourth sequel
Samantha Eggar (if you haven't seen The Collector watch it...) manages to be vulnerable, sympathetic and creepy in pretty much every scene she is in. Of course, Reed is always good, even in bad movies and this is a pretty good one. Its a well-paced, creepy horror film. Maybe not the director's best but still in the upper tier.
October 1, 2025
Watch? Yes
The Vampire Lovers (1970) Roy Ward Baker
The Vampire Lovers is a “Hammer Horror” film. You can tell because Peter Cushing is in it (if he wasn’t I think they were required by Parliament to call Christopher Lee). Like most Hammer films it is long on style and short on coherence. Not that it is INCOHERENT but there are some completely inexplicable “characters” in the film and some that have a basic task. For instance “The Countess” exists as a character to deliver another character to where they NEED to be to make the film move forward. There is another character that never speaks but appears at various points leering at the action like a peeping tom. None of this takes up much time. Probably only a bit more than five or ten minutes of the film. This does serve a purpose and keeps the film from bogging down. Except for the leering character, he does nothing and seems like maybe more with him wound up on the cutting room floor.
Making the film move along briskly is important; there are heads to be chopped, necks to be bitten and nude frolicking that all need to happen.
It was interesting to me that “The Countess” is played by Dawn Adams who was also in Charles Chaplin’s second to last film A King in New York (among many other films). Likewise Marcilla, the vampire, is played by Polish actress, Ingrid Pitt (not her original name). Pitt plays a vampire in at least three Hammer films including Countess Dracula. Madeline Smith was in Live and Let Die, a film where she is required to…be beautiful.
The choice to use voice over and monologue to explain things rather than SHOW us is not my favorite device. That isn’t really a criticism. I just generally don’t love screen crawls and voice overs in lieu of film making. But here? If they didn’t explain what was going on, it might be a little hard to figure out. If they made it more complex and left it to the audience to discern what was going on it would be a Japanese horror film and not a British film from the 70s.
All in all a fun 70s vampire film. It never drags. Some Hammer films can be a little ponderous. Here they tie most of it together (excepting the weird leering guy who I think had fangs).
Watch? Yes
The Vampire Lovers (1970) Roy Ward Baker
The Vampire Lovers is a “Hammer Horror” film. You can tell because Peter Cushing is in it (if he wasn’t I think they were required by Parliament to call Christopher Lee). Like most Hammer films it is long on style and short on coherence. Not that it is INCOHERENT but there are some completely inexplicable “characters” in the film and some that have a basic task. For instance “The Countess” exists as a character to deliver another character to where they NEED to be to make the film move forward. There is another character that never speaks but appears at various points leering at the action like a peeping tom. None of this takes up much time. Probably only a bit more than five or ten minutes of the film. This does serve a purpose and keeps the film from bogging down. Except for the leering character, he does nothing and seems like maybe more with him wound up on the cutting room floor.
Making the film move along briskly is important; there are heads to be chopped, necks to be bitten and nude frolicking that all need to happen.
It was interesting to me that “The Countess” is played by Dawn Adams who was also in Charles Chaplin’s second to last film A King in New York (among many other films). Likewise Marcilla, the vampire, is played by Polish actress, Ingrid Pitt (not her original name). Pitt plays a vampire in at least three Hammer films including Countess Dracula. Madeline Smith was in Live and Let Die, a film where she is required to…be beautiful.
The choice to use voice over and monologue to explain things rather than SHOW us is not my favorite device. That isn’t really a criticism. I just generally don’t love screen crawls and voice overs in lieu of film making. But here? If they didn’t explain what was going on, it might be a little hard to figure out. If they made it more complex and left it to the audience to discern what was going on it would be a Japanese horror film and not a British film from the 70s.
All in all a fun 70s vampire film. It never drags. Some Hammer films can be a little ponderous. Here they tie most of it together (excepting the weird leering guy who I think had fangs).
- October 2, 2025
Lake Mungo (2008) Joel Anderson
Lake Mungo, directed by Joel Anderson, is a film that gets the “documentary” style so right that I had to PAUSE the film because I thought; “Wait, IS this a documentary.” For the first five or ten minutes you might really think that this is actually a documentary and it stays true in style throughout.
It is impossible to watch this without thinking of the Paranormal Activity films which, when they try to do the documentary or “found footage” thing are far less convincing than this film is at making it seem real (not a knock on those films, they are not trying to be cinema verite like this is). I was apprehensive as this began but it drew me in and kept me interested. It certainly goes in unexpected directions and while there were a couple of times as I watched that I thought “Hey, wait, that isn’t realistic” that is more due to how real most of this seems. Most horror films you watch without thinking about how realistic the vampire is or whether the bogeyman could really withstand being shot 5 times with a .357.
Is it scary? Here and there. It is more creepy than scary and when it starts to get really creepy they, for some reason, pull out of that and sort of move in another direction. Again, one of the saving graces here is that it doesn’t over explain.
The director also was involved in the film Late Night With The Devil (continuity department) and wrote and directed a short I saw years ago called The Rotting Woman. This appears to be his only feature directorial effort.
It is a film worth a watch if you aren’t looking to be scared silly or jump out of your seat.
October 2, 2025
Watch? HELL No
The Naked Witch (1964) Claude Alexander and Larry Buchanan
The opening is a crawl with a voice over (I guess for those of us who cannot read). In fact most of the movie is made up of voice over (by two narrators and a character). I had this saved to watch on a streaming service for a year or more and I basically watched it because it was only an hour long.
The voice over goes on for…a long time. Eight and a half minutes. The initial voice over is a“history” of witchcraft as if witchcraft was real. There is much cheesy organ music which is distracting, or would be if there was anything to be distracted from.
It looks like it was shot on a home super 8 camera. I suspect the budget was about $100. The dialog is idiotic. No one in it can even sort of act. Most local tv junk yards have better actors in their commercials. OH, and the camera work is also appalling.
I guess if you are one of those who talks about a love of “dive bars” and “kitsch” and think everything is ironic you might like this. Also? You might like it if you are an idiot.
Note this movie had TWO directors. God only knows why. You may recognize Buchanan. He also directed It's Alive!, which is a piece of shit too but it makes this look like The Devil's Backbone, Village of the Damned or Let the Right One In (Swedish or American) rolled together.
Watch? HELL No
The Naked Witch (1964) Claude Alexander and Larry Buchanan
The opening is a crawl with a voice over (I guess for those of us who cannot read). In fact most of the movie is made up of voice over (by two narrators and a character). I had this saved to watch on a streaming service for a year or more and I basically watched it because it was only an hour long.
The voice over goes on for…a long time. Eight and a half minutes. The initial voice over is a“history” of witchcraft as if witchcraft was real. There is much cheesy organ music which is distracting, or would be if there was anything to be distracted from.
It looks like it was shot on a home super 8 camera. I suspect the budget was about $100. The dialog is idiotic. No one in it can even sort of act. Most local tv junk yards have better actors in their commercials. OH, and the camera work is also appalling.
I guess if you are one of those who talks about a love of “dive bars” and “kitsch” and think everything is ironic you might like this. Also? You might like it if you are an idiot.
Note this movie had TWO directors. God only knows why. You may recognize Buchanan. He also directed It's Alive!, which is a piece of shit too but it makes this look like The Devil's Backbone, Village of the Damned or Let the Right One In (Swedish or American) rolled together.
October 3, 2025
Watch? Yes
Butter on the Latch 2013 Josephine Decker
OK so this probably isn’t horror and it really isn’t “Halloween Horror” but a certain streaming service had it listed as horror. Given their “plot description” this isn’t surprising. It is creepy though so there is that.
What this film is, however, is startlingly unique and keenly intelligent. It is innovative. Parts of it are shot and put together like you picked up a stranger's cell phone and watched the videos after a particularly bad night. This is not an insult or back handed compliment. This movie is brilliantly shot, written and edited. I may watch it again after my OCD Halloween movie thing is done.
Also? I am never , for a variety of reasons, going to a Balkan Cultural Festival out in the woods.
The actors Sarah Small, Isolde Chae-Lawrence and Charlie Hewson are all first rate and believable. Smalls (click on the IMDB link) seems to be able to do anything. She may also be an astronaut by no w.Chae-Lawrence has four credits for acting in the past decade but I just put Sisters of the Plague on my list.
Watch? Yes
Butter on the Latch 2013 Josephine Decker
OK so this probably isn’t horror and it really isn’t “Halloween Horror” but a certain streaming service had it listed as horror. Given their “plot description” this isn’t surprising. It is creepy though so there is that.
What this film is, however, is startlingly unique and keenly intelligent. It is innovative. Parts of it are shot and put together like you picked up a stranger's cell phone and watched the videos after a particularly bad night. This is not an insult or back handed compliment. This movie is brilliantly shot, written and edited. I may watch it again after my OCD Halloween movie thing is done.
Also? I am never , for a variety of reasons, going to a Balkan Cultural Festival out in the woods.
The actors Sarah Small, Isolde Chae-Lawrence and Charlie Hewson are all first rate and believable. Smalls (click on the IMDB link) seems to be able to do anything. She may also be an astronaut by no w.Chae-Lawrence has four credits for acting in the past decade but I just put Sisters of the Plague on my list.
October 3, 2025
Watch? No
Censor 2021 Prano Baily-Bond
OK so just a note for filmmakers. You cannot make a good movie without a well thought out script. Also? Atmosphere and ominous music are not a viable substitute for a story. And this filmmaker, from all the press, is REALLY GOOD at this..although how the press saying this know after 2 shorts and a middling feature like this I do not know. She’s a young Welsh director and I wanted to like this movie but, alas, I did not. Didn’t hate it either.
It starts out ok and there is a kernel of a good idea here. I was thinking of the excellent “Masters of Horror” episode, Cigarette Burns (John Carpenter). But that episode DELIVERS. This doesn’t. Add to that possibly the dumbest ending in the history of horror movies and this was mostly just a bore. It never delivers anything except the desire to turn it off. I will give it that I thought I figured out what the end was going to be–and I was wrong. So bonus credits there.
The actors do as good a job as they can? It's professional and, as noted, has atmosphere, but just not much going on. How is the British Film Institute involved in this production? Well thought of young director?. NOW, I have to go watch her shorts. They have to be good right?
October 3, 2025
Watch? No
Censor 2021 Prano Baily-Bond
OK so just a note for filmmakers. You cannot make a good movie without a well thought out script. Also? Atmosphere and ominous music are not a viable substitute for a story. And this filmmaker, from all the press, is REALLY GOOD at this..although how the press saying this know after 2 shorts and a middling feature like this I do not know. She’s a young Welsh director and I wanted to like this movie but, alas, I did not. Didn’t hate it either.
It starts out ok and there is a kernel of a good idea here. I was thinking of the excellent “Masters of Horror” episode, Cigarette Burns (John Carpenter). But that episode DELIVERS. This doesn’t. Add to that possibly the dumbest ending in the history of horror movies and this was mostly just a bore. It never delivers anything except the desire to turn it off. I will give it that I thought I figured out what the end was going to be–and I was wrong. So bonus credits there.
The actors do as good a job as they can? It's professional and, as noted, has atmosphere, but just not much going on. How is the British Film Institute involved in this production? Well thought of young director?. NOW, I have to go watch her shorts. They have to be good right?
October 3, 2025
October 4, 2025
Watch? Maybe
Wolfman 2025 Leigh Whannell
I was expecting this to be bad. It isn’t. As werewolf movies go it was actually pretty good. This is because most werewolf movies suck. Sure there is Dog Soldiers. There are also the “Ginger Snaps” movies. The first and third in that series are good. And yes, American Werewolf in London is worth a watch but compared to vampires, zombies and slashers? Werewolves lag.
And no, Wolfen is not a werewolf movie.
I felt like this movie had an odd problem. It isn’t too long in and of itself but it has a lot of shots that seem longer than they need to be-people reacting to things or waiting for something to jump out at them. Sure, you need to build suspense but for this I think faster would have been better.
Also, it takes like 7 years for someone to be declared dead when they disappear. If you watch it you will know why I bring this up. The acting is good. Christopher Abbott, Julia Garner (doing double scary movie duty this year with Weapons) and Matilda Firth all do a pretty good job selling this. There are some really cool bits about how the werewolf sees people and the world (and how people perceive the werewolf). I wish there was more of that frankly. They could have used the scenery better too actually. But it's worth watching.
Watch? Maybe
Wolfman 2025 Leigh Whannell
I was expecting this to be bad. It isn’t. As werewolf movies go it was actually pretty good. This is because most werewolf movies suck. Sure there is Dog Soldiers. There are also the “Ginger Snaps” movies. The first and third in that series are good. And yes, American Werewolf in London is worth a watch but compared to vampires, zombies and slashers? Werewolves lag.
And no, Wolfen is not a werewolf movie.
I felt like this movie had an odd problem. It isn’t too long in and of itself but it has a lot of shots that seem longer than they need to be-people reacting to things or waiting for something to jump out at them. Sure, you need to build suspense but for this I think faster would have been better.
Also, it takes like 7 years for someone to be declared dead when they disappear. If you watch it you will know why I bring this up. The acting is good. Christopher Abbott, Julia Garner (doing double scary movie duty this year with Weapons) and Matilda Firth all do a pretty good job selling this. There are some really cool bits about how the werewolf sees people and the world (and how people perceive the werewolf). I wish there was more of that frankly. They could have used the scenery better too actually. But it's worth watching.
October 5, 2025
Watch? Yes
Eyes WIthout A Face 1960 Georges Franju
Odd I’d never seen this and it is fabulous. It is the quintessential and seminal mad doctor horror film. Damn near everything in this film is perfect. It is beautifully shot and just…perfect.
Well, except for one thing. The soundtrack for parts of it does the unthinkable. It is noticeable in a really bad way. It is the music from Curb Your Enthusiasm (I'm not kidding, it really is) in parts and in other parts it is less inappropriate but it is ridiculously overdone (especially early in the film). It is by Maurice Jarre whose work is usually excellent. He did a ton of David Lean movies. Here? Baffling.
But the movie is top notch.
Pierre Brasseur, who you may recognize from Children of Paradise and a slew of other films, had the role of the doctor. Edith Scob, who had a career spanning decades and including The Brotherhood of the Wolf, plays his daughter. The third principal character was played by Alida Valli--Dario Argento fans will recognize her from Susperia.
Watch? Yes
Eyes WIthout A Face 1960 Georges Franju
Odd I’d never seen this and it is fabulous. It is the quintessential and seminal mad doctor horror film. Damn near everything in this film is perfect. It is beautifully shot and just…perfect.
Well, except for one thing. The soundtrack for parts of it does the unthinkable. It is noticeable in a really bad way. It is the music from Curb Your Enthusiasm (I'm not kidding, it really is) in parts and in other parts it is less inappropriate but it is ridiculously overdone (especially early in the film). It is by Maurice Jarre whose work is usually excellent. He did a ton of David Lean movies. Here? Baffling.
But the movie is top notch.
Pierre Brasseur, who you may recognize from Children of Paradise and a slew of other films, had the role of the doctor. Edith Scob, who had a career spanning decades and including The Brotherhood of the Wolf, plays his daughter. The third principal character was played by Alida Valli--Dario Argento fans will recognize her from Susperia.
October 7, 2025
Watch? Maybe
Dark Angel - The Ascent 1994 Linda Hassani
I skipped watching a movie on October 6 and on October 7 I wanted something dumb and this hit that particular nail on the head. BUT I have to add here dumb isn’t a bad thing….it is dumb and sort of fun.
The scenes in hell in this movie look like a Dante’s Inferno BDSM party (people would pay good money to attend). It also takes an interesting philosophical stance, namely that demons are part of the supernatural justice system and servants of god. This movie is pure cheese and, at first, I thought the acting was bad but then I thought; is that true? Or is the acting exactly what it was meant to be and needed to be for this goofy, peculiar movie about a demon who comes to earth and cleans up a crooked town. This isn’t The Shining but if you go in knowing what it is? They wisely keep it to 84 minutes.
The main actors in this are Daniel Markel, well known to fans of As the World Turns and model/actress Angela Featherstone who has been in a lot of movies (Con Air, The Wedding Singer, Soul Survivors).
Watch? Maybe
Dark Angel - The Ascent 1994 Linda Hassani
I skipped watching a movie on October 6 and on October 7 I wanted something dumb and this hit that particular nail on the head. BUT I have to add here dumb isn’t a bad thing….it is dumb and sort of fun.
The scenes in hell in this movie look like a Dante’s Inferno BDSM party (people would pay good money to attend). It also takes an interesting philosophical stance, namely that demons are part of the supernatural justice system and servants of god. This movie is pure cheese and, at first, I thought the acting was bad but then I thought; is that true? Or is the acting exactly what it was meant to be and needed to be for this goofy, peculiar movie about a demon who comes to earth and cleans up a crooked town. This isn’t The Shining but if you go in knowing what it is? They wisely keep it to 84 minutes.
The main actors in this are Daniel Markel, well known to fans of As the World Turns and model/actress Angela Featherstone who has been in a lot of movies (Con Air, The Wedding Singer, Soul Survivors).
October 8, 2025
Watch? Yes
House 1977 Nobuhiko Obayashi
This is a peculiar movie. It is in a style that might remind of late 60s US television and movies trying hard to be “trippy.” It mixes live action with animation and isn’t scary at all. But it makes up for that with weird. It IS a horror movie. There is more style than actual plot here but it is worth watching even if it is dated. The comedic elements in this, I will warn, are not funny at all. Maybe in Japan? Humor is dependent on culture. It could also just be that it is dated.
All the characters have nicknames related to a stereotype. Not much plot or character development (what do you need to KNOW….it is ALL in the nicknames!). It is really interesting to look at though and that makes it worthwhile.
Watch? Yes
House 1977 Nobuhiko Obayashi
This is a peculiar movie. It is in a style that might remind of late 60s US television and movies trying hard to be “trippy.” It mixes live action with animation and isn’t scary at all. But it makes up for that with weird. It IS a horror movie. There is more style than actual plot here but it is worth watching even if it is dated. The comedic elements in this, I will warn, are not funny at all. Maybe in Japan? Humor is dependent on culture. It could also just be that it is dated.
All the characters have nicknames related to a stereotype. Not much plot or character development (what do you need to KNOW….it is ALL in the nicknames!). It is really interesting to look at though and that makes it worthwhile.
October 9, 2025
Watch? Yes
Winchester 2018 The Spierig Brothers
Winchester is a reasonably well put together ghost story. It isn’t without faults but I am pretty sure you will jump more than once while watching it. Helen Mirren is in it and while every movie she is in isn’t great? You can always count on HER to give it her all. This is a fairly restrained role and she could probably pull it off in her sleep. Also on hand is Jason Clarke who has been in a slew of movies from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes to Mudbound to Zero Dark Thirty. He was also in the Terrence Malick movie, Knight of Cups. If I recall, that was unscripted. Clarke has the most memorable role even if they wisely don’t delve too deep and bog the film down.
The Spierig Brothers also did the film Jigsaw from the Saw series which was decent too.
Watch? Yes
Winchester 2018 The Spierig Brothers
Winchester is a reasonably well put together ghost story. It isn’t without faults but I am pretty sure you will jump more than once while watching it. Helen Mirren is in it and while every movie she is in isn’t great? You can always count on HER to give it her all. This is a fairly restrained role and she could probably pull it off in her sleep. Also on hand is Jason Clarke who has been in a slew of movies from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes to Mudbound to Zero Dark Thirty. He was also in the Terrence Malick movie, Knight of Cups. If I recall, that was unscripted. Clarke has the most memorable role even if they wisely don’t delve too deep and bog the film down.
The Spierig Brothers also did the film Jigsaw from the Saw series which was decent too.
October 10, 2025
Watch? Yes
The Shout 1978 Jerzy Skolimowski
The starring cast here includes Alan Bates, Susannah York and John Hurt. There are appearances by a young looking Tim Curry and a quite thin Jim Broadbent (who, at one point, runs about in an athletic supporter). I am fairly certain I don’t need to discuss the careers of the main cast!
This is one of those odd little movies where, at first, you don’t really GET the “horror” aspect of it. Then you do. It is quite subtle. It doesn’t try to explain a damned thing and everyone here has such command and presence that it just works. It is, on the surface, a simple film. It is funny I saw a number of middling reviews of this, no doubt from folks who think Friday the 13th is the pinnacle of horror (I hate those movies myself, not my thing). When I say it doesn’t explain this doesn’t mean it isn’t coherent or cohesive because it is. The slow build up is something of a lost art in horror films I suppose.
One of the best things I can say about this is that I cannot think of anything off the top of my head to compare it to. That and the fact there is a lot below the surface here, tons of subtext you can choose to unpack–or not.
Watch? Yes
The Shout 1978 Jerzy Skolimowski
The starring cast here includes Alan Bates, Susannah York and John Hurt. There are appearances by a young looking Tim Curry and a quite thin Jim Broadbent (who, at one point, runs about in an athletic supporter). I am fairly certain I don’t need to discuss the careers of the main cast!
This is one of those odd little movies where, at first, you don’t really GET the “horror” aspect of it. Then you do. It is quite subtle. It doesn’t try to explain a damned thing and everyone here has such command and presence that it just works. It is, on the surface, a simple film. It is funny I saw a number of middling reviews of this, no doubt from folks who think Friday the 13th is the pinnacle of horror (I hate those movies myself, not my thing). When I say it doesn’t explain this doesn’t mean it isn’t coherent or cohesive because it is. The slow build up is something of a lost art in horror films I suppose.
One of the best things I can say about this is that I cannot think of anything off the top of my head to compare it to. That and the fact there is a lot below the surface here, tons of subtext you can choose to unpack–or not.
October 10, 2025
Watch? Yes
Fiend Without A Face 1958 Arthur Crabtree
I watched this movie right after the subtle, strange and cohesive film, The Shout. Quite a contrast. This film is not subtle at all. It is very much a typical B 1950s Sci-Fi film. Hard to say this film is completely incoherent but let’s start with the title. The ‘fiend’ here is…invisible. This REALLY cuts down on the special effects cost! Of course they eventually become visible and, for the time, were probably pretty high tech.
This is NOT a bad movie when you consider what it is. It is in the upper tier of movies like this from the era. They are all, even for the time period, full of scientific gobbeldygook but this movie doesn’t dwell on this part of it. It also never gets all “red scary” or jingoistic and that is a plus. I did feel like one character seemed to get over the death of a sibling REALLY fast but that is a niggling complaint.
The film is British, set in Canada and features a few American actors–and several inexpertly trying to cover up their British Isles accents (some don’t even try but hey, there are Scots in Canada). The film was apparently brought up in Parliament for being too gory. Of course the Brits freaked out and thought the early Dr. Who tv shows were “too scary.” It might have seemed scary to 10 year olds in 1958? But it is a fun old monster movie with a little nuclear paranoia dusted on for good measure.
Watch? Yes
Fiend Without A Face 1958 Arthur Crabtree
I watched this movie right after the subtle, strange and cohesive film, The Shout. Quite a contrast. This film is not subtle at all. It is very much a typical B 1950s Sci-Fi film. Hard to say this film is completely incoherent but let’s start with the title. The ‘fiend’ here is…invisible. This REALLY cuts down on the special effects cost! Of course they eventually become visible and, for the time, were probably pretty high tech.
This is NOT a bad movie when you consider what it is. It is in the upper tier of movies like this from the era. They are all, even for the time period, full of scientific gobbeldygook but this movie doesn’t dwell on this part of it. It also never gets all “red scary” or jingoistic and that is a plus. I did feel like one character seemed to get over the death of a sibling REALLY fast but that is a niggling complaint.
The film is British, set in Canada and features a few American actors–and several inexpertly trying to cover up their British Isles accents (some don’t even try but hey, there are Scots in Canada). The film was apparently brought up in Parliament for being too gory. Of course the Brits freaked out and thought the early Dr. Who tv shows were “too scary.” It might have seemed scary to 10 year olds in 1958? But it is a fun old monster movie with a little nuclear paranoia dusted on for good measure.
RSS Feed