As I work my way through Studies in Terror, I occasionally fall upon a movie that I simply cannot find. In particular, Mexican horror films seem to be impossible to find in English. Ladron de cadaveres was another Mexican film that I was unable to locate. If you know where I can find a copy of this film with English subtitles, please leave a comment.
Poster for the film.
My take: This film is full of classic science fiction scares. Even if you have seen later versions, this is still a good one to watch.
Rating: 3 out of 4 stars
I know that I’ve seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers before. I think I’d seen the one from the 70s or even the one with the shorter title “Body Snatchers” from 1993. So, I was a bit nervous about seeing an older version from the 1950s. But I was wrong. It still holds up and it is worth watching.
Miles and his busty love interest, Becky, flee the alien menace in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
It does have a few odd features that remind me of a Twilight Zone episode:
But even with all of the 1950s stereotypes, it is a solid story that is full of good creepiness.
The story follows Miles, a doctor who returns home after a convention to find the town changed. While he was away, many patients called with urgent ailments that seem to have mysteriously stopped; everyone is suddenly healthy as can be. There are also a slew of townsfolk who believe that their loved ones and relatives are not themselves. A boy runs from his mother, yelling that she is not his mom. A young woman believes that her uncle is not himself because he is devoid of emotion.
The doctor slowly uncovers an alien plot to take over the planet and replace us all with clones. It’s a downright terrifying idea, that is done well even with the limited effects of the 50s. Even having seen later versions with stronger effects, this story still holds up and it is downright creepy to see the clone people developing.
For this reason, I would recommend the 1956 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers to fans of monster movies, scary science fiction and classic horror.
I watched it online on this site. Here is the trailer on YouTube:
My take: If you like thrillers of any sort, see this movie. It is a masterpiece of tension, mystery and suspense. Seriously, go see it.
Rating: 4 out of 4 stars
Diabolique is the 34th movie in the book Studies in Terror, and I have been waiting for it. This is because I had seen it before, years ago, and absolutely loved it. On a second viewing, it did not disappoint.
The wife and mistress in Diabolique.
It follows the story Christina Delasalle, a young woman with a bad heart who is married to an absolute brute of a man. Her husband, Michel Delasalle, is physically and emotionally abusive. He is also flagrantly unfaithful to Christina. His current mistress is Nicole, a teacher at the school the Delasalles own. Their affair is known to everyone, including Christina, resulting in an uncomfortable triangle of love and hate.
But Nicole is also mistreated by Michel, and this creates a bond between the two women. Working together, they devise a complicated plot to rid themselves of Michel once and for all.
The story moves quickly, keeping a brisk pace throughout. The characters, especially Christina, are so well played and developed, that you are quickly wrapped up in the story. And some scenes are downright cathartic if you like revenge stories. These three elements make it an absolutely fascinating film to watch, and it is one that I know that I will watch many times in the future. It’s that good.
I would recommend this to anyone who likes thrillers, murder mysteries, and suspense. I watched it on Hulu, but you can also get it via disc from Netflix. While you can find the trailer on YouTube, I thought this 3 Reasons video by the Criterion Collection was even better at evoking the feeling of the film:
My take: Don’t bother watching this movie. It’s corny and the ending is not worth it.
Rating: 1 out of 4 stars
The Maze is a mystery-style movie from 1953. It’s got all the elements (read: cliches) of a mystery thriller from the era:
The blonde and her aunt wandering about in The Maze.
While I usually go all-in for these tropes of the era, in this movie it simply did not work, and it is entirely due to the ending. I don’t want to ruin it for you, but I can tell you that it is not worth your time unless you are drinking heavily with friends who like to heckle bad films. Then it might be good. I’m honestly surprised I haven’t seen this one while watching Mystery Science Theater 3000.
You can find the movie easily online, if you happen to like bad movies from the 1950s. Even the trailer for the movie is unbelievably cheesy:
“We think The Maze will amaze you!” It did not.
My take: Female serial killer from the 1940s? Yes, please.
My rating: 2 out of 4 stars
The title Daughter of Darkness gives no indication of what the film is about. I really didn’t know what to expect when I hit play. As a result, I was pleasantly surprised by the slow-building tension in this thriller.
There’s Emmy, being pursued by another man. It will not end well for him.
The story is about a young Irish girl named Emmy, who is sent away from her home town because the women all think there is something evil about her. They can’t seem to describe exactly what evil lurks behind that pretty face, but they hint at the men being tempted by her.
Emmy is sent off to a farm in England. It does not take long for the men to start pursuing her there as well. But Emmy is not a girl to be trifled with. She may flirt, but behind that coy smile is a killer, ready to take out any man who tries to go too far.
This movie reminded me a lot of Cat People. Just like with that movie, the violence is all innuendo and hidden in the shadows. The terror is psychological and it relies on fear and tension to draw you in, as opposed to special effects and jump scares.
I would recommend Daughter of Darkness to people who like psychological thrillers and serial killer movies.
I got the movie through Netflix’s DVD service. There isn’t a trailer on YouTube, but I did find this clip, which shows the eerie way men are drawn to Emmy and her aloof flirtations:
My take: Boris Karloff sure is good at playing despicable characters, including his character in this movie, a body snatcher.
Rating: 2 out of 4 stars
Doctors seemed to use a whole lot of dead bodies back in the day. So many in fact, that people were able to make a bit of a living selling dead bodies. This film involves a cabman, played by Boris Karloff, who makes his money just that way. But he doesn’t get his bodies through donation. He takes them from graves and from the living.
Poster for The Body Snatcher
This movie is a retelling of the tale of Burke and Hare, the famous grave robbers/murderers from Edinburgh who sold corpses to medical science. They even reference Burke and Hare more than once during the movie.
If you remember, I disliked The Lodger because it was too close to a real murder story. In this movie, however, Boris Karloff sets it apart from the original story and keeps your eyes riveted to the screen. Plus, it has the bonus of Bela Lugosi. He’s a side character but he plays a pivotal part of the horror.
I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi film as well as those who like classic horror movies.
I got the movie from Netflix’s DVD service. Here is the trailer on YouTube:
I’ve been watching movies in the book Studies in Terror for weeks now. As you may recall, I’m trying to watch every movie listed in that book so I can learn more about horror. I’m calling it “watch the book,” just like those recipe blogs that try to “cook the book” by cooking every recipe in a cookbook.
I just finished the 30th movie in the book, and I can’t believe I’ve only watched 30 movies. I still have 100 movies to go. This is more work than I thought.
So far, I’ve seen some good movies and I’ve seen some bad movies. So, I thought I would break it down for you. I’ve split up the list into three sections: movies you should see, movies only die-hard fans of the genre need to see, and movies you can skip. Movies I was unable to find are listed at the end. I also ranked the movies; my favorites are closer to the top.
Here goes:
That’s Charles Laughton on the left, as the creepiest mad scientist I have seen so far.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari has very strange set design and Conrad Veidt fits right in.
My take: It’s a blatant copycat film but it somehow still works.
Rating: 3 out of 4 stars
The Monster Maker is the 30th movie in Studies in Terror, and it is a total copycat. It blatantly copies its plot from previous successful films.
But somehow, the whole thing works. Even though it stole ideas from previous films, I enjoyed it from beginning to end.
Poster for The Monster Maker
In this movie, Doctor Igor Markoff spots a woman at a piano recital who is the spitting image of his dead wife. He is instantly obsessed and believes he must marry this woman. The woman in question is the daughter of the pianist, and she has no intentions of marrying this strange man. But Dr. Markoff will go to great lengths to win her favor, including inflicting her father with a terrible disease of which only he knows the cure.
While the characters are extreme, and the tropes and cliches abound, this film somehow comes together to make a fun story that is easy to follow. It would make an excellent candidate for a horror marathon with friends. This is because the movie puts the viewer in the position of knowing everything, including things the characters do not know. This easily lends itself to exclamations of “Do not go in there!” and “Oh no, he’s going to get you!” For that reason, it is utterly fun.
I’d recommend this to people who like classic monster-style movies (though I wouldn’t call this a monster movie) or creepy crime stories.
I found The Monster Maker on YouTube:
My take: A simple Jack the Ripper story with a bit too much singing for my taste.
Rating: 1 out of 4 stars
The Lodger was based on a book by the same name. Apparently, the book never directly referenced Jack the Ripper. This film calls out Jack the Ripper in the first scene and hangs its hat on that fear and history to drive the plot.I can’t say that I particularly liked that approach.
Poster for the 1944 version of The Lodger
The 1944 version of The Lodger is about a family who rents a room to a strange man named Slade. This lodger stays out at odd hours of the night, gets spooked easily by coppers, and always seems to be disposing of things. All of this happens directly in parallel to a series of murders committed in nearby Whitechapel by the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper.
The direct reference to the Whitechapel murders resulted in my continually comparing and contrasting this story with the real facts behind the Jack the Ripper case. It was an utter distraction to what would have been a pretty decent story. It is likely also the reason why the original novel and other adaptations (including one by Hitchcock in 1932) avoided tying this story to that of the infamous London killer.
The biggest flaw is that Jack the Ripper in this film kills actresses. The real Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes. I’m not sure if it was a way for the movie studio to avoid directly addressing the sexual undertones in the killings or if it was an excuse to add in pointless, annoying song and dance numbers (the lead lady in this story is a musical comedy star and actress).
Regardless, I would recommend this movie to people who like classic crime movies. Other than that, you can feel free to skip it.
I got the movie from Netflix’s DVD service. Here is the trailer on YouTube:
My take: A basic zombie/ghoul movie with all of the clichés of the era on full display.
Rating: 2 out of 4 stars
The Mad Ghoul is the 28th movie listed in Studies in Terror. So far, I’ve seen a remake and a nonsensical sequel. Now, I am starting to spot a host of old clichés. The Mad Ghoul is a prime example of this.
Poster for The Mad Ghoul
In this story, a scientist uses an ancient formula to kill and control a man so that he can win the heart of a woman. He uses this zombie/ghoul to kill, and there’s a fast talking reporter on the trail of the crimes this duo commits.
I have seen all of these elements before…
When watching new horror movies, I often ask myself, “Can’t they think of anything new?!” Turns out, they haven’t thought of anything new in a very, very long time.
I’m giving this movie a lot of flak, but it isn’t entirely terrible. It has a lecherous old scientist, whose creepy innuendos at the young singer he is in love with had me cringing. It also has some good action scenes with the ghoul on the attack, which were fun to watch (though my husband had a real talent for interrupting the movie right in the middle of those scenes; I sometimes think that he waits just outside the room and then charges in right when he hears it getting good).
I would recommend this to people who like classic horror movies from the 30s and 40s. I would also recommend it to those who want to see early zombie films.
I watched the movie online on a strange (and not wholly reliable) site with old movies. Also, there appears to be no decent trailer for the movie on YouTube. You’ll just have to watch the movie yourself.
© 2024 Horror Movie Maven
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
Recent Comments