|
HOME - INTRO - FEATURES - KRYPTIC ARMY - LINKS - CONTACT HORROR 101: THE A-LIST OF HORROR FILMS AND MONSTER MOVIES VOL 1 FAMOUS QUOTES
"Comparisons
would be pointless. Obviously the technical advances in movie-making since
the…30’s give the latter productions| - Peter Cushing on Hammer’s remake of THE MUMMY -
|
|
BIOGRAPHIES - FILM / VIDEO GUIDES - GENERAL REFERENCES - HAMMER STUDIOS PSYCHO-BABBLE - SPECIAL INTERESTS GENERAL REFERENCE
BOOKS
THE BOOK OF LISTS:
HORROR I can't remember the last time that I picked up a book and was just completely taken over by it. This is one of the most entertaining books I have read. This is the kind of book that you can pick up at any time, even if you only have a couple of minutes,, open it up to any page, and start reading. And after a couple of minutes, you will have a smile on your face. The book consists of different "lists" of everything from Douglas Buck's Ten Favorite Familial Horror Movies, to Robert Kurtzman's Ten Favorite Creature Features, to T.E.D. Klein's 25 Most Familiar Horror Plots, and tons more. You will not only find yourself having a chuckle every now and then, but you will also start jotting down some movie titles that you now have to see. A sign of a truly great reference book. The retail price is only $14.95, but you can get it much cheaper on Amazon. We can't recommend this book enough. Check it out and see for yourself. You won't be disappointed.
THE DEAD THAT WALK Well, the main thing I really learned from this book is that the author Halliwell doesn’t seem to like most of the movies that he writes about here. So I’m not really sure why he would have spent the time writing a book on movies that he doesn’t like. There are multiple occasions where he points out the plot point mistakes of several of the Universal films of the 30’s and 40’s, where the sequels don’t start up where the last one left off exactly. I don’t think Universal was that worried about too much, since most of their audiences were probably young kids anyway. But he makes this point with just about every movie sequel, including the Hammer films as well. There's a quote on the back calling Halliwell "The world's foremost encyclopedist". Well, I found several times where there was incorrect information in this book. While some of these psycho-babble books see more hidden messages in the movie, Halliwell also sees visual things in the movie that isn't there. For example, he states that in the beginning of Hammer's DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE, that the girl stuffed into the bell is naked. Sorry folks, as much as I'd would have preferred that, she's not naked. But there are other errors. In his synopsis of BRIDES OF DRACULA, he describes the original ending, where Van Helsing uses black magic to kill the vampire Baron Meinster. But this was never filmed, mainly due to Peter Cushing. But no where does Halliwell state that this is from a screenplay or original storyline, but describes it as if it was actually filmed. Then when talking about Hammer's KISS OF THE VAMPIRE, he describes the ending, he says that it's a "virtual reprise of THE BRIDES OF DRACULA". That's because that original ending for BRIDES was finally used for KISS, not re-used like Halliwell suggests. But there's more. In FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL, he says that Peter Cushing's Dr. Frankenstein is the director the asylum where Shane Briant is sentenced. Wrong again. He is the resident doctor after blackmailing the director. When Halliwell talks about the 1972 film TALES FROM THE CRYPT, he says that Cushing "came back from the grave on Valentine's Day to give his wife a unexpected present." Obviously he's never seen the film. And while on the subject, there is a photo of him from the movie. The caption reads, "Peter Cushing returns for vengeance after some months underground. Some audiences wished that he had phoned in his message." So we know first of all that he's most likely never seen the film, but yet is going to criticize Cushing performance? I think most fans agree that is probably one of the best segments from that movie. He states that Hammer's first jump into the 'muddy pool of female vampirism" was with COUNTESS DRACULA. Actually, that would have been VAMPIRE LOVERS...that came first. And speaking of that film, Halliwell says VAMPIRE LOVERS was "found by most audiences to be too distasteful." Then the part that really lost me was when he says "where was the fun in women loving women? Only a very small percentage of the audience could get any vicarious enjoyment out of that." At first, I thought he was joking. But since the tone of the review was somewhat negative, I think he was serious. How could 14 and 15 year old boys get any enjoyment out of women loving women??? Good Lord. Most of the book is filled with either plot synopses, or large chunks of literary stories that are reprinted. To me, this seems to waste a lot of space. But I will say that there are some screenplay text that is re-printed, showing parts that were never filmed. This is interesting since it shows us what was originally written, but never made it to the final print. So overall, I really didn't come away from this book learning any new, other than Halliwell needs to pay attention to more of what he's watching. The missing screenplay bits were the only thing that were interesting here, but not enough to read through the rest of the text.
Being a lover of horror trivia, this book is made for people like me. Covering quite a few different films, from the classics like PSYCHO to more modern day films like 28 DAYS LATER, but sticking to the more well known titles. So even the newer horror fan is going to know these movies, or at least has heard of them. But coming up with trivia questions is no simple task. It's very easy to compile some questions that any 3rd grader could answer, or working hard at coming up with questions that even the filmmaker themselves wouldn't be able to answer. So coming up with a mixture somewhere in between is no easy task. But Cowlin and Goddard have done a pretty good job at doing just that. As I read through the book, there were several questions that were extremely easy. But as you read, there is usually going to be at least one question to give even the seasoned horror fan a puzzled look. And that is the beauty of this book. It's a lot of fun to page through by yourself, or it a great tool for a Halloween party trivia game. If you're looking to increase your trivia knowledge, this book is for you, not to mention it coming in very handy for parties.
AN ILLUSTRATED
HISTORY OF THE HORROR FILM Clarens wrote for magazines like Film Quarterly and Films in Review before he wrote this book, one of the first to go through the history of horror films. Clarens takes us from the birth of the cinema, with Méliès, Edison and the Lumiére Brothers, and ends with the early days of Hammer Films. Clarens knew his film history and mentions countless films throughout this book that even the biggest horror fan might not have heard or. It’s a great one to start a “Need to see” list. This may not be a good book to start with for fans that are looking for Freddy and Jason, but if you’re looking for how it all started, this is your book. Since it was written in the 60's the heyday of Universal and the original monster boom was only a few decades in the past. So a lot of detail is giving to those films. That is the book's strong point. This book was originally published in hardcover format in 1967, which is pretty tough to come back these days. But it was published in a small paperback version the following year by Capricorn books.
IT LIVES
AGAIN! HORROR MOVIES IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM Author, actress, journalist, and all around horror fan, Axelle Carolyn has given us a beautifully laid out book that covers the horror films of the last decade. Filled with a great selection of stills and poster and DVD box art, there is a lot more to this book than the look of it. Carolyn is no slouch when it comes to the horror genre. She knows her stuff, and knows it well. This book covers the good, the bad, the well known, and even the not-so-well known. Plus, for us fans in the states, it's great that she has complied films from all over the world. So no matter where you are, you'll hear about films from Japan, Korea, the UK, and even Switzerland. But not only discussing the movies, she also points out what is happening the world, and the possible connections between the real world and it's effects it is having on the cinematic world. The best part is that it doesn't become psycho-babble. She makes these comments and references, and lets the readers make their own decisions, as opposed to trying to push their opinions down the readers throat. So major kudos to Carolyn for this awesome book. We are looking forward to whatever else she has in store for us. Plus, on a side note, it's damn cool to see a woman who is heavily into the genre, a genre that most would see as a male dominated one.
SPLATTER MOVIES: BREAKING THE LAST TABOO OF
THE SCREEN "Splatter movies, offshoots of the horror genre, aim not to scare their audiences, necessarily, nor to drive them to the edges of their seats in suspense, but to mortify them with scenes of explicit gore. In splatter movies, mutilation is indeed the message - many times the only one." And so starts off McCarty in his book defining what splatter movies are. Once again, I found it difficult to agree with McCarty in many degrees with this book. The first example came right away, on page 6 as a matter of fact. "Despite its pretensions to being about the 'mysteries of faith', William Friedlin's THE EXORCIST was little more than a very posh splatter movie, utilizing every trick in the book to pulverize audiences into a single gagging mass." I would never of considered THE EXORCIST as a splatter movie. Yes, I do think there are some heavy meanings going on in that film, letting the viewer start to question their faith, or at least question something. I do think that there was a message meant to come across in this film. It wasn't made just to shock you with cheap effects, otherwise there would have been many more of those in the film. But in any case, no matter what one might choose to believe about that film, when it comes to writing about films, it is a must to know what your talking about. When talking about the Lucio Fulci film ZOMBIE, McCarty makes this comment: "His most successful film as of this writing is ZOMBIE, a rip-off of Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD in which a mad doctor (Richard Johnson) sets up shop on a remote tropical island in order to conduct a series of bizarre experiments in secret. To preserve this secrecy, he has his island hideaway guarded by an army of killer zombies." Well, if you've seen ZOMBIE, you know that is not the movie that McCarty is describing. It's sounds more like ZOMBIE HOLOCAUST (aka DOCTOR BUTCHER M.D.). Once again, something that I've said many times, when you come across a incorrect fact like that in a book, it really makes you doubt everything else you might read. If he didn't know the right movie he was talking about, then how can we believe the other stuff he's telling us. So in that regards, I wouldn't recommend this book to a novice. Educated fans may see through the errors and interpretations that McCarty comes up with, but a novice might start to believe some of this stuff. And come on, does anybody else think that THE EXORCIST or THE OMEN was nothing more than just a splatter film?
With a listing of over 1100 people who worked in the horror / sci-fi film genres, this book comes in pretty handy as a quick reference guide. It does list quite a few people, who only be known for one or two movies, as well as the more familiar names from the genre. The book not only lists actors and directors, but screenwriters, makeup effect artist and the likes. The only problems that I have with the book are that some subjects only have a line or two about them. But this is mainly for the more obscure people, so that really shouldn't be a complaint, being that at least they are in the book. There are also a couple of mis-information errors, such as stating that Susan Denberg was American, as opposed to be Austrian. While that it's that big of deal, every time I find an error in a reference book, it makes me wonder if there might be more that I just don't know about. |
