House of Wax (1953)

Synopsis:

Someone is killing people and stalking a woman.  In the meantime, it is giving the House of Wax plenty of subjects for their displays.  But who is killing these people?


Review:

This is another Vincent Price classic.  I absolutely love that man.  And he delivers another great performance in this movie as the proprietor of the House of Wax.  Having once been a sculptor who lost the use of his hands and legs in a fire years before, he now oversees the artwork of his employees for the house's displays.

The story-line is a good one, if a little bit expectant.  You see the twists and turns coming and it's not hard to figure out, but enough stuff is happening to be able to keep your attention and over look the fact that you see stuff coming.

The bad part about this is that it is very similar to Chamber of Horrors (1966).  At first, when I watched CoH I thought it might be a sequel to this movie, but it's not.  They are two different movies with similar sets.  Very similar sets.  It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the set producer was the same for both movies.

But other than that I found myself really enjoying this movie.  it is definitely a must see for any Vincent Price fans.

Kid safe:  Yes.  While this is a movie about murder there is no gore or anything like that here.

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045888/

Knights of the Round Table

Synopsis:

It's King Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot. Y'all!

Review:

Ok, so I'm probably biased on this one.  As a matter of fact, I know I am, so bare with me while I rip this apart.

Let me start by saying that this movie as a whole wasn't that bad.  It's worth a view if you like old fantasy films.  The acting was well done.  I can't dispute that.  Robert Taylor as Lancelot and Ava Gardner as Guinevere are great in their respective roles.  And for their time, the sets, costumes and musical score are well done also.

However...

I am a bit of an Avalon buff.  While there are a number of different takes as far as the folklore is concerned, there are certain consistencies in every version that were not followed here.  Arthur Pendragon was never depicted as a blond.  That was Guinevere.  Morgan Le Fey was his sister (half-sister) not a member of the court, but you always knew there was a biological connection because of the black hair.  A trait that was passed on to his illegitimate son, Modred, who is not his son in this movie.  Which is a shame because in all accounts that is a big part of the death of Arthur because it is his own son who betrays and murders him.  Modred still murders him in this, but not as his son.  On top of it there are like 30 Knights of the Round Table instead of the 12 there are supposed to be.

There were more inconsistencies and I could go on, but it would just bother me more than it already does.  Needless to say, if you are a fan of the folklore and fictions about Arthur and the Knights, this is very distracting and makes you want to throw things at the screen because there is an inconsistency about every 10 minuets.  But for those points that seem to change depending on who is telling the story, they did a good job making them their own.  I'm talking about things like Lancelot's marriage to the Lady Elaine, the sword in the stone or Merlin's role in all of this.

Over all, as I said, it's not a badly done movie..  They just needed to hire writers who did better research.  I would suggest watching this, but only once.  And only to enjoy the costumes and acting.

Kid safe:  Yes.

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045966/

Edward Scissorhands

Synopsis:

An inventor creates a man, a la Frankenstein, and before he can give him real hands and replace the scissors he originally used, the inventor dies.  Years later a woman selling beauty products knocks on the door and finds the creation and takes him back home with her and introduces him into society where he falls in love with her daughter.

Review:

When I first saw this movie I didn't like it.  I thought it was supposed to be a scary movie and it didn't live up to that.  Of course, at that time I also didn't understand Tim Burton and the difference between scary and dark.  Since then I have come to appreciate Mr. Burton and love most of his work.  After re-watching this, I have a new appreciation for this film.

I don't know if it was what Mr. Burton was going for, or if I'm just reading too much into things, but this is a great story about the downfalls of suburban gossip and the ability to fit in when you are different from those around you.

Edward is welcomed into this society of housewives after they discover what he can do for them and just as quickly ostracized after rejecting one of them.  Instead of accepting him for who he is, one slight turns his world upside down from the whispered gossip that spreads like wildfire until he is eventually hunted down and chased back to his house to once again live all alone.  Anyone who has been in high-school will recognize this.  The popular people have the power to make you and then break you.  Only your true friends will stand by your side and help you through your troubles because they accept you for who you truly are and not what you can provide for them.  This is what happens with Edward when the woman who found him and her daughter, who Edward falls in love with and she in return, stage Edwards death to get the neighbor hood man-hunt to back down.

On a brighter note, this movie is full of funny moments.  Watching Edward try to fit in is full of its quirks and make for some good laughs.  Watching him try to eat peas is downright hilarious.

Johnny Depp plays Edward Scissorhands and does a kick-ass job at it.  I love Johnny Depp.  He is one of those actors that has a versatility rarely seen in actors.  Who else can go from playing Willy Wonka to George Jung (Blow)?  The way Depp plays Edward is great.  He puts just enough shyness and vulnerability into the character to make him believable.  His ability to deliver well-timed surprise and react to the things Edward is experiencing is just awsome.  Winona Ryder?  Well, I never did like her.  She is one of those bad actresses that gets good roles.  However, she doesn't do such a bad job in this either.  Possibly because she and Depp were dating at the time so their relationship is a bit more believable.  It could also be because she hadn't been in a whole lot up to that point so we didn't realize she always plays the same character no matter what she's in, but she did seem to have some deviation in this one.  Whatever the reason, I don't have much trouble overlooking the fact that she's in this and can concentrate on her character.  And Anthony Micheal Hall.  I like him.  I really do.  He makes my list of "Actors I Like."  (It's a short list.)  But he falls a little in this one for me.  He does a good job playing the popular football-star boyfriend to Winona Ryder.  He's always played a good kiss-ass, goody two-shoes, but when it comes to portraying the bullying bad-boy to Edward I just don't buy it.  Even after beefing up after his Breakfast Club days, he doesn't pull off the asshole role.

Like with other Burton films, the sets and costumes in this are top-notch and quirky as ever.  Classic Tim Burton with the odd angles and bright colors that we have come to know, identify and love so well.

The story is also a good one.  I won't go into it more here, but also remember that this is also a love story.  It's about loving someone in spite of their differences.  It's about loving them for who they are.  It's about losing your love and dealing with loss.  But it's not a romantic comedy and the love story doesn't get in the way or get too mushy.

Kid safe:  I would say yes, but for older kids.  I let my 12 year old watch it, but there is some language and sexual suggestiveness that may not be appropriate for younger kids.

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099487/

How to make a Monster

Synopsis:

Make-up artists make up two teenage boys in werewolf and Frankenstein make-up.  After the studio is bought out and people start losing their jobs, others lost their lives after being attacked by "monsters."  But is it the boys or someone else behind it all?

Review:

Let me save you the time.  The make-up artist did it.  There.  Now you have been spared from having to watch this awful movie.  The acting is bad, the film quality is bad, the story is bad.  It's just bad.  The monster make-up is just about the only good thing about this movie.  I'm so glad that, with commercials, it was only 1 hour and 15 minutes.  Much more and I would have had to scream.

Kid safe:  Yes, but why would you subject them to this garbage?

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051746/

Chamber of Horrors

Synopsis:

A man kills a woman and marries her corpse.  After being caught for the murder, by the proprietors of a House of Wax, he cuts off his own hand in order to escape before murdering the men responsible for his original capture.

Review:

I liked this movie.  I thought the sets were very well done.  The story was well written also.  The acting was good.  There were only two problems I had with this film.

First, the idea that the police would involve someone like a wax museum owner on a police case is bull to me.  For the police to actively ask the owners to help, well, I can't believe it.  Second, to keep people from fainting or having heart attacks, the film makers inserted a flashing red screen at the "scary" parts.  While I understand why this was done, it was very distracting and caused a disconnect with the movie.  Years, ago this may have been necessary for movie going, but today it just reminds you that you are watching a movie and just as things are happening and you're getting into it, a red screen with a loud noise pulls you out of that.

Other than those things though, I really liked it.  I easily got into the movie even though it begins by letting you know who the killer is.  There isn't really any "mystery" to this movie, it's mostly suspense.  And the story does provide that.  It's 1966's suspense, so really not THAT suspenseful  but if you like older movies you can appreciate it.

Kid safe:  Yes.  The "scary" parts of this movie are really not that scary, and there is no nudity, foul language and the violence is not actually shown, but more insinuated.

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060228/

Thir13en Ghosts

Synopsis:

A family inherits a house from a dead relative only to find that there are 12 ghosts being held captive in the basement.  The only way to see these ghosts are by special glasses.  Things happen and the family gets trapped in the house as the ghosts are set loose one-by-one.  Somehow they have to survive.

Review:

First let me state that this is a remake.  While I normally hate with a passion don't care for remakes, the first time I saw this one I was unaware of that fact.  Since then I have seen the original.  The two are slightly different while keeping some things the same.

This version...well, i guess the best way to put it is that while the story is a bit weak the movie itself is done well.  Visually it's kind of nice.  The effects and costumes are well done and creepifying.  The props (the house and glasses) are interesting.  The cast was well chosen also.

It's kind of nice to see Tony Shalhoub in something other than a anxiety ridden detective.  I think many people forget he had jobs before Monk.  He was the cabbie on Wings (for those of you who remember that show), was Jeebs in Men In Black and also showed up in Spy Kids.  Then you have Shannon Elizabeth.  Who doesn't like Ms. Hottie from American Pie or Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back?  And you also have Matthew Lillard from Scream and Scooby-Doo.  All of which give good performances.

Basically this is a good movie, but I just can't get over the weakness of the story-line   However, being that it is a remake, I understand that there are only so many liberties that can be taken.  I still enjoy myself when watching this movie and have very few sarcastic comments while I'm watching it.  That's a good thing, by the way.  I'm very critical as far as movies are concerned.  (In case you haven't noticed by the fact that I started a blog to *ahem* criticize things.)

Kid safe:  No!  There is one female ghost who constantly walks around naked and plenty of swearing.  Not to mention the ghosts (something that normally scares kids) are attacking and killing people.  If you watch this on the SyFy channel (as I have) they do blur out the nudity and silence the language so it's not so bad and more watchable for older kids, but the violence is still uncut.

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245674/

Carnival of Sinners

Not to be confused with Carnival of Souls, this is a foreign film and requires reading of subtitles.

Synopsis:

A down on his luck artist buys a talisman for a penny.  Really he bought it with his soul.  Realizing he bought more than he bargained for, after the Devil shows up and offers to let him buy his soul back, he tries to fix things.

Review:

Being hard of hearing, reading subtitles are nothing new for me.  Even when watching English speaking movies and shows I normally have the Closed-captioning on.  For that reason it is easy for me to watch foreign films without being distracted from what is going on and focusing on the story.  That's good too because this was an interesting one.  It starts out with the man who bought the talisman showing up at an out of the way inn with a mysterious package.  All the other people staying there think he is a strange man and stay away from him. Well, he IS acting strange and after the power goes out and his package disappears, he lightens up and tells his story of how he came to own the talisman, all the way to when he arrives at the inn.

I really liked this movie.  The acting was pretty good.  I really like the actor they got for the part of the artist.  And the story is a good one.  Not to complicated, but not boring either.  Just a few twists, but enough to make it interesting.  And the sets are pretty cool.  The artists house is amazing and makes me wonder if they made it or if they used an actual house.

The only thing that I really see as a bad thing is it's in French.  I may be biased though.  Actually, I know I am.  I absolutely HATE French.  It just sounds bad in my ears and I never understood how it was the language of romance.  I would rather listen to Italians, who always sound angry with each other, before French, but even that didn't distract from this being a good movie.

Kid safe:  Yes, this is an old black and white and there is no gore or even any violence until a fight scene at the end that really isn't anything at all.

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035017/

Dracula, Prince of Darkness

In honor of Bram Stokers birthday, even though he's been dead for years and doesn't know how people still celebrate his birthday (unless he's a vampire and still around), I had to watch a Dracula movie for November 8th.

Synopsis:

Two couples go on vacation to the Carpathian Mountains.  There they are warned against going anywhere near the Castle Dracula.  Somehow they end up there anyway and one couple is killed and bring Count Dracula back to life.  It is up to the last couple, and a bunch of monks, to kill Dracula once and for all.  (It's never once and for all, by the way.)

Review:

This is a Hammer Film.  While they are not completely bad, per say, Hammer Films can only be so good.  This is actually one of the better ones.  Third in the Hammer/Dracula series, Christopher Lee reprises his role of Dracula.  Funny thing is, he doesn't say a word.  After doing some research I found that the reason for this was that when Mr. Lee was given the script he told Mr. Hammer, "I'm not saying any of this."  Kudos to Mr. Lee for that, but the lack of speech actually gives some menace to his character.  The other actors play their roles well also.  I especially like the woman how plays Heather. She does well in conveying her fear and later as one of the undead.

The story line is not as bad as it could be (If you've seen any other Hammer Films you know I'm right).  But this one keeps it interesting.  The sets are all nice and somewhat elaborate.  Enough so that I want to live in Castle Dracula.  But, like other Hammer Films, everything is so bright and colorful it's a bit distracting.  As far as the costumes and locations are concerned it's fine, but when you get to the effects it makes them unbelievable and a bit cheesy.  And we all know Hammer was never known for their cheese.

Kid safe:  I would let kids watch this.  Like I said above, any blood looks like it's made from Tempra paint and not scary.  (You know Tempra paint.  It's the paint they give kids in elementary school art class because it's so cheep you can buy a gallon of it for $1.)  Any of the violence is insinuated or overly dramatic and worse in any cartoon that is out today.

IMDB link:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059127/

Stephen King's It

Synopsis:

There's a freaky clown killing kids every 30 years and it's up to seven kids who banded together (The Losers Club) to kill it.  They think they did, but they aren't sure and promise to come back if "It" comes back.

It does.  (HA!!!  It.  Get it?!?  I didn't do that intentionally, but it works so I'm leaving it.)

So now the same kids, now adults, have to come together and kill the clown once and for all.

Review:

Though this is, in my opinion, one of the better Stephen King adaptations, it's still a made for T.V. mini-series.  It tends to get a bit ridiculous and cheesy in some parts, but overall is still good.  Tim Curry couldn't have done a better job pulling off Pennywise the creepy ass clown.  Okay, clowns are creepy to begin with, but this movie proves why they are.  Then you have the rest of the cast.  John Ritter, Annette O'Toole, Harry Anderson, Seth Green and quite a few others.  I love the location they found for the Barrens and it took me a while to eat Chinese food after watching this.  (Although I do want a fortune cookie with fangs, but maybe as a wind up toy.  Not as something that wants to eat me.)

If I have a complaint about this movie, it's a similar complaint that I have with most movies that are adapted from books.  That is that there could have been MORE from the book in the movie.  There were some things in the book that I would have liked to see that weren't there and some things that were there that didn't need to be.

But again, if you keep in mind that is was a made for T.V. movie, it did a pretty good job.  Defiantly not the worst Stephen King adaptation.

Kid safe:  I would say it would be okay for older kids.  Being a T.V. movie there is no swearing or nudity, but the clown may not sit well with younger kids who still associate them with fun and happiness.

IMDB link to Stephen King's It:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099864/