Tag Archives: terence fisher

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed: Hammer’s Bleak Descent into Moral Horror

16 Friday May 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Peter Cushing delivers his darkest turn as Baron Frankenstein in Terence Fisher’s brutal, uncompromising portrait of ambition unmoored from humanity.

Few characters in horror history have undergone as grim an evolution as Hammer Films’ Baron Victor Frankenstein. By 1969, the once-charming and impassioned scientist had metamorphosed into something altogether colder, crueller — and never more so than in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. Marking one of the studio’s boldest and bleakest entries, Terence Fisher’s film plunges audiences into a chilling moral abyss, anchored by Peter Cushing’s most malevolent portrayal of the Baron.

From the outset, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is suffused with an atmosphere of stark brutality. Gone is the romanticised ambition of earlier installments; in its place stands a portrait of Frankenstein as a calculating sociopath, concerned only with his own vindication. Peter Cushing, always a master of understated menace, turns in a performance of extraordinary steeliness — chillingly urbane one moment, terrifyingly ruthless the next. His Baron is a man for whom human life is but clay to be shaped, discarded, or destroyed in pursuit of scientific triumph.

Fisher, who had been instrumental in defining Hammer’s gothic aesthetic, embraces a far colder visual palette here. The film trades ornate castles and vibrant colors for stark, drained settings — a reflection of Frankenstein’s spiritual desolation. Even the violence feels less operatic and more intimately brutal, culminating in moments that strip the mythos of any lingering romanticism.

Central to the film’s enduring controversy is the much-discussed scene in which Frankenstein rapes Anna (Veronica Carlson) — a moment absent from the original script and forced upon the production by studio pressure. Both Cushing and Carlson vehemently opposed the inclusion, and their disapproval seeps into the scene’s palpable discomfort. While ethically troubling, the moment undeniably darkens the character beyond redemption, underscoring the film’s unflinching portrayal of moral collapse. It transforms Frankenstein from a misguided idealist into a full-fledged predator — a monster not of nature, but of willful cruelty.

Carlson and Simon Ward, portraying the beleaguered couple ensnared in Frankenstein’s machinations, deliver affecting performances that heighten the tragedy. Carlson, in particular, lends a dignified pathos to a role burdened by the demands of a narrative far more nihilistic than Hammer’s previous outings.

Freddie Jones, in his first major film role as the tragic Professor Brandt, is a revelation. His performance captures both the physical fragility and the mental anguish of a man resurrected against his will, trapped within a stolen body and a crumbling mind. Jones infuses Brandt with a quiet dignity and simmering rage, crafting a character whose humanity serves as a stark rebuke to Frankenstein’s inhumanity. His confrontation with Cushing in the film’s final act offers a rare glimmer of emotional depth amid the relentless bleakness, elevating the story beyond pure gothic horror into something far more sorrowful and profound.

Thematically, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed confronts the corrosion of empathy under the guise of scientific pursuit. It suggests that evil need not spring from grandiose ambitions but from the erosion of everyday decency. Frankenstein’s destruction of lives — not in moments of passion, but through cold, bureaucratic calculation — offers a horror far more enduring than any stitched-together monster.

The Prognosis:

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed stands as a stark outlier within the Hammer canon — a film willing to fully reckon with the darkness its iconic character had always flirted with. Though marred by studio-imposed controversy, it remains a harrowing, essential entry in the Frankenstein cycle — a reminder that sometimes the true monster wears the most respectable face.

  • 1960s retrospective review by Saul Muerte

The Devil Rides Out: Hammer’s Chilling Dance with the Occult

08 Saturday Feb 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Power of Good Against the Forces of Evil

When Hammer Films turned their attention to Dennis Wheatley’s supernatural thrillers, few could have anticipated the enduring legacy of The Devil Rides Out (1968). Directed by the prolific Terence Fisher, it stands as a masterclass in atmosphere, storytelling, and occult intrigue, all while showcasing Christopher Lee in one of his finest and most distinctive performances.

At the suggestion of Christopher Lee, Hammer secured the rights to three of Wheatley’s novels: The Devil Rides Out, The Satanist, and To the Devil a Daughter. Wheatley’s works, steeped in the dark arts and tales of moral confrontation, presented the studio with fertile ground for their horror sensibilities. Lee, a longtime admirer of Wheatley’s writing, saw The Devil Rides Out as an opportunity to expand his range. Cast against type, he portrayed the heroic Duc de Richleau, an intellectual and commanding figure who battles Satanic forces with poise and conviction.

Hammer entrusted screenwriting duties to Richard Matheson, celebrated for his work on The Twilight Zone and various genre-defining projects. Matheson brought a deft touch to the script, balancing faithfulness to the source material with a streamlined cinematic narrative. His adaptation maintained the novel’s core themes while amplifying the visual potential of its occult sequences.

The Devil Rides Out marked the final collaboration between Terence Fisher and Christopher Lee. The legendary duo had worked together on a string of iconic Hammer films, including The Curse of Frankenstein and Dracula. Fisher’s steady hand brought gravitas and tension to the film, crafting a foreboding atmosphere that elevated its more fantastical elements.

Christopher Lee, stepping away from his usual roles as villains or monsters, relished the chance to play the righteous Duc de Richleau. His commanding performance is a standout, projecting authority and intelligence while conveying the stakes of the battle against evil. Lee’s passion for the project shines through, and it’s evident that this role was deeply personal to him.

The supporting cast bolsters the film’s gravitas. Charles Gray’s turn as the malevolent Mocata is mesmerising, blending charm and menace in equal measure. Mocata’s scenes of hypnotic manipulation and occult rituals rank among the film’s most chilling moments. Nike Arrighi delivers a quietly effective performance as the vulnerable Tanith, while Leon Greene, Patrick Mower, Sarah Lawson, and Paul Eddington round out a solid ensemble.

What truly sets The Devil Rides Out apart is its commitment to the supernatural. Fisher and Matheson crafted unforgettable set pieces, from the tense ritual to protect a sacred circle to the summoning of the Angel of Death. Bernard Robinson’s production design and James Bernard’s eerie sound design create an immersive world where the line between good and evil feels palpably thin.

Kudos must also go to Hammer’s visual effects team, who worked wonders within the constraints of the studio’s modest budget. Though some effects now feel dated, their inventiveness and ambition remain admirable. The film’s climactic moments still resonate, particularly the shocking confrontation with demonic forces.

Critically, The Devil Rides Out has been lauded as one of Hammer’s crowning achievements. Fans and scholars alike praise it as a rare foray into the supernatural that combines intellectual weight with Gothic spectacle. However, its commercial performance, particularly in the United States, fell short of expectations. Hammer’s distinct brand of horror faced stiff competition in a market shifting toward grittier, more visceral fare.

Despite this, the film’s reputation has only grown over the decades. Its themes of morality, faith, and resistance against darkness remain timeless. And for Christopher Lee, it was a career highlight that showcased his depth as an actor beyond the iconic monsters he so often portrayed.

The Devil Rides Out is a haunting, sophisticated entry in Hammer’s catalog, blending Wheatley’s literary prowess, Matheson’s screenwriting expertise, and Fisher’s directorial vision. It’s a testament to the power of storytelling and the enduring appeal of Gothic horror.

For fans of Hammer Films or anyone fascinated by the battle between light and darkness, The Devil Rides Out is a must-watch.

  • Saul Muerte

Night of the Big Heat (1967): A B-Horror That Fails to Sizzle

23 Saturday Nov 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

With the dynamic pairing of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing at its core, Night of the Big Heat seems poised for greatness, especially for fans of mid-century British horror. Directed by Terence Fisher, a Hammer Films mainstay, the movie adapts John Lymington’s novel about an unexplained heatwave plaguing a small island off the British coast. From the outset, the setup brims with potential: the mysterious weather anomaly and its connection to extraterrestrial forces create an intriguing framework. However, despite the gravitas brought by Lee and Cushing, the film fails to rise above its status as a modestly entertaining B-movie.

The charm lies primarily in its retro appeal, with limited special effects and a tone that leans into the quirks of low-budget 1960s sci-fi horror. Christopher Lee’s authoritative portrayal of scientist Godfrey Hanson adds depth, even when the plot veers into absurdity, while Peter Cushing delivers his signature polish, albeit in a more understated role than usual. However, the movie is let down by a slow pace and underwhelming tension, as well as budget constraints that reduce the alien threat to little more than glowing orbs. The production’s ambition to create atmospheric horror feels stifled by its resources, though the oppressive heat and rural isolation add some unease.

Ultimately, Night of the Big Heat offers mild entertainment but fails to distinguish itself in the pantheon of 1960s genre cinema. For devoted fans of Lee, Cushing, or nostalgic B-horror, it holds some charm, but for broader audiences, it’s more of a lukewarm experience that may not burn bright but flickers enough for the curious viewer.

  • Saul Muerte

The Gorgon (1964): Hammer’s Ambitious but Imperfect Gothic Tale

10 Saturday Aug 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Hammer Films’ The Gorgon (1964) stands as a notable entry in the studio’s prolific output, featuring the legendary trio of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Barbara Shelley. Directed by Terence Fisher, this film had all the makings of a classic Hammer horror, yet it fell short of its full potential. Despite its flaws, The Gorgon remains an enjoyable feature and a must-watch for fans of the iconic British horror production company.

The story revolves around a small European village plagued by a series of mysterious deaths, all seemingly linked to the mythical gorgon Megaera. Screenwriter John Gilling crafted a compelling script that promised a rich blend of Gothic horror and mythological intrigue. However, Gilling’s satisfaction with his script was tempered by disappointment when significant portions were cut from the final version, diluting the narrative’s depth and impact.

Barbara Shelley, cast in the dual role of Carla and Megaera, was particularly disheartened by the decision to reduce her involvement. Originally intended to portray both the innocent Carla and her monstrous alter ego, Shelley believed that this dual role could have elevated The Gorgon to one of the best Gothic films ever made. Unfortunately, the role of Megaera was reassigned to Prudence Hyman to prevent prematurely revealing the story’s outcome, a choice that Shelley felt undermined the film’s potential.

Under Terence Fisher’s direction, the film benefited from his seasoned expertise in crafting atmospheric horror. Fisher’s collaboration with Cushing, Lee, and Shelley promised a cinematic experience that embodied the essence of Hammer Films. Cushing and Lee, as always, delivered magnificent performances, with Cushing playing the determined Dr. Namaroff and Lee as the insightful Professor Meister. Shelley’s portrayal of Carla added a layer of vulnerability and complexity to the narrative.

Despite these strong elements, The Gorgon struggled to connect with audiences. The film’s pacing issues, coupled with the aforementioned script cuts, resulted in a disjointed story that failed to fully capitalize on its intriguing premise. Additionally, the special effects, particularly the portrayal of Megaera, did not meet the high standards set by other Hammer productions, further impacting the film’s reception.

The Prognosis:

The Gorgon is a mixed bag—a film that showcases Hammer’s strengths while also highlighting some of its weaknesses. It’s an enjoyable feature that offers glimpses of what could have been a masterpiece. For fans of Hammer Films and classic Gothic horror, it remains a worthwhile watch, if only to appreciate the performances of Cushing, Lee, and Shelley, and to ponder the film that might have been.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

“Unmasking the Gothic Splendor: A Retrospective Review of Hammer’s ‘Phantom of the Opera’ and Its Vibrant Cinematic Palette”

14 Friday Jun 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Hammer Film Productions, known for their iconic horror films, including their reimagining of classic monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein, ventured into the realm of Gaston Leroux’s “The Phantom of the Opera” in 1962. This adaptation, directed by Terence Fisher, marked their return to Gothic roots after a series of successful ventures into color horror.

The Hammer production of “The Phantom of the Opera” is indeed a fascinating study in the studio’s ability to infuse new life into classic tales. While it may not be as revered as some of their other works, it certainly has its merits.

One of the standout elements of the film is Herbert Lom’s portrayal of the Phantom. Lom brings a sense of tragic depth to the character, capturing both the madness and the humanity of Erik, the Phantom. His performance adds layers of complexity to the role, making the character more than just a one-dimensional villain.

Additionally, the film is notable for its signature Hammer aesthetic. The Gothic atmosphere, lavish sets, and sumptuous costumes create a visually striking world that is unmistakably Hammer. The studio’s expertise in creating atmospheric horror is on full display here, drawing viewers into the eerie world of the Paris Opera House.

One of the prominent aspects of Hammer’s “Phantom of the Opera” is its cinematography and use of rich colour. As the studio transitioned into colour filmmaking, they capitalized on the vibrant palette to enhance the Gothic atmosphere of their productions.

In this film, the cinematography plays a crucial role in creating the mood and tone of the narrative. The use of shadow and light adds depth to the visuals, evoking a sense of mystery and foreboding. The grandiose sets of the Paris Opera House are brought to life through dynamic camera work, capturing the intricacies of the architecture and immersing viewers in the opulent world of the story.

Moreover, the rich color palette employed in the film contributes to its visual allure. Deep, velvety reds, luxurious purples, and haunting blues saturate the screen, heightening the Gothic ambiance and adding to the overall aesthetic appeal. The contrast between the lush colours and the dark shadows creates a visually stunning juxtaposition, underscoring the film’s themes of beauty and darkness.

Hammer’s embrace of color cinematography in “Phantom of the Opera” showcases their commitment to innovation while staying true to their Gothic roots. By leveraging the vibrant hues available to them, the filmmakers create a cinematic experience that is as visually striking as it is thematically resonant. The use of colour becomes an integral part of the storytelling, enhancing the emotional impact of the narrative and immersing audiences in the haunting world of the Phantom.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that the film does have its missteps. Some critics have pointed out inconsistencies in the plot and pacing issues that detract from the overall experience. Additionally, purists may take issue with the liberties taken in adapting Leroux’s novel, as the film deviates from the source material in several key ways.

The Prognosis:

While not without its flaws, Hammer’s “Phantom of the Opera” remains an intriguing entry in the studio’s catalog. It may not reach the heights of some of their other classics, but it still offers a compelling take on a timeless tale, bolstered by strong performances and the studio’s distinctive visual style.

  • Saul Muerte

Retrospective: “The Curse of the Werewolf” (1961) – A Shift in Tone for Hammer Films

16 Thursday May 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

“The Curse of the Werewolf” marked a significant departure for Hammer Films in the 1960s, signaling a shift towards darker, more atmospheric horror. Directed by Terence Fisher and starring Oliver Reed in his breakout role, this film stands as a testament to the studio’s evolution and the enduring impact of its leading actors.

Throughout the 1950s, Hammer Films had gained recognition for its vibrant and often lurid adaptations of classic horror tales, characterized by colorful sets, Gothic atmosphere, and iconic performances from stars like Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. However, with “The Curse of the Werewolf,” Hammer sought to explore more nuanced and psychologically driven horror, drawing inspiration from classic folklore and mythology.

Renowned for its atmospheric tension and captivating performances, it’s interesting to note that despite its English setting, the film’s source material, Guy Endore’s novel “The Werewolf of Paris,” is actually set in France. This deviation from the original setting doesn’t detract from the film’s effectiveness; rather, it adds a layer of mystery and exoticism to the narrative. The decision to transplant the story to Spain in the film further enhances its uniqueness, offering a fresh perspective on the classic werewolf tale.

Oliver Reed’s portrayal of the tortured protagonist, Leon, marked a turning point in the actor’s career and left an indelible mark on cinema. Reed’s raw intensity and brooding charisma brought depth to the character, elevating him beyond the typical tropes of the werewolf genre. His physicality and magnetic presence captivated audiences, establishing him as one of the most compelling actors of his generation.

“The Curse of the Werewolf” not only showcased Reed’s talent but also demonstrated Hammer’s willingness to push boundaries and experiment with new approaches to horror. The film’s moody atmosphere, evocative cinematography, and tragic narrative set it apart from the studio’s earlier offerings, signaling a maturation of the Hammer brand.

Furthermore, “The Curse of the Werewolf” reflected the changing cultural landscape of the 1960s, with its exploration of themes such as repression, identity, and the struggle between civilization and primal instinct. As society grappled with issues of conformity and rebellion, the film’s central conflict resonated with audiences, offering a potent metaphor for the human condition.

The Prognosis:

“The Curse of the Werewolf” remains a landmark film in the Hammer canon, showcasing the studio’s willingness to evolve and adapt to the shifting tastes of audiences. Oliver Reed’s performance, in particular, stands as a testament to his talent and enduring legacy, solidifying his status as one of cinema’s most iconic figures.

  • Saul Muerte

Podcast: The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)

1960s Horror Retrospective: The Brides of Dracula (1960)

26 Friday Apr 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As the horror scene began to ramp up in the 1960s and shake the genre to the core with the likes of Psycho and Peeping Tom, British Horror production company, Hammer Films who had made a significant mark during the mid-fifties reinventing classic Universal horror movies such as The Curse of Frankenstein; The Mummy; and Dracula were hardly resting on their laurels or cast to the shadows. At least not yet. Having already brought Baron Frankenstein to the screen with a sequel entitled The Revenge of Frankenstein, Hammer would inevitably turn their attention to the prince of darkness, although curiously, despite Christopher Lee still being attached to the Production company, and a script under the title Dracula the Damned in the works, this idea was shelved in favour of a whole new direction without Lee attached.

The sequel initially under the working title, Disciple of Dracula would centre around another vampire called Baron Meinster. At the outset this script would have another hero in mind called Latour to deal with the Baron but he would soon be curtailed in favour of bringing back Peter Cushing to play the infamous vampire hunter, Van Helsing. This was not an easy task however as Cushing was not immediately enlightened by the script on offer, so another writer, Edward Percy was called in to redraft it before he would sign on the dotted line.

The female lead, Marianne Danielle would be presented to Yvonne Monlaur to play opposite David Peel as Baron Meinster. Amongst the cast would be Freda Jackson (Henry V; David Lean’s Great Expectations) and Maritita Hunt (also Great Expectations as Miss Havisham) bringing an amount of gravitas to the presence on screen.

Once again the always reliable Terence Fisher was at the helm to call the shots and ensure that all things tied together neatly. It would be go-to editor James Needs though who would be congratulated for managing to ensure that the film would meet the deadline cast by Universal. The result would see huge success for The Brides of Dracula, especially in Japan, UK and the States and the thirst for more Dracula stories would be requested, which Hammer was all too keen to oblige. The synergy of all those involved meant that Hammer were at the peak of their success and the 60s would only produce more Gothic-infused horror.

– Saul Muerte

1960s Horror Retrospective

The Flesh and the Fiend

Eyes Without A Face

Peeping Tom

Psycho

The 4 Faces of Hammer’s Dr Jekyll

02 Saturday Mar 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Across Hammer Films extensive canon of work there have been four adaptations of RL Stevenson’s Gothic tale, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Having found success in recreating Universal’s Classic Monster line with adaptations of Frankenstein and Dracula, it would seem logical to turn to another dark tale for inspiration. The mode of choice would fall under scrutiny however by casting English actor Bernard Bresslaw to lead a comic interpretation, called The Ugly Duckling, off the back of their somewhat successful comedy feature, I Only Arsked! Producer Michael Carreras had high hopes for the feature but the box office return would counter his bold prediction with a loss of $20,000.

Their second foray released less than a year later in 1960 would bring Hammer staple Christopher Lee as a supporting role and veteran director Terence Fisher at the helm. The Two Faces of Dr Jekyll would see Paul Massie take on the titular role, experimenting on himself, he turns into his alter ego, Mr. Hyde, a lothario playboy who discovers his friend, Paul (Lee) has been taking advantage of his fortune and stealing the heart of his wife, Kitty (Dawn Addams). Now hellbent on revenge and fury, Jekyll allows Hyde to fuel his energy with a plot to kill Paul.

Despite the combination of Lee and Fisher, the feature failed to ignite the paying public. Lee, who was initially disgruntled at not being offered the lead, actually turns out a decent performance, but surprisingly Fisher’s direction falls flat and fails to connect with screenwriter Cyril Wolf Mankowitz’s vision; Fisher choosing to go with old school formality and adapting the initial intention.

Eagle-eyed viewers however, would spot young up and comer, Oliver Reed as a troublemaker at the Sphynx nightclub.

The choice to alter and cut out certain choices due to time constraints ultimately led to a poor box office return, losing around $30,000. So far, Stevenson’s tale had not proved successful for Hammer and the glow of Hammer Horror was starting to lose its lustre. It would not however deter the British film company from going back to the source material with a third outing released over a decade later in 1971 and starring Hammer’s new flesh and blood leading male, Ralph Bates to take over the mantel from Peter Cushing, mainly due to him taking on the iconic role of Baron Frankenstein. The title of Brian Clemens screenplay, Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde was the stuff of Michael Carreras dreams, leaning heavily into the sex and image that Hammer became synonymous with in the seventies.

With model Martine Beswick as the alter ego to Bates’ Dr Jekyll, the piece was played for laughs but would heighten the terror through the guise of womanhood to hide the bloody male persona lurking beneath the feminine exterior. It’s potentially the boldest of directions taken by Hammer’s revisioning of RL Stevenson’s work, and one that was lost on the audience at the time, failing once again to connect. A shame as it holds up well today and still poses an interesting perspective.

The latest incarnation takes the concept one step further with casting Eddie Izzard as a transgender descendant of Dr Jekyll, and could easily have slipped into worrisome terrain had the creatives decided to take the story in a troublesome direction.

Movie Review: Doctor Jekyll (2024)

Thankfully though, the Hammer Films team play it straight and keep the terror to a slow burn rising of fear and dread, never fully knowing where or when evil may strike next.

It’s still early to say whether this version will leave a mark on the audience, but this new Hammer vision that has been orchestrated by new CEO, John Gore promises to lead the infamous horror production company before a modern audience whilst still keeping the tone and flavour of the films of yester-year.

  • Saul Muerte

Retrospective – The Man Who Could Cheat Death (1959)

11 Saturday Mar 2023

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

To conclude the decade, following a string of successful hits in the horror genre, Hammer Films would produce an oft neglected feature when placed alongside their showpieces, The Curse of Frankenstein, Dracula and The Mummy, possibly as a result of poor distribution in the States. It’s a shame as it bears all the hallmarks of Director Terence Fisher’s classic traits that made such an impression on moviegoing audiences, and stars Christopher Lee as our potential hero and romantic love interest.

The stage is set in Paris at the turn of the century where we meet a doctor named Georges Bonnet (Anton Diffring, who for years I thought was the same guy who played Decker from the A-Team (Lance LeGault) Where Eagles Dare). Bonnet harbours a disturbing secret however, the secret to eternal youth, using a procedure that belies his 104 years of age. The only way that he can maintain this is through a surgical operation on the glands, and needs the assistance of long time accomplice Dr. Ludwig Weiss (Arnold Marle) and the use of human fluid. Not exactly something that is available on tap, and so Bonnet resorts to murder, all in the name of immortality.

When Ludwig’s age becomes a hindrance though, Bonnet must seek alternative means, perhaps in Pierre (Lee) a fellow surgeon with a high degree of promise. Bonnet is also slipping up however when a model Margo (Delphi Lawrence) goes missing in mysterious circumstances, and Janine (Hazel Court – The Curse of Frankenstein) continues to pursue his love interests. How long can Bonnet hide his secret? And will Pierre (who also has an adoration towards Janine in this macabre love triangle) find out the truth and put an end to Bonnet’s evil doings?

Initially based on a play by Barry Lyndon called The Man in Half Moon Street and starred both Diffring and Marle in their respective roles in an anthology tv series, in which an adaptation was scripted by Jimmy Sangster. Hammer would garner the rights to a movie adaptation peppered with their current look and feel through Fisher’s more than capable hands. Initially if Producer Anthony Carreras had his way, another Lee, Cushing vehicle would have been produced but Cushing would have to step aside due to illness, a move that infamously had Carreras fuming and seeking legal action against the high profile actor.

Some may feel that there is more style than substance on show here, which I can see their position but despite this and the dialogue heavy sequences, both Diffring’s performance and the effects when the ageing process starts to take effect, make this a worthy watch.

  • Saul Muerte. 

Retrospective – The Mummy (1959)

24 Friday Feb 2023

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Within the last three years of the 1950s, Hammer Films had reshaped the Universal Classic monsters canon with The Curse of Frankenstein, Dracula and The Revenge of Frankenstein, bringing into full glorious and gory colour for a then, modern audience, With it, Hammer would also unite one of celluloid history’s greatest co-stars in the horror genre in Peter Cushing and Sir Christopher Lee. Before the turn of the decade, the British production house would turn their attention to yet another Universal offering, The Mummy, and keep that winning formula of Cushing, Lee and film director Terence Fisher. Cushing played the dashing hero, and Lee subjected to the ‘monster’ character and hidden behind full make up for the last time with Hammer. It was a tortuous and gruelling affair for its two leads, and would lead Cushing to the hospital following a scene gone awry. Cushing would also become more bold in his acting choices and in cementing his character traits on screen and guiding his director in some of teh action sequences.

The familiar tale of the mummified High Priest Kharis (Lee) resurrected under the power of Mehemet Bey (George Pastell) to seek revenge for disturbing Princess Ananka’s tomb, is given the Hammer treatment. Here Cushing plays the part of John Banning, one of the doomed expedition crew. His father, Stephen (Felix Aylmer) has been driven mad and escorted to the asylum with his prophecies of the forthcoming mummy. Initially scoffed at and ridiculed, the subject takes a dark and sour turn when Stephen is killed by Kharis’ bandaged hands.

Kharis would also be moved by his lost love, Ananka, whose appearance is uncannily similar to John Banning’s wife, (Yvonne Furneaux) and thus brings about our damsel in distress theme.

Jimmy Sangster would once again herald the screenplay writing duties, fusing Universal’s The Mummy; The Mummy’s Tomb; and The Mummy’s Ghost to puff out his take on the story for Hammer. 

Upon its cinematic release, the name Hammer was starting to cause quite a stir among moviegoers, and The Mummy became a big success for the company. It even surpassed its successors in the box office and in some ways is a more solid feature in its narrative, and effects. Despite the climatic ending where Kharis played by go to stuntman Eddie Powell sinking into the depths of the quagmire, the British Film company was rising to new heights. And it was all in the name of horror.

  • Saul Muerte.