Hammer has risen from the grave

Glad to see it. I was at BlockBuster last night looking through the horror films and couldn't find anything appealing at all. The hook for modern horror films is now special effects and gross out features of pain, torture and mutilation; whereas when I was a kid the horror was in the torture of the soul. Even when they were badly written, the stories revealed a deeper psychological angst than what we are treated to now.

Sometimes I find deep catalog DVD's of old horror flicks at the dollar store, but it would be nice to be able to gather some higher quality repros of those movies that kept me up long after the TV went dark following a Chiller Thriller double feature on WDAZ channel 6, Grand Forks.

I'm not all that opposed to ultraviolence in horror movies -- what I can't stand are a reliance on teenagers and facile morality. I'll be happy if they can free themselves from the legacy of 80s slasher films and bring back gothic storytelling. However, I suspect that the revival of the Hammer brand is driven by the success of relatively British horror films like 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead, and the current global market for Asian horror films.

I have (as an extra on an OOP Something Weird DVD) a Hammer horror short from the early 1930s [!] called "Tom Teriss and the Vampire of Marrakesh." It's great fun for the Hammer fan. Amazing that all the essentials were present that long ago -- gratuitous nudity, a sexy vampire, a stiff-upper-lip British protagonist. It also has fantastic location footage of 1920s Marrakesh that make it an amazing historical document as well. Apparently, "Tom Teriss" was a serial, but I've never seen any other episodes. Oddly, I can't find any mention of this film on IMDB, although there was a British film director named Tom Terriss who shot some films in North Africa.

When I read the title of this post I thought it would be about Tom "the Hammer" Delay.

I'm just glad he didn't mean MC Hammer. That was close!

Dang, meant to hit Preview instead of Post. In the U.S., the rights to old Hammer films are owned by their U.S. distributors, so I don't suppose this will make much difference in terms of availability on this side of the pond.

Mike (#1), don't go to Blockbuster. They're run by a cabal of prudes and bowdlerizers who decide what you should and shouldn't watch. If you want classic horror movies, you'll have to buy them. On the other hand, most old horror movies are dirt cheap on DVD -- less than $10. Most of the old Hammer and AIP films are out on MGM Home Video, often in restored, letterbox editions. Universal has been milking the Frankenstein/Dracula/Wolf Man franchises for all they're worth. Image Entertainment, Blue Underground, Mondo Macabro, et al, have been releasing deluxe versions of classic and cheesy Euro-Gothic (Mario Bava, Paul Naschy, etc.) films for a while now. All of these I've pulled from the shelves of my local midwestern big-box retailer.

And then there's all those "50 Movies for $15" box sets of cheap horror movies. There's most of your creature-feature catalog right there. If you enjoy only 10% of the movies in one of those boxes, it's still cheaper than renting.

There's plenty of things to complain about re. the marketing of horror DVDs, but availability of classic titles isn't one of them. Just stay out of Blockbuster. I started collecting about four years ago, to recreate the late-night local horror show experience, and it's the best hobby I've ever had.

There was a segment about this on the BBC Radio 4 Today show in the UK this morning. You can listen to it at the URL below. It starts about 21 minutes into the RealPlayer file.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_0800_20070511…

Ian

While I think "House of 1000 Corpses" horrible on many levels, "Devil's Rejects" was very entertaining. Of course, my formative years were corrupted by White Zombie.
I have to agree though, I'm growing weary of all the torture/snuff flicks out there. Clive Barker in "The Hellbound Heart" (later made into those seedy Hellraiser movies) set the limit in making a case for human suffering as art/entertainment.

Just because the sequel is coming out tonight, please tell me you all have seen '28 Days Later'!

I dont like horror movies (especially ones that do something stupid with *viruses*), but '28 Days Later' was phenomenal.

I've always wondered the lure of horror films, but now I think it a wish to blind our imagination, for an hour or two, and let soak in what really goes on inside ourselves, and outside ourselves -- violence. Take a microscopic tour inside and outside ourselves and we encounter countless wars! War and violence are the reality. Only through imagination can we break through the animal point-of-view of life and imagine peace and tranquility. Imagination keeps us from facing the horror of life by allowing us to imagine peace and with that imagination we can actually create a bit of real peace where none existed before. So the horror film, maybe just an excuse to scare ourselves into thinking reality isn't so scary after all.

Argh, I just hate this torture porn à la Hostel and Saw. How empty does your life have to be to find excitement in such sick crap?

I have a horror magazine from the mid'90s that said the same thing about Hammer, how they were coming back to appeal to "new young horror fans" because of the "resurgence of horror b/c of the Scream series." So I don't know how much stock to put in this.

As for contemporary horror in general, I thought Saw, Hostel, Wolf Creek, etc. were just okay, but the best horror film of the new century for my money is The Descent.

the best horror film of the new century for my money is The Descent.

Apparently, you missed The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.

Back when I was a kid in the 1970s growing up in NW Minnesota, the local incarnation of the Chiller-Thriller-late-night-movie-of-the-week genre was called "Weirdo Theater" and was broadcast on WDAY out of Fargo, ND. The host character was named Ole Olson and was I believe played by Dewey Bergquist, the WDAY weatherman. The show would begin with him saying, in a very thick and campy scandinavian accent, "Dis is Ole Olson wid a nudder spoooooky moooooovie!"

When I saw "Descent" on the local cineplex's sign, I went looking for the poster... and was horribly disappointed not to see a Pyro-GX or a mining bot. On the second thought, it probably would have been a Uwe Boll film, and the theaters would be full of barf (from motion sickness, not just from watching something by Uwe Boll), so maybe that was a blessing in disguise.

That being said, I don't consider myself a horror fan, but even I can tell the difference between, say, The Exorcist and Saw. Let's hope the style of the former makes a comeback (though I certainly won't be in line at the theater).

I generally do not like horror movies, except for very old ones. However, I make an exception for kyonshi movies. (Does it still qualify as a horror movie if it makes you laugh?)

How come Chinese movies so often get away with stuff I would usually find irritating? Inflating boobs would normally be annoyingly sexist. In Kung Fu Hustle they're hilariously acceptable, as is the violence, something else I usually don't like.

Mike H, I agree. I love when horror films can mess with your expectations on a psychological level, and scare the hell out of you by using sophisticated suspense instead ofrelying on buckloads of gore (the easy way out - the "goddidit" of film making).
The balance of psychological torture and graphic shock is what made The Shining (my favourite film ever), Cape Fear (Scorsese's remake) and The Silence of the Lambs such great films, although the latter two perhaps should be labeled scary thrillers rather than horror flicks.

I;ve been a horror film fan all my life, and I've amassed a pretty sizable collection of classic horror films. I'm not a fan of shock and mutilation films like Saw, but their Grand Guignol appeal to the dulled masses is undeniable.

For me, horror is not so much about grossing out the audience, but about creating a sense of fear and dread through dramtic irony. Put a monster on screen and you'll shcok the audience, but the shock will wear off. Put likable protagonists in peril, and you create horror. George Romero's zombie films are a good example. The flesh-eating zombies are a menace to the four leading characters, but its their interaction with each other that gets the audcience involved, so that we really care when the thrid act holocaust puts them in danger.

'28 Days Later' was phenomenal.

It was, although it's a pity John Wyndham didn't make it into the credits; it owes a lot to 'Day of the Triffids'.

Man--but how can they bring Hammer back without James Bernard?!

I dunno- in the story they were talking about bringing Hammer back because it had good "brand identity". I have found that when the money people are talking that way it's because they are clueless hacks- for them image is the thing, not the content. Time will tell.

I dunno- in the story they were talking about bringing Hammer back because it had good "brand identity". I have found that when the money people are talking that way it's because they are clueless hacks- for them image is the thing, not the content. Time will tell.

Oops sorry 'bout that.

There's plenty of things to complain about re. the marketing of horror DVDs, but availability of classic titles isn't one of them. Just stay out of Blockbuster. I started collecting about four years ago, to recreate the late-night local horror show experience, and it's the best hobby I've ever had.

Posted by: HP | May 11, 2007 09:33 AM

Being a proper fan of The Fisher King I am a self-hating Blockbuster customer. I resisted until all of the single-owner stores disappeared. I usually only go in to help my kids secure rental video games, and run through the aisles while they pick out their shoot-em ups.

Blockbuster is the Wal-Mart of video, and an object lesson in the economics of big box marketing. And, yes, their movie selections are the equivalent of Top 40 radio.

Sassified?

There's plenty of things to complain about re. the marketing of horror DVDs, but availability of classic titles isn't one of them. Just stay out of Blockbuster. I started collecting about four years ago, to recreate the late-night local horror show experience, and it's the best hobby I've ever had.

Posted by: HP | May 11, 2007 09:33 AM

Being a proper fan of The Fisher King I am a self-hating Blockbuster customer. I resisted until all of the single-owner stores disappeared. I usually only go in to help my kids secure rental video games, and run through the aisles while they pick out their shoot-em ups.

Blockbuster is the Wal-Mart of video, and an object lesson in the economics of big box marketing. And, yes, their movie selections are the equivalent of Top 40 radio.

Sassified?

Thanks for the link!

I'm not a big slasher movie fan myself, but I do love those Hammer movies. I hope that it'll be more of the classic stuff, and not just the Same Old Slasher Crap repackaged under the Hammer name.

The last horror-ish movie I bought was The Descent, which I loved enough to watch twice the evening after I brought it home - once for each ending. And I do love my zombies...

Netflix has really stepped up their selection of horror movies. When I first signed up six or seven years ago, they didn't have a lot of the Eurosleaze horror I crave, so I quit and joined another DVD online rental company that did, but it took forever to get the movies. I went back to Netflix after checking out their database again. I have been happy ever since: Bava, Argento, Jodorowsky, Fulci, Franco, Naschy, Hammer, J-horror, it's loverly. Greencine is good as well.

As a longtime Hammer enthusiast I share your pessimism... I can't imagine anybody could recapture that magical brit-horror cocktail of awesome and ridiculous in this day and age. Look what they did with that remake of The Wicker Man (the best Hammer film ever to not actually be a Hammer film). But as a friend of mine is fond of pointing out, terrible remakes usually come with the side benefit of an inexpensive re-release of the original on DVD, so maybe I'll finally be able to score a decent copy of "The Reptile".

Will E.

Mario Bava Lives! I have old VHS copies of Black Sunday and Black Sabbath.

Speaking of Bava--and his penchant for adapting Russian tales...I was always curious about Black Sabbath, where Karloff states that the first segment is based on a story, The Drop of Water, by Chekhov..but I've never been able to track it down (Chekhov wrote a lot of stories).

Any fans out here ever found that story--and is it under a different name. (Great tale of a nurse who steals a ring from the corpse of a woman who died during a seance--and the ghost comes back to haunt her).

House of 1000 corpses sucked monkeys, but the Devil's Rejects was an excellently made movie, with a pretty complex philosophy about revenge and audience complicity/sympathy in the violence they're watching.

You don't need to like him, but writing off Zombie as "a hack" is fairly ignorant. Are you assuming he's the guy who made Hostel? 'Cause he's not.

John Farrell, you probably know how the '60s horror movies played fast & loose with "name" adaptations--Corman's "Haunted Palace" is not based on a Poe story as stated but one by HP Lovecraft; nor is Antonio Margheriti's "Castle of Blood," as was claimed. And Corman also mixed up lots of Poe's stories in his movies... so I'd bet that the Bava short has almost nothing to do with Chekhov, ultimately. "Black Sunday" is very loosely based on a Gogol tale, is it not?

John (#28): It's been a while since I looked into this, but I'm pretty sure that the Karloff wrappers in Black Sabbath were added later by AIP for the American release. I wouldn't bank on the accuracy of the Chekov claim. (After all, AIP's Edgar Allen Poe's The Haunted Castle is based on Lovecraft's Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward.) I saw a recent review of a new Image box set of Bava -- hopefully, it will be on store shelves soon.

Mike (24): Didn't mean to go off on a rant. I get passionate about horror movies. I get most of my movies at Best Buy and Borders, so I'm not opposed to the big box stores. The economics are that classic horror is a "long tail" market, and an inventory item. It sells mostly to collectors. There's little rental market for it, so rental places don't carry it.

I've got to run, but if this thread's still alive when I get back, I'll try to explain my thoughts on the appeal of horror to folks who don't get it.

OMG - As I've said here before, I'm a huge Hammer Fan! If anyone is interested - there are a few Hammer Groups on Yahoo. There are also a good Hammer Film book out there - the one I have is called House of Horror - The Complete Hammer Films Story edited by Allen Eyles, Robert Adkinson, Nicholas Fry.

ISBN 1 871592 40 2

Lots of photos! Lots of...er...mammary glands...

Quite right. If modern goths had gotten their fashion sense from Hammer vampires, they'd all be buxom and blonde.

HP wrote:
And then there's all those "50 Movies for $15" box sets of cheap horror movies. There's most of your creature-feature catalog right there. If you enjoy only 10% of the movies in one of those boxes, it's still cheaper than renting.

That's how I got many of the Hammer Films in my collection. Also via eBay for great prices.

There are a limited amount of them available through Netflix, which has many of the Hammer TV series available also. I found, after watching one DVD of the Hammer TV series, I'd had enough and deleted the TV series from my queue.

"They will contact you when they are ready..."
http://www.hammerfilms.com/

I've seen the Devil's Rejects, but wish I hadn't. A psychopathic clown and his family going on a spree of random torture and murder doesn't represent any "pretty complex philosophy" that I know of.

I was just like to go on record as another James Bernard fan. His scores typically had minimal (that is, low-budget) instrumentation, but he got the maximum out of the resources he had to work with. I think his score for 'Horror of Dracula' is an essential chunk of my own musical vocabulary....SH

Hmm. Oddly I seem to react to horror films in the exact reverse of most people. I think even the old classics are dumb, silly, absurd, pointless and lame. Part of that is that they tended to do the exact opposite of Saw. They place people in the similar situations, with similar conflicts and consequences, then do all the dirty work "off camera". And that is *if* they even rise to the level of a real psychological thriller, instead of just some lame ass idiots running around trying to avoid the guy that went nuts, or the scary monster in bad makeup that plans to eat them, or what ever idiotic nonsense happens to be in the plot as the protagonist. Most of the bad guys are completely unbelievable, the acting absurd, the actual horror so unreal you can't stop my mother laughing her ass off and irritating everyone else in the family while we watch one, etc.

Frankly, despite claims otherwise, I think Saw is slightly better than most of the other blood and guts ones. It doesn't use off camera BS, shadows, etc. to show what the consequence of a choice was, it shows something happen. Some people peg it, because of that, as just the latest in a series of bad movies that use nothing but blood and guts. But its interesting because of the mechanations, the choices the characters make, the traps set for them, the complexity of what is happening. All some people see is the surface, which is blood and guts. And ironically, its precisely the tendency to hide those things in older films that make them fracking lame to me. Its like if you tried to find a good example of using sex and nudity in a movie and chose to use the Emanuel series as an example of it. The series has no *actual* sex, barely more nudity than we see in "normal" movies and acting that makes even things in the horror genre like "Nightmare on Elm Street" and the like look "professional". Hell, the L-Word series on Showtime has more believable stuff in it. But, when a horror movie dares to *show* something, its *bad*, because it did?

I don't know, maybe I somehow missed some golden age of horror films or something, but 99.9% of them I have ever seen have been complete garbage, with pretty much nothing interesting in them other than a screwy mix of what we often call "woo" here, like ghosts, zombies, possession, etc., and I like that someone dared to confront movie viewers with what "could" be a real person doing something believable, with real results, instead of unreal people, doing unreal things, to people that could win Darwin awards while clipping their toe nails, in places where no one seems to notice any of it going on or try to do anything about it.

While I don't laugh my ass off, the way my mother does, most of the time I have better things to do that watch any of it, no matter how "classic".

PZ, there's nothing complex about Hammer. It's all blood, gore and breasts. Paranoiac with Oliver Reed isn't all that bad, though.

And I remember seeing The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh" (aka Dr. Syn, Alias the Scarecrow) when I was little, and how much it frightened me). I probably saw the Disney version, but recently viewed the original Hammer version (called Night Riders) and it was really good. Compared to most Hammer Films.

Of course, what usually hooks people is the Female Vampire stories based on Le Fanu's Carmilla. Hammer recreates it in the Karnstein trilogy with Ingrid Pitt, at Marcalla Karnstein. The first in the trilogy is called The Vampire Lovers and it's a regular naked lesbian vampire fest. All thanks to Hammer.

kagehi sez: I think even the old classics are dumb, silly, absurd, pointless and lame.

That absolutley describes the majority of Hammer films. But sometimes that's fun. For a perfect example, anyone interested should watch The Old Dark House with Tom Poston.

Cast Photo

Scott,
You probably already know this--but a nice chunk of Bernard's work has been re-recorded by the Prague Philharmonic and is on CD. The only rendition of theirs I DON'T like is the main title to Horror of Dracula. They shifted too much from horns to strings, thus, IMHO, undercutting a lot of its power.

For that, you need to go back to the digital remix of the original, which is also available.

HP and Will E--you are quite right. However, to Corman's credit, his adaptation of the Masque of the Red Death, combining it with Poe's tale Hope Frog, was very well done. It remains my favorite of his Poe movies.

Kagehi, I think you're dead on spot, at least when it comes to the old films - they've aged fast, and much of their entertainment value can definitely be classified as camp.

When it comes to what to show on screen, though, I think it's a pretty lame way out to just drench us in buckets of gore - showing everything leaves nothing to the imagination. I think keeping the mystery and suspense is a major part of creating dread. The images that can be conjured by the mind can be far more frightening than anything shown on screen. I think a combination of torturing suspense and jump-out-of-your-seat graphic shocks is the most effective. That's what really good psychological thrillers do.

Oh, and if you want realistic and unnerving films, check out the Austrian thriller "Funny Games" from -97. As a reviewer at Amazon put it, it makes Cape Fear look like Bambi. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Funny-Games-Susanne-Lothar/dp/B000EHQU3U/ref=sr_1…

An American remake* is scheduled for release the 3rd quarter this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_%282007_film%29

*As you probably know, those almost always suck. I don't get it - why won't your filmmakers succeed in converting good, European stuff to an American context? Might be interesting, anyway.

Maybe they could remake Vampire Circus including a naked Lalla Ward.

Hammer just won't be the same without Peter Cushing. He's my favorite actor. I also agree that the "torture porn" crazy is horrible. I love horror movies, but I can't stand the likes of "Saw", "Hostel", and "Wolf Creek".

Speaking of Cushing and Hammer movies...just watched Hammer's take on the Mummy (1969). Lots of fun.

As far as Rob Zombie goes, I always interpreted his horror-themed lyrics as a camp/parody-type thing of the mass-market "horror" genre, and assumed his movies would be made in more or less the same spirit (though I haven't actually seen them).

The balance of psychological torture and graphic shock is what made The Shining (my favourite film ever), Cape Fear (Scorsese's remake) and The Silence of the Lambs such great films, although the latter two perhaps should be labeled scary thrillers rather than horror flicks.

On that note, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who enjoyed Event Horizon (which this description reminds me very much of). In terms of overall impression it reminded me very much of The Lurking Fear (long sequences of elaborate psychological horror punctuated by the discovery of a corpse with its face chewed off, etc.)

ohn Farrell, you probably know how the '60s horror movies played fast & loose with "name" adaptations--Corman's "Haunted Palace" is not based on a Poe story as stated but one by HP Lovecraft; nor is Antonio Margheriti's "Castle of Blood," as was claimed. And Corman also mixed up lots of Poe's stories in his movies... so I'd bet that the Bava short has almost nothing to do with Chekhov, ultimately. "Black Sunday" is very loosely based on a Gogol tale, is it not?

Corollary, and fair warning: ANYTHING THAT CLAIMS TO BE BASED ON LOVECRAFT'S WRITING IS PROBABLY LYING.

For the record, I still maintain that a FAITHFUL adaptation of The Lurking Fear by a director and screenwriter who know what the fuck they're doing would be the best horror film ever. Maybe I'll have to get around to writing a screenplay and seeing who I can interest x.x

Yeah, 'The Shining', '28 Days Later' and 'Silence of the Lambs' are the only horror movies that I actually enjoyed.

It's almost amazing in this day and age that Kubrick never made or optioned,
'The Shining II'.

Come to think of it- 'ET, the sequel' also never appeared. There aren't any big blockbuster movies I can think of from the last ten years that have yet to spawn a sequel.

(Well, I'm still waiting for 'Passion of the Christ II- the return of the Messiah'.)

Actually there is the recent film The Call Of Cthulhu by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society that I think captures most of the aspects I love of old horror movies and is very very true to Lovecrafts story... and it's a black and white silent film!
I have heard their next picture might be The Whisperer in The Dark which is my absolute favourite of Lovecrafts stories.

I would love to see new movies done in the old Hammer style, while they were trashed as being lurid and gory in their day I find them redolent with atmosphere and a dark romance that goes beyond just the heaving bosems and nudity. They always captured for me the feel of the gothic novel tradition much more effectively than most others.

Just wanted to second the motion of jbark #29 - Rob Zombie, whether you care for the movies he makes or not, ain't no hack. I worked directly with him on the new Halloween remake, saw day in and day out how he approaches his work.

He is a brilliant guy, incredibly creative, dedicated to his craft. "Devil's Rejects" certainly isn't for everyone. But it is precisely the film he set out to make. He executed (pardon the pun) his vision just as he wanted it done - and for next to no money. And his "Halloween", while certainly containing numerous "genre" scares and shock moments, also delves into the murky ethical issues of American society's tolerance for violence creating an environment that literally breeds more and more violence.

Now, Uwe Boll is a hack. And there are plenty of others, but for some reason that name springs to mind immediately.

As far as the whole "torture porn" sub-genre thing goes, I think it has a lot to do with people finding a way to "safely" experience one of the deepest fears and horrors humans have: being tortured, or being forced to observe the torture of others (I'll sidestep the obvious political commentary on that one). Oddly enough, young women are becoming a bigger and bigger part of the audience for the "torture porn" films. "Weaker sex" my ass.

To wrap up, Rob Z has true talent, and the potential to become a visionary director. I'm speaking as an eyewitness with years and years of experience in film production.

Also, the "Hammer Resurrection" concept has been trotted out dozens of times over the past 10 years to no avail.
Most likely, this is the old guard trying to stir up interest from mainstream Hollywierd one more time.
Besides, you're right, PZ - they'd most likely screw the whole thing up royally. Though getting Rob Zombie to direct one would be a step in the right direction.

Azkyroth, I haven't seen neither Event Horizon nor The Lurking Fear yet - although the premise looks promising. Oh, and I forgot to mention; the first film in the Alien series is right up there when it comes to creating the tension, although it stays low on graphic shocks (Well, save for the infamous demise of poor, ol' Kane. That one must have hit unexpecting audiences pretty hard back in 1979).

Christian B: Being a general Kubrick fan (2001 and Clockwork Orange being in my top 10 as well), I'm not that surprised there never was a sequel.

First, because Stephen King strongly disliked Kubrick's adaptation of his original novel. He felt Kubrick had strayed way too much from his original vision, and ignored many important themes. Therefore, King made a literalist version as a television mini-series in 1997 - which of course sucked, like most other King adaptations besides Kubrick's film & The Green Mile.

Second, because Kubrick's mind was heading in new directions all the time. He never repeated the same formula twice. After all, we're talking about a director who in his career tried on (an in most cases succeeded) in making epic science fiction, 19th century costume melodramas, war pics, black comedy, horror films, Ben Hur-style epics, modern-day erotic dramas and Orwellian dystopia, just to mention a few.

Oh, and concerning "The Passion of the Christ II" - don't you guys know it's already been made? Peter Griffin found the secret trailer in Mel Gibson's hotel suite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4s_KHgRqB8

--because Stephen King strongly disliked Kubrick's adaptation of his original novel. He felt Kubrick had strayed way too much from his original vision, and ignored many important themes.--

I read The Shining last year; hadn't read it since I was a teenager. Not so good. It's my least favorite of King's '70s novels, and Kubrick did him a huge favor by *not* sticking closely to the source.

Jon: And I thought it was about an early 90s rapper ... Hmm.

DaveX: That makes two of us.

I don't understand the fascination with gore either. I remember going to a birthday party years ago and the host had selected Misery to watch as part of the activities. Everyone thought it was great, except me. And I'm not too squeamish, it just all seemed so pointless.

-> As a former frostbitten North Dakota boy, I'm thrilled to see Mike's and Mosasaurus' reminiscences of "Weirdo Theater."

It was on WDAZ where I lived, it came on at 10:30pm sharp on Saturday nights and I never missed it once. But a correction on Mosasaurus' account: The host's name was "Ole Anderson" rather than Olson, played to the campy hilt by the late WDAZ personality Ken Kennedy. The show would open with a title sequence with a drippy font, some delightfully-cheesy screams, and a guy in basso profundo (complete with a similarly-cheesy reverb,) that went something like this:

"Out of the muggy regions of the dead - Out of the black depths of the mind - Come the fiends, the horrors, and chilling suspense, on WEEEIIRRRRDO THEEEATAAAAH... AH HOO HOO HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAAA!! And now....your HOST for tonight's tale of terror."

It would cut to a well-lit room with a casket, kind of like a funeral home; the casket would open, Kennedy would sit up and immediately rattle off this string of Norwegian. I don't know that language so I don't know if it was an actual sentence or just gibberish, but phonetically it sounded something like "Gasnaganola smoli ahgen yuli ___(something)___ mach shvelda" (or somesuch,) then "Ole Anderson here vid a nudder spooooky moooovie!" Then he'd do a short description/intro about the movie (still in the Norwegian schtick,) then the film itself would start. The whole thing was a great ritual and got the stations some good ratings off of those dusty old movies. It was all the gothic horror classics, and a huge number of the cheesier B-grade Sci-Fi flicks with the gigantic insects (invariably resulting from "atomic radiation.")

I forget what Kennedy wore, but I think it was something like a farmer's outfit with suspenders? I'm hoping somebody at WDAZ might have some footage of a few of those intros and put them on YouTube or something - great stuff, and a precursor to later, more-famous horror hosts like Elvira, etc. If anybody knows about existing "Weirdo Theater" footage, please post it or contact me. I'd kill and die to see that stuff again. 'Guess the logical thing to do would be to contact the station itself.

-> Jerome, it's great to see someone else identifying as "torture porn" the ethically-atrocious crap like "Hostel" and the seemingly-endless "Saw" series. As a major fan of Voltaire's famous quote I defend the right of people to both produce and watch that garbage if that's what they want, but by the same token we retain the right - nay, the obligation - to identify that stuff for the psychotic, misanthropic trash that it is, and to persuade people to boycott it. Aside from its ethical status, torture porn is also a sad confession of intense incompetence at the construction of an engaging plot, a valuable theme, interesting characterization, and any of the other essentials of good storytelling. It's all cheap depravity and in-your-face shock - to conceal a gaping void where talent should be. The sooner that depraved fad disappears from the cultural scene, the better.

The entire horror genre arguably teeters on the brink of anti-humanism by its very nature, but if you're diligent you can find well-written and produced films within it that do have value, with a minimum of humanity-hate.

The old classics of course are like catnip for me, partly because they're so cheesy and partly because virtually any film from Hollywood's golden age is a joy to watch ("A better, vanished time," as Professor Peart would say.)

There are some good ones in the contemporary era too. Along with classic horror, I divide scare films into different sub-categories, like Asian horror, serious horror and comic horror.

An excellent Asian film is "Spider Forest," an extremely complex, mind-bending thing that took two or three viewings (at least for me,) to figure out what the hell was going on. Once I did, I was stunned at the brilliant circularity of it (a bit like the story in Pink Floyd's "The Wall,") and the subtle metaphor at its core: "Spider Forest" is the protagonist's subconscious.

Another, also Korean and a little difficult to find, is "Memento Mori," the second in the otherwise-lackluster "Schoolgirl trilogy," along with the first, "Whispering Corridors," and the third, "Wishing Stairs." MM is more of a meditation on the relationships and cruelties of high school than horror, but very moving emotionally and has a truly excellent, piano-based soundtrack. The DVD version I found has the full audio soundtrack as one of the extra features.

"Koma" is more like suspense than horror but is an excellent Hitchcock-type thing from the Pang Brothers of Hong Kong. 'Gotta see that one again soon.

Another Pang flick, the Hong Kong original of "The Eye," had a great story too. I haven't seen the American remake, but I assume it'll be watered-down and lame. "The Eye II" was mostly worthless, unfortunately.

For "serious horror," I was pleasantly surprised by both "Underworld" and "Underworld: Evolution." I skipped the first one's theatrical release on the assumption that it was "Van Helsing"-type junk. When I watched it on cable I was amazed at its intelligently-written and logically-plausible story, its excellent production values and characterization. And it's got Kate Beckinsale in spandex. 8^D I was first in line when "Evolution" hit the big screen, and 'can't wait for them to release the third (there's clearly a lead-in to a second sequel at the end of "Evolution.")

Ordinarily zombie movies bore me to tears - like if you've seen one horde of lurching undead clawing their way through a boarded-up window to dine on somebody's arm, you've seen a million. That was right up until I saw "28 Days Later." Wow - excellent flick! It was a fresh new take on the zombie thing that worked because it focused mostly on the reaction to the zombification rather than on the zombies themselves (which are generally boring.) The soundtrack had a great rock groove too, 'loved that.

Just last week I rented "30 Days of Night." This too is a new take on an old standard, in this case vampires. I didn't care for the excessive gore (I like films that know how to leave in only what's necessary and how to omit what isn't,) but I'm an absolute sucker for serious winter as a setting for horror, and the vampires themselves were absolutely horrific. No dapper gent here, trying to scam a little necking in the upstairs bedroom of the mansion. These are totally vicious, evil land-sharks, single-minded in their lust for blood. Very, very shocking.

Though it looks a little dated now I still think John Carpenter's "Prince of Darkness" is one of the scariest things I've ever seen. I saw that in the theater on its opening weekend - there's a scene toward the end that made everybody in the theater shout out loud, just scared the hell out of everybody. I rented the DVD something like 12 years after that, forgot all about that scene, and about had a heart attack when it came up... *And* it's got Alice Cooper in it, as the leader of the homeless army!

"Mothman Prophecies" is a more recent one that has a supremely creepy vibe all the way through. Whenever I watch that one it haunts me for days afterward.

I think ghost stories are my favorite serious scare movie, and the two at the top of that heap are "The Others" and "The Sixth Sense." Masterful employment of the "twist" at the end - both of them just cold-clocked me from right out of left field. Or maybe I'm just dense.

Another serious film I liked is "Darkness," starring my fave actress Lena Olin and Anna Paquin. Like "The Others" it's also set in Spain, oddly enough, and though it's more low-key, it has a story that doesn't take its audience for fools, and even though I watched it on a sunny weekend morning it still gave me the willies.

"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" was a really well-done big-budget remake with a bodacious cast - Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham-Carter(YUM!), John Cleese, Ian Holm, Aidan Quinn... The odd thing is that the most horrifying thing in the film for me was not the monster, but rather that scene where that raging mob hangs that woman. Cleese did his part so well it took several scenes with him in them before I recognized him. He's come a long, long way from Basil Fawlty. Excellent work all around (though I will always be philosophically disgusted with Shelley's core theme.)

Just last night I saw a film called "The Wood" on cable. I'm admittedly a sucker for films about boarding schools, but this one had an interesting story, great acting and a genuinely creepy feel. It's also got Bruce Campbell in it, which means it's a must-see. That brings me to:

Comedy-Horror, my favorite horror sub-genre. The absolute master at this is John Landis, and his films "American Werewolf in London" and "Innocent Blood" are instant classics IMO. "American Werewolf in Paris" was a knock-off directed by somebody else and a far lesser film, but the scene at the beginning where they bungee-jump off the Eiffel Tower is worth it in itself. I laughed until my face hurt the first time I saw that.

All three of the "Evil Dead" films are hilarious, especially the "Army of Darkness."

Then there're "Fright Night"(I and II,) "House II: The Second Story," "The Frighteners" with Michael J. Fox, and the cult classic "Killer Klowns from Outer Space," which should win awards for the makeup alone.

Likely more I'm forgetting, but this is a huge post already. D'OH!

UFO, that's very interesting. I'm going to add a couple of those to my list... even though scary movies usually scare me too much. I'm a wimp! (Prime example: despite the ludicrous premise, "The Ring" scared the living bejeezes out of me!)

A couple of comments on films I've seen:

"The Others" - yes. Loved it. It also showed me that Ms. Kidman could carry a film.

"Killer Klowns" - LOL! To be viewed on the silver screen if possible. No TV can do it justice. IMO.

Questions:

1. Have you seen Takashi Miike's "Audition"?

2. Who wins a knock-down-drag-out: Kate Beckinsale's Selene, of SMG's Buffy?

(correction: selen OR buffy... duh)

Hiya Ksenya - Oh, Kate Beckinsale in a heartbeat. For whatever reason she's ten times sexier than Gellar. Maybe just because she seems a little more mature but doesn't look it, also far more curvy where it counts. In any case I could never get past Gellar's chin dimple, blondes have fallen out of favor with me over the last several years, and she's one of those women (I think everyone's experienced this,) who reminds me of my sister. Instant disqualifier. But everyone's tastes are unique to them.

"Audition," isn't that the one where that girl would drug people, then tie them up and saw off their feet with stranded wire? I'm not sure if that's the one, but if it is I have to say it's a movie I wish I'd never seen - more torture porn. I don't rent that stuff knowingly.

"Ring" was kinda spoiled for me because I kept seeing bits and pieces of it on cable before I actually rented it and watched it from beginning to end. A good one though.

The other major J-Horror flick is "Ju-On/The Grudge" by Shimizu. I liked the original Japanese one far better than the American version - even though Shimizu did them in rapid succession with the same sets and most of the same cast. Speaking of Gellar, I think she was horribly miscast for the part in "Grudge" - or maybe the whole idea of a cast of gaijins plopped into the middle of Tokyo was insurmountably jarring to work with any cast. At any rate, I liked the way the original divided the film into segments focusing on different characters. But the climactic scenes with the herky-jerky blue woman crawling down the stairs was a little too overdone to be effective, and the whole thing (both versions) came across too flatly to be serious squirm-in-your-seat fright fests.

A couple more I forgot in the previous: I liked "Wolf" with Nicholson and Pfeiffer lots, even though it's a little too "Hollywood" and therefore lacks the atmosphere the classics had.

"The Howling," which also seems a little dated now, nevertheless has what's got to be the most well-done and terrifying werewolf sequences in any film I've seen. Ground-breaking makeup and FX in that one.

One of the most memorable films I remember seeing on Weirdo Theater was "The Evil of Frankenstein," which was made in 1964. It was directed by Freddie Francis and starred Peter Cushing as Baron Frankenstein. Purists don't like it - and on a recent re-viewing it does seem a little pointless - but I remember being deeply creeped-out by that one. I think I was about 10 yrs. old at the time, and I didn't dare go to bed afterward so I made the babysitter stay up and talk to me. Something shocking about the image of that huge monster murdering the Burgomeister and his wife, then walking down the road back to the castle, slowly and ominously, with the Burgomeister's gold candlesticks clutched to his chest. Brrr!