HUSH…HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE (1964)
Article #1190 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-17-2004
Posting Date: 11-14-2004
Directed by Robert Aldrich
Featuring Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, Joseph Cotten

Decades after a brutal axe murder was committed, the woman commonly believed to be guilty of the murder (the case was never solved) calls in her cousin to help prevent the demolition of the southern manor of her father. She then starts to have horrific visions tied to the old murder.

I’m tempted to describe this movie as overlong, since it runs two hours and thirteen minutes. However, I have to admit that it holds my attention throughout. The story itself is quite complex; and there are many questions to ask along the way; who killed John Mayhew? Is Charlotte actually going crazy, or is someone trying to drive her insane, and if so, who? Who sends the nasty letters to Charlotte? This follow-up to WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? was supposed to reunite Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, but Crawford ended up being replaced by Olivia de Havilland, much to Davis’ delight at not having to work with her old rival. Davis does a fine job in a role that is somewhat similar to her role in BABY JANE, but the similarities are really only on the surface. De Havilland also does fine work, as do Joseph Cotten, Victor Buono, Cecil Kellaway, Mary Astor, Bruce Dern and William Campbell. However, they’re all upstaged by the hilarious and truly memorable performance given by Agnes Moorehead; as Charlotte’s sassy, sarcastic maid, she steals every scene she’s in with an almost wicked glee. The opening murder, by the way, may be one of the most graphic depicted in a major Hollywood movie up to that point.

HOUSE OF USHER (1960)
(a.k.a. THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER)
Article #1189 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-16-2004
Posting Date: 11-13-2004
Directed by Roger Corman
Featuring Vincent Price, Mark Damon, Myrna Fahey

Philip Winthrop arrives at the home of Roderick Usher to talk with Usher’s sister to whom he is engaged. He discovers that Roderick wishes to keep his sister from leaving the home as they live under a curse of hereditary madness.

After having watched one movie about necrophilia and another about cannibalism, it’s a bit of a relief to watch something a little less controversial (though it does have a subtext of incest in it). I’ve been a little bit hard on Corman’s Poe movies up to this point, but that’s because they largely came across to me as attempts to recycle this movie. As this was the movie that set the mold, however, it feels much more of an organic whole. It’s somewhat faithful to the source story; its primary change is to make the visitor a fiance of Madeline Usher rather than an old friend of Roderick’s. This was a wise move, in that it gives rise to a number of new conflicts that help to keep the movie interesting until the big finish; as written, the story doesn’t really lend itself to expansion to a full-length movie. Vincent Price is somewhat restrained here, and this is due to the role itself; as Roderick Usher’s supersensitive hearing requires him to keep his voice in a somewhat hushed tone throughout. Price is wonderful here, but the rest of the cast also performs well. The use of sound is very effective; the creaking, crumbling house makes its presence known consistently, and hearing these noises is more unnerving than the more obvious horrors that pop up on occasion (coffins falling over and skeletons falling out). It was a gamble for Roger Corman, but it paid off beautifully, and remains one of Corman’s best Poe movies, even if the 1928 French version of the story remains my favorite adaptation of this work.

HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM (1959)
Article #1187 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-14-2004
Posting Date: 11-11-2004
Directed by Arthur Crabtree
Featuring Michael Gough, June Cunningham, Graham Curnow

A series of gruesome murders baffles Scotland Yard while a writer makes a big profit from his coverage of the murders.

I remember having seen this one on my local Creature Feature as a kid, and whatever flaws I may perceive in it nowadays, I would be selling the movie short if I didn’t recognize that three of the murder scenes had a tremendous impact. The night I first watched it, I checked very carefully above my bed before I laid my head down on the pillow, and to this day I always look through binoculars from a safe distance before I put them up to my eyes; fortunately, I’ve never run into anyone carrrying ice tongs. Nonetheless, I do have problems with the movie. It’s crudely obvious at times when I think it would benefit from subtlety, I think Michael Gough’s performance would have been more effective if he had underplayed more, and at times I find myself appalled at the stupidity of some of the characters; just as an example, if you’re going to blackmail someone you believe to be a murderer, you should do so at a time when you haven’t just handed your intended blackmail victim a potentially lethal murder weapon. Still, I did find myself musing on the presence of some of the themes that are common to the works of Herman Cohen; the presence of a younger male who is under the control of an older (and quite misogynistic) authority figure is very prominent here. I also found it quite interesting that Cohen managed to adapt that theme to many of the classic movie monsters; werewolves, (I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF), the Frankenstein monster (I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN), vampires (BLOOD OF DRACULA), King Kong (KONGA), and here, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It certainly makes his entire oeuvre more interesting as a whole.

THE HORRIBLE DR. HICHCOCK (1962)
(a.k.a. L’ORRIBILE SEGRETO DEL DR. HICHCOCK)
Article #1185 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-12-2004
Posting Date: 11-9-2004
Directed by Riccardo Freda
Featuring Robert Flemyng, Barbara Steele, Harriet Medin

A necrophiliac doctor’s first wife dies from an overdose of an anasthetic that the doctor used on her to simulate death. 12 years later, the doctor returns to his ancestral home with a new wife. However, strange things are happening…

How horrible is he? There’s certainly no doubt that the doctor’s main fetish being necrophilia adds a truly perverse and unsettling touch to the proceedings. Oddly enough, the theme of necrophilia isn’t really used as mere exploitation. It’s not only essential to the plot (in particular as it plays a part in the death of the first wife), but it’s also the factor that gives Dr. Hichcock a more complex character than he might otherwise have. Without that element, this movie would largely be just another example of the standard Italian horror plot; newly married wife returns home with new husband and is terrorized for the length of the movie. As it is, I find this movie a lot more interesting than NIGHTMARE CASTLE, for example.