X THE UNKNOWN
(1956)
Dir - Leslie Norman/Joseph Losey
Overall: MEH
Production on X the Unknown initially began with American Joseph Losey brought in to direct but after he fell sick, Leslie Norman took over and this remains his only Hammer film. As close as can be possible to the Quatermass series without being an official sequel, (and it was originally intended as such before Nigel Kneale refused them the right to use the actual Quatermass character), X is another sci-fi vehicle where a strange, threatening form threatens to overtake the earth while British military and scientists are the only ones who can stop it. Sadly, the movie lacks any compelling characters whatsoever and is dreadfully slow. By the time the blob-like ooze finally gets on screen, the movie is in its last act and it has become rather tedious watching everyone try to figure out what it is while it kills people off camera. There are a small handful of familiar faces, (Leo McKern and Hammer mainstay Michael Ripper), and a few surprising moments, but it is not one of Jimmy Sangster's most engaging scripts overall. It is instead more or less just mediocre as well as a little dated.
(1959)
Dir - Terence Fisher
Overall: MEH
Certainly lacking in quality over both The Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula, the more simply titled The Mummy was the third Hammer Studios production to resurrect one of Universal's major monster properties. Borrowing heavily from The Mummy's Hand, The Mummy's Tomb, and The Mummy's Ghost and once again pairing Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing against each other with Terence Fisher directing and Jimmy Sangster writing, all of the ingredients are here to make it another win for Hammer even if it comes up quite short. The movie is ripe with plot holes for one. George Pastell's Mehemet Bey has numerous opportunities to kill the people he is out for revenge against and in fact the entire plot of the film could have easily been done away with as his best opportunity is at the very beginning. Also the mummy itself, (an excellent Lee in an eerie and mostly mute performance as Kharis), routinely gets shot up by guns which do absolutely nothing until they stop doing absolutely nothing depending on how the movie decides to end. Both of the flashback sequences drag on too long as well and there is a good number of scenes in general that are not scripted strong enough to merit their inclusion. It is not all together bad with the talent involved, but it is a step down nevertheless.
(1959)
Dir - Terence Fisher
Overall: GOOD
Continuing in his mostly flawless run of Hammer productions, director Terence Fisher helmed the historical drama, (with plenty of traces of horror to boot), The Stranglers of Bombay as a direct follow-up to The Mummy. A fictionalized version of the British East India Company's initial investigations of the Thuggee stranglers in the 1830s, Fisher and screenwriter David Zelag Goodman both keep things moving at a sufficient pace while managing to make said cult rather intimidating. Though it would have cut far too much into the total running time, the only improvement that could have been made would have been to possibly keep them off screen for longer periods of time. Not showing us the plotting of their every move as the cult's full infiltration of both the military and the village plus the way that they maneuver around would have been far more frightening if left to the viewer's imagination. As direct as the presentation is though, it is still plenty successful and some gruesome moments of torture and fitting death scenes both excellently show the studio's at the time bold, groundbreaking strides in the horror medium as a whole. Also, an uncredited but worthy appearance by Roger Delgado, (the original Master on Doctor Who), is as nice an addition as any.
No comments:
Post a Comment