Tubi Thursday: Castle of Bloody Lust/Castle of the Creeping Flesh (1968)

 I've spoken before about how the most salacious Titles can lead to the most disappointing of Films.

Is this one of them?

Let's find out...

A group of rich folks are hanging out, drinking and just generally being unpleasant.

A pair of them decide to leave the party (and the woman's fiancée- who is chasing other women TBF) and ride off on horseback.

Sure- why not?!?

They go with some others and drink at, well, a different place.

One of them wanders off abruptly and the group splits up.

They all end up at a Castle which the Host (the guy above) said not to go to.
They just do it anyhow.

What is all of this have to do with the random shots we're getting off people seemingly doing surgery for hours on end?

Does it just add gore to the Film?

Yes.

They are greeted by German Nick Offerman (the Butler/whatever) and the Duke (Howard Vernon).

He's all sorts of weird, especially when their blond friend shows up.
He thinks he looks like his dead Daughter.

First on the tour, a display (with sounds?) of 3 guys abusing this lady.  Fun?

This one just kind of muddles on and on.

At one point, the guy below is attacked by a (man in a) bear (costume).

Another one of the group wanders around the Basement for a ludicrous amount of time.

It all ends with Vernon bringing his Daughter back (apparently) and then accidentally killing her again (and then the guy).

Cool.

Also what?  How?  Why? When?

Is this...is this a Parody?  Satire?

The Film is just all kinds of weird and I kind of wonder how much of this was done in post-Production for the most recent release.

The Film has a new(ish) release with digital credits.  Did they add in the cheesy Soap Opera music?
Maybe...but maybe not.

I like Gothic Films.  I like 'dreamlike' Films.

This kind of gives them both a bad name.

It is just confusing, meandering and full of accidentally silly bits.

If you're here because of the salacious Title, there is very random nudity, but not much blood.

It is just so beguiling in all of the wrong ways and boring in other ways that it almost makes you yearn for death.  Oh, there he is!

A Film that I think really meant something to at least one of the THREE Writers (including Jesus Franco).  Whatever that was, however, was lost somewhere in the mail.

'70s Trash: Jack the Ripper (1976)

 Klaus Kinski as a crazed killer- what a shock.  Today's Film is Jack the Ripper, a 1976 Film by Jesus Franco.  The obvious hook here is Klaus as the killer.  It's no SPOILER- the Film shows him right away!  Let me ask the obvious question- did we need this Movie?  Even in 1976, there were alot of them.  Saucy Jack was all over TV and Films in the previous Years.  Can this one bring anything new?  Well, it is before Time Travel became a key Plot Point, so...we'll see.  To see if we needed another one, read on...

In jolly Old London, a killer named 'Jack' (Kinski) is on the loose!  The only living witness is a blind man, so he's good, right?

This shot is so good that it is on my DVD's Cover, apparently.

In a nice little twist, the killer has a helper.  

Unfortunately, they drag the body past a rare plant, setting up a Plot Point for later.

Jack is actually Dr. Orloff and he treats some patients.  If you think that this guy being a Patient and later having him talk to the Police about Suspects is important, you're right.

Do you write Screenplays?

One of the Detectives working the case has his own Subplot...

His Girlfriend is a Dancer and there's conflict over him being overly-protective. of her.  He's also a bit controlling, but trying to work on it.

Will this come into play later?

Kinski's Doctor/Jack is conflicted due to this past.  He's also a bit crazy.

So here's the thing: the Film was shot without sound, making the dubbing for distribution later quite easy.

I mention this because the English Dubbing literally explains his problem.  F@#k subtext!

A key piece of evidence- circumstantial as it is- involves the blind man recognizing a rare plant smell on the Doctor.

Will this be the key to finding Kinski?

The girlfriend/dancer goes undercover as a Burlesque Dancer to lure out 'Jack' and it works.

Less effective- the lighting on this DVD Transfer.

Kinski finally snaps and tries to kill the woman, but the Police arrive to stop him.

He hides from them...

...and then comes out like nothing happened.

They say that he's under arrest, but sarcastically wishes them good luck in proving it.  The Film just kind of stops there, so...um, the End.

A pretty nothing Film, even if it tries to do something.  The whole idea here is to focus less on the mystery and more on the man.  Kinski is good here, even if his performance is hampered by the fact that he's 100% dubbed.  It's hard to say how good he is when a good half of his performance was done by someone else, no?  His motivations aren't that interesting.  His Mom was a Prostitute and he hated her, so...he became a Doctor that killed them?  Nothing all that exciting or unique, no?  The other aspect involving the woman going undercover is alright, but is not a big hook here either.  Considering that she doesn't actually stop him is what kills it for me.  She just becomes another victim- who does survive, at least- so what does it gain us?  All of the peripheral ideas- like this and the blind guy helper- don't add up to enough to make this Jack the Ripper Film feel fresh or unique.  Just make him an Alien already or count me out!  Another quick note- make your fake blood look less like primer too...

Next time, a famous French Film finally gets its due.  If you're so Lost, maybe don't live in the middle of the Sea.  Stay tuned...

Jesus Jones: Marquis De Sade's Justine

 A Film that is not as freaky as you would think, given those involved.  This is Marquis De Sade's Justine, the 1968 Version to be exact.  The Story is, of course, written by the crazy French 'Nobleman' and tells the tale of a young girl (12 in the Story, but aged up a bit in modern Versions) who experiences lots of turmoil at the cost of her purity.  Shockingly, a guy like him is *not* in favor of it.  This oft-adapted tale comes to us from Jesus Franco, which should tell you alot.  Franco used to do Films that were 'salacious' and controversial.  Translation: many of Films are almost just Porn.  By the end, it was a really tenuous line.  So now here's the thing: this is also Franco's biggest budget Film.  As such, he had to make concessions for his financiers and Producers.  So the Film is not nearly as salacious as you might think, especially compared to the original story.  Basically, Justine goes somewhere, gets raped many times, escapes and goes somewhere else.  In this one, they tweak that just a bit.  So you're left with a Film that wants to look like a Merchant Ivory Production, but also is based on infamous sleaze.  Confusing?  Yes.  I should also note that the reason I picked this is because Justine is a Character in Season 3 of Penny Dreadful, so why not combine my Series and Film watching?!?  To find out how weird this one can be, read on...

So as a Framing Device, we have Klaus Kinski as the Marquis De Sade.

We see him experiencing hallucinations of topless women and the like.
He narrates the Tale...kind of...I guess, while Writing it.

So...follow me here...

Franco was Spanish.  De Sade was French.  The Film was shot in Italy and West Germany (the good side).  Kinski was Polish/German.

My copy was all dubbed into English.

Justine and Juliette are Sisters who are kicked out of a Monastery when they lose both Parents (one to death and one fleeing the Country).

Justine chooses the 'pure' route and gives her money to a Priest (who keeps it).
She has to work for this guy, who looks like he's getting ready to scare Ebenezer Scrooge tonight.

Juliette takes the opposite path, joining a Brothel and finding some Sapphic satisfaction along the way.

Justine's time is not so fun, as she gets framed for a crime, sent to Prison and then broken out with a gang of thugs.

The men all want to rape her, which turns into a fight amongst themselves.  Hilarity?

Juliette conspires with her 'co-worker' and they kill their Madame.

According to reports, Franco actually wanted this Actress (on the left) to play Justine, but his financiers picked the other Actress instead.

Justine's time is a mix of surprisingly-good, bad and VERY bad.

Living with a Painter- good.

Running from the Law- bad.
Finding a home...only to have your Mistress killed and you branded as the killer- very bad.

Juliette completes her Arc by killing her cohort and vanishing from the Story...until the end.

Justine escapes from one danger and finds a Monastery.  Unfortunately, they are a Monastery of Libertines and live only to sexually-punish others.

Oscar Winner Jack Palance, folks.

In the End, Justine escapes from their attempt to ritually-kill her, only to be back in the way of a Mob.

Juliette Ex Machinas her way in as a Noble Woman- marrying a rich fella- and saves Justine to live with the Painter.  Oh and DeSade dies...or something.

In the original story, she's morose and struck by lightning.  Ha?

A long, expensive-looking trek with a dubious message.  So, in case it wasn't clear, the original Story is not 'pro-purity.'  De Sade was a bad guy- to say the least.  He wanted to make the point that the 'pure' route was going to lead to nothing but pain.  The Film basically pushes that message...but then says that it *isn't* the message when it wraps up.  I guess Justine managed to never be forced into sex, but she was definitely beaten and tortured.  That was just her 'being tested' or something, I guess.  Juliette is involved in all sorts of murder and gets to live a happy life.  Interesting moral, no?  If you want to keep the same moral for a Story like this, just commit to it.  This is not the kind of tale that was designed to really win people over, was it?  Getting past all that, the Film looks good.  The Acting ranges from decent to about average.  I was watching it dubbed, so it is possible that some subtlety is lost.  I do have questions about that, given that Jack Palance, you know, spoke English.  Was he dubbed or was that actually him?  If so, he was acting so broadly that you could stretch him across 5 States!  If you're looking for the Film to be weird and perverse, you get close, but not quite there.  If you're looking for the Film to try and be classy, you're looking in entirely the wrong place.  I mean, this is the same Film who can't even spell Klaus Kinski's name right in the Credits!

Next up, more randomness from my pile of 'get done in 2020' pile (which keeps growing).  What will I cover next?  Stay tuned...

Al's Birthday Review: Vampir-Cuadecuc

It's Al's birthday again, and you know what that means - time for me to review a film of his choosing. Normally, this is an occasion that inspires regret (generally at allowing Al to survive another year and once again being forced to watch dreck as my reward).

This year, it's...more just confusion?

I understand Cuadecuc means "worm's tail," but also means the leftover film at the end of a roll. Symbolism!

Vampir-Cuadecuc has to be the oddest thing Al's ever had me watch. I'm not really sure how to describe it. It's...kind of part parody, part documentary, part tribute, and part, I don't know, CliffsNotes?

Anybody else see Sean Connery as Ramirez from Highlander here?

My understanding is that this was filmed during the filming of Jesus Franco's 1970 Count Dracula, and constructed from alternate angles and background shots, alongside some film of the actors, actresses, and film crew preparing for and working out shots...and sometimes goofing off after takes. Using that footage, Vampir-Cuadecuc tries to tell an abridged form of the Dracula tale, while also, I guess, showing the making of the Count Dracula film...

...all without dialogue.

Or a soundtrack, really. Unless you count thuds, incongruous airplane noises and jackhammers, and musical cues interrupted to sound like thuds. Oh, and repeated simulated thunder.

It's hard to really think of how exactly to review something like this. It's clearly on the experimental side of film making, and it's not like I can review the plot or anything. The direction, such as it is, and camerawork, such as it is, is either deliberately strange or just reused footage shot for another movie. The things I'd normally focus on - plot construction, quality of production, acting skill, direction...those things kind of go by the wayside or just don't much matter to something like this.

So there's no point in discussing the plot, such as it is...other than to say, it kind of astonished me how easily I got the gist of what was going on without any of the usual tools to help me. I suppose, however, that might be because I'm pretty familiar with the tale of Dracula overall...it's not all that hard to recognize at least the major story beats. It's still interesting at least to see a tale communicated in a very different fashion, but I wonder if this technique would work with a tale less familiar, or with someone who wasn't as familiar with the concepts and general flow of the story of Dracula. Would the story disappear, or would it still be drawn out by pictures alone? That's a question I can't answer.

Oh, Dracula, you scamp.

Otherwise...well, it just feels so odd to be watching a film this way, though - to see behind the curtain while ostensibly watching a film itself is strange. The things you'd normally expect to show up as bloopers - film crew appearing in a mirror, cameras showing up in the middle of a shot, actors laughing or smiling during serious scenes - all of those things show up here on purpose. It's like Deadpool's version of Dracula, at least if someone gagged him so he couldn't narrate over it.

I don't quite get the point of it. Is it supposed to be a documentary? Is it a unique film of its own? Is it some kind of commentary on, I don't know, us being enthralled as viewers by horror and vampires and the like? Are we supposed to see the film crew as characters in the film? Are they inactive observers, people who won't act while tragedy strikes before their eyes? Or perhaps some kind of unseen spirits, watching over the people of the story and providing aid to ultimately resolve it, represented by their work with makeup and effects?

Am I reading too deeply into this?

Maybe...it's just an odd look behind the scenes of the making of a Dracula film, one that attempts to place the work on various scenes in context and show a glimpse of just how a film was made while providing a look at the results of the hard work and preparation of the film crew and cast. I suppose you could look at it as an early version of a commentary track - a way of providing a look at the process of making a film while showing at least a version of the film itself.

I honestly found it quite fascinating. Confusing, but fascinating. I don't know that I'd say I enjoyed it, but it was certainly interesting to see behind the curtain here, and get a sense for how a film might come together. I just...don't quite understand why it had to be shown in this way, that's all.

Why was there no dialogue? Would it be more confusing with the dialogue skipping around? But then...why were some of the strange things chosen for the soundtrack? Why were there airplane noises as I watched a horse-drawn carriage? Why were there jackhammer noises as Dracula walked down the street? Other sound choices were clearer - a thudding sound during the staking of a vampire, for instance, made perfect sense as representation of a hammer. The later repeated plays of a loop of music, ending in a sudden cut, were really really annoying, but also understandable as a different way of representing the hammer blows in another staking scene. But the airplane and jackhammer elude me. Maybe the airplane is because that's where the story moves back to England? Is that it? But really...couldn't we just give this whole thing a nice set of piano pieces or something and call that a day? The various sounds chosen are unsettling, sure, but they quickly get more annoying than anything else.

The choice to use high contrast is much more of a mixed bag. In some shots, it makes it darn near impossible to tell what's going on at all, but in others...in others, it's absolutely wonderful. There's one shot in the middle of the film in particular that I'll show below, where...I believe it was Mina...finds Dracula draining her friend of blood and her eyes go wide in astonishment and fear. 

The starkness of the contrast really draws your eyes in to her face and her widened eyes. It made me think of bits in Dusk Maiden of Amnesia, and how that show used color, light, and shadow to great effect to drive home the mood. 

...that's probably the first time someone has referenced an anime in talking about this film.

In any case...it can be a very effective technique at points. At other times...well, I suppose overall it does add to the film's kind of unsettling mood, along with the weird sound effects. For me, the contrast, like the sounds, went a bit far at times and took things from unsettling to irritating, but less so in cast of the contrast. It's just that there are points where the contrast is used for a clear reason and to great effect, and there are points where it kind of seems a bit pointless, just there to be different.

I'm not sure I should be commenting on the acting in something like this, really, but what's there is honestly great. Christopher Lee, especially, is amazing as Dracula, for what I can understand of his performance here. Even in a film this odd his intimidating persona comes through just fine. Everyone else puts in a good show as well. Never having seen Jesus Franco's Count Dracula, I find I'd rather like to watch it now (though several critic reviews I've been looking at appear to be somewhat warning me away).

So...it's an odd watch, but not a bad one. It helps that it only runs for about an hour and ten minutes - I'm not sure I would've liked sitting through a full feature-length version of this, but it's not a bad way to spend an hour. Confusing as all heck, but not a bad way.

It does end in astonishingly odd fashion, though. In what I suppose is the film's ultimate peek behind the scenes, it suddenly entirely abandons its lack of dialogue and indeed its entire setting and instead shows Christopher Lee as Christopher Lee, sitting in a chair with Dracula - the book, not the vampire. Lee, in blessed actual audio, explains - after one false start - the lead-up in the book to the end of Dracula, and then reads the account of the death of Dracula from the book, as only Christopher Lee can. It's really cool to hear the best Dracula reading Dracula, and it feels like Lee has a lot of passion for the story - despite his distaste for eternally reprising the character for Hammer Films' version.

It is, however, somewhat mystifying to see this film ending that way. Did they not get to shoot extra footage of the death of Dracula from Count Dracula? It's just kind of odd...in a way it's a look even further behind the scenes, but in a way, we're robbed of seeing the preparation and filming of the final scene of the film. I think it's kind of a shame...but then again, I did get to hear Christopher Lee read Dracula, and that's all kinds of awesome.

We also get to see him taking out his Dracula lenses, while Harker and Morris watch in a theater. Somehow...he looks awesome even then.

Overall...I'm not sure what to think, or how to describe how I feel having watched Vampir-Cuadecuc. It has to be one of the most unusual experiences I've had watching a film, but it was still interesting, more so than a lot of other films I've watched (especially for Al's birthday). It was at times strange, at times interesting, at times disquieting, but it always felt genuine. 

I could appreciate it for much the same reason that I appreciate documentaries, or blooper reels, or director commentaries - it's always interesting to see what goes in to making a film, the hard work and preparation and the real people who play some of our favorite fictional characters. So...I'm not sure I understood exactly what was going on here, really, or any statement it was trying to make. And I'm not sure I can really recommend this. At the same time...I'm glad I watched it. It was a new sort of experience, and not one I expect to see replicated in my viewing anytime soon.

This is the face of a guy who knows he's the coolest dude in the universe, and knows you know that too.

Portabella might've made it, but at least it wasn't shiitake.