Search this Topic:
Mar 23 17 4:00 PM
Kelg wrote:When I
watch some non horror Uk film from the 1960s,a Peter Sellers comedy or
whatever, the cinematography is much more expensive looking than even
the best Hammer film of the same time. But Scars and Horror of F look
really cheap--I think it has more to do with the lighting they used than
the sets themselves.
They are lit like a tv series, not a movie.
Countess Dracula and other 1971 movies didnt look so cheap with the interiors.
Mar 23 17 5:10 PM
Countess Dracula lucked out and got to film on the sets for Anne of a Thousand Days, which made it look a lot more lavish.
Mar 23 17 6:06 PM
Mar 23 17 7:15 PM
Mar 23 17 7:26 PM
Mar 24 17 5:31 AM
Mar 24 17 2:13 PM
Mar 24 17 4:36 PM
Kelg wrote:LOL I imagined that asbestos mask in Plague of the Zombies to be a very moldy zombie.
The head zombie in that was one of the scariest Hammer images (they say hammer films were never really scary most of the time, but that image with the contact lenses and standing by the mill was quite effective).
Apr 6 17 12:40 PM
Apr 15 17 1:36 AM
cannon1 wrote:Yes, I remember being a little surprised by Roy Ward Baker's comments on the commentary track regarding the quality of Scars effects and sets, in light of some of the problematic ones. Minatures had problems mainly relating to the depiction of fire and water...and the burning castle minature was a problem...it just screamed 'I'm a Minature!', to me. I think the quickie (appearing) paintings mixed with real footage didn't integrate well at the opening...and I really don't think the era is an excuse for unconvincing matte /minature work. I personally didn't find the shot out the window with the castle embattlements below convincing either. It just looked fake, which it shouldn't. The old Universal models, though in B/W, look better...though I'm sure they had more of a budget. The Dracula Risen Matte painting of the castle looked OK I thought. I don't understand why somebody was never sent out to grab a real castle shot. Jess Franco's Dracula was on a total shoe string..but that real castle was damn eerie IMO. But after all this, I do like the desolate look of that castle shot at the very opening,with the EMI/Hammer credit...and overall I like Scars alot. I expect Horror of Frankenstein was the biggest problem with the Scars/HOF package Hammer tried to sell Warner Bros. for distribution, since the stellar Frankenstein MBD had failed the previous year. So instead the package was released by a very small company in the US and did virtually nothing. I always wonder about that 70-71 period...Hammer had so many solid little films made for very little...yet they failed, causing Hammer to fail...nodody wants to finance 'loser' films.
Apr 16 17 10:00 AM
Jameselliot wrote: I agree...how much would it have cost to send a 2nd unit camera crew to Europe and shoot actual castle exteriors for some real production value? When I first saw Scars, a Lee Drac I like, on the big screen, the castle looked awful and uber-fake. The Italians always rented real castles for their films and the effect was impressive.
Apr 16 17 5:50 PM
Apr 16 17 7:49 PM
DrRavna wrote:Scars sadly panders to the lowest common denominators of the genre. The sets are only part of the problem, they seem lazy and slap-dash and are lit with no creative effort. Not to mention the garish overuse of red at every turn. The whole film just seems like it was rushed to get it in the can without any real care for final product. The zooms on the torn faces of the bat victims are as cheesy in their Francoesque effect as possible. The sad one giant bat who's every appearence had the same grating musical queue. Christopher Matthews' red tighties left in the final print is laughable and poor Christopher Lee having to stab Tania and drink from the wounds....ugh. Michael Ripper, who is a highlight in everything else, is just directed to be a one note d*ck here.
I actually like Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires better, with all it's flaws it's at least fun and not repellent. Oh, and poor Patrick Throughton stuck playing a seedy weirdly homoerotic/masochistic version of Klove, what was Anthony Hinds thinking when he drafted this mess? I know to each their own, but this is the bottom of the Hammer barrel for me.
Apr 16 17 8:01 PM
Apr 17 17 10:00 AM
Apr 18 17 7:58 AM
Apr 18 17 8:41 AM
cannon1 wrote: Don't know why Klove is looked on as homoerotic, he did seem to go on about that portrait a bit.... Curious where it is available in HD....I only saw it offered in SD on Amazon's service....
Apr 19 17 2:16 AM
Apr 19 17 2:58 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.