telegonus wrote:
Roger Corman followed on the heels of Hammer in using color and good actors, seemed often to be aiming for the same audience as Castle, to the extent of appearing to dumb down his movies so as to play to the lowest common denominator. A bit harsh on Corman perhaps, but true in my opinion.
I don't think it's too harsh at all. With exception of his "serious" Poe pictures (which I think stack up well to Hammer's output), Corman's output was more in line with Castles exploitive (but fun) nature as opposed to Hammer...

telegonus wrote:
Hammer's films...Their pictures are at their best good enough to play as stand alone movies without having to be sold as horrors...
Right again! The Hammer films seem to play more like costume melodramas--with Gothic overtones and almost no fun to be had. I don't mean this in a bad way...only in comparison to Castle and often Corman, whose interest seemed to shock and thrill audiences with either (1) monsters and the grotesque and/or (in Castle's case) (2) gimmicks. Hammer's monsters always seem to take a back seat in favor of plot.