Yuku free message boards

hmmm...Joe Karlosi. Take what Joe Karlosi says about the Hammer PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and take every comment and reverse them 180 degrees and you have my opinion of the film, the director, the cute sweet female star, the sets and the music. I don't think I've EVER disagreed more with any comment I've read on any Hammer film.

Hey Joe Karlosi; you are absolutely welcome. Yup, don't agree with you on this film but have always enjoyed your comments because you have a point of view, whether I agree with it or not. In many ways I consider THE BRIDES OF DRACULA Hammer's greatest horror. PHANTOM... well, maybe not. It wasn't even the best of the two films on the double bill (with NIGHT CREATURES). But "Phantom" has never gotten its due. And as to Heather Sears, I am absolutely baffled why so many people find her unattractive. She, to me, is an absolute doll. Will three wives, and untold amounts of girls/women I have dated, I THINK I have some idea of what is attractive and what it not. Or dare I say it may be in the eye of the beholder. I've always thought Sears was cute as a button (even if she did end up big as a house before she passed away a few years ago.) GO, JOE, GO!!

Ted N clears up that the so-called Cary Grant role would have been the Phanton, not the deSouza role. Although cheap by other film standards, more money was spent on Hammer's PHANTOM than any film Hammer had done up to that time (although 10 SECONDS TO HELL must have been somewhat expensive), and one wonders if the thought of a Cary Grant/Phantom may have been a factor in Universal's backing of the remake to this extent?
As to Joe Karlosi's question on EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN, DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE...and SCARS OF DRACULA. I also think Freddie Francis is somewhat underrated. He did not have Terence Fisher's skills with actors, and his staging often wasn't as good - but man, did his films look great!! There are some of the most beautiful shots ever in "Has Risen". Ex cinematographers might not always make great directors, but the look of their films is often exceptional. EVIL is a flat out Universal monster type Frankenstein. Certainly the Frankenstein Doctor here is more in that mold, and not as multi-layered as say "CREATED WOMAN". But from a young viewers point I would imagine "Evil" would have been a lot more fun to watch THAN "Created Woman." The monster makeup is so-so, both a product of a poor Roy Ashton universal-type design, poor execution, and his Hammer superiors not being able to make up their mind to what they did want.
DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE is the Hammer film that made me a real fan so there is some prejudice there (of course, asking me to critique Hammer films is like asking Tom Weaver to name is 10 favorite Hammers - or in his case, his one favorite? You know what you will get). "Has Risen" has an exceptional music score (my favorite Hammer score, period), but suffers as Hammer begins to add too many young leads and not enough Dracula. I've never been able to figure out why John Elder/Tony Hinds could find more depth in the Baron Frankenstein character, but was absolutely baffled as to what to do with one of the most powerful characters in literature (and a charismatic actor in Christopher Lee), Count Dracula. Still, "Has Risen" gives us some knockout visual scenes (the much maligned staking scene; the final impalement), is absolutely gorgeous to look at. And the acting for the most part was top-notch. It certainly was the most financially successful Hammer Dracula.
SCARS OF DRACULA give us more Lee as Dracula, but again inserts too much young love interest ( I do like the "evil castle on the hill" feel of old Universal and the villagers, torches in hand). Still it HAS the most Dracula screen time of any Drac film since HORROR OF DRACULA. But for reasons no one can pinpoint, the film looks cheap, even though according to Hammer accountant, Roy Skeggs, it cost penny for penny the same as TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA (which was made at the same studio, barely six months earlier, but looks much more lush and expansive). Certainly the interior/exterior Dracula ledge set doesn't hold up well. The backdrop is pretty poor. Still, when I saw it in Richmond, Virginia in 1971, it all held up well and if released by a decent distributor, might have done better financially for Hammer. It is more of a "horror film" than the previous three and what director Roy Ward Baker was looking for. For someone wanting to see a horror film, I imagine it would have been more satisfying than "Taste", although certainly not as intelligent or well-made.