Film Reviews by Steve

This is the kind of Hammer horror that defined their image in the early seventies, with a sensational supernatural tale set in a colourful period setting... plus tasteful female nudity. It's inspired by the legend of Elizabeth Báthory, a real Hungarian aristocrat born in 1560, who allegedly bathed in the blood of virgins to restore her youthfulness.

Though the truth was probably embellished! As Ingrid Pitt's Elizabeth actually does get younger, she gives us two performances. She is the ancient, wizened baroness and also masquerades as her voluptuous, sexually liberated daughter, while her own chaste little darling (Lesley Anne-Down) is imprisoned by a crazy-mute woodsman.

Ingrid is fine and her sexy portrayal is crucial, but it's the support cast which brings the grotesquery, particularly Maurice Denham as a venerable, rat-like scholar. Some of the events are obviously disturbing, but most of the violence takes place off camera. There is one graphic skewering. But there is more nudity than gore.

As usual, Hammer squeeze decent production values out of a small budget. The set was left over from Anne of the Thousand Days (for which it was nominated for an Oscar). Perhaps the slight premise is stretched too thin but the history is interesting, if distorted, and it is well directed. With The Vampire Lovers (1970), it's a key entry in the cult of its star.

Complex science fiction epic which became a key film for the sixties counterculture and eventually acclaimed by critics as a masterpiece. There are two linked stories: a mythic, arcane mystery triggered by the discovery of a black obelisk buried on the Earth's moon; and an ill-fated voyage to Jupiter undermined by the spaceship's computer, Hal.

And it's this allusion to artificial intelligence that most makes the sixties futurism feel relevant now. Otherwise Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's vision of the near future doesn't seem all that intuitive. It was made in a year of social revolution and there is a sense of optimistic change. In the present cycle of history dominated by global heating, our destiny seems more dystopian.

So it feels like a film of its time, now past. The long psychedelic finish was innovative in the period, especially if enjoyed with hallucinogens. It is an audacious endeavour of imagination and craft, an immersive synthesis of theory, set design, effects and its famous score. But for long periods, Kubrick is just showing off the work of his designers while the story drifts through space.

The acting is deliberately understated. The most vivid and memorable performance is the impassive computer, Hal (voiced by Douglas Rain). It's a head movie and its themes of mind expansion and evolutionary leaps made it pertinent to the hippie generation. Now it feels likely to be more of interest to the sci-fi hardcore and effects nerds.

Delicious late career performance from Bette Davis in an uncharacteristically muted production from Hammer studios. Bette isn't understated, but there is a contrast with her gothic horror roles of the sixties. She may be a dependable old school nanny unforgivably persecuted by a maladjusted ten year boy (William Dix) fresh out of rehab...

Or she could be the passive-aggressive psycho-nanny who drowned the little sister of this vulnerable youngster who now fears for his own life! Presumably everyone knows where this is headed but it is tempting to fear the worst for little Billy Dix, so convincing is his portrayal of a pouting, spoiled... little darling.

This is an eerie, dark thriller dominated by the Hollywood star. It's artfully directed by Seth Holt, mostly within the single space of an upmarket London apartment, and stylishly photographed in black and white. It's as close as Hammer ever got to a straight drama.

But Davis does still get to expose the faithful retainer's suppressed psychosis in the later scenes. The tone is playful without becoming comical. It's intriguing to contemplate if this may disturb the buried experiences of those who actually had a nanny! It is a curious British addition to the cult of Bette Davis.

This is generally thought of as a lesser Ealing comedy. And it is insubstantial, but the plot is the ultimate example of the values this series of films represents. After the war the studio developed projects in support of the Attlee government. By the fifties, this enthusiasm had burned out. The Titfield Thunderbolt is a conservative film, with a small 'c'.

When British Rail plans to close down a branch line, local enthusiasts unite to keep the railway going, led by the parish vicar (George Relph) There is the usual parochial ragbag of eccentrics, rascals and dreamers. The road lobby, represented by the owner of a regional bus company, sabotages this ramshackle operation, just as the man from the ministry arrives for an audit.

So the underdogs steal the ancient Victorian puffer from a museum to make the crucial journey. This is gentle whimsy. The characters are paper thin and there are no major stars. And there isn't much of an impression of the local community. But whenever a later film maker evokes the magic of the Ealing comedies, it is most particularly this they are drawing on.

It would be another ten years before most of these local lines were closed down after the Beeching Report. The film is a light comedy which has acquired a lustre of nostalgic regret on the loss of a much loved national resource. A film which once seemed ephemeral fluff, now feels more complex; a nation offering resistance in a time of immutable change.

After World War 2 there was a movement of social realist films years before the British New Wave made this approach fashionable. This is also one of many women in prison films made in the UK in the fifties. There are three interwoven stories each about a convict released at the same time, into their first few hours of freedom.

As usual in British films back then, the characters are defined by their social status. Yvonne Mitchell plays an upper middle class woman who got stiffed by her crooked boyfriend. Joan Collins is a working class good girl who can be tempted to do tricks for the nicer things in life. Kathleen Harrison generates an excess of pathos as a lonely, elderly, uneducated shoplifter.

Mitchell is always worth watching and she's the best on show here and gets the most screen time. Terence Morgan as her upmarket criminal lover is so creepy he's hard to watch. The last part of the film involves him being chased over the rooftops of the west end after a safe job, which is quite exciting, but strays a long way from the premise of the film.

Kathleen Harrison as the threadbare repeat offender caught the attention of the critics in the most sentimental and tragic of the three tales. Though she is patronised in a way that would have been avoided by the New Wave directors. There are few political points being made about the experiences of released prisoners. It's just an entertaining insight into the lives of others.

This adaptation by James Goldman of his own stage play imagines a power struggle between Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine as they plot for succession between their three sons in 1183. What it most resembles is a medieval variation on Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? And the history is fictionalised into a star vehicle for Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn.

Both actors give big, boisterous performances as the battling Plantagenets, as they manoeuvre for control. Hepburn creates one of her signature roles and won a deserved Oscar. While it's more of a comedy than a serious historical document, the locations, sets and costumes make the period feel unusually authentic and lived in.

The three sons each represent a key characteristic of the King. Anthony Hopkins as Richard (the Lionheart), is a warrior. John Castle as Geoffrey, is a schemer. And Nigel Terry as John, is a grotesque. Though the constant internecine intrigue is elaborate, it's easy to follow, and entertaining.

O'Toole gives a more irreverent interpretation of Henry than he does in Becket. Though he's palpably the same man, but older. The dialogue is intentionally anachronistic and stacked with great lines and memorable insults. Everything is exaggerated. Maybe it struggles to sustain the pantomime all the way to the fade out, but it's still a lot of fun.

This spectacular historical epic from AEW Mason's popular Victorian novel arguably trumps golden age Hollywood on its own terms. This is among the great action adventures of the thirties. The attitudes to the empire and class are dated, and probably misguided, but purely as an example of cinematic storytelling, it is a masterpiece.

John Clements plays a young officer from an aristocratic family with a tradition in the British military. He brings shame upon the ancestral name when he resigns his commission just as his unit leaves to join Kitchener's army in Sudan. Three of his comrades send him the white feather of cowardice. The deepest cut is when his beloved fiancée (June Duprez) does the same.

 So the maligned civilian travels to Africa to heroically save his friends in the war against the Dervishes. Much of this now provokes memories of Ripping Yarns, and is unintentionally comical, especially when Ralph Richardson, suddenly entirely blind in the desert from sunstroke, still leads the charge against the anti-British uprising.

Yet, it will take a hard heart not to be roused by all this ill-advised bravery and sacrifice. The action was actually shot in Sudan in splendid Technicolor. There's a huge, elaborate production with a fine score. Clements and Duprez lack personality, but the cast is spirited. This premiered the day after Britain declared war on Germany. Its impact must have been immense.

This low budget naval drama about the War in the Atlantic covers similar territory to The Cruel Sea, which was released the following year. It's not as good, but it does capture a particular point about WWII better than any other film; the impoverished unpreparedness of the British in the first days of the conflict.

The Gift Horse is a name given to the donation by the US government of battleships left over from the Great War. So the British were forced to face up to the German Kriegsmarine with a fleet of surplus destroyers. The film is based on the Campbeltown and actually shot on another gift horse, the Leamington.

The narrative is divided between action at sea and events on the home front. Most of these are standard situations. The crew are divided and have no respect for the captain who is trying to impose discipline. In time they develop an unshakable bond which sees them through many hazards, including the raid on the German dock at St Nazaire.

The film's strength is the realistic portrayal of conditions on the Atlantic. The understated performances are all excellent, particularly Trevor Howard as the complex, burdened skipper. And it's an interesting, little told story from before the US joined the fight, when the British forces had little else to fall back on but audacity and excessive risk taking.

Low budget reboot of the eternal literary legend. With the previous year's The Curse of Frankenstein, this revived the horror film across the world and made genre stars of Peter Cushing as Dr. van Helsing, and Christopher Lee in the title role. This is a long way from the rodent-like Max Schreck in the original Nosferatu (1922).

This Dracula is an erotic figure. When a repressed suburban housewife (Melissa Stribling) comes home to her husband (Michael Gough) with bite marks in her neck, she is glowingly post-coital. She never knew it could be like this! These women leave their windows open for the Prince of Darkness. So he is a threat to christianity and suburban values...

The film begins with the open pages of Bram Stoker's novel and a narrative voice. But this isn't remotely faithful, especially compared with FW Murnau's classic. Though it doesn't take the liberties of some of Hammer's sequels. Most of the changes are to accommodate the budget, but many of the most famous episodes are lost.

Apart from the schlock of the flesh and the Technicolor blood, this is a film about addiction. Dracula's desire is always described as a drug. There is actually quite a lot of exposition, describing the rules of the vampire film, which everyone now already knows. It's a stripped down sexy romp, and while not the definitive version, still a landmark in UK cinema.

Hugely ambitious and influential biopic based on Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Thomas Edward Lawrence about his experiences in co-ordinating nomadic Bedouin Arabs to fight the Turkish empire during WWI. With its Super-Panavision, extensive cast of stars and extras, big orchestral score and massive production logistics, this is the ultimate example of the cinematic epic.

Its extreme length presents a challenge, spread out over nearly four hours. There is an abundance of unhurried photography of the desert. But the narrative drive rarely falters and even the slightest interest in the history is amply rewarded. The politics strikes a balance. The Arab fight for self determination is portrayed as fanciful, but the British motives are avaricious and mendacious.

The characters all express an opinion on Lawrence, but it's Peter O'Toole's phenomenal portrayal which most impacts how we appraise him; a strong willed fantasist with a god-complex. While the photography and the production design are magnificent, it's the star who makes the exotic feel real. Freddie Francis' camera establishes Lawrence as a mythic figure.

There were ten Oscar nominations and seven wins including for best picture and director. It looks astonishing. There is nuance, but mainly this is a spectacular realisation of a broad sweep of political history. It is overwhelming both in terms of its enterprise, and the demands it makes of the viewer. It's also among the greatest and most imposing historical epics ever made.

This made news on release as Boris Karloff's first role back in UK after his success in Universal monster films. So a supernatural subplot was inserted into a crime story about assorted crooks in pursuit of a priceless diamond. Karloff plays a dying Egyptologist who seeks eternal life by being buried with the enchanted jewel.

So he is the ghoul who returns from his crypt to track down the robber who steals it. There are the usual archetypes of early horror films, with the gaunt solicitor who reads the will, a bickering but intrepid couple who fall in love, the ominous Egyptian collector, the idiotic comic relief and, in his screen debut, Ralph Richardson as the imposter.

Best of all is Ernest Thesiger as the sinister, faithful servant. Boris is only in the film for the opening 15 minutes and briefly at the climax, but he does give the film stature. This is a much more interesting story than The Mummy which Karloff starred in a year earlier. And the production holds up well too. It's splendidly photographed with excellent sets.

This is a kind of horror-pantomime; an old dark house story in which the actors give broad, melodramatic performances. It's quite spooky, and creaky, and not at all scary. It was presumed lost for many years. Often those films turn out to be not much when rediscovered, but this is great fun and a significant entry in the Karloff legend.

The last of the post 1945 cycle of black and white British World War II films which established the popular image of a generation of male stars. In this case Kenneth More as the super-brain behind naval intelligence, fighting the German navy in the Atlantic, and of course, plotting the demise of their famously unsinkable battleship.

The bulk of the film takes place in the underground nerve centre in London. Most of the scenes away from HQ are with the German officers on the bridge of the Bismarck. This saves money, but the action scenes, when they come, are extremely well realised. At times the realistic, procedural style of the film is a bit dry. And means a lot of talk.

This is principally a flagwaver that celebrates one of the crucial achievements of the war, and recognises the contributions of those involved. More's (fictitious) character is officious, but working for the right side. His adversary on the Bismarck (Karel Stepanek) is a sentimental Nazi who undermines his cause with his stubborn, irrational hubris.

Neither is likeable. They are promoted because in war, the outcome is everything. Scrape off enough superficial patriotism, and this begins to feel like an antiwar scenario; the skirmish seriously damages both sides. The real hero is Dana Wynter as a key backroom facilitator. Other than the spies, she is one of the few female role models in this era of WWII films.

Delirious melodrama set in a swanky hotspot in the West End. The film's stature among critics is possibly enhanced relative to the poverty of British silent films generally, but this is still an unusual and striking curiosity. And principally because of the performance of it's star, the Chinese-American Anna May Wong.

She plays a dishwasher in the Piccadilly, who becomes a sensation when she gets to perform a sexy, exotic dance number in front of the jaded, well heeled patrons. Which upsets the resident dancer, a fading jazz babe played by Gilda Grey, especially when the new girl attracts the interest of the boss (Jameson Thomas).

There are fascinating similarities with GW Pabst's Pandora's Box, starring Louise Brooks, released the same year. Both are about a femme fatale who destroys men through naive sexual allure. The director of Piccadilly, EA Dupont, was also German, as were his cinematographer and set designer. And the film looks spectacular.

Anna May, like Brooks, became famous overnight, before soon fading into obscurity. But both are indelible in their brief moment of stardom. They even share the same hairstyle! Piccadilly isn't quite in the same class. And it is poorly edited and implausible. But it's a landmark British film photographed with an abundance of style.

After 1945 there was a wave of thrillers about a US veteran going back to Europe to chase up some loose end from the war and invariably fall in love. This came towards the end of the cycle and is among the more entertaining. Ray Milland returns to Britain to investigate the mystery of his brother's death, and dally with Patricia Roc.

Jacques Tourneur had his own style, but there is a strong impression of Alfred Hitchcock here, maybe because the producer Joan Harrison was a close associate of the Master. The plot is standard. Milland basically confronts the survivors of the special operation in which his brother was shot. But this is a well put together suspense film made on a small budget.

The remainder of the running time involves the cute flirtation between the determined, disoriented American and the high maintenance British working girl. Milland played this part many time. Patricia Roc's role is mostly decorative, as an English rose, but with a thorn. Among the support cast, Naunton Wayne stands out as a slippery car salesman with a secret for sale.

This should appeal to fans of film noir, though there isn't any visual expressionism. Or a femme fatale. It's not as good as Tourneur's more celegrated UK film- Night of the Demon- but still a compelling mystery-thriller directed by a real craftsman.

The final part of Hammer's early seventies trilogy of sexy vampire horrors is a return to form after the disappointing Lust for a Vampire. It's mostly remembered for casting identical nineteen year old twins who had been featured in Playboy a few months earlier. Mary Collinson plays the pure, obedient sister. While Madeleine is the vampire.

I think. They're not easily identified, even without clothes. Actually, there's little nudity, but as a gimmick, this stunt casting really works. Otherwise there's a pretty good gothic horror story. Peter Cushing is quite compelling as a witchfinder who tortures and murders the powerless villagers while averting his gaze from the Satanic aristocrat (Damien Thomas) in the old castle.

Which of course the villagers storm in the rousing climax. The film really scores with the beautiful sets and authentic-seeming costumes, which must be among the best Hammer ever put together. There's a thumping score which often feels like it's about to drift off into a mariachi number.

While there's no gore, there is a sadistic edge to some scenes which is horrific and subversive. Neither god nor the devil is much help to the poor. The trilogy is supposed to be based on the stories of Victorian gothic writer Sheridan le Fanu, but this has strayed far from the source. There's occasional narrative drag, but the production alone makes it worth seeing.