View Full Version : "City of the Dead" (aka "Horror Hotel")
VCI has just released a glorious-sounding DVD of this sixties gem in the States. I note however, that the print seems to have been provided by the BFI...which makes me wonder, is there any chance of this coming out in this part of the world (and in PAL) in the near future? Anybody heard anything?
(Review: http://www.dvddrive-in.com/reviews/a-d/cityofthedead.htm .)
Dragging this one back from the dead... Up! :)
jonathan.e
08-05-2002, 16:24
I do some work for the BFI and they haven’t mentioned any plans for releasing it. I’ll ask though.
Good movie BTW.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
I do some work for the BFI and they haven’t mentioned any plans for releasing it. I’ll ask though.
Many thanks. I'll check back here. :)
I say there's anything wrong with the disc, apart from very dodgy animated menus and pathetically designed packaging, but the film is an absolute laugh riot!
It makes a brilliant double-bill with The Blob for sheer hilarity from start to finish. I was all poised for something creepy and low-key like Carnival of Souls, but it is side-splittingly funny. All the people who claim to have got nightmares from this needs serious help, and quickly!
It's a hilarious mishmash of bizarre randomness, bad dialogue, awful performances and clunking obviousness. Best of all, the short running time (78 minutes) means it never loses pace for a second.
God knows why Christopher Lee rates it so highly among his output and appears to take it so seriously on his commentary track.
It's one of the best unintentional comedies I've ever seen - a real classic and well worth buying.
It's an all-regions release, so it'll play on your player. Get it, you'll love the film.
Mario Gauci
07-06-2002, 10:44
Quote:
"It makes a brilliant double-bill with The Blob for sheer hilarity from start to finish. I was all poised for something creepy and low-key like Carnival of Souls, but it is side-splittingly funny. All the people who claim to have got nightmares from this needs serious help, and quickly!"
Narshty,
I don't know if I have to take your above comments on THE CITY OF THE DEAD with a huge pinch of salt, or if you actually meant what you said. While there were some unintentional laughs, especially in the opening scene when Jethrow Keene (Valentine Dyall) is praying very audibly for Lucifer to help alleviate the sufferings of Elizabeth Selwyn (Patricia Jessel) who is being burned at the stake, when in the middle of a crowd of Bible-bashing Christian zealots crying out for her blood! It provides a chuckle or two, but I wouldn't call it side-splitting!
Quote:
"It's a hilarious mishmash of bizarre randomness, bad dialogue, awful performances and clunking obviousness."
The young leads were hardly professionals and are not very convincing, true, especially in the unnecessarily protracted scene of Nan Barlow (Venetia Stevenson) being dragged screaming by two assailants to her death at the witches' hands, but I still wouldn't go so far as to call it "awful" acting. Anyway, the superb central performance by Patricia Jessel and the full-blooded support provided by Christopher Lee and Valentine Dyall more than make up for these shortcomings in the acting department.
Quote:
"God knows why Christopher Lee rates it so highly among his output and appears to take it so seriously on his commentary track."
Actually, on first viewing, I found Christopher Lee's audio commentary funnier than anything else in the film. While he could be excused for not remembering what the name of the town was after all these years, the moderator was evidently not sufficiently prepared for the task at hand because he was not able to reply to this same question or to Mr. Lee's enquiries about the whereabouts of Ms. Stevenson and Dennis Lotis (who played her skeptical brother in the film) nowadays. At the end of the commentary, the moderator congratulates Mr. Lee on his "amazing" memory, when half the time he did not have a clue as to what was happening in the film - for example, why the witches where holding back from carrying out the sacrifice of Betta St. John at the end of the film, thus giving the wounded Tom Naylor the chance to despatch them by igniting them under the shadow of the Cross. Actually, as he himself said in the film, the witches had to wait for the clock to strike the hour of thirteen! To be honest, though, the commentary does improve on subsequent viewings. As for the film itself, it is definitely among Mr. Lee’s top 20 horror films.
Quote:
"It's one of the best unintentional comedies I've ever seen - a real classic and well worth buying."
Although as I have said there are some deficiencies in the film, it is hardly justifiable to call it an unintentional comedy. A more accurate description would be a "superior horror comic", as eminent British film critic Leslie Halliwell called it, with oodles of atmosphere, wonderful cinematography (by the great Desmond Dickinson) and reasonably well-staged to disguise the obvious low-budget and the quasi-experimental nature of the production: it was both director John Moxey's and production company Vulcan's debut feature. Vulcan later changed its name to Amicus which would become Hammer's major British rival in horror film production.
Narshty,
I don't know if I have to take your above comments on THE CITY OF THE DEAD with a huge pinch of salt, or if you actually meant what you said.
I'm afraid it's the latter.
While there were some unintentional laughs, especially in the opening scene when Jethrow Keene (Valentine Dyall) is praying very audibly for Lucifer to help alleviate the sufferings of Elizabeth Selwyn (Patricia Jessel) who is being burned at the stake, when in the middle of a crowd of Bible-bashing Christian zealots crying out for her blood! It provides a chuckle or two, but I wouldn't call it side-splitting!
It is side-splitting when many bizarre and entirely ridiculous things happen within the space of about a minute. For example, why are the townspeople sated when, after Elizabeth repeatedly begs Jethrow for help and subsequently questioning him as to whether he has any part in witchcraft, he replies (after an eternal pause) with a feebled and highly suspicious "no", or perhaps when, about 30 seconds after Elizabeth is burning at the stake repeatedly begging Lucifer to save her and place a curse on the village, does one of the villagers finally point out (as if she's just cracked the case) "She's making a curse!"
The young leads were hardly professionals and are not very convincing, true, especially in the unnecessarily protracted scene of Nan Barlow (Venetia Stevenson) being dragged screaming by two assailants to her death at the witches' hands, but I still wouldn't go so far as to call it "awful" acting.
I found the acting was either fantastically hammy or simply rather poor - either makes me chuckle, I'm not fussy. Although the epitome of bad actresses par excellence remains John Waters' favourite Edith Massey, it was immensely stilted (and I wouldn't dream of holding their non-professionalism against them) and thus made me laugh.
Anyway, the superb central performance by Patricia Jessel and the full-blooded support provided by Christopher Lee and Valentine Dyall more than make up for these shortcomings in the acting department.
They all appeared to be trying to out-ham one another between takes, as if it was some kind of contest. Few jump cuts have made me chortle more than of the baying mob at the start to Christopher Lee shouting "Burn witch! Burn witch! Burn! Burn! Burn!" in a bizarre semi-Cornish/American accent. Patricia Jessel and Valentine Dyall were far too over-the-top for myself to take either role seriously.
Actually, on first viewing, I found Christopher Lee's audio commentary funnier than anything else in the film. While he could be excused for not remembering what the name of the town was after all these years, the moderator was evidently not sufficiently prepared for the task at hand because he was not able to reply to this same question or to Mr. Lee's enquiries about the whereabouts of Ms. Stevenson and Dennis Lotis (who played her skeptical brother in the film) nowadays. At the end of the commentary, the moderator congratulates Mr. Lee on his "amazing" memory, when half the time he did not have a clue as to what was happening in the film - for example, why the witches where holding back from carrying out the sacrifice of Betta St. John at the end of the film, thus giving the wounded Tom Naylor the chance to despatch them by igniting them under the shadow of the Cross. Actually, as he himself said in the film, the witches had to wait for the clock to strike the hour of thirteen! To be honest, though, the commentary does improve on subsequent viewings.
Agreed - I found the commentary and interview highly entertaining.
As for the film itself, it is definitely among Mr. Lee’s top 20 horror films.
I wouldn't call that particularly high praise. Although I think Christopher Lee is superb, he's rarely in any films that match his talents.
Although as I have said there are some deficiencies in the film, it is hardly justifiable to call it an unintentional comedy. A more accurate description would be a "superior horror comic", as eminent British film critic Leslie Halliwell called it, with oodles of atmosphere, wonderful cinematography (by the great Desmond Dickinson) and reasonably well-staged to disguise the obvious low-budget and the quasi-experimental nature of the production: it was both director John Moxey's and production company Vulcan's debut feature. Vulcan later changed its name to Amicus which would become Hammer's major British rival in horror film production.
I do not hold Mr. Halliwell's opinion in high esteem - he is by far the most grouchy and cynical of professional critics. As for atmosphere, the fog that gushes and rolls everywhere becomes something of a running joke - especially when it cascades down off rooftops. The attempts to overcome the no-budget status of the film's production is at once impressive and (I hate to say it) laughable. The fog seems to be very much like The X-Files's penchant for darkened rooms - a blatant attempt to hide the cracks, seams, and (I would guess) cables.
Perhaps my favourite thing about the film is the random nature of so many scenes. Why does Nan remove her robe to reveal a Playboy bunny suit with lace trimmings, of all undergarments? Why are there people ballroom dancing at great speed in the lobby? Why does Nan think nothing of the hooded monks she sees wandering across the graveyard outside her window late at night? I thought it was an outstanding disc for an immensely entertaining film, even if it didn't produce any of the shivers I had hoped it might. Few horror B-movies are so eminently rewatchable and consistently entertaining, and I hope I don't come across as patronising or belittling when I say how much it made me laugh.
However, at the end of the day, I think Gene Siskel was completely right when he said two things are non-debatable: comedy and eroticism; it's something completely instinctive and no-one can change your mind about either.
Mario Gauci
09-06-2002, 08:30
Quote:
"It is side-splitting when many bizarre and entirely ridiculous things happen within the space of about a minute."
I think this statement is true of practically every film in the horror genre (unintentionally or not), even in the case of the very best films like BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (why a self-destruct lever should exist in the laboratory at all is anybody's guess, for example)!
Quote:
"I thought it was an outstanding disc for an immensely entertaining film, even if it didn't produce any of the shivers I had hoped it might."
Again, what horror film made before the mid-to-late 60s (except perhaps HAXAN) can be said to be truly chilling when viewed today, but that does not take away any of its merits or artistic/ entertainment values!
Quote:
“As for the film itself, it is definitely among Mr. Lee’s top 20 horror films.
I wouldn't call that particularly high praise. Although I think Christopher Lee is superb, he's rarely in any films that match his talents.”
I think that’s rather unfair to Mr. Lee: it seems that because he was not offered more straightforward roles, you feel that he has “wasted” a good part of his career. I do not share that view: Horror films are no less important artistically than dramas or what have you (they can certainly claim to be more entertaining), and indeed they have helped reshape the cinema along the years more than practically every other genre, in my opinion – why, if we didn’t have the great Expressionist classics of the Silent era, there never would have been CITIZEN KANE or any of the Film Noir classics; without the horror genre as a whole, today’s flourishing Independent cinema would not have existed, considering that many of the first efforts in this “school” of film-making were horror films like CARNIVAL OF SOULS, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and DARK STAR.
As for Christopher Lee’s personal output, if you intermingle the ratings given by “Halliwell’s Film Guide” and “Leonard Maltin’s TV Movies And Video Guide” (which are the two sources I use most as reference, not that I always agree with them) to the horror films he has made, the top twenty films – in chronological order – would read something like this:
1.THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)
2.DRACULA (1958)
3.CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) *
4.THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1959)
5.THE MUMMY (1959)
6.THE CITY OF THE DEAD (1960)
7.TASTE OF FEAR (1961) *
8.LA FRUSTA E IL CORPO [THE WHIP AND THE BODY] (1963)
9.THE GORGON (1964) *
10.THE FACE OF FU MANCHU (1965)
11.THE BRIDES OF FU MANCHU (1966) *
12.THE DEVIL RIDES OUT (1968)
13.SCREAM AND SCREAM AGAIN (1969) *
14.THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1970) *
15.I, MONSTER (1971)
16.NOTHING BUT THE NIGHT (1972) *
17.PANICO EN EL TRANSIBERIANO [HORROR EXPRESS] (1972)
18.THE CREEPING FLESH (1972) *
19.THE WICKER MAN (1973)
20.GREMLINS 2: THE NEW BATCH (1990)
I added THE WHIP AND THE BODY myself (as Halliwell did not review it, although Maltin does give it a highly respectable ***), because I felt that it was too important to be left out. I have yet to watch 8 films from that list (marked by an asterisk), which accounts to a sizeable two-fifths of the lot! In any case, I don’t think films such as these were beneath Mr. Lee’s talents: practically all offer a mixture of craftsmanship, entertainment and intelligence, and frankly I would take any of those (and even other lesser titles) over LORD OF THE RINGS and ATTACK OF THE CLONES!
jonathan.e
09-06-2002, 08:44
Clearly Narshty views this movie as a comedy and, as he said, it’s impossible to argue him out of that view. On my part I think it’s an excellent little gothic piece, enlivened by some superb atmosphere, a great turn from Lee and the willingness to upend genre conventions by way of a major event involving the lead character.
It’s pointless to critique films of this age and genre as if they were recent "serious" movies. Yes, the acting is hammy and the action obviously studio-bound but the intelligent audience has to apporach this movie and others like it with a certain willingness to see past flaws brought about by budget constraints and certain casting decisions.
If you’re a fan of horror and sci-fi it’s important to look past the rubber monsters and OTT acting style to see the ideas and moods captured in these movies and realise that for all their faults, they are at least projecting their stories on a broader canvas. Most of the risks taken in film are by low budget, small movies such as this and had it been a big budget flick, then we wouldn’t have had the main "twist" concerning the lead and for that alone Horror Hotel/City of the Dead should receive some kudos. Not for nothing is this a highly respected film both by critics, cast members and audience alike.
I certainly wasn't intending to view it as a comedy - as I said, I was looking forward to being spooked, but it sadly wasn't to be.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.