You're a beautiful woman probably...

After listening to one of the fascinating 1951 Down Place podcasts about Hammer Films , I managed to borrow J B Priestley's book from the library. This is the original source for the excellent 1932 James Whale film The old dark house and the frankly awful reimagining from Hammer, released in 1963. The podcast confirmed that it wasn't worth my rewatching the Hammer version and that, basically, it was much more of a William Castle film than a Hammer Film. The book itself (called Benighted ) is a pleasantly old fashioned story (first published in 1927) that defines the mood and the plot of the earlier film very well. There are no ghosts or supernatural monsters here, or any implication that the book is that kind of story. The plot is fairly simple: a group of travellers is forced to seek refuge from a severe storm and flooding in an isolated country house, which turns out to be owned and populated by an eccentric family, some of whose members have "mental health problem

I'm a huge fan of the HBO TV series Rome , for its superb look, brilliant performances and compelling plots. I was thoroughly immersed in both series and was sadly disappointed when sheer expense brought an end to it after 22 episodes. Purely because of this and a few favourable reviews, I bought the Blu-ray of the initial series Spartacus: blood and sand . I don't subscribe to any cable or satellite channels, so hadn't seen it until I got the discs. Rome it ain't. Yes, the plot becomes compelling after a while, but the scripts and performances are just not in the same league. Then there's the violence. Rome has some extremely violent scenes, but these almost always seem to grow out of the plot, and rarely seem gratuitous. The violence in Spartacus: BAS seems to be there almost for its own sake, and I'm disturbed that some people seem to like it for that reason alone. I used to be accused of being weird or sick for being a fan of horror films. To clarify, i

I recently watched Brian DePalma's Carrie again and dug out an old review I wrote of it way back in the 80s. I thought that I might have been looking back with rose-tinted specs but, to my pleasant surprise, I was as impressed with the film as I ever was. It's certainly "of its time", as the fashions and attitudes take us firmly back to 1976 - but that doesn't seem to hurt it at all and, in my opinion, it holds up vastly better than most other films of the same vintage, and better than any of DePalma's other films. I've left the following (naive as it is) largely unchanged from when I first wrote it in 1987. In passing I dared to criticise the sacred Stanley Kubrick, and my opinion of his Stephen King adaptation is unchanged. Warning: it does contain spoilers. They’re all gonna laugh at you Brian DePalma’s Carrie examined by John H An ugly duckling schoolgirl assailed by the jeers of her schoolmates and the cruel repression of her religious maniac