The Abominable Snowman (1957)
Despite being considered by many as an original story, The Abominable Snowman (1957) is in fact a remake of a made for television play, The Creature, that was originally broadcast in the UK in 1955. Hammer Films would often purchase the rights of popular TV programs and subsequently re-work them for mainstream, international cinema. Larger production budgets and fewer censorship restrictions allowed them to make their cinematic interpretations more lurid, thus commercially viable. Hence The Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass II and Quatermass and the Pit were all given a big screen makeover and were commercially successful. The Abominable Snowman was written by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, who also wrote the original television drama and the aforementioned Quatermass trilogy. Although ostensibly marketed as a horror film this production is actually an interesting blend of psychological thriller and science fiction.
Despite being considered by many as an original story, The Abominable Snowman (1957) is in fact a remake of a made for television play, The Creature, that was originally broadcast in the UK in 1955.Hammer Films would often purchase the rights of popular TV programs and subsequently re-work them for mainstream, international cinema. Larger production budgets and fewer censorship restrictions allowed them to make their cinematic interpretations more lurid, thus commercially viable. Hence The Quatermass Xperiment,Quatermass II and Quatermass and the Pit were all given a big screen makeover and were commercially successful.The Abominable Snowman was written by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, who also wrote the original television drama and the aforementioned Quatermass trilogy. Although ostensibly marketed as a horror film this production is actually an interesting blend of psychological thriller and science fiction.
Dr. John Rollason (Peter Cushing), along with his wife Helen (Maureen Connell) and their assistant Peter Fox (Richard Wattis), are visiting the Lhama (Arnold Marlé) of the Rong-ruk monastery during a botanical expedition in the Himalayas. A second group of explorers, led by Tom Friend (Forrest Tucker) and including trapper Ed Shelley (Robert Brown), photographer Andrew McNee (Michael Brill), and Sherpa guide Kusang (Wolfe Morris), arrives at the monastery on a clandestine mission to discover the legendary Yeti, also known as the Abominable Snowman. Despite his wife’s concerns over his safety and the Lama’s objections, Rollason chooses to join Friend's expedition. While Rollason is driven by a scientific desire to discover more about the creature, Friend is motivated by the pursuit of fame and wealth, aiming to capture a live Yeti to showcase to the global media. As expedition progresses, it soon become apparent that they’re not alone.
Due to this bait and switch sales approach, especially in the US where the film was re-titled The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas, the box office returns were disappointing. However, in recent years this film has been critically re-appraised. The dialogue driven screenplay is thought provoking, the black and white, anamorphic widescreen photography by Arthur Grant makes the production look far more expensive than it actually is and as ever, Peter Cushing’s performance does much of the heavy lifting. Yes, the story unfolds at a leisurely pace and despite being transplanted to the big screen, it is clear that this was originally a play. Yet viewers wanting a more thoughtful and atmospheric story, as opposed to the more graphic approach (for the times) that Hammer Films adopted the following years for The Curse of Frankenstein and Dracula, this production has such things in spades.
Clearly not a horror film in the traditional sense, is it appropriate to label The Abominable Snowman a creature feature? Possibly but not like Jaws or Grizzly. The Yetis in this film are peaceful, sentient creatures who live in parallel with humans. It is hinted that they have evolved mental faculties such as telepathy and are simply biding their time till humanity destroys itself. Each member of the exploration team ends up facing what they carry in their heart. Director Val Guest suspected that the cerebral plot was just too ahead of its time and not suitable for the cinematic market of the time. However, he Abominable Snowman has a far better chance of finding a welcoming audience these days, where its high concept plot will not be considered alien to viewers. Hammer Films forthcoming 4K restoration will no doubt prove a hit among film collectors who still favour physical media.
Scream and Scream Again (1970)
I first saw Scream and Scream Again as a teenager while watching late night television. I was expecting the usual sort of lurid, seventies, exploitation horror and much to my surprise was met with something quite different. The film left a marked impression upon me and so I decided to re-watch it recently. This second viewing only further compounded my sense of surprise. Scream and Scream Again was clearly marketed as a horror film upon release but it strays more into the science fiction genre. I was reminded of Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers and there is a further hint of conspiracy thrillers such as The Parallax View. Although a low budget film, quickly made to meet production schedule and fill a gap in the market, Scream and Scream Again has an intriguing premise and is presented in an engaging format, with three seemingly separate stories coming together to form a rather sinister conclusion. There are more ideas here than you’ll find in many big budget contemporary movies.
I first saw Scream and Scream Again as a teenager while watching late night television. I was expecting the usual sort of lurid, seventies, exploitation horror and much to my surprise was met with something quite different. The film left a marked impression upon me and so I decided to re-watch it recently. This second viewing only further compounded my sense of surprise. Scream and Scream Again was clearly marketed as a horror film upon release but it strays more into the science fiction genre. I was reminded of Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers and there is a further hint of conspiracy thrillers such as The Parallax View. Although a low budget film, quickly made to meet production schedule and fill a gap in the market, Scream and Scream Again has an intriguing premise and is presented in an engaging format, with three seemingly separate stories coming together to form a rather sinister conclusion. There are more ideas here than you’ll find in many big budget contemporary movies.
A jogger running through suburban London collapses in the street. He wakes up in a hospital bed, tended by a mute nurse. He lifts the bed sheets to discover his right leg has been amputated. He starts to scream. Elsewhere, in an unidentified Eastern European totalitarian state, intelligence operative Konratz (Marshall Jones) returns home for a debriefing with his superior, Captain Schweitz (Peter Sallis). During the meeting Konratz reveals some information he isn’t supposed to know, arousing Schweitz’s suspicion. Konratz calmly kills him by placing his hand on his shoulder, paralysing him. In London Detective Superintendent Bellaver (Alfred Marks) investigates the rape and murder of a young woman, Eileen Stevens. Supt. Bellaver and forensic pathologist Dr. David Sorel (Christopher Matthews) interview her employer Dr. Browning (Vincent Price) who is unable to provide any information. Meanwhile another young woman, Sylvia (Judy Huxtable), is picked up by a tall man named Keith (Michael Gothard) at a nightclub. She later found dead and completely drained of blood
Scream and Scream Again has a strong cast featuring horror stalwarts such as Vincent Price, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. However due to the three distinct story lines they do not often cross paths or share much screen time together. Performances are solid with British character actors such as Peter Sallis and Julian Holloway filling minor roles. The screenplay by Christopher Wicking is fast paced and handles the complexity of the different plot threads well. Alfred Marks has some suitably droll and cynical dialogue that is becoming of a senior and cynical career police officer. Again I must mention that the proceedings feel far more like a thriller. There’s a particularly well staged car chase in a rural setting, culminating at a chalk quarry, which has a real sense of speed and inertia. The night club scene briefly features the Welsh psychedelic rock group Amen Corner who also provide a song which plays over the end credits.
For those who are expecting a bonafide horror film, then there’s little on screen violence. The storyline featuring the jogger who has his limbs amputated one by one is disconcerting but far from graphic as you only ever see him recovering in bed. The nightclub serial killer is similarly far from graphic with the emphasis on him chasing his prey. Yet despite the absence of overt violence, there is a very unsettling undertone to Scream and Scream Again and it builds to a suitably grim climax. The film’s modest budget does let it down in some areas. The make up and practical special effects are somewhat cheap, especially the acid bath which appears mainly to be dishwashing detergent. Yet despite these minor shortcomings, the film is a prime example of low budget innovation and how good ideas can carry a production. Scream and Scream Again stands out because it is not afraid to do something different. It is not only a genre anomaly but also a rather interesting and enjoyable film.
I, Monster (1971)
I, Monster is a low budget Amicus production and a cunning retelling of Robert Louis Stevenson’s “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. Due to copyright reasons, these names are not used in the film and are replaced with new characters, Marlowe and Blake respectively. However, despite the modest budget and the aforementioned legal issues, this is a very faithful adaptation of the original gothic novella. Milton Subotsky’s screenplay incorporates all the essential elements of the source text which is both a boon and a bane. A boon because it really does capture the essence of Stevenson’s concept, which has been drastically misrepresented by previous adaptations. And a bane in so far that the original novella is a little too insubstantial to sustain a feature film. Even at a modest 75 minutes running time I, Monster feels somewhat “thin”.
I, Monster is a low budget Amicus production and a cunning retelling of Robert Louis Stevenson’s “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. Due to copyright reasons, these names are not used in the film and are replaced with new characters, Marlowe and Blake respectively. However, despite the modest budget and the aforementioned legal issues, this is a very faithful adaptation of the original gothic novella. Milton Subotsky’s screenplay incorporates all the essential elements of the source text which is both a boon and a bane. A boon because it really does capture the essence of Stevenson’s concept, which has been drastically misrepresented by previous adaptations. And a bane in so far that the original novella is a little too insubstantial to sustain a feature film. Even at a modest 75 minutes running time I, Monster feels somewhat “thin”.
Psychologist Charles Marlowe (Christopher Lee), a strong advocate of Sigmund Freud, argues about man’s capacity for evil with his colleagues at his Gentlemen’s club. Dr. Lanyon (Richard Hurndall) refutes his assertions on medical grounds. Enfield (Mike Raven) reflects on a life based upon self gratification. Utterson (Peter Cushing), Marlowe’s Lawyer argues that human civilisation is based upon governing our passions. But Marlowe feels that research in this field could reduce patient’s inhibitions, which are often the root cause of their problems. He subsequently uses a drug he has created on two of his patients. It seems to either make the subject docile or facilitate their secret urges. As he ethically cannot risk any further tests, he takes the drug himself, releasing his alter ego Edward Blake. At first Blake is content with the most obvious worldly pleasures but over time he becomes more violent and uncontrollable. Marlowe’s friends are unaware of his experiments and fear that Blake is simply a ruffian that is blackmailing the doctor.
I, Monster is a somewhat set bound production with a few locations scenes. As the screenplay is true to the novella, a lot of Blake’s crimes are discussed retrospectively by the main cast and not shown on screen. There is a knife fight and a chase scene that culminates in a murder but overall, the film is some what light on unpleasantries for a horror film. It isn’t especially long either which is another issue. However, Christopher Lee’s performance is compelling and does much to mitigate the production’s shortcomings. Unlike other film adaptations there are no overly theatrical transformation scenes. When Lee initially “releases” his alter ego, we simply see his stern Victorian demeanour relax into a rather sinister and lascivious smile. Over time Blake’s features become coarser. His rictus smile is like that of a slavering beast and his complexion reflects his debauched lifestyle. Simple make-up is effectively used to reinforce Lee’s physical performance.
The rest of the cast provide robust support, with Peter Cushing as ever bringing dignity, gravitas and conviction to his modest role. There is a simple fight scene at the end of the film which takes place within a small room. Filmed through the exterior windows, it does “quite a lot with very little” and works well. It makes the conflict between Utterson and Blake very personal. This is where the film’s budget provides some creativity and innovation. Sadly, despite practical cinematography by Moray Grant, the film has an unpleasant colour palette with an emphasis on greens and yellow. This may be due to a 3D process that was originally intended but subsequently abandoned prior to release. Ultimately I, Monster did not perform well at the box office. Its brevity and lack of scope couldn’t compete with bigger budget, more contemporary horror movies that were replacing the gothic genre. However, the film has seen a critical reassessment in recent years, mainly due to Lee’s strong performance.