walkabout 2

WALKABOUT. (1971) REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

walkabout 2WALKABOUT. (1971) BASED ON THE NOVEL BY JAMES VANCE MARSHALL. DIRECTED BY/CINEMATOGRAPHY BY NICOLAS ROEG. MUSIC BY JOHN BARRY.

STARRING JENNY AGUTTER, LUC ROEG AND DAVID GULPILIL.

REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

This is an extraordinary film. I recently watched it on DVD on a Sunday lunchtime after waiting in vain for BBC2 to put on Rita Hayworth in PAL JOEY (1957) as promised. Damn you, Rio Olympics 2016…!

Televised sporting events have a lot to answer for, haha. You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve sat down, cup of tea and a biscuit beside me, all ready to watch a film only to hear the dreaded words:

‘Unfortunately, due to extended coverage of golf/horse-racing/the World Snooker Championships, the advertised movie will not now be shown…’ GRRRRR…!

Anyway, I had WALKABOUT out on loan from the library so I thought I’d give it a whirl, as it had recently been recommended to me by a Facebook friend as an example of British film-maker Nicolas Roeg’s early work. It was every bit as good as I’d been led to believe, and then some.

The film tells the incredible story of an English schoolgirl and her cute little golden-haired brother who find themselves stranded in the Australian Outback after a family picnic goes horribly wrong. They are saved from an agonising death from thirst and starvation (but mainly thirst!) by the timely appearance of a teenage Aboriginal boy.

The boy, fortuitously for the girl and her brother, is out in the Bush on his own doing his ‘walkabout.’ This refers to the several weeks the young Aboriginal boy must spend in the Outback alone, learning about basic survival among other things, before he can officially become a man.

This boy is definitely going to earn his stripes. It seems like there’s nothing he doesn’t know about surviving alone in the Bush. He knows how to suck water up out of the ground after the children’s water pool dries up mysteriously overnight. He knows how to kill various Bush animals, big and small, and cook their meat over a fire. The kids sure are lucky they ran into this guy…!

The girl, played by Jenny Agutter of THE RAILWAY CHILDREN fame (she was only seventeen at the time this was made) is undeniably beautiful and extremely camera-friendly. The camera, in fact, takes every opportunity to linger on her long, lissom legs and small firm breasts. Her school uniform skirt is more than a little north of the knee and every few minutes she’s whipping off her blouse and bra to have a wash or go for a swim.

She appears fully-frontally naked in several of the scenes and, while I acknowledge that it might not be practical to wear layers of heavy town clothing in the blazing Bush, it’s pretty obvious that Ms. Agutter’s constant nudity was always going to be an important selling factor for the film, which did in fact have some censorship issues when it was released.

The Aboriginal boy and the beautiful girl are intensely sexually aware of each other. Curious eyes caress naked breasts, buttocks and thighs every chance they get and there’s a palpable sexual tension between the pair. It’s not done in a lewd or nasty way, however, despite what I said about all the deliberate nudity earlier…!

Young men and women do think of each other in mostly sexual terms when they’re going through puberty, and there’s nothing going on between the boy and girl in the film that’s not all perfectly natural and inevitable. There are quite a few stark-naked Aborigines featured in the film as well, by the way. Just to let you know, like…!

Even though the film’s rated ’12s,’ I personally would have slapped a ’15s’ certificate on it. Not because there’s anything at all wrong with the naked human body, especially in situations in which clothes are not normally worn anyway, but mainly because kids watching the film may find all the coming-of-age hoo-ha and sexual awareness stuff a bit confusing and hard to handle.

The other star of this fabulously-photographed film would have to be the Australian Bush itself. What a hauntingly beautiful but terrifying place it is, just like in PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK from the exact same era. I know I wouldn’t last five minutes out there alone, not being a naturally outdoorsy kind of gal. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The knowledge you’d need to possess to be able to survive in a harsh place like that would just boggle the mind. Fair play to anyone who’s ever managed it. It would be beyond most people nowadays, myself included.

We’re mostly all much too spoilt with phones and gadgets and microwave ovens and whatnot to be able to even imagine a life without our many comforts and safeguards. Could we, for example, even last a day without social media? Unlikely. Try it and see…!

The Bush animals in their natural habitat are themselves extraordinary. Your eyes will bug out of your head when you see some of them.  They’re out of this world. Miracles of nature, all of ’em! The scenes with the hunters are deeply distressing, though. There are real scenes of animal deaths in the film that will upset any animal-lovers out there so be warned.

I loved the imagery of the sexy trees (these have to be seen to be believed!) and also the fact that Rod Stewart’s GASOLINE ALLEY, one of his earliest hits if not the very first, is playing on the girl’s tinny little transistor radio near the start of the film. I literally hadn’t heard that song played anywhere in years. It’s a great song and it was quite a surprise to hear it here.

The golden-haired little boy, whom I think is Nicolas Roeg’s own son, is a great little actor. Nicolas Roeg, by the way, is the director of one of the best and most haunting horror films ever made, namely DON’T LOOK NOW (1973), based on the short story by Daphne Du Maurier. She also wrote the novel REBECCA and the short story THE BIRDS, both of which were turned into superb films by movie maestro Alfred Hitchcock. The lucky cow…!

The courtship/mating ritual scene towards the end of the film is amazing and its outcome brutally harsh. I really disliked the girl afterwards, even though technically she did nothing wrong. You’ll see what I mean if you watch WALKABOUT for yourself.

There are probably two ways of looking at it. Just because the boy wants something and offers something to her doesn’t at all mean that the girl has to feel the same or reciprocate. Just because he’s saved her life doesn’t mean she has to repay him in that way, does it?

On the other hand, she does come across as a real cold fish, self-possessed and self-absorbed, and it’s not really her whom we feel sorry for. That’s just my opinion, though. You guys can make up your own minds as to whose side you’re on, if anyone’s. For all we know, it could just be some shit that happens, as we know that shit undoubtedly does at times.

Anyway, you should definitely watch this excellent film if you ever get the chance. It’s absolutely unforgettable. You’ll have to be okay with all the nudieness, though. If you’ve already watched bare titties and butts jiggling about in constant motion in other films in the past and come through unscathed, then you’ll probably be okay this time around too. Just in case, though, I’ll certainly pray for you, dearest readers…!

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based novelist, film blogger and movie reviewer. She has studied Creative Writing and Film-Making. She has published a number of e-books on the following topics: horror film reviews, multi-genre film reviews, womens’ fiction, erotic fiction, erotic horror fiction and erotic poetry. Several new books are currently in the pipeline. You can browse or buy any of Sandra’s books by following the link below straight to her Amazon Author Page:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B015GDE5RO

You can contact Sandra at:

https://www.facebook.com/SandraHarrisPureFilthPoetry

https://sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

http://sexysandieblog.wordpress.com

http://serenaharker.wordpress.com

sandrasandraharris@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/SandraAuthor

Orson-Welles-shadows-xlarge

THE THIRD MAN. (1949) REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

Orson-Welles-shadows-xlargeTHE THIRD MAN. (1949) DIRECTED BY CAROL REED. PRODUCED BY DAVID O. SELZNICK AND ALEXANDER KORDA FOR LONDON FILMS. ASSOCIATE PRODUCER: CAROL REED. WRITTEN BY GRAHAM GREENE. PHOTOGRAPHED BY ROBERT KRASKER. MUSIC SCORE BY ANTON KARAS.

STARRING JOSEPH COTTEN, ALIDA VALLI, TREVOR HOWARD, BERNARD LEE, ERNST DEUTSCH, WILFRID HYDE WHITE AND ORSON WELLES.

REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

This is the kind of film that routinely makes it into those brilliant 100 BEST MOVIES EVER MADE list shows that used to be everywhere on television in the ‘Nineties and the ‘Noughties. Now, not so much, sadly. I miss them. The film is along the same lines as CASABLANCA and THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS and easily as good, if not better. Yes, it’s actually that good! Let’s take a squint at the plot.

Joseph Cotten is fantastic as Holly Martins. He’s the writer of lurid paperback Western novels who turns up in post-war Vienna at the invitation of his old mucker Harry Lime. Harry’s offered him some kind of a job as well as, presumably, a doss-down in his gaff. Joseph Cotten is handsome in a rugged kind of way. I could certainly go for him myself, the way he looks all manly and sort of overcoat-y in this film.

The one problem with Harry’s kind invitation is that Harry has had the unforgivably bad manners to go and get himself killed a couple of days before Holly rocks up in Vienna, all excited about meeting his old pal.

That’s right, Harry was run over by a truck and carried across the road to his home by, seemingly, three men, only two of whom can be satisfactorily identified. The mystery of ‘the third man’s’ identity is how the film gets its name. It’s obvious, innit…?

The more Holly hears about his chum’s sudden death, the more he becomes convinced that Harry’s demise was no accident. Harry was a racketeer, see? He was heavily involved in the black market, as indeed a lot of folks in post-war Europe seem to have been, so surely there might be any number of people who’d have had reason to wish him ill. Holly resolves to stick around in Vienna until he solves the mystery of why Harry was killed.

His decision to stay on in the beautiful, slightly decaying-looking post-war Vienna brings him into contact with a number of interesting people. There’s theatre actress and illegal immigrant Anna Schmidt for one, Harry’s former girlfriend who feels like her life is over and she’s got nothing to live for now that Harry’s dead. I find her a bit too miserable and mopey, a bit too much of an ungrateful sourpuss, for my liking.

Come on, love, we’ve all been there. Snap out of it. Life goes on, tomorrow is another day, plenty more fish in the sea and all that jazz. Also- and this maxim certainly applies in this case- I’m a firm believer in ‘if you can’t be with the one you love, then love the one you’re with.’ I know it’s easier said than done but trust me, love, you’ll get over him. Some day. And not without considerable pain and suffering to your good self…

Holly’s search for the ‘truth’ about Harry’s death causes him to lock horns with Trevor Howard, who does a wonderful job of playing the trimly-moustached and oh-so-terribly-English Major Calloway, who’s poking his aristocratic nose into all kinds of things to do with the late Harry Lime.

The cynical Intelligence Major, who looks absolutely darling in his duffel-coat and little beret, has one or two home truths for Holly about his dear old friend Harry Lime, deeply unpalatable truths which, if a shocked Holly chooses to believe them, may change his mind about Harry forever.

And if it takes a discarded teddy bear to help Holly come to a painful decision and bring the search to an electrifying conclusion in the very bowels of the city, then so be it.

Sergeant Paine, the Major’s subordinate and constant companion, is a thoroughly decent character too. He’s an avid reader of Holly’s books, a fact which naturally Holly finds immensely gratifying, and he’s just a jolly decent English chap who only wants to do his job and bring the bad guys to book for their misdeeds. We’re just not entirely sure who exactly these are, unfortunately…

The setting of the film in post-war Vienna is a marvellous choice. We’ve got atmosphere and fantastic cinematography by the bucket-load as the cameras take us along pitch-black little cobbled streets and up chipped decaying staircases into magnificent old apartments which look like they used to be the family home of posho aristocrats before the war, and before they got divided up into flats for the common people of Vienna. No offence intended to any commoners there, haha. Sure, we’re all commoners nowadays.

We’re taken into little European cafés and up on a Ferris wheel in a slummy old fairground, and we’re even lured down, down, deeper and down into the sewers that criss-cross Vienna’s underbelly and which can be used, if necessary, as a personal escape route for a ghost. The ghost of a man who was supposed to be… Well, I can’t tell you, but the settings are absolute perfection itself. What a wonderful film!

The zither music that runs all through the film is part of what makes it so famous, as you probably know. Even if you’re reading this and you don’t think you know the particular piece of music, you’d know it straightaway if it were played for you right now.

It was composed by a chap called Anton Karas, who was accidentally discovered playing at a Vienna café during production of the film. The score became an international bestseller. I just think that that’s one of the best movie stories I’ve ever heard. It all just worked out so neatly for everyone involved.

A word now about Citizen Kane or Orson Welles himself. I admit, I find his fleshy good looks extremely appealing, not to mention the aura of mischief and sheer physical presence that he exudes whenever he’s on screen.

He makes a huge impact in this film, in which an adorable puppy dog, a clever kitty-kat who likes to nibble on shoelaces and a precious little pudding of a small boy (played by Herbert Halbik), who might conceivably still be alive today, also make memorable appearances.

Mr. Welles is not necessarily the only star of this show, however. There are three stars of THE THIRD MAN, all male, and all equally worthy of praise and admiration. Orson Welles is, of course, one of these. When you watch this film, you won’t have any difficulty whatsoever in pinpointing the other two. Happy watching…!

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based novelist, film blogger and movie reviewer. She has studied Creative Writing and Film-Making. She has published a number of e-books on the following topics: horror film reviews, multi-genre film reviews, womens’ fiction, erotic fiction, erotic horror fiction and erotic poetry. Several new books are currently in the pipeline. You can browse or buy any of Sandra’s books by following the link below straight to her Amazon Author Page:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B015GDE5RO

You can contact Sandra at:

https://www.facebook.com/SandraHarrisPureFilthPoetry

https://sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

http://sexysandieblog.wordpress.com

http://serenaharker.wordpress.com

sandrasandraharris@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/SandraAuthor

devil a daughter

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER. (1976) REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

devil a daughterTO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER. (1976) MADE BY HAMMER FILM PRODUCTIONS. BASED ON THE BOOK BY DENNIS WHEATLEY. DIRECTED BY PETER SYKES.

STARRING CHRISTOPHER LEE, RICHARD WIDMARK, NASTASSJA KINSKI, HONOR BLACKMAN, ANTHONY VALENTINE, DEREK FRANCIS AND DENHOLM ELLIOTT.

REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

If we’ve learned anything at all from this excellent horror film, it’s that you should never let your literary agents babysit your nun. It can lead to tricky situations. Yes, you read that correctly, haha.

I suppose that some cynics might say that another thing this film has taught us is how not to make a horror film and, yes, I’ll allow that it’s a tad messy in places. I still love it, though, and I always will. So there, critics. Take that, you naughty lot.

It’s true that Dennis Wheatley wasn’t too happy with Hammer’s interpretation of his book, although of course they’d done a marvellous job with his other novel THE DEVIL RIDES OUT some eight years before. That was and still remains to this day an utterly superb film of the occult.

It’s also true, or so I’ve heard, that Christopher Lee wasn’t thrilled with the finished product either. It’s said that he didn’t like the ending of TTDAD, which is probably the weakest part of it.

There were negative reviews at the time as well, which is sad because this could have- should have- been a top-notch horror film. It was Hammer’s attempt to make themselves a ROSEMARY’S BABY or an EXORCIST type of movie, the kind of horror that was big at the time. Fair play to them for having a good old crack at it, I say.

It’s certainly beautifully-shot, well-acted and atmospheric and it has an absolutely cracking cast. So, what’s wrong with it, then? I think it’s the plot, to be honest with you. It’s confusing at times and unnecessarily convoluted in places.

I had a lot of trouble with the plot when I first saw the film. It was a bit like: ‘So, is this girl the Devil’s bride or his daughter or what, or is she the Devil him/herself, then? And who is this woman Margaret’s baby? Is HE the Devil? What are they doing to the baby? And where does this fellow Astaroth who gets mentioned every five minutes come into it? Is Catherine Astaroth? Is there any need for all this annoying complicating of the plot?’ And so on and so forth. I’d better explain…!

Catherine is a beautiful young nun who is brought from Germany to ‘Seventies England to fulfil a very special destiny. She’s beautiful because she’s played by Nastassja Kinski, the then fifteen-year-old daughter of German-Polish acting legend, Klaus Kinski. Eccentric and often disliked he may have been, but there’s no doubting that he was a striking-looking chap with his bright blonde hair and razor-sharp cheekbones.

She stripped off completely for her role in this, which is a little alarming because of how young she was. It was more common in those days, though, I suppose. But still, only fifteen and doing a scene like that in the altogether, it’s a bit weird…! I don’t suppose any guys protested too much about it, though.

Catherine is whisked away from the ‘protection’ of ‘the Children of the Lord,’ the order who have raised her to be the Devil’s Something-Or-Other, by American occult author John Verney. Verney, played by veteran Western actor Richard Widmark, is doing this at the request of Catherine’s father, Henry Beddows, played by Denholm Elliott.

Beddows has long-standing knowledge of the horrible cult of Satanists known as ‘the Children of the Lord.’ He knows exactly what they are planning to do to Catherine now that she’s about to turn eighteen. At terrible risk to himself, he begs Verney to hide Catherine, which Verney does.

The person who’s angriest at Catherine’s abduction is excommunicated priest Father Michael Rainer, brilliantly played by the magnificent Prince of Darkness himself, Christopher Lee.

He hasn’t come this far to let his plans- and the plans, seemingly, of the famous Astaroth- for world domination be thwarted now. He wants Catherine back so that the prophecy can be fulfilled, and he doesn’t care what he has to do to get her back…

It all sounds quite coherent when you put it like that, doesn’t it? It’s all the baby stuff that has people all confused, I think. There’s so much that I love about this film.

I love Richard Widmark’s book-lined little riverside apartment and the American way in which he says ‘Catherine,’ just as if she were a pretty squaw or a villager or a wagon-train woman in one of his wonderful old Westerns.

My favourite films of his have always been WAGON TRAIN and TWO RODE TOGETHER. In this last one, he co-starred with my other favourite Western actor, James Stewart.

I absolutely adore the plummy-voiced Bond Girl Honor Blackman and the handsome Anthony Valentine as Anna and David, Verney’s friends and literary agents. Their involvement in Verney’s plans to keep Catherine safe from the Satanists will impact most heavily upon them. I love the book launch in the art gallery too. It’s just so arty and literary. My personal idea of a thoroughly good time, haha.

I love Christopher Lee’s fanatical but paternalistic smile during the birthing scene, and the way that he accepts all manner of horribly painful sacrifices from the women in his life while all he himself has to do is tie a woman to the bed with white silk scarves, the lazy, arrogant sod, haha.

I love the special effects and the eerie music and the gorgeous interiors; for example, the old church where ‘the pact’ is hidden, the old library where Verney consults the ‘Grimoire of Astaroth’ and, of course, Beddows’s lovely old English mansion where he hides from ‘the Children of the Lord,’ who are not as angelic and harmless as they sound by a long shot.

By the way, Francis RISING DAMP De La Tour does a great job as the Salvation Army Major who tries to rope Verney into a sing-song, and ‘the pact’ looks like a Terry’s Chocolate Orange when it’s glowing. I’m just saying. Remember Dawn French in the ad? ‘It’s not Terry’s, it’s mine…!’

Finally, I especially love the sight of Christopher Lee’s splendidly nude backside in the film’s rather naughty sex scene. Or at least, I did until I watched an interview with Sir Chris’s stunt double Eddie Powell which followed the film…

The lovely smiley Mr. Powell described for an audience that was almost crying with laughter how he doubled for Sir Chris in the sex scene, nude backside and all. He also threw in, just for good measure, the fact that he was the one who carried all the swooning women around in his arms in various films as well, as Sir Chris had a bad back and couldn’t do it himself.

Way to go, Eddie Powell, charming and funny as you undoubtedly are. Way to ruin all my sexy illusions in one fell swoop. I’d still have those illusions if only I hadn’t clicked on ‘Interview With Eddie Powell.‘ Damn you, my OCD-like compulsion for checking the extra features, haha.

Anyway, I love this film and even the little piddly plot inconsistencies aren’t enough to put me off it. I’m going off to watch it again this very minute. Or, at least, I’m going to re-watch one scene in particular. And I’m going to try very hard to pretend that I’ve never heard the name of Eddie Powell…!

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based novelist, film blogger and movie reviewer. She has studied Creative Writing and Film-Making. She has published a number of e-books on the following topics: horror film reviews, multi-genre film reviews, womens’ fiction, erotic fiction, erotic horror fiction and erotic poetry. Several new books are currently in the pipeline. You can browse or buy any of Sandra’s books by following the link below straight to her Amazon Author Page:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B015GDE5RO

You can contact Sandra at:

https://www.facebook.com/SandraHarrisPureFilthPoetry

https://sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

http://sexysandieblog.wordpress.com

http://serenaharker.wordpress.com

sandrasandraharris@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/SandraAuthor

miss thomas

RASPUTIN THE MAD MONK/I, MONSTER: A DOUBLE REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

 miss thomas

I, MONSTER/RASPUTIN THE MAD MONK. A DOUBLE BILL OF CHRISTOPHER LEE HORROR FILM REVIEWS BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

I, MONSTER. (1972) AN AMICUS PRODUCTION. DIRECTED BY STEPHEN WEEKS. PRODUCED BY MAX J. ROSENBERG AND MILTON SUBOTSKY. SCREENPLAY BY MILTON SUBOTSKY.

STARRING CHRISTOPHER LEE, PETER CUSHING, MIKE RAVEN, SUSAN JAMESON AND MARJIE LAWRENCE.

RASPUTIN THE MAD MONK. (1966) THE HAMMER COLLECTION. DIRECTED BY DON SHARP. PRODUCED BY ANTHONY NELSON KEYS. SCREENPLAY BY JOHN ELDER.

STARRING CHRISTOPHER LEE, BARBARA SHELLEY, FRANCIS MATTHEWS, SUZAN FARMER AND RICHARD PASCO.

These are two of my favourite Christopher Lee horror films, though of the two I probably favour I, MONSTER over RASPUTIN because Sir Chris’s handsome face and lovely hair are fully on display in it and not obscured beneath that awful ‘Rasputin’ wig and bushy beard he’s got to wear in the film. You’d know his dark piercing eyes anywhere though, crazy facial hair or no crazy facial hair…!

I, MONSTER, based on Robert Louis Stevenson’s Jekyll and Hyde story, is a cracking little film. Lee is superb- and devastatingly handsome- as Marlowe/Blake. Peter Cushing is just perfect, as always, and so cuddly, especially when he’s all tucked up in his beddy-byes wearing his nice warm pyjamas!

Mike Raven too is splendidly entertaining to watch as the plummy-voiced Enfield and the plush sets place the action beautifully in a post-Victorian London in which the gap between rich and poor is clearly delineated. The streets of London in the dead of night hold many unsavoury secrets…

Dr. Charles Marlowe (Christopher Lee) would appear to have something of a split personality. On the one hand, he is an enimently respectable English physician who has dedicated his life to the healing of troubled minds and earned the respect of his peers.

With cultured, educated men like his friend and colleague Dr. Lanyon, his solicitor Utterson- beautifully played by Peter Cushing- and Mr. Enfield, he sits in his luxurious and exclusive club and chats about the daily news and the great moral questions of the day.

On the other hand, however, he has developed a character-modifying drug which he thinks might benefit his patients, people like the buttoned-up, sexually repressed Miss Thomas, for example. Too scrupulous to risk the welfare of his patients by testing his drug on them indefinitely, Dr. Marlowe tries it on himself… Enter Mr. Blake, Marlowe’s alter-ego.

Where Marlowe is infinitely respectable and restrained in all his dealings, as befitting an English toff at the turn of the century, Mr. Blake respects no boundaries whatsoever. He commits all manner of heinous crimes, from the grievous injuring of a small child to the murder of a prostitute who laughs at his ugliness.

That’s the thing, you see. Every time Marlowe takes the drug and perpetrates yet more atrocities as Mr. Blake, he becomes more and more hideous to look upon physically. It’s the price he has to pay for having the freedom to behave exactly as he pleases without fear of penalty, retribution or come-uppance.

The good doctor’s friends begin to worry about him. He falls out with Dr. Lanyon, his friend and mentor, because Dr. Lanyon disapproves thoroughly of Marlowe’s experiments. Enfield, played by the marvellous Mike Raven, has seen the disreputable Mr. Blake going in and out of Marlowe’s house and making free with his home, his chequebook and his servants.

Mr. Utterson, Marlowe’s lawyer, is deeply disturbed by the knowledge that Marlowe has even changed his will in favour of the odious, repugnant Blake. Marlowe’s friends believe that he is in thrall to the wicked Mr. Blake and are blissfully unaware that Marlowe and Blake are, in fact, one and the same person.

Marlowe, sickened by the actions of his alter-ego, resolves never again to use the drug that will transform him into the monster. To his horror, however, things have gone too far and he begins to change into Blake against his will…

This is a marvellous film. One small thing I enjoyed about it was the way that Marlowe’s faithful retainer Poole sits dozing in the chair by the front door until his master returns home from wherever he’s been. As I said, it’s just a small point but the attention to detail in the film is admirable.

The sets and costumes are utterly (Utterson?) gorgeous and the interiors of the post-Victorian townhouses are just stunning. Not a piece of furniture or ornament out of place, not a fixture or fitting that doesn’t contribute one hundred per cent to the scene in which it’s placed.

The same could be said of RASPUTIN THE MAD MONK, although it’s a HAMMER film and not an AMICUS one. Same difference as far as quality is concerned. It’s all good, haha. We’re transported back to early 20th century Russia as Christopher Lee takes on the titular role of Rasputin, the infamous monk from our history books. With probably a few tweaks for plot propulsion, mind…!

The tall, dark bearded monk has the power to heal sick people with his hands and deep, mesmerising eyes. He can also hold vulnerable women in his sexual thrall (Oooh-er, Missus…!) using those very same eyes and his powers of hypnotism. And he’s a great dancer too, by the way.

He uses these nefarious powers (the hypnotism, not the dancing!) to propel himself from the position of lowly monk to personal healer to the Tsarina of the whole of Russia. A magnificent house comes with this position, although Rasputin has antagonised many people on his journey to the top with his arrogance, his selfishness and greed and the way he uses people to further his own aims, discarding them then once they’ve outlived their usefulness.

One such victim is Sonia, one of the Tsarina’s ladies-in-waiting. Sonia, brilliantly played by the divine Barbara Shelley, is used and abused by Rasputin and just generally treated appallingly by him. He makes her fall in love with him and then, when she’s done everything he wants her to do, he casts her aside in the cruellest possible way. No wonder half of Russia’s out for the blood of the mad, bad sexually insatiable monk…

One of my favourite things about this film is that it brings Barbara Shelley, Francis Matthews and Suzan Farmer together again after they’d made DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS together the year before.

They played three of the four hapless people who found themselves accidentally shacked up in Dracula’s Castle and, incidentally, in the power of that same frightening personage and they were all absolutely marvellous in their roles. They really made us care about them with their warm, heartfelt and convincing performances.

Christopher Lee made many wonderful films but these, as I said, are two of my favourites of them all. They’d make a great back-to-back double feature for a rainy afternoon or a quiet night in by the fire. Or for any time, really. Watch them again and again and you’ll still never have enough. They’re just that good.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based novelist, film blogger and movie reviewer. She has studied Creative Writing and Film-Making. She has published a number of e-books on the following topics: horror film reviews, multi-genre film reviews, womens’ fiction, erotic fiction, erotic horror fiction and erotic poetry. Several new books are currently in the pipeline. You can browse or buy any of Sandra’s books by following the link below straight to her Amazon Author Page:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B015GDE5RO

You can contact Sandra at:

https://www.facebook.com/SandraHarrisPureFilthPoetry

https://sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

http://sexysandieblog.wordpress.com

http://serenaharker.wordpress.com

sandrasandraharris@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/SandraAuthor

JUD SÜSS: A NAZI PROPAGANDA FILM. (1940) REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS.

jud suss

JUD SÜSS:A NAZI PROPAGANDA FILM. (1940) BASED ON TRUE HISTORICAL EVENTS AND ALSO ON THE 1827 NOVELLA BY WILHELM HAUFF.

DIRECTED BY VEIT HARLAN. WRITTEN BY VEIT HARLAN, EBERHARD WOLFGANG MŐLLER AND LUDWIG METZGER. MUSIC BY WOLFGANG ZELLER.

STARRING FERDINAND MARIAN, HEINRICH GEORGE, WERNER KRAUSS, KRISTINA SŐDERBAUM, MALTE JAEGER AND EUGEN KLŐPFER.

REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

This might seem like an odd choice of film to review but, trust me, I can totally explain! Having long had a fascination with Hitler’s Third Reich and the shocking events of World War Two, I’d been reading Michael Munn’s excellent book from 2012, HITLER AND THE NAZI CULT OF FILM AND FAME, and found it utterly fascinating, to re-use a word I used there just a minute ago.

Some people may not know this, but Hitler and his hatchet-faced Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels were obsessed with all things relating to the cinema. Hitler spent hours of every day watching films when he was meant to be, well, Hitler-ing, if you know what I mean.

Goebbels once gave him a stack of old MICKEY MOUSE cartoons as a birthday present, and one of Hitler’s favourite movies ever was the brilliant 1933 version of KING KONG starring the original scream queen Fay Wray, in which a giant ape falls hopelessly in love with a beautiful blonde woman. It’s strange to think of Hitler in terms of his following normal pursuits, isn’t it?

In fact, both Hitler and Goebbels were fully aware of the advantages of using cinema as a propaganda tool to promote Nazism. Three films were released in 1940 that were considered to be the most anti-semitic (or anti-Jew) of all time.

Two of these were DIE ROTHSCHILDS and DER EWIGE JUDE, or THE ETERNAL JEW. I watched a bit of the latter film on You-Tube once and found it to be quite hard going. Having now successfully watched JUD SŰSS, the third of these infamous Nazi propaganda films, I do intend to have a bash at DER EWIGE JUDE another time, if only for a sense of completion.

Hitler’s approach to Nazi propaganda films seems to have been to sledgehammer people over the head with the notion that the Jews were bad people, for example as in DER EWIGE JUDE. Though it’s hard to think of Goebbels, one of Hitler’s most hated Ministers, as being capable of subtlety, that was the approach Goebbels favoured when it came to spreading the Nazi creed via the cinema.

That’s why JUD SŰSS, ‘the most reviled film of all time,’ disseminates and delivers its anti-semitic message all wrapped up in gorgeous costumes, a majestic musical score, a genuinely interesting story and good acting from some of Germany’s most popular actors and actresses of the time. And yet, for all the dressing up, the message is still crystal-clear. Jews bad, Germans good…

I found the film on You-Tube without any difficulty whatsoever and guiltily clicked on it, hesitating momentarily when I read the little warning stating that the You-Tube community finds this film to contain inappropriate content and that I should continue with caution.

The opening credits in their old German writing, the stirring yet sinister organ music and the obvious oldness of the film all sent shivers down my spine. Believe me when I say that I’m not exaggerating about that. I felt chills all over me as the film started.

I also felt very strongly that perhaps I shouldn’t be watching this film but, I admit it, I was curious about the movie that Michael Munn had described in his wonderful book as ‘the most reviled film of all time.‘ I was curious in the way that people can’t resist stopping to peer at a car crash or kids in movies like to poke at a dead body with a stick. I was just plain curious, goddammit…!

JUD SŰSS, a film of ninety or so minutes length, would actually be a good historical film to watch if there wasn’t the plainly evil intent behind it, souring it like a miasma. It’s based on actual events, apparently, and the action kicks off in 1733 or thereabouts and finishes up five years later in 1738. Well, yeah, I know you guys can add up, haha. I just like to be helpful.

Anyway, Karl Alexander is the rich and obviously well-fed Duke of a place called Wűrttemberg in Ye Olden Times. He appoints as his Financial Advisor a Jewish chap by the name of Joseph Sűss Oppenheimer, who is our titular JUD SŰSS. This proves to be the worst decision of the portly Duke’s life.

From the moment he does so, there is nothing but misery, financial hardships and suffering for the people of Wűrttemberg, thanks to the machinations of the odious and grasping Oppenheimer, who is portrayed as a nasty piece of work from the start.

Oppenheimer loses no time in squeezing every penny out of the townspeople, ostensibly to swell the coffers of the Duke but Oppenheimer’s clothing and jewellery grow finer and more luxurious with each passing scene so I guess you can work out where a fair whack of the dosh is going, haha.

While the Town Council of Wűrttemberg grow daily more incensed with Oppenheimer’s behaviour, the Financial Advisor goes on merrily lining his own and the Duke’s pockets and procuring frightened, virginal young women for the fat Duke to, ahem, presumably de-virginize. These scenes with the terrified young women are genuinely disturbing. It’s obvious that they’re going to be raped by the Duke and their distaste for him is as clear as day.

Kristina Sőderbaum, incidentally the director’s wife and one of the big stars of the day, plays Dorothea Sturm, the beautiful daughter of one of the town’s most prominent Council officials. She is betrothed to Faber, a man of her own age, and is madly in love with him.

Unfortunately for everyone concerned, the slimy, repugnant Oppenheimer sets his sights on the lovely Dorothea and pursues her relentlessly. How can Dorothea escape his noxious clutches, and if she cannot, what will be the consequences?

This particular part of the storyline is actually gripping and extremely dramatic and, while you’re watching it, you’ll most likely forget that this is a Nazi propaganda film. I actually felt kind of conflicted myself watching these bits…!

The Town Council, meanwhile, is becoming more and more agitated and when Dorothea’s Councillor Pops is arrested for so-called treason against his Duke, the you-know-what really hits the other thing.

For how long can Oppenheimer continue to influence the greedy Duke? The Duke loves the money Oppenheimer brings him but he’s brought Karl Alexander nothing but trouble as well, so who knows where it will all end?

The Jews are portrayed in the film as sly, bearded, sexually perverted, physically unappealing sleazy parasites, as opposed to the healthy upright handsome Germans who are just trying to lead good honest lives with their loved ones. Goebbels apparently stuck his oar in in post-production and complained to Harlan that Oppenheimer wasn’t coming across as evil enough, so changes had to be made to accommodate his demands.

The director and many of the actors were all made to answer for their involvement in the film when the war ended. Lots of them, the director included, claimed they’d been coerced into making the film by the Nazis and so shouldn’t be held to account for their actions.

There are plenty of interesting accounts online and in Michael Munn’s book regarding what happened to some of them after making the film. I won’t give anything away in case you want to go and do some research on the subject for yourselves, but I will say that some of their stories had tragic or dramatic endings. Enough said.

I normally end my reviews by urging the readers to either go and watch a certain film or to stay away from it at all costs if it sucks, haha. In this case, however, I’ll leave you guys to make up your own minds as to whether or not you want to see it. That’s one of the good things about these more enlightened times. We can do that.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based novelist, film blogger and movie reviewer. She has studied Creative Writing and Film-Making. She has published a number of e-books on the following topics: horror film reviews, multi-genre film reviews, womens’ fiction, erotic fiction, erotic horror fiction and erotic poetry. Several new books are currently in the pipeline. You can browse or buy any of Sandra’s books by following the link below straight to her Amazon Author Page:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B015GDE5RO

You can contact Sandra at:

https://www.facebook.com/SandraHarrisPureFilthPoetry

https://sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

http://sexysandieblog.wordpress.com

http://serenaharker.wordpress.com

sandrasandraharris@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/SandraAuthor

body heat

BODY HEAT. (1981) REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

body heatBODY HEAT. (1981) WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY LAWRENCE KASDAN. INSPIRED BY THE FILM ‘DOUBLE INDEMNITY’ FROM 1944. MUSIC BY JOHN BARRY.

STARRING KATHLEEN TURNER, WILLIAM HURT, RICHARD CRENNA, TED DANSON, J.A. PRESTON, KIM ZIMMER AND MICKEY ROURKE. REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

Mmmm, this is a steamy one. A hot ‘n’ heavy, sweaty, sultry steamy one, and I ain’t just talking about the weather, either. This is a great sexy film inspired by the brilliant film noirs of the 1940s, in particular DOUBLE INDEMNITY, one of the best examples of that genre ever.

Starring Fred MacMurray as the insurance salesman, Edward G. Robinson as the phony claims investigator and Barbara Stanwyck as the sexy housewife who wants her hubby bumped off for the money, DOUBLE INDEMNITY was directed by Billy SOME LIKE IT HOT Wilder and based on the superb novel by James M. Cain. He also wrote MILDRED PIERCE and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. That’s quite an impressive back catalogue…!

Anyway, I probably shouldn’t have re-watched BODY HEAT right-slap-bang in the middle of Ireland’s annual heatwave. It happens every July for a couple of weeks and it’s miserable. The sweat would be pouring off you from the moment you get up to the time you crash into bed at night, hot and disgruntled. Tempers flare and people argue and behave all out-of-character until Senor Sol (the fuppin’ baxterd!) packs his bags and fecks off again for another year. A bit like in BODY HEAT.

This super-sexy movie set during a Florida heatwave did nothing to help me cool down. Rather, it got me all hot ‘n’ bothered and sent my temperature soaring upwards as I followed the twists and turns of the plot in my underwear with the sweat dripping off me. Yeah, I know. That’s a sexy image, right guys? Haha. Control yourselves, you horny lot, and let’s gab about the fillum…

This was the magnificent Kathleen Turner’s movie debut. She plays Matty Walker, the sex-bomb of an unhappy housewife who wants to kill her hubby and keep all his money for herself. Although some critics have condemned her performance as being a tad wooden, there’s no denying that she’s the hottest ticket in town as far as sex and sexuality are concerned.

She positively sizzles as she seduces and manipulates poor old lawyer Ned Racine, who can’t be blamed for anything he does because obviously he’s being influenced by his wiener-brain and not his head-brain, haha. Everyone knows that blokes can’t help what they do where sex and wimmin are concerned…!

Anyway, this film launched Kathleen Turner as a sort of sexy siren of an actress who, in 1995, was named by EMPIRE magazine as ‘One Of The 100 Sexiest Stars In Film History,’ which is quite a nice little accolade to have under your belt. THE NEW YORK TIMES wrote of her in 2005 that:

‘Propelled by her jaw-dropping movie debut in BODY HEAT, she built a career on adventurousness and frank sexuality born of robust physicality.’

I agree totally with this assessment. So too, probably, would anyone who’s ever seen her in films like ROMANCING THE STONE (1983), THE JEWEL OF THE NILE (1985) and THE WAR OF THE ROSES (1989), which prove exactly how physically robust she is. There’s something very sexy about a nice well-built healthy woman who can do a few cartwheels in the bedroom.

She and Michael Douglas made a great team, incidentally. My favourite role of hers, though, apart from the Matty Walker one, was as Chandler Bing’s cross-dressing Dad in FRIENDS. Yes, I said ‘Dad…!’ She and the gloriously bitchy and glamorous Morgan Fairchild did a bang-up job as Chandler’s warring parents. God, I loved that show…!(#imissthenineties)

It’s obvious to the viewers that Matty is selfish, self-absorbed and ruthless in her quest to get what she wants. Does she ever really love Ned, the man she convinces to do her dirty work for her, or is he just a pawn in her game? There’s no doubt that she’s genuinely sexually attracted to him, the little hussy. Mind you, William Hurt’s gorgeous in this, as he is in everything. I especially fancied him as investigator Arkady Renko in GORKY PARK (1983). There’s just something so sexy (in an understated way) about him always.

Ted Danson, otherwise known as flirtatious bar-owner Sam Malone from brilliant ‘Eighties sitcom CHEERS, does a brilliant job here as the tap-dancing prosecutor. He knows he has to do his job, which means nailing Ned, but he hates the fact that it’s his best mate he’s persecuting-slash-prosecuting. He desperately doesn’t want Ned to be guilty but, hey, things are what they are.

A ridiculously young-looking Mickey Rourke doesn’t do a whole lot for me as Ned’s former client who’s willing to sort him out with a bomb. Yes, a bomb, believe it or not. I can see why other women would fancy him, though. Me personally, I prefer greasy-haired, sweaty Ned…

The music is sexy and atmospheric, the steam from the intense, life-sapping heat literally hangs over the city like a sticky mist and every performance is a winner. I’ve no complaints about this film. The sex is hot, the dialogue is sharp and the sweat that drips from the brow of every actor is all too real. Watch this film every chance you get, but don’t do what I did and re-watch it in the middle of a bloody heatwave. It doesn’t help…!

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based novelist, film blogger and movie reviewer. She has studied Creative Writing and Film-Making. She has published a number of e-books on the following topics: horror film reviews, multi-genre film reviews, womens’ fiction, erotic fiction, erotic horror fiction and erotic poetry. Several new books are currently in the pipeline. You can browse or buy any of Sandra’s books by following the link below straight to her Amazon Author Page:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B015GDE5RO

You can contact Sandra at:

https://www.facebook.com/SandraHarrisPureFilthPoetry

https://sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

http://sexysandieblog.wordpress.com

http://serenaharker.wordpress.com

https://twitter.com/SandraAuthor

sandrasandraharris@gmail.com

tales-from-the-crypt-cushing

TALES FROM THE CRYPT. (1972) REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

tales-from-the-crypt-cushingTALES FROM THE CRYPT. (1972) AN AMICUS PRODUCTION.

 DIRECTED BY FREDDIE FRANCIS. SCREENPLAY BY MILTON SUBOTSKY. PRODUCED BY MAX J. ROSENBERG AND MILTON SUBOTSKY. MUSIC BY DOUGLAS GAMLEY.

STARRING PETER CUSHING, JOAN COLLINS, ROY DOTRICE, RICHARD GREENE, IAN HENDRY, PATRICK MAGEE, BARBARA MURRAY, NIGEL PATRICK, ROBIN PHILLIPS AND RALPH RICHARDSON.

REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS. ©

Ah, they just don’t make ’em like this anymore, more’s the pity. I’ve owned this DVD since the Halloween of 2014, when I acquired it from my local LASER store. Literally on the 31st October of that year, the store, almost the last place in the area you could buy or rent old HAMMER and AMICUS movies, announced that it was closing its doors forever due to the fact that they could no longer compete with NETFLIX & Co. You know what I mean…!

The few weeks that followed were pandemonium in the store as they sold off everything they had in stock, for high enough prices at first and then more cheaply as the weeks went on and D-DAY approached. I myself purchased a shedload of amazing films including:

PSYCHOS 1-4; THE AMITYVILLE HORROR and AMITYVILLE 2: THE POSSESSION; THE ENTITY; Klaus Kinski in CRAWLSPACE and COBRA VERDE; HAMMER’S THE SCARS OF DRACULA, TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, THE MUMMY and THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN; Nicole Kidman in THE OTHERS; Peter Cushing in MANIA and, of course, the aforementioned TALES FROM THE CRYPT, among others. What a haul!

I felt a bit ghoulish at times, I must say, picking over the bones of the shop like that but, in my defence, everyone else was doing it too, haha. I even bought a load of their old movie reference guides because I couldn’t bear the thought of them possibly going in the bin.

The guys in the shop gave me a fabulous movie photo of Christopher Lee in THE WICKER MAN for free, which was amazing. They had all sorts of other brilliant movie memorabilia too which they either sold or gave away. I imagine that it all went to good homes as the folks who regularly used the store all tended to be genuine movie lovers. It was the discerning movie-lovers’ store, you might say…!

Remember that episode of THE SIMPSONS when Ned Flanders’s LEFTORIUM was failing due to the curse that Homer Simpson put on Ned? Ned’s so desperate for money that he sells everything he owns to Homer for next to nothing just to raise cash. In the end, he can’t even turn to the Bible for solace because he ‘sold it to you (Homer) for seven cents…!’

It was hard not to feel a bit like Homer as I walked out of LASER with my arms full of movie goodies, but the stuff I bought there during that time is stuff I’ll treasure forever. It even has its own special place in my collection under the heading: MY LASER STUFF…!

Anyway, on to the film, before everyone expecting a review packs up and goes home, haha. It’s a brilliant horror anthology film consisting of five vignettes and it stars such luminaries as HAMMER HORROR‘s Peter Cushing, the glamorous Joan Collins and dear old Ralph Richardson, who plays the Cryptkeeper.

That’s right, the Cryptkeeper here isn’t the crabbed, wizened skeletonized old rascal from the comics or the television series TALES OF THE CRYPT, it’s Ralph Richardson in a monk’s habit. Five random strangers find themselves compelled to take a tour of some mysterious old caves and ruins. They find themselves separated from the group and in a room with the cowled and stern-faced Cryptkeeper.

He then proceeds to tell each of them a gruesome story about how they will die. As you can imagine, they’re not exactly thrilled skinny with what they hear, especially when they find out that there’s a massive stingy twist in the tale. Let’s quickly run through the five vignettes.

Joan Collins is the star of the first one, which is called …AND ALL THROUGH THE HOUSE. She plays a greedy housewife who gets a whole lot more than she bargains for when she decides to bump off her hubby on Christmas Eve for the insurance money. Her acting is a wee bit hammy but God Almighty! She’s drop-dead gorgeous in her bling and her perfect make-up and her bone structure is to die for. She’s never looked so stunning.

The house is Christmassed up beautifully too with tree and decorations and heavenly Christmas carols playing throughout the vignette. This whole section is a glorious burst of colour and sound and it works really well. This is top-notch stuff, this is! A nice bit of seasonal horror for you there.

The second story, called REFLECTION OF DEATH, is about a married man whose attempts to leave his wife and children for his mistress go disastrously wrong. You might say that this fellow also gets a whole hell of a lot more than he’s bargained for as an automobile accident leaves him doubting his very existence, cue evil laugh… Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha…!

The third story is sooooo sad. Peter Cushing plays a lovely auld fella called Arthur Grimsdyke in POETIC JUSTICE, an old man whose posh snobby neighbour does everything in his power to rid the neighbourhood of Grimsdyke’s somewhat untidy presence.

The nasty James Elliott even goes so far as to imply that the gentle, harmless child-and-animal-loving old codger might be a paedophile. A paedophile…! Well! You do not call Peter Cushing’s character a paedophile and get away with it, and the snooty Elliott most certainly does not get away with it. His come-uppance will be grim (sdyke…?) indeed…

WISH YOU WERE HERE is possibly my least favourite of the vignettes. A rich businessman’s wife makes three wishes courtesy of a strange Chinese figurine when she finds out that her hubby is bankrupt. Naturally, it all goes pear-shaped, in the style of that old story THE MONKEY’S PAW. You know, be careful what you wish for and all that?

Probably the thing I don’t like about this one is that the businessman is guilty of no more than poor money management, so why is he getting it in the neck like the others? After all, he’s not the kind of heartless fuppin’ baxterd that would victimise an old man like Peter Cushing or leave his children forever for a bit of short-skirted, big-breasted totty, so what gives? Ah well. Maybe he’s paying the price for his wife’s greed. Men have to do that sometimes…!

The final vignette, BLIND ALLEYS, is my favourite one after the Joan Collins one. A cold-hearted ex-Army Major is given the position of running a residential home for blind men. He and his dog Shane live it up in style on the home’s budget while the poor blind men shiver, starve and even die because of the Major’s drastic financial cutbacks.

Patrick Magee turns in the performance of the whole film as the blind man who’s not going to take the Major’s shit anymore. He’s eerily calm, cold and single-minded as he galvanises his poor neglected blind comrades into decisive action.

I felt so sorry for all of them, but they’re absolutely wonderful too. Watch them giving up a piece of bacon each for the common cause and then building their mechanism of stern justice in unified silence as a team. They’re, in a word, marvellous. They certainly don’t deserve to live the inhumane way the greedy Major has decreed they must. How dare he, the dastardly devil…?

By the way, the dog Shane is a terrific little actor too. The DVD box refers to him as a ‘Belgian Malinois’ but he looks to me to be some sort of German Shepherd or Alsatian. I’m sure some dog-lover will correct my woeful ignorance, haha.

This is a wonderful film. You should watch it first chance you get, if you haven’t already. It’s a bit like that other excellent horror anthology film from the same year, ASYLUM… HOUSE OF CRAZIES, in which Robert HANNAY Powell has to guess which of a number of inmates is actually a doctor from the asylum who recently ran amok.

Horror anthology films totally rock. And so does all MY LASER STUFF. So long, LASER and all who worked in you. I’ll never forget ye.

‘You were mean and cruel right from the start;

Now you REALLY have no heart…’

Happy Valentine’s Day…!

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based novelist, film blogger and movie reviewer. She has studied Creative Writing and Film-Making. She has published a number of e-books on the following topics: horror film reviews, multi-genre film reviews, womens’ fiction, erotic fiction, erotic horror fiction and erotic poetry. Several new books are currently in the pipeline. You can browse or buy any of Sandra’s books by following the link below straight to her Amazon Author Page:

http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B015GDE5RO

You can contact Sandra at:

https://www.facebook.com/SandraHarrisPureFilthPoetry

https://sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

http://sexysandieblog.wordpress.com

http://serenaharker.wordpress.com

https://twitter.com/SandraAuthor

sandrasandraharris@gmail.com