violencegang

As I wrote in my review of 'Jack the Ripper' (1959), it's only in recent years that movies about Saucy Jack have bothered with historical accuracy and providing a 'real' solution to the question of the Ripper's identity. The German silent productions 'Waxworks' and 'Pandora's Box' used the character as a sort of bogeyman, more akin to Dracula, Mr Hyde or the Phantom of the Opera than a real-life serial killer, and the various versions of 'The Lodger' and the aforementioned Jack the Ripper simply used Jack as a hook on which to hang entirely fictional mysteries, with no real people or situations in them.

'A Study in Terror' is no exception to this rule, and is all the better for it. This Herman Cohen-produced, James Hill-directed picture is an unpretentious little B-picture that pitted Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper a full thirteen years before Bob Clarke's big-budget, star-packed 'Murder By Decree'. While 'Murder...' is a good film, with a gripping storyline and strong performances from the likes of Christopher Plummer, James Mason and Donald Sutherland, it does take itself rather seriously in its attempt to present a supposedly surprising, and at the same time authentic, conclusion (which would have already been known to anyone who watched the BBC TV production 'The Ripper File', or read Stephen Knight's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution'). 'A Study in Terror' does not try to do this and is concerned only with giving the viewer an entertaining ninety-five minutes.

Interestingly, '...Terror' was the first Jack the Ripper movie to propose aristocratic involvement in the murders, eight years before the late Joseph Sickert came out with his somewhat similar, but allegedly true theory that covered much the same ground, involving not just an aristocrat, but a Prince, who married beneath him. Admittedly, Sickert's theory claimed that the murders were committed to keep the marriage a secret, rather than to avenge a wrong, but it does seem curious that the fiction and alleged fact are so similar.

Although this film does present the real victims killed by Jack the Ripper and does so in the right order, there are many inaccuracies, the most notable being that the actresses playing the unfortunate individuals, including Carry On and Eastenders star Barbara Windsor and Edina Ronay, daughter on the famous chef Egon, are, in the main, considerably younger and more attractive that the real victims (Windsor, who played Annie Chapman is, even today, at almost seventy, considerably better looking than the real 'Dark Annie'), but this is an exploitation movie, and eye candy is a integral part of this subgenre. In fact this is a perfect example of an exploitation picture when you examine its constituent elements. The makers exploited not only the 1960's horror boom, but also the perennial interest in Jack the Ripper and the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes perfectly.

For a B-movie, 'A Study in Terror' boasts a surprisingly strong cast, including Dame Judi Dench, John Fraser, Adrienne Corri, Robert Morley, Frank Finlay and Anthony Quayle, who all lend strong support to John Neville and Donald Houston as Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson. Crucially, Neville, like Basil Rathbone before him and Jeremy Brett after, not only looks right as Holmes, his strong, sharp features recalling Conan Doyle's description of the character, but his portrayal of the character is more in tune with the classic conception of Holmes than Christopher Plummer in 'Murder By Decree'. Similarly, Donald Houston gives an entertainingly blustering, Nigel Bruce-like performance as Watson, whereas James Mason's portrayal of the character was a little too low-key for my taste. Finlay and Quayle apparently enjoyed the experience of crossing Holmes and the Ripper so much that they came back for more in 'Murder by Decree', with Finlay repeating his performance as Inspector Lestrade. Personally, I think he's better in this film, and Anthony Quayle, as Dr Murray, invests his character with a quiet strength and dignity that is missing from his unsympathetic Sir Charles Warren. As Mycroft Holmes, Robert Morley is amusing in his scenes with Neville's Sherlock, particularly expressing his exasperation at his brother's less than tuneful violin playing.

One area in which 'A Study in Terror' holds the edge over 'Murder by Decree' is it's ending. Without giving too much away for anyone who has yet to see either film, '...Terror' has a thrilling, literally explosive climax that befits a film of it's type, whereas '...Decree' drags a little, again because the makers want us to take it so seriously. My suggestion is to watch both movies and make up your own minds on this subject

On the list of terrible crimes people have committed throughout history, in some people's eyes Dino De Laurentis' decision to remake King Kong ranks slightly higher than the Holocaust, 9/11 and slavery. Basically, this movie apparently has no redeeming features whatsoever. De Laurentis' decision to build a 40 foot robot Kong that was virtually unusable; the fact that Kong was mainly played by a man in a suit; the contemporary setting; the absence of dinosaur battles; the climax on top of the World Trade Centre; Jessica Lange's character's stupid name (what in the blue buggery is a Dwan, anyway?); if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Jack the Ripper, Hitler and Satan formed a gang and started burning down orphanages, they wouldn't receive the same level of criticism.

Personally, I have something of a soft spot for this movie, and consider it to be extremely underrated. Much like the 1998 U.S Godzilla, it's not as good as the original, but it's still a decent film. I suppose the reason I like it is because, like Godzilla, I saw the remake before the original, and as such I didn't have any preconceptions about what I should see; I wasn't expecting fights with dinosaurs, and so I wasn't disappointed when I didn't see them.

I suppose what people dislike about this film is that, unlike Peter Jackson's 2005 version, which is a faithful retelling of the 1933 King Kong, Kong 76 bears little resemblance to the original. It's set in 1976 and has a whole new set of characters who, it has to be said, aren't great. Charles Grodin's Fred Wilson is annoying and it's a relief to see him get splattered by Kong at the end. Jeff Bridges does better as Jack Prescott, but he's still fairly forgettable, and Jessica Lange just doesn't engage the viewer like Fay Wray. Fortunately, these three actors emerged unscathed and went on to have successful careers, unlike director John Guillermin, who ended up having to make the unnecessary sequel, King Kong Lives, which was seen by about three people. The contemporary setting just doesn't lend itself to the fantastical story, and having a petrochemical company at the heart of proceedings feels like the producers were trying to hard to be modern. Also, having Kong in a cage wearing a crown with the company logo on it just looks moronic.

The most vociferous criticism has been directed at the film's special effects which, given that they were done by Carlo Rambaldi and Rick Baker, ought to have been something really special, or at least better than those of a movie that even back in 1976 was over forty years old. To be fair, Rick Baker's Kong suit is a lot better than most gorilla suits seen in movies (see King Kong Escapes, APE and The Mighty Gorga for example of how bad these things can be) and at least he tried to make it look like a real gorilla, wearing contact lenses that looked like a gorilla's eyes and basing the muscle structure on real apes. The real problem is Rambaldi's 40 foot robot Kong; while this creation had tremendous publicity value (no one could ever accuse Dino De Laurentis of being understated) when it came time to actually use the thing, it was obvious that having a 40 foot tall robot that needed to be operated by an army of technicians rampaging around New York and climbing the World Trade Centre was ever so slightly unfeasible, and so the robot only appears in a couple of scenes, mainly where Kong is standing still. The only time the thing moves is when it lifts one arm and then it just looks like a big, unconvincing robot.

In spite of these criticisms, King Kong 1976 does have some good points, notably his NYC rampage and the finale still makes you feel sorry for the big ape, particularly the close-ups of machine gun fire hitting him. The scene where Dwan punches Kong on the nose is amusing and may have inspired Naomi Watts' feistier heroine in the 2005 version, and, in a strange way, making Kong look so stupid in that crown and cage actually increases viewer sympathy for him. Basically, this movie is not the Antichrist of cinema, and if you're in the mood for some big gorilla action, it's definitely worthy of your time, provided you don't expect a shot-for-shot reworking of the original.

As sequels go, 'Son of Kong' isn't exactly 'Bride of Frankenstein', 'Aliens' or 'Godfather 2', but it's an enjoyable little movie that, at a brisk sixty minutes, never outstays its welcome. Robert Armstrong returns from the original as Carl Denham, who is hiding from his creditors after King Kong wrecked New York and looking for some way out. He runs into Captain Engelhorn (Frank Reicher, also back for more) and there's something about diamonds mentioned at some point, during which time they pick up Hilda (Helen Mack), who makes for a feistier heroine that Fay Wray's Ann Darrow, and the villainous Helstrom, but that's not the important part.

What's important in this movie is the big monkey action, and although it's not as big as the original (Little Kong is only twelve feet tall), the stop-motion monsters (once again done by the legendary Willis O'Brien) are pretty good, including a Styracosaurus (the Triceratopsy-looking thing with the horns sticking out of it's neck frill) and a giant cave bear that battles Little Kong.

'Son of Kong' was cranked out very quickly to capitalise on the success of 'King Kong' and it shows, not least in the thin plot and short running time, but it still has a certain charm, not least thanks to the more humorous plot and the friendly, likable title character (no people eating for this guy). The cast do well, Armstrong's Denham likable as ever, and Helen Mack making a spirited leading lady. The rest of the cast do alright, and while Victor Wong's Charlie is still as stereotypical as in the original, at least the producers thought enough of the character to bring him back.