The Haunting of Morella

Morella (Nicole Eggert) is killed in the opening minutes for murder and witchcraft as her husband Gideon (David McCallum) looks on with their infant child. 17 years later, the child Lenora (Eggert again) is all grown up and soon to receive an sizable trust fund on her 18th birthday. But she is also the target of her teacher Coel (Lana Clarkson), who was Morella's accomplice back in the day, and hopes to put her old friend's soul in this new body. Loosely based on Poe's "Morella" short story, this feature runs only 82-minutes (the film ends at 78 minutes) but seems to go on a lot longer than that. Director Jim Wynorski gives the story what every critic of Poe thought it was missing - lots of topless women running around. To be fair, it succeeds on an exploitation level, but you'll never confuse this with a 1960s Corman Poe adaptation. And it is a nice looking production because this is back when Wynorski gave a damn. Eggert was "hot" off CHARLES IN CHARGE at the time so this must have seemed edgy for her. Regardless, she uses an obvious body double during her nude scenes. It is hilarious seeing her and Clarkson on screen as there is over a foot height differential, which leaves Eggert level with Clarkson's chest. Concorde staple Maria Ford has a smaller role as a servant. The film ends with the ridiculous on screen words "I still live!"

The Haunting of Morella (1990)

** (out of 4)

Based on the Poe story, Morella (Nicole Eggert) is put to death for being a witch but before dying she passes off a curse in front of her husband and baby daughter. Seventeen years pass and the daughter (also played by Eggert) begins to have strange visions and soon a possession begins.

Jim Wynorski's THE HAUNTING OF MORELLA deserves a lot of credit. It was a Roger Corman produced cheapie but you have to give it credit for at least looking like an authentic period piece. I must admit that I was really shocked to see how good the film looked. More times than not these low-budget movies update the setting to where they don't have to worry about costumes and other things like that but that's not the case here. I thought the director did a very good job at delivering a nice atmosphere and the setting was perfect.

As far as the film goes, I wouldn't call it a complete success but there are enough interesting moments to make it worth sitting through. As you should expect from the director, the horror elements often take a back seat to the nudity and sexuality. There's plenty of both here but the horror elements aren't too bad for what they are. There are a couple bloody moments that will have fans of the genre happy.

David McCallum offers up a good performance in his role. Eggert is simply okay in her part. Lana Clarkson stands out in the role of the friend and you've also got Gail Thackray in a small part. THE HAUNTING OF MORELLA isn't a complete success but it's certainly entertaining enough to make it worth watching.

I hit puberty in the early 90s, so in other words, I was a horny and hormone-controlled teenager when "Baywatch" first aired on TV, and naturally had a crush on practically every babe that paraded through the screen in a skimpy red bathing suit. Pamela Anderson, evidently, but I was even far more enchanted by two other blond and typically nineties' beauties; - Erika Elaniak and Nicole Eggert. The latter was a cherubic and polished but nonetheless very sexy girl-next-door type. Whoever knew that, before her "Baywatch" period, Eggert had already appeared in a cheap and ultra-sleazy Roger Corman production loosely - VERY loosely - inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's writings? At the beginning of the film, Eggert depicts the fiercely foul-mouthed witch Lenora who gets executed in front of an angry town's mob and her powerlessly staring husband who's holding their few weeks' old baby in his arms. Nearly 18 years later, the baby matured into the gorgeous Nicole Eggert again. Morella is excited to celebrate her birthday and taste adulthood, but little does she know that the voluptuous nanny has been carefully preparing Lenora's reincarnation via the pure body and soul of her daughter.

Roger Corman knows Poe, trust me. He was single-handedly responsible for the absolute greatest Edgar Allan Poe film-adaptations during the early sixties, like "House of Usher", "The Masque of the Red Death", "Premature Burial", etc. If Corman really wanted to make an atmospheric, qualitative and genuinely frightening adaptation of Poe's short story, he certainly could have done so. Instead, he cleared just hired Jim Wynorski ("Chopping Mall", "Transylvania Twist") to direct a cheap but profitable B-movie with a focus on ravishing women, tacky horror, secondhand sets & scenery and boobs, boobs, boobs! 18-year-old Eggert still gets a stand-in for her nude sequences, but Corman regulars Lana Clarkson, Maria Ford and Gail Thackray showcase their bodily assets gratuitously and repeatedly. The sets and stock-footage, like the numerous lightening strikes, are shamelessly edited from much older flicks (you might recognize "The Terror" - 1963) and our producer would still continue to recycle them in later films like "The Haunting of Hell House" - 1999. "The Haunting of Morella" is nevertheless fun and amusing, at least if you don't mind the derivative plot and the dull moments in between the cheesy gore and the nudity.

Breasts. That is kinda what this movie was about. It was tailor made for a latch-key kid in the 90s to stay up late watching HBO to eventually see breasts.

Breasts.

It delivered that.

There was some plot about an evil witch and breasts. Something about a love affair and breasts. There were a few deaths and breasts and...

...yes, there was a thong despite the fact it takes place a long time ago before there were thongs and...yes, breasts.

What you have here is really a movie about breasts, but, it is a period piece Lovecraftian movie about breasts.

So if you want breasts, this is the movie for you, especially since it really makes no effort whatsoever to pass itself off as anything but a movie about breasts.

Breasts. You really have to appreciate that honesty.

Well, let's get this out of the way. BOOBS. Lots of BOOBS. As a woman, I am not personally impressed by boobs so trying to rely on that as a selling point for a film is just tacky to me. Now that's out of the way, I'll talk about the actual movie.

What I liked: *The setting. *The way it was shot. Some of the scenes were really shot beautifully. *The costumes were nice with the exception of a scene that shows underwear that doesn't suit the era. *The story.

What I didn't like: *Some of the acting was pretty bad. *The script was lousy but it may have come across lousy at times because the acting was so off. *The amount of boob-age.

This wasn't downright awful, to me but it left something to be desired. It really could've been so much more because there really is a story there. Maybe someone will take another stab at this one someday.