Horror Movie Reviews

"Corridors of Blood" takes us back to the early 19th-Century, when operations were performed without anesthesia. Boris Karloff plays Dr. Bolton, a surgeon who wants to eliminate the pain and suffering patients endure during surgery. However, while experimenting on himself, Bolton becomes addicted to the drugs. Then, during a demonstration of his anesthetic gas, Bolton's patient revives and goes beserk. In disgrace, Bolton ends up in partnership with Black Ben (Francis De Wolff), the owner of the Seven Dials, a disreputable tavern. Black Ben and his hulking assistant Resurrection Joe (Christopher Lee), want to make money selling cadavers to hospitals, so they trade Bolton the drugs he wants in exchange for faked death certificates. This 1963 film was originally entitled "Doctor from Seven Dials" and was shot back-to-back with "The Haunted Stranger," both films directed by Robert Day. This is one of several films in which Karloff tries to do good things for the benefit of mankind but evil ends up as a sort of inevitable result. However, "Corridors of Blood" is one of the few films in which the actor's character does not end up going off on a killing spree. The film starts off well, showing the barbaric surgeries of the day, but once Karloff ends up at the Seven Dials it is just a question of waiting for the final killing spree to begin. A below average film despite Karloff's best efforts, today "Corridors of Blood" is remembered only because it has both Karloff and Christopher Lee.

Poor Dr. Thomas Bolton (Karloff). He's a compassionate, elderly British surgeon in the days before anesthesia. Tired of seeing his patients undergo excruciating agonies on the operating table, Bolton is working doggedly to concoct a drug which will banish pain and allow his patients to feel nothing during surgery. A failed and humiliating demonstration of his new drug before his professional peers makes Bolton even more determined to prove them wrong when they insist, "Pain and the knife are one."

Alas, as Bolton conducts experiments upon himself in pursuit of his dream, he becomes addicted to his own formula. His hands - once known for their speed with a knife in the surgical theatre - shake and betray him. His memory fails him; he can't remember what happens to him while under the sway of his formula. He begins to deteriorate.

The hospital's executive committee denies Bolton another chance to prove his work's validity and puts him, more or less, on "informal leave", suspending his privileges at the hospital's dispensary - the only place he can get the drugs necessary for both his research and his addiction.

Bolton falls in with a reprehensible crowd of no-gooders, including the elegant but menacing Resurrection Joe (Christopher Lee), a soulless killer with a penchant for smothering his victims with pillows. In return for getting Dr. Bolton the drugs he now craves both for his experiments and for himself, these body snatchers, who have been murdering drunken alehouse customers and passing them off as natural deaths, manipulate Bolton into a Faustian bargain to sign the death certificates of their hapless victims so they might sell the bodies to the hospitals for teaching purposes and collect the money.

The reason I gave this DVD only 4 stars, rather than 5, had nothing whatsoever to do with my total enjoyment of this film. Indeed, the print is excellent and the sound quality clear and distinctive. The one complaint I have is that there is only one "extra" on the DVD - the film's original theatrical trailer. I would have liked to have seen at least an interactive cast listing and additional information on the film itself.

Other than that, it's great to see Karloff and Lee in the same production. They just ... belong together in a movie frame, I think. The violence is more implied than shown, making poor Bolton's situation even more tragic, and Karloff plays him sympathetically yet strongly.

I think anyone who is a fan of Boris Karloff, Christopher Lee or horror films in general will delight in seeing "Corridors of Blood".

this film is excellent from a Historical point of view, Times of events, ect are changed, but for detail, correct in everyway. I only have one complaint at the end of the film it says 1840 instead of 1846, but that is a personel fault of mine, !I'm too picky for Medical Historical correctness" Definately based On Horance Wells, (His attempt at painless surgery failed in 1844, too litle gas). there are not enougth Medical History films and this one I watch a lot, Never mind who is in it if you like History films, especially Medical ones add this to your collection.

Marengo Films has done a nice job with its Bela Lugosi double feature -- pairing two of the horror icon's better Monogram efforts, "The Invisible Ghost" (1941) and "The Corpse Vanishes" (1942). Though the print quality of "Corpse" is a notch below the sharpness of "Ghost," it remains superior to most public-domain dupes. Decent sound quality to boot. Neither Lugosi film is a classic, but you could do a lot worse when it comes to low-budget horror.

I don't know that I would recomend Marengo as a quality DVD company, but this double feature from them is pretty good.
First one must consider that MONOGRAM PICTURES was a poverty row studio that rarely kept many negatives around. Most prints existing today were made from negatives struck from the studio's 1940s release prints. This means they are another generation away from the original negatives.

THE CORPSE VANISHES is the weaker of the two picture wise. It is soft and people's faces are a bit washed out. There are always film scratch lines present, but they are not very distracting. The film is clean of splices and the sound is clear. As of 2003, this is the best quality transfer available for this title, about the same as the ROAN copy.

THE INVISIBLE GHOST is much better. It is quite sharp with good contrast, and almost no scratches. The sound is even better. The title card is from a 1950s re-issue by Astor Pictures and that part looks grainy & dark. But don't let that dismay you, the actual movie is good. It is also similar to the ROAN copy.

If you are a fan of these low budget, erie atmosphere films, you will thoroughly enjoy this DVD!

Bela Lugosi brought class even to second rate productions, and these are 2 of his best B movies. For lovers of "old-fashioned" horror, this dvd makes for a fun evening. Get it.

Frankly, I'm surprised it even got an R rating. The story isn't half bad, except they break the cardinal rule that vampires can't exist in the daylight. In most ways they don't even seem like vampires--just a strange branch of humanity who can feed on blood when riled enough. Anyway, don't expect any nudity. What scenes there are could probably be boadcast without censorship, in my opinion. The violence must be what makes it restricted, but again compared to most vampire movies of today, the violence is very tame.

If you're looking for a borderline R vampire flick to watch with teen members of the family, this is it. Enjoy the tale. But, hardcore horror fans will think this extremely disappointing....

This is one of the few vampire movies I could watch again and again. It's not very gory but it's very entertaining nonetheless. It stars Jason London, and he plays his role as that of vampire-who-doesn'-t know-he's-a-vampire very well. Blood Ties has its very funny moments as well (I'm not sure they were supposed to be that funny...). Get this movie today. Happy watching!

"Blood Ties" begins in Anchor, Texas, where three S.C.A.V. (Southern Coalition Against Vampirism) members murder a teen's parents and shoot the young man (Cody Puckett, played by Jason London) with a crossbow before setting the house on fire. Luckily he escapes--or rather, the Amish-looking trio allow him to get away so they can follow him to "the others".

Wounded, 17-year-old Cody seeks the rich, corrupted Uncle Eli Chelarin (Patrick Bauchau) in Long Beach, California. Here Cody meets a few other relatives: Butcherbird "Butch" Vlad (Salvator Xuereb), Eli's rebellious nephew and the apparent leader of the Shrikes (the young troublemakers of the family, which Cody becomes a part of); Harry Martin, aka Harlevon Martinesque (uncertain spelling; played by Harley Venton), another one of Eli's nephews, as well as a reporter for the 'Long Beach Post-Gazette' and Cody's "guardian"; and Celia (Michelle Johnson), Eli's younger halfsister and lover. She's also Harry's occasional lover, which, by the way, if you hadn't noticed, makes her his half-aunt. Grossed out? Then you may not want to watch this one, because there's more incest involving cousins. Nothing graphic though.

In the movie, Harry is one of the leading characters who is trying to track down these "vampire" hunters before they can hurt anyone else. His semi-assistant is D.A. Amy Lauren (Kim Johnston Ulrich), who had tried to put Butch in jail at the beginning of "Blood Ties", but failed because of Eli's monetary charm. Amy's more of a blond-haired-blue-eyed sexual distraction for Harry, though, than any real help.

Although "Blood Ties" is essentially a vampire/horror movie, it doesn't rely on fangs or other vampire myths at all. It's more of a tongue-in-cheek soap opera drama with a hint of vampirism that's more racially charged than scary. This is noticeable in how the word "vampire" is considered a derogatory term, even though that's what they are; "Carpathian" is the appropriate term. Another example of racial undertones in this movie is when the redheaded Western Regional S.C.A.V. member (Grace Zabriskie) spouts off how terrible it is to have to sit with "one of them" on the bus or be with one in the same room. She continues by saying the "vampires" sole purpose is to steal other people's spouses, jobs, parking spaces, etc. Concerning "vampires" it sounds absurd, I know, but realize there's more to this movie than just cursory blood and guts, although the violence is quite tame and nonexistent compared to today's standards. There is some bloodletting, but no graphic vein-ripping, limb-tearing scenes here.

Sure, it's pretty cheesy at times too, i.e., the choreographed dancing of the Shrikes, but "Blood Ties" wasn't meant to be a serious film. It had aired back in May of 1991 on Fox as a pilot, but apparently it didn't take as a series. I remember watching it back then and pretty much fell in love with it at first viewing since it combines my two favorite genres (horror and comedy) and spotlights "vampires" (my favorite type of monster). I simply can't wait for the DVD version to come out this June!

I love; -"child's Play 3." -It's one of the best; -and I
compare too the original when the first film came out..? -I

saw this in theatres. -I laughed out loud at some of the funny
gore scenes that chucky does at the military..? -Their are
great ending moments of this sequel. -Yes. -It finally
brings back the old spark of the first film.? -The second

sequel was alwfull; -and; -boring..! -But I loved how these
two had the cut scenes on T.V. -Their are two different endings
for; -"Childs Play 2." -They shown on; -T.V.. -Can you
imagine if they released the T.V. -Version pass you..?

"Childs Play 3." -Ignore the foster home rutine; -and send
Andy Barkley; -Justin Whalin; -two; -Military school; -and
he will be bullied sun of a gun ho can not stick up for him
self. -He has a romace with a military hottie. -And befriends
with; -black kid; -Tyler..! -I love; -Chucky's; -line.?

Here; -"Hay kid; -Chucky's going too be a bro."? -He also is
bullied by a military meanie in this one..? -I love the carnival
ending here.. -I'm glad that T.V. -made lots of cuts on the
edited; -"Childs Play 3.." -Version.. -Lets hope it does not

pass us by; -I love two relive Chucky's; -rampaging and
funny moments again.. -Brad Dorif; -and; -music is great..?
Video Version; -Edited version needs two get with it and

have the T.V. Version of both films..? -I have; -"Bride of
Chucky.." -Ronny Yu; -did a terrible job..? -The script
scene out of shape on DVD and; -Video..? -Their where different
new cut scene on that one..!

I hope a fan agrees with me on this..?

No, "Child's Play 3" isn't a magnificent film by any stretch of the imagination. So why do I think it is worth watching? It is purely entertaining. It has plenty of gore and plenty of those classic Chucky one-liners. The military setting also benefited the movie, giving it a different feel than the others and making it all much more fresh (I especially appreciated the paintball gag). I have been wanting this movie to be released on DVD for the longest time, and finally, Universal has answered my wishes -- that's the only logical explanation I can come up with, because I know there wasn't a swarm of fans lobbying for this release -- it's the most hated in the series! But I love it. If I felt guilty about loving it, then I guess I would call it a guilty pleasure. But I digress. "Child's Play 3" finds our poor, tortured little Andy growing up. He's stopped playing with dolls, but at age 16, he seems to have caused enough trouble to land him in military school (can't see what he did wrong -- although judging by Justin Whalin's performance, all those foster homes didn't appreciate the whining or the moping). However, Chucky has been absurdly resurrected and follows Andy, only to realize that there is new blood to be spilled. Overall, I don't see anything bad about this movie. It's the third in a horror franchise that was low-budget to begin with. The Chucky doll looks better and moves much more fluidly than in the first two. The peripheral characters may be insignificant, but are colorful and either easy to love or easy to hate (always a good asset for a horror movie.). Fans of Chucky & this series will surely find something they like in this, all others are advised to just stay away. The DVD is somewhat disappointing, saved by the novelty of the movie being available on DVD for the the first time. All we are treated to is a theatrical trailer. However, if you are a fan of the movie, it is worth buying the DVD because is isn't very expensive in the first place and the picture & sound quality makes the purchase worth it.

The reason I'm giving this movie 5 stars is because it is a pure classic in my life. This was the only chucky movie I ever saw as a kid. I recorded it on a tape from usa. And yes, of course. It scared the hell out of me. And I love it. The movie is starring: Justin Whalin as ANDY. No Alex Vincet. (didn't you get enough of him in 1 and 2?)It was funny, Justin Whalin also came out on a disney movie too, called: "Susie Q". So everytime I would see that, I would say "Hey! He's from the chucky movie!" About the movie, he finds andy in a military camp, at he's 16, but instead he tries to hunt down another kid, Tyler. And kills eveyone who gets in his way, Andy tries to stop him. And lots of guns are used too. And the movie end up at a fair. Out of all the chucky movies, CHILD'S PLAY 3. Chucky is deffinetly at his evilist! Except the tv version held chucky back, it was edited for gore, languege, an for its runnig time. But finnaly on dvd! YES!!! First in line!!!

Actor Michael Beach of THIRD WATCH, WAITING TO EXHALE, and numerous other projects, portray a psychiatrist/doctor who knows everything about dealing with emotionally/mentally disturbed patients, but never caught a clue when his own daughter took her own life. Moving his practice, he's invited to work at a mental hospital and seems to have the answers for how to cure and/or control the patients, and is willing to do it his way, whether the director likes it or not. His pride being his biggest flaw, he meets his match with his latest patient, played by Eriq LaSalle. Dressed to the nines with a eloquent manner and speech, he addresses himself as Satan and wants to use the doctor's help in overhauling his image, because it's become a real drag in being the so-called "bad guy" in every disaster on this earth, no matter how big or small. From this point, the psychological aspects come in as to whether this guy is really crazy, or is he really the prince of darkness? What does he really want with the doctor, or is this a very elaborate scam? Truly, a thinking movie that runs deeper than the norm, and that made it a hit with me.

Um, this is a phsychological thriller, not a brainless action flick. It appears the reviewer missed the entire point and moral of the story. I won't give it away because I don't want to ruin it for those who are interested in an excellent movie that'll give you the chills, and really make you think at the same time.

This is a great movie for those who love alternative films. It's strange, it's haunting and has a great ending that dosn't throw a huge punch but is a stunner nevertheless.

Ok, this is a silly one. The plot and characters make no sense (although the Sheriff is really fun to watch). The camera work is on a par with Blair Witch.

A couple has sunk all of their money into buying a farm and setting up a haunted house. Somehow a week's worth of business is supposed to create profit.

Unfortunately, they have disturbed the ground by removing trees (never disturb the ground in anyplace with the name Hobb, didn't we learn that in Five Million Years To Earth?). By doing so, they have released a demon (looks like Swamp Thing in rags) that kills certain people (although he drags it out over many days).

The first to go is the daughter of the man who owns the town. Her disappearance goes unnoticed except by her coworkers (guess daddy was too busy).

The dialog is really bad (not good bad, but bad bad) with a cast of stereotypes and teens who look like they should have graduated college and not still be High School seniors.

The camera work is apparently all handheld as there is not a smooth pan in the lot. The camera jumps around a lot although it appears to be unintentional (unlike in Blair Witch).

The gore scenes are gratuitous and unbelievable with buckets of blood that looks nothing like blood.

Overall it looks like a high school film project. There is not even a real ending. The only true redeeming quality was the Sheriff, a square-haired good-ole-boy obsessed with murder and getting into the true murder magazines. His colorful way of speaking can be fun.

Others have liked this film, but I just can't get into it even though I love bad horror films and teen horror films. This one just really misses the mark.

Great horror flick, good acting, and story line. Pop some popcorn and settle back for a top of the line scarey movie. It also has some great humor

I loved this movie, it was very scary. It actually made me jump a couple of times and Im a hard core horror fan. My wife and son enjoyed it and jumped a few times. The acting was excellent as well and made you feel for the characters. I hope some of the actors go on to do more movies. I really liked the sheriff and his sense of humor was a hoot, kind of reminded me of the Evil Dead movies. I can hardly wait to see what this director can do with an actual budget. One of the best low budget movies I have ever seen. I recommend this movie, its a lot of fun. Im looking forward to taking my entire family to Hobbs Grove this Halloween should be excellent, they also have a great websight.

I'm a huge fan of Peter Cushing and the genre...but this was a horrible movie. I have no idea what the people who gave this movie a good reveiw were smoking.

The Flesh and the Fiends is a thoroughly enjoyable horror thriller. With the impeccable Peter Cushing, sporting a disturbingly droopy left eyelid, playing the misguided Dr. Knox, Donald Pleasance giving an awe-inspiring performance as half of the murdering duo of Burke and Hare, and plenty of illegal traffic in dead bodies, this movie can hardly do less than succeed admirably. Dr. Knox is an instructor at a medical school in Edinburgh during the 1820s. The number of bodies available for dissection by his students, limited to the bodies of executed criminals, is much too low to satisfy him, so he turns to alternative means of acquiring specimens for study. He has no problem paying grave robbers for corpses, so long as they are fresh enough to be useful; in fact, he openly admits the improper solicitation of corpses, much to the dismay of the leading surgeons in town. Eventually, two shiftless vagabonds by the name of Burke and Hare come to realize that traffic in corpses offers them an unusual economic opportunity. When a lodger in Burke's apartment house passes away, he and Hare box her up and trade her in for several guineas. Since the doctor wants the freshest corpses possible, they set out to give him what he wants by murdering individuals and bringing them in almost immediately. Things start to go wrong when the pair murders the sweetheart of one of Dr. Knox's students, yet Knox remains steadfast in his dealings with the loathsome creatures. Murder will out, of course, and Knox must eventually face the music for his actions. This movie, while very good, is by no means perfect. June Laverick gets second billing in her role as Knox's niece, yet her character really serves no purpose at all in the story. Knox's assistant, beset early on with doubts and fears over Knox's acceptance of suspicious corpses, is never fleshed out and ends up behaving somewhat strangely in my opinion. Most of all, the ending (not the real climax, but the ending itself) is just plain weird and makes little sense to me in the context of the story.

Peter Cushing is always fantastic, but the real star of this movie is Donald Pleasance. Even though I knew the future Dr. Loomis from Halloween was in the movie, I quite frankly did not actually recognize him initially. His portrayal of Hare is simply incredible. His calm, assured manner is rarely breached, even in the midst of potential trouble, and his droll manner of explaining his dastardly activities makes of him one of the best truly evil villains I have ever encountered. He is almost capable of convincing anyone, especially his partner, that killing each victim is actually a kindness, for that person will surely be of more use on a dissecting table than he/she is in life. It's thrilling to watch this master criminal mind at work.

The Flesh and the Fiends has been unduly neglected over the years and has itself suffered the noxious wounds of the dissection table of the censors. It was quite graphic for its time (1959): one of the first scenes features a pale corpse being dragged out of a grave by its head, then the murders of Hare and Burke are shown more realistically than one might expect from a film of this particular era. Its bitingly realistic presentation of early 18th century life, complete with rowdy barrooms and miserable living quarters, along with its moments of unusually graphic violence, give the film a superb believability factor. In fact, the basic story of Burke and Hare is indeed a true one, which makes the horror qualities of this film even more affective than they already are.

For years, this movie has only been available in edited form, bearing the title of Mania in the U.S.; it has also been pawned off with the titles The Fiendish Ghouls as well as The Psycho Killers. The complete, 97-minute version of the movie is the one you want, so don't accept a copy of Mania and deny yourself six minutes of delightfully horrific entertainment. Despite the weird ending, this movie ranks among the best horror films of the 1950s and 1960s and stands as much, much more than a mere precursor for the later Hammer films starring the inimitable Peter Cushing.

Another marverlous performance by Peter Cushing as a doctor whose visions overshadow morality. This may be the best role Donald Pleasance ever had. Fresh bodies being more in demand and worth more in cash, Pleasance (Hare) and his partner Burke decide to "manufacture" a few bodies. The DVD contains the U.K. version and the more violent and adult (nudity) Continental version. If you like the Hammer Horror films, you will love this movie.

I am a big fan of the Hammer horror films. While, the scripts were adequate, the actors were brilliant and top-rate, and managed to inject complete believability into what they had to work with. In my opinion, however, the primary genius behind these films was director, Terence Fisher, who managed to give these films a look and style quite apart from anything that had ever been done before, which very few people have managed to match in today's "quick cutting, camera-whipping to the point of nauseum, get-as-much-information-as-you-can-to-the-audience" filmmaking. Great horror is not about overt blood-letting, it's about classy style. Fisher, his crew and cast, had style.

These are the films that took the three classic movie monsters brought them into the world of color. They each spawned several sequels of various quality ( the Hammer Mummy films coming off worst)but they all changed the way that we view horror today. Made on the high end of a low budget the films look great.The acting is wonderful, Cushing's Frankenstien is masterful portrait of evil and Christopher Lee's Dracula rightly made him famous the world over. It should also be remembered that as tame as they seem by todays standards there was a great out cries about the horror and shock content of the films upon their first release. The films while not nearly as terrifying as they once were are still really good thrillers. The discs themselves are quite good, although sorely lacking in extra material. Why no effort was made to put something together by Warner is beyond me, especially since Christopher Lee has been doing commentaries for the other Dracula films over at Anchor Bay.But that's a minor sticking point since the films themselves are what matter and in this case the transfers are wonderful.

This collection is a must for any fan of classic horror films. Yes, Hammer films were modest in budget, and compared to the pyrotechnics of contemporary horror films they seem downright quaint. However, at their best (and these are three of their finest) they redefined the horror genre for an entire generation. These are B movies with class. Great acting. Great scripts. Great talent. Christopher Lee as Dracula, the Mummy AND Frankenstein's monster. Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing and Dr. Frankenstein (not to mention Peter Banning, the Mummy's nemesis). Terence Fisher directing. It just doesn't get any better.

I could tell it was low budget, but I think it was good. It's more like a dark indie drama rather than a vampire horror flick. This story is not just a vampire thing. It's about Hollywood's real gothic sub-culture and it has a postive message. I thought it was different and found it interesting. If you like that kind of thing check it out for sure.

Trevor Godard is phenomenal at he portrays the bad guy in this inside look at the GOTH scene. The acting from all actors is true to form. The story is a nice mix of the ups and downs, in a very dramatic style, of the actors characters. You believe them. A must see!

What this film has achieved is something rare. Calling it a "Catcher in the Rye" for the goth set is descriptive, but does not nearly do it justice. Truly, this film is a coming of age tale about a young girl who strives to escape from an oft-deadly world, to reclaim her life. The film is terrifying, compelling and brutally honest, with a non-preachy, positive message about acceptance, and realizing one's own truth. "Hollywood Vampyr" showcases amazing acting, from Trevor Goddard, Muse Watson, Nora Zimmet and others, and is truly one of the most surprising, unsung gems of the year.

Bluebeard is definitely a film to rediscover. It might not be Ulmer's best but there's enough here to please any serious movie lover. John Carradine gives the performance of his life and although it's obvious that budget is non existent, Ulmer solves the problem with beautiful expressionist sequences, very Caligaresque. Real problem is the print that is often pretty terrible, bringing serious frustration. Have Scarlet Street from the same editor and print is terrible as well.

"Bluebeard" is suspense packed thriller. If you love the old Black and White films of the horror genre, this one is for you. It was directed by Edgar G. Ulmer, who keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish, and stars John Carradine who is at the top of his form in this one.

The legend of Bluebeard is a frightening one. It is 19th century Paris, and young women are being murdered by Gaston(Carradine), a serial killer. On the surface, he is a quiet artist and puppeteer, but deep down he is psychotic and homicidal(naturally he claims a woman made him this way... HA!). All the models he paints, seem to disappear. But now he has fallen for the very beautiful Lucille, can he control his thoughts when it comes to her,will she be his next victim, or will Lady Jusitce prevail? It's a nail biter!

The DVD I have looks to be the same one here. The image is the one of John Carradine in a red jacket strangling his victim, with a shadowy charcater in the background. The title is in bold blue letters(I mention this because there are a few different editions). The only difference is that in the tech info here the studio of release for this edition is Gotham Distribution but on my copy it says Alpha Video (both released in 2002). The transfer is not the best I've ever seen for a film made in the 40's, but it's not too bad. The film shows it's age, but there was nothing distracting to take away from the enjoyment of the film. The sound was decent, although a bit muffled at times. But I would say, for the price, you get a good old scarey movie to enjoy on a rainy afternoon. Oh and don't be fooled by the cover art..this IS a good ole black and white film. Short but good!

So get the popcorn ready..and...enjoy..Laurie

Firstly, just a word or two about the images and sound quality of this DVD. If I except the Madacy productions which everyone knows to be awfully bad, I haven't seen until now a so terrible DVD transfer. Considering the fact that most of the action of BLUEBEARD is filmed at night in a foggy Paris, the defaults of the transfer are patent. Shameful.

As bonus features, you will find a gallery of photos and posters and a very interesting featurette presenting, among other goodies, an interview of director Edgar G. Ulmer's widow.

BLUEBEARD is the first Edgar G. Ulmer's movie I have the opportunity to see and I cannot wait now to see the other two DVD available here at amazon. It's so obvious that Ulmer was a movie genius and that solely the lack of money has prevented him to direct masterpieces. The artistic quality of BLUEBEARD is far ahead of the quality of, let's say, a Herschell Gordon Lewis movie. There are minutes of pure cinema in BLUEBEARD that reminded me at times of the dreamy atmosphere of Charles Laughton's NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. John Carradine, in the role of a schizophrenic puppeteer, is perfect with his voice so sweetly innocent. At last, a special word regarding the quality of the musical score ; Edgar G. Ulmer's BLUEBEARD lasts 73 minutes and so does the musical score that is literally a character of the movie.

A DVD for your library if you are a movie lover.