THE JAMES BOND COCKTAIL HOUR: Season 3

The third season of the James Bond Cocktail Hour has come to an end. We will be back in the new year to talk No Time To Die, and a bunch of other James Bond media.

The episodes are all below:

No Time To Die Trailer 2 review

Nobody Lives For Ever (by John Gardner)

How to introduce James Bond

Casino Royale '06 Part One & Two

McClory v Fleming

Thunderball (novel)

Remembering Sean Connery

Thunderball (Terence Young, 1965)

A look at Kevin McClory's Warhead (1976)

Never Say Never Again (Irvin Kershner, 1983)

Remixing Thunderball

The Hunt for Red October

The Man with the Golden Gun

Bond Tropes Discussion

Ranking the James Bond ski chases

Die Another Day (2 hour cut)

Patriot Games

Clear and Present Danger

The Man Who Almost Killed James Bond

A View To A Kill

Sum of All Fears

Jack Ryan - Shadow Recruit

Executive Decision

VARGR

State of the Franchise

Skyfall (Part One)

Happy & Glorious - Bond at the Olympics

Skyfall (Part Two)

We saw Casino Royale on the big screen!

(Final) Trailer Talk

The Liquidator (John Gardner book)

The Liquidator (film)

Devil May Care

Being James Bond: The Daniel Craig Story

You can listen to these and future episodes wherever you listen to podcasts!

Follow the podcast on IG @jbchpod and on Twitter @jbchpod007. 

The podcast will return in 2022!

Blacula (William Crain, 1972)

Cursed with bloodlust by Dracula, Prince Mamuwalde (William Marshall) returns from the dead in seventies LA.

Enraptured by a young woman who bears an uncanny resemblance to his wife (Vonetta McGee), Mamuwalde sees an opportunity to end his immortal loneliness…

Blaxploitation is a genre I have not really dived in before. I’ve watched a couple of movies like Coffy, but most of my knowledge comes from reading about the genre.

Since Halloween was coming up, I decided to check out Blacula, one of the more famous titles I have never seen before.

The prologue is great - Mamuwalde has visited Europe to stop the slave trade, and has met with Count Dracula as part of his mission. The count has other designs and attacks Mamuwalde, cursing him with vampirism.

It is a great opening sequence (Charles Macaulay is pretty good as Dracula), but it is also the best scene in the movie. 

I wonder why that is, and I think it might be a combination of the production value of the castle setting and the juxtaposition with the modern-day sequence which follows. The setting of the prologue is fairly modest in scope - it is three people around a table - but it creates a mise-en-scene that reminded me of Hammer films. The scope of the Christopher Lee-Terence Fisher era of Dracula films is probably not much bigger than Blacula, but I think this film’s prologue creates a similar atmosphere.

The period setting separates it from the rest of the movie, and the following sequence is such a sinkhole that it feels separate from the film which follows.

The portrayal of the gay couple who unknowningly buy Mamuwalde’s casket is so over-the-top and meanspirited it took awhile for me to get back into the movie. It feels like the movie is trying to externalise and eject the queer subtext associated with vampire fiction - this vampire is a one-woman vampire! 

Once Mamuwalde awakens and starts to wander, the movie does lose a little momentum and focus.

The movie ultimately wants the audience to be invested in the tragedy of Mamuwalde, but once he is a vampire, the movie aligns more with the perspective of his victims and pursuers. 

While it flirts with a degree of moral ambiguity - Mamuwalde never comes across as an out-and-out villain - the story mechanics are standard: vampire attacks interspersed with vampire hunters slowly realising what is going on.

What makes the film compelling are the cast, starting with William Marshall’s towering performance as the undead prince.

More of a tragic figure than Dracula, he is driven by his love for his dead wife, who bares a striking resemblance to a woman he meets in contemporary times (both played by Vonetta McGee, who spaghetti western genre fans will know from the super-bleak The Great Silence). 

 

Apparently Marshall was responsible for re-working the main character’s backstory, and he gives a tragic pathos to the character that overcomes the ropey elements of the production. There is the whiff of the stage about his performance, but that layer of unreality adds to the character’s detachment from the seventies milieu. It is also well-documented that threats of vengeance are more impressive when bellowed in a Shakespearean baritone.

I was also impressed by our heroes, Doctor Thomas (Thalmus Rasulala) and his girlfriend Michelle (Donna Denise Nicholas). 

With exploitation and low-budget genre movies, the acting can be variable. But Blacula benefits from putting Marshall against a performer who holds his own. Rasulala commands the scenes he is in, and I was frustrated that the film did not give him more to do. The role is pretty generic, but Rasulala gives Dr. Thomas an intelligence and weight that is not on the page. 

While Marshall and Rasulala provide the movie with a centre, Donna Denise Nicholas delivers the most naturalistic performance in the movie - she reacts to all the supernatural goings-on like a real person, and her interactions with Rasulala give a sense of intimacy and history that is not present in their dialogue.

The weak link is McGee, but I put that down to the script - she has a threadbare character to work with - she is an object and motivation for Mamuwalde, but the character does not have any life outside of that function.

While the script is fairly cookie-cutter, the biggest issue with the movie is the direction. The coverage of the action is closer to television, with the focus on individual close-ups and mid-shots. This means that the movie feels a little cramped and small-scale. Aside from the prologue,  the locations are not that eye-catching or well-photographed. 

A few sequences work - Mamuwalde’s attack on the nightclub photographer (Emily Yancy from Sharp Objects) is claustrophobic, and her later attack on a cop is also good (her head is shielded from view until she turns and lunges into his neck, played in a well-timed cut to a close-up of her snarling face). I also liked the first vampire attack in the morgue - the slow-motion shot of a vampire running down a hallway toward the morgue attendant (Elisha Cooke Jr.) is creepy.

The vampire makeup is not bad but there are a few scenes where its limitations are accentuated by lingering close-ups that dissipate the effect. 

Overall, Blacula reminded me a lot of the first time I watched the 1931 version of Dracula - an exciting prologue is followed by stagey scenes of characters talking in enclosed spaces. 

Rather like that movie, Blacula was a disappointment. The cast are the strongest element of the production, but otherwise I found the movie slow and the central romance underwhelming - whatever emotion the movie stirs is mostly down to William Marshall.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Slumber Party Massacre II (Deborah Brock, 1987)

Traumatised from the events of the previous movie, Courtney (Crystal Lynn Bernard) tries to move on by focusing on practising with her band (Kimberly McArthur, Juliette Cummins, and Heidi Kozak). 

The group have decided to go away for a weekend and work on the music. Plus the boy she likes (Patrick Lowe) is going to join them.

Everything is perfect, except for the man of her dreams - a killer musician (Atanas Ilitch) who cannot wait to take Courtney out...

I reviewed this movie’s predecessor a few years ago. It has always been a favourite of mine. I was aware that there were sequels but I had no real interest in watching them (the poster does not help). Recently I have seen Slumber Party Massacre II pop up on lists of underrated horror flicks, and so I sought it out.

While it is technically a sequel to The Slumber Party Massacre, Slumber Party Massacre II works as its own entity. While the original charmed with its handmade quality, this sequel feels more polished. The photography is good and there are some striking images - the killer perched atop the house, shredding on his guitar while his victims scramble away in the foreground.

While written as a satire of the genre, The Slumber Party Massacre feels conservative next to its sequel. 

While it does feature a killer, a group of victims and some gore-y kills, Slumber Party Massacre II remixes the ingredients into a surreal nightmare of pastels, plastic rockabilly and sexual repression.

While most of the story takes place in a single  house, the main location - an eerily quiet suburban development - is the first sign that this movie takes place in a completely different world. The neighbourhood is so uniform and bland in appearance, it feels like it might be down the road from Edward Scissorhands’ hometown.

The main character, Courtney, was a minor character from the original, but she is played by a different actress. The key carryover is the emotional scars she carries from the original movie. The film’s supernatural antagonist is a melding of her past trauma, her passion for music and her burgeoning sexuality (and her fear of said sexuality).

Even though we get flashes of footage from the original, this connection is tenuous - you do not need knowledge of the original in order for this movie to work.

The movie is fairly simple - a group of friends go to an isolated location and are swiftly eliminated - but that simplicity gives the filmmakers the space to twist and bend the rules of the story world’s reality. 

Most of the story’s tension comes from Courtney’s hallucinations of the Driller Killer (Atanas Ilitch). 

The back half of the movie is fairly traditional slash-and-stalk, but it is made far more interesting (and surreal) by the Killer’s musical antics. While all the acting in the film is solid, Ilitch is fantastic as the ​​villain. Smirking, cackling and sashaying through the movie, he is a force of nature. 

One of the more interesting aspects of the movie is that it is based around a rock band. Courtney and her friends are more interested in becoming musicians than their boyfriends. This is a really interesting element in the movie, and I kind of wished there was a little more of it in the movie. One of the strongest aspects of the original movie was the relationship dynamics among the main characters - boys were only a minor element. Here, the dynamics feel more like a generic slasher movie, with the characters all pairing off.

Based on his garb, you could be forgiven for thinking the Driller Killer’s music would be cock rock or glam. Maybe this would have been the case if the movie had a bigger budget. Instead, the music plays into the film’s focus on recasting generic teen romance tropes. 

I am no expert but the Killer’s music feels like it is meant to be a take-off on rockabilly - the lyrics are generic and repetitive in a manner that is designed to make the viewer feel as trapped as the characters.

There is a talking point about the 80s remaking the 50s, and this movie seems to be channeling that idea. The neighbourhood is a facsimile of the 50s, the music is a facsimile of the 50s and the Driller Killer’s persona is a facsimile of 50s dating rituals (cinematic at least).

I feel like there is a goldmine of analysis to be done on this film. Suffice to say that Slumber Party Massacre II is a really fun, unique slasher movie, and has more to offer than you may assume based on the title.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

House of Whipcord (Pete Walker, 1973)

A nasty little number out of the UK, House of Whipcord is comes from the oeuvre of Pete Walker. 

While the vague scenario is familiar - a young woman stumbles into danger - House of Whipcord is unique.

Instead of your typical monsters or killers, our protagonist ends up in court.

But not just any court - the villains of this picture are former members of the British justice system who have taken it upon themselves to hand out punishment to the younger generation of the early seventies.

For such a grim premise, I wondered if the film would lean on any of the cliches of women in prison movies. One of those cliches is nudity - either through some kind of contrived fight scene or a scene of torture, where the focus is on exposing flesh. 

House of Whipcord is surprisingly chaste. There are two scenes of torture in the picture, but there is no gore or nudity - the violence is conveyed via sound design.

While it is rain-soaked and grey, House of Whipcord is not as bleak as it sounds. While the premise is creepy, it is all carried off with an undercurrent of black humour.

While they are threatening, the filmmakers focus on showing these villains’ weaknesses and foibles. Far from the implacable figure of authority, the ancient judge (Patrick Barr) is forgetful and has no idea what his subordinates are up to. Meanwhile, the head matron’s (Barbara Markham) fixation on a French prisoner (Penny Irving) is entirely because this innocent woman reminds her of her past failures. 

The arbitrary morality underpinning this gruesome group’s idea of ‘justice’, and the brutality they mete out feel like an extension of the ‘crime and punishment’ theme that is used to stir up conservative voters. In 2021, the villains’ fascistic impulses do not feel as out there as they probably did back in the early seventies.

There is also something ironic in that these punishments, based around restricting and punishing women for their personal agency and sexuality, are enforced by women. 

Most obviously, there is something comic and terrifying about the surreal juxtaposition of contemporary (seventies) fashions with the utilitarian, old-fashioned mise-en-scene of the prison. 

Irony is a key aspect of the film’s tone, but it is never at the expense of the stakes for the villains’ victims. The filmmakers’ focus on the villains’ pettiness and self-absorption highlights how pathetic their crusade is. 

At first, I found the film a little slow. We spend a lot of time establishing our lead heroine aka Psycho, but the character and her gang of friends are a little too bland. Once she is trapped in the prison, the picture hits its stride.

An offbeat spin on gothic horror, House of Whipcord is worth a look, particularly this month.

Venom (Ruben Fleischer, 2018)

 Symbiote meets guy. Guy hates symbiote. Cue fun n games. They fall in love. Credits.

My God, they had no idea what they were making.

Before it came out, I had no interest in watching Venom. After its release, the movie began to get a second life and I started reading reviews. 

Venom dropped on Netflix the other day - probably to get people interested ahead of the release of Let There Be Carnage - and I finally got to see what all the fuss was about.

Off the bat, Venom is a bad movie. The script is boilerplate, the characterisation is hard to grasp, and the movie looks like an incredibly generic blockbuster. What saves the movie is that all of these ‘missteps’ work in turning the movie into something way more interesting. 

This movie is purely designed to be read against the grain - people have referred to Venom as a romance and I completely agree with them. 

What is fascinating about the movie is how generic it is, and yet that lack of depth - enables obvious readings.

If Venom is not in love with Eddie, then this movie is terrible - because that is the only way the movie makes any sense. 

The movie only starts to get going when the two main characters get together. Before that, the movie is a formulaic blockbuster without any real texture, emotion or atmosphere.

But once Eddie and Venom are combined, the movie gets personality.

Venom is so silly. Every time he talked, I laughed - it felt like a spin on Little Shop of Horrors, with Venom as Audrey Two to Eddie’s hapless Seymour.

Tom Hardy’s performance is on its own course. Initially it felt like a collection of tics - he has worked out a voice and posture, and he is sticking to it. But once he is possessed, Hardy’s performance is juiced to 11.

 

He even makes the cliched one-liners funny - not in the way the screenwriters intended, but Hardy’s delivery highlights their staleness, and pushes them over the line.

 A success in spite of itself, Venom is a movie you cannot watch the way its makers intended.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Leviathan (George Pan Cosmatos, 1989)

 At the bottom of the sea, the crew of an undersea station discover a shipwreck containing a secret biological weapon.

This weapon is an entity which assimilates every organism it comes into contact with. Will the crew destroy the creature before it destroys them?

I am not afraid of water, but for some reason it is a massive phobia when it comes to movies. It is a common joke among my family that I gave up swimming because I thought there were sharks in the pool. Bodies of water, particularly oceans, are fascinating. In movies though, they might as well be the seventh circle of hell for me. This is why I did not watch Jaws until a couple years ago (it was great).

Water is a great vehicle for suspense. If a filmmaker knows what they are doing, viewers can imagine all sorts of ghoulish things gliding beneath the surface. Even a sloppy execution can get past me, if the filmmakers know how to use water.

And if said filmmaker can combine the hidden terrors of the deep with the existential dread of body horror? Welcome to Leviathan. 

One of several underwater sci-fi horror movies released in 1989 (the ‘winner’ of the bunch would be James Cameron’s flawed The Abyss), Leviathan feels like a grabbag of Eighties sci fi and horror cliches: 

• a group of blue collars and scientists in a technologically advanced environment that becomes a nightmarish maze (Alien)

• A hidden alien antagonist hunting our heroes down (The Thing, Alien)

• An evil corporation looking to monetise this antagonist (Alien/s) 

That patchwork quality is part of Leviathan’s charm. 

The cast are solid - Peter Weller, Ernie Hudson, Richard Crenna, Meg Foster, Daniel Stern, Hector Elizondo, Lisa Eilbacher and Michael Carmine do not get a lot to do, but they have good chemistry, and they each bring a sliver of personality to their roles. Stern and Hudson are the easy standouts - the former plays the resident sleazeball, while Hudson is a voice of reason (he also gets the film’s best one-liner).

This movie is cheesy, and is pretty shameless in ripping off better movies, but every time I watch it, by the last 15 minutes I am sweating bullets. Even on this occasion, when I watched a good portion of it on my phone. 

As our heroes try to escape the collapsing station, it is pretty tense - less so if you have seen Alien, but it works. Leviathan may not have an original idea in its helmet but the filmmakers behind it know how to keep its titular beasty in the shadows or blocked by pieces of the claustrophobic sets. 

This is important because the creature is a bit of a mess. It is meant to be an amalgamation of various sea creatures, but there is something underwhelming about the design.

The Thing boasted distinctive forms - the creature in Leviathan always felt like a random mash of different creatures, and they do not have the visceral quality of the earlier film. This might have something to do with the way that these creatures are lit and shot. They always feel like puppets not living entities.

The effects are the movie’s selling point and the fact that they do not quite come off are a good representation of the movie as a whole. Like the creature at its heart, Leviathan feels like a facsimile of a bunch of different components. 

While it boasts a big budget, a recognisable cast and technical credits (Stan Winston’s team designed the creatures), at its core, this movie feels like an Italian ripoff of The Thing underwater. 

Switch out the Antarctic tundra for the ocean floor and it is basically the same movie. It is nowhere near as good.

There is entertainment to be had, but for me I always have to reframe my expectations.Ultimately, Leviathan is a slasher movie - the characters are developed just enough so you care when they die, and they die in spectacularly gore-y fashion. It is blunt and a little clumsy in execution, but it ends up succeeding in its modest aim.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.