Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
So-so history of Hammer Horror, July 28, 2007
Back in the 1930s, Universal became the king of horror with its series of classic monster movies. These movies are immortal; even now, for example, is there a more well-known image of Frankenstein's monster than Boris Karloff's version? It didn't take long, however, for the monster movies to peter out, resulting in movies that may have been fun, but were hardly horrifying. It took till the 1950s for these monsters to gain new life, when Hammer Films re-envisioned these monsters.
Most notably, Hammer added color to the mix, along with healthy doses of violence, gore and sex. At their best, these films became classics of their own and gave rise to a new generation of horror actors. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney gave way to Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. It's be wrong to say every Hammer film was great, but many were, and as a studio, they reinvented and reinvigorated the horror genre.
John Flynn's 50 Years of Hammer Horror chronicles Hammer's rise and fall and provides details on many of its important horror (and science fiction) movies. After a brief history of the company, he gives us chapters following various themes. Appropriately, he starts with Frankenstein, as Curse of Frankenstein was the film that really started the Hammer Horror era. He then follows up with the second most important series, the Dracula series.
After that, it's werewolves, mummies, aliens, phantoms of the opera, dinosaurs and other creatures that dominate the remaining chapters. Flynn is clearly a fan, but he is also critical when he needs to be. Unfortunately, as with his companion book on the Universal monsters, this one has some serious flaws. Besides typos that can be attributed to the publisher, there are other errors. Most notably, Flynn sometimes misdescribes plots and provides erroneous information, sometimes even about who lives and dies. Furthermore, he repeats himself a lot: one time, he uses an almost identical sentence twice within a span of two pages.
At least with the Universal films, there are some nice DVDs with plenty of commentary and other bonuses to provide good background material. At least right now, most Hammer DVDs are stingier when it comes to extras. So, while I gave his Universal book two stars, I will be a little more lenient here and give Flynn three stars, only because there are less options available. This is not a good book, but to some extent, it is a useful book for Hammer fans.
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Horrible Hammer, August 31, 2007
Previous reviewers have echoed my thoughts.
Significant. is the glaring plot points that are described. Some of these are totally off. Example- Horror of Frankenstein is said to have taken place in modern times (1970's). WRONG!!! Like the rest, it is set in those timeless Gothic eras of the 1800s. So much misinformation!
For the impressive education this man has (I am in awe of such letters), I am disturbed by the lack of good research. And it starts with seeing the films you are "reviewing". This type of education should not be prodcing books of this dubious quality. There are several great research books done on this subject. Read those instead. McFarland has some very good ones written by people who know what they are talking about.
Those interested in his "75 Years of Universal Monsters" book will get more of the same. I sure hope his other books aren't as shoddily written as these two.
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Hammer Horror!!!, June 23, 2007
After decades of shamelessly sycophantic fan boy books and magazines the output of England's Hammer Films is a subgenre ripe for proper critical assessment or at least an intelligent overview. Given Flynn's pedigree, which he thrusts immodestly into the public domain, one would have hoped for more than this lazy, half-hearted, schoolboy effort. Cheaply bound, poor laid out and illustrated with grainy scans, 50 Years of Hammer Horror sets a new low in film journalism. Flynn acknowledges none of the secondary sources he cribbed liberally and credits no primarily research-which explains the lack of new material but at least he could have offered some new insight, instead what you get for your bucks is a limp synopsis, inane comments and rehashed 'facts'.
Truly dreadful book
|
|
|
|
