#may special

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 8

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! Today’s Subject, My 8th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: King Haggard, from The Last Unicorn.

In the 1980s, classical fantasy films were pretty popular. Movies like “Labyrinth,” “Legend,” and “Dragonslayer” were all over the place, and most of these movies remain cult classics (if not outright “classics”) to this day. There was a certain charm to fantasy of the 1980s, both during that time and now, when looking back, that you just don’t find in other movies of a similar sort. One of the earliest of these 80s fantasy flicks, and one of my personal favorites, is 1982’s “The Last Unicorn.”

Based on the novel by Peter S. Beagle (who also wrote the screenplay, and had a hand in casting), this movie was a theatrical release by Rankin/Bass. I mentioned them before on the very first entry of the countdown, as the people who made classic Christmas specials like “The Year Without a Santa Claus” and “Frosty the Snowman.” They actually released several classic fantasy pieces, too, most of which were TV films…but “The Last Unicorn” was a rare cinematic production. Typical of Rankin/Bass, the movie boasts an all-star cast, prime among them Christopher Lee as the main antagonist: the mysterious and menacing King Haggard. The story of “The Last Unicorn” focuses on the titular Unicorn, who has learned she may be the last of her kind. Deciding to find out if this is true, she goes on an adventure to try and find the other Unicorns. She soon learns that a creature called the Red Bull (which does NOT give you wings, for the record) has captured all the unicorns, and hidden them somewhere under the command of the tyrannical Haggard. Haggard is a perennially miserable figure: it’s revealed that, for unknown reasons (at least in the film), he has essentially lost all zest for life. Nothing makes him happy: he desperately seeks anything that can give him the smallest amount of joy, but nothing works. Nothing…but the Unicorns. Haggard has discovered that only the enchanting presence of the Unicorns gives him pleasure of any kind, and makes him feel, in his own words, “truly young again, in spite of himself.” He quickly comes to suspect that the “Lady Amalthea” who visits him (the Unicorn, disguised as a human) is the one missing unicorn he has never been able to track down, and tries to figure out a way to get her to reveal herself, and thus capture her, too. Lee claimed that Haggard was one of his favorite roles. He loved it so much that he volunteered to do the German dub of the film (Lee spoke fluent German), just because he enjoyed the character so much. He likened the character to Shakespeare’s King Lear; I have to admit, a while back, I had no idea what he meant by that. Nowadays, I can KIND OF see it. Shakespearean allusions aside, however, Lee’s performance is largely what makes Haggard a compelling villain: he, of course, is able to bring a sense of command and sinister power to the character. That’s honestly to be expected. But what I love most about Haggard are his softer moments. This character so easily could have been depicted as a cartoonish, crotchety figure: Just some old sourpuss who hates everyone and who everyone hates – a slightly more evil Eustace from Courage the Cowardly Dog, if you will. That’s not what Lee does: you don’t really know WHY Haggard is so utterly depressed throughout the movie, but you really do feel “depression” is the word for it. There are moments where you feel sort of sorry for him, because the overwhelming sadness is so palpable. The way he talks about the Unicorns is almost touching; he sees them like angels, saviors to his eternal dreariness. At the same time, however, you never forget he’s the bad guy, his moods swinging rapidly, giving him a sense of leaning heavily towards total madness. He also has some of my favorite, most quotable lines any Lee character has ever had. Just for one example: “I can wait. The end will be the same: I can wait.” A cartoon baddy played by Christopher Lee just gave you one of the best quotes about patience you’ll ever hear. I love this movie. ^^ The time has come to move into the final week of the countdown. Tomorrow, I present my choice for Number 7!

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 2

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I have been counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! It's time for the penultimate entry of this special countdown. Today’s Subject, My 2nd Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Lord Summerisle, from The Wicker Man.

SCREW THE NICOLAS CAGE REMAKE!!! Ahem…sorry, I…seem to be programmed to say that anytime I mention The Wicker Man-SCREW THE NICOLAS CAGE REMAKE!!! Ahem-hem…sorry again. From this point on, I’ll just call “Wicker Man” for safety’s sake. It helps if I don’t say “the.” :P ANYWAY…alongside “Jinnah,” Lee considered “Wicker Man” to be his single favorite and best film, and it’s hard to disagree there. This very strange, surreal, and EXTREMELY dark picture is a genre-blending, one-of-a-kind thriller. It’s part horror film, part twist-turning murder mystery, part musical…and all around HIGHLY disturbing, even nowadays. The story follows a police officer, Neil Howie, who attempts to solve the mystery of a small girl’s strange disappearance on the island colony of Summerisle. A faithful Christian, Howie is appalled to discover the island’s residents practice rituals resembling a form of Celtic Paganism. As the story goes on, he discovers a massive conspiracy…a conspiracy that ends in his EXTREMELY horrifying downfall. A central figure in the unfolding madness is Christopher Lee as the leader of the colony, and a descendant of the island’s founders, Lord Summerisle. Summerisle is a mysterious, strange figure, one who – even all the way up to the end – we’re never able to fully unravel. He is a walking enigma; in some ways a civilized gentleman, reasonable and rational, and really quite friendly. But the fervor with which he commits his crimes and practices the dark rituals of the story creates an air of deep unease. It’s also not entirely clear how truthfully Summerisle BELIEVES in the pagan trials, or even how true they are to any kind of spiritual following: is he a mad cultist, a charlatan leading a band of disillusioned followers, or something else entirely? Perhaps the most disturbing question is if Summerisle is actually RIGHT in what he does, since it's left unclear if all his wicked workings even have the desired effect in the end or not. Only the audience can truly decide for themselves what is true and what is false. This role, in essence, gives one EVERYTHING they could want out of a great Christopher Lee performance, giving the actor a chance to show nearly the full breadth of his range as a performer all in one shot: he gets to sing, and he gets to dance. He has scenes of manic, wild power, and scenes of subtlety and softness. He has scenes where he is terrifying and intimidating, and scenes where you almost forget to be scared at all. The ambiguities of the character only help to add to the power of the part. It’s easy to see why this was one of Lee’s personal favorite roles, and I actually very, VERY nearly gave Lord Summerisle the number one slot…but the more I thought about it and inspected the situation, the more I felt that wasn’t quite right. Lord Summerisle is phenomenal, but there’s one Lee performance I like more…but I mustn’t say more, or I shall spoil what’s coming next. On that note…tomorrow, we reach the end of the countdown. Who will be my number one favorite? You’ll have to stick around to find out! ;)

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 22

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! Today’s Subject, My 22nd Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Sir Alexander Saxton, from Horror Express.

The relationship between Christopher Lee and fellow actor Peter Cushing is almost as legendary as the actors themselves. And while I’ve talked about their appearances onscreen together a couple times before now – discussing features like “Curse of Frankenstein” and “The Gorgon” – perhaps no picture more interestingly uses their dynamic than “Horror Express.” In most movies, the pair were at each other’s throats – the Doctor vs. His Creature, Professor Meister vs. Dr. Namaroff – but in “Horror Express,” neither plays the villain. Instead, the pair double-up as twin protagonists, who have to band together to face a great evil. “Horror Express” is a somewhat odd thriller. It’s sort of a bizarre combo of stories like “Murder on the Orient Express” and the work of H.P. Lovecraft, blending Gothic chills with sci-fi strangeness in a spine-tingling murder-mystery with a horrifying twist. In the movie, Lee and Cushing play a pair of successful, well-respected scientists: Sir Alexander Saxton and Dr. Wells, respectively. The two are both the best of friends and the most intense rivals: they like and care about each other, but they’re constantly feuding and bickering at the same time. Wells has a habit of poking his nose into Saxton’s business, and Saxton’s stiff, no-nonsense attitude occasionally gets on Wells’ nerves. The pair both end up bunked together while traveling on the Trans-Siberian Express. As it turns out, Saxton has discovered an oddity during his travels: a mysterious humanoid creature, preserved in ice, which he believes is the fabled “Missing Link.” While en route to Moscow, the creature in question is thawed out from the ice and begins a killing spree: it’s eventually revealed that the monster is actually an extraterrestrial being, almost as old as the Earth itself, with powers and knowledge most mortals cannot comprehend. The two scientists are forced to put aside their differences to combat the creature, working with other passengers to try and stop the beast before the train reaches its final destination. While the thrills are fun and the chills delightfully disturbing, what really makes the movie great is a combination of two elements. One is the atmosphere: movies and stories set aboard trains can be somewhat hit or miss, you have to know how to use the space. This film does that, playing with the claustrophobic elements of the rail ride to its advantage. The idea of being trapped with a monster that you can’t fully understand, in a kill-or-be-killed situation, is a concept that’s just as unsettling today as it would have been when the film was released in 1972. I would say it would be great to see a modern remake of the film, to see how modern cinematography and effects wizardry could compare… …But there would be one thing the remake, if it were to happen, simply would not be able to hold a candle to. This is the other element that truly makes the movie great: Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing’s onscreen chemistry. It’s the relationship between Saxton and Wells – which I like to think, in some places, might have mirrored the relationship between the actors playing them – that really makes the movie work. Whether they’re snapping at each other or rallying others to battle, these two carry so much conviction and have such interesting depth to their work that it never fails to entertain. They can even be humorous at times, especially in the earlier parts of the film, and yet you never doubt their capabilities or the care they have for each other. I can’t automatically think of too many other great cinema duos in the modern era who could have the same kind of powerful dynamic and make it work; the best that comes to my mind would be Benedict Cumberbatch as Saxton with Martin Freeman as Wells. And as cool as that movie would be, were it to happen…sorry, Sherlock and Watson, I think I’d still prefer Dracula and Van Helsing here. Tomorrow the countdown continues with My Number 21 choice!

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - NUMBER ONE

Welcome to the last entry of Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I have been counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!

We’ve come to the finale of this special event. I’ve discussed Christopher Lee’s two favorite pictures, “Jinnah” and “The Wicker Man,” and I’ve discussed some of his most well-known characters, such as Saruman and Count Dooku. But today, we discuss my personal favorite Christopher Lee Performance…or rather, my favorite Christopher Lee Character: Count Dracula.

Who else could it be?

The Creature – Frankenstein’s Monster – was the role that officially put Christopher Lee on the map. It got the attention of Hammer studios, and made audiences curious…but if that had been Lee’s one standout role, I doubt he’d be as revered as he is today. A bit like how it took “Empire Strikes Back” to TRULY cement Darth Vader’s place in the annals of villainy, I think it is fair to say that it took “Horror of Dracula” to cement Christopher Lee as an actor. However, Lee really only got the part because of Frankenstein, and on closer inspection, this is clear: for most of the film, Dracula is not onscreen, and after the opening sequence with Jonathan Harker, he never speaks again for the remainder of the movie. Ironically, however, these same qualities were part of what made the character so fascinating: the mystery and the power Lee carried, doing so much with so little, made his Dracula instantly memorable, and from that moment on, his reputation was set in stone.

This was as much a blessing as a curse. Lee would, in the end, play Dracula a total of TEN TIMES in theatrical films: seven times for Hammer, once in the Jess Franco picture “Count Dracula,” once in a (bad) comedy/parody film called “Dracula and Son,” and once in a cameo appearance in the film “One More Time,” directed by Jerry Lewis and starring Sammy Davis Jr. (Not the place you’d usually expect Dracula to show up, but whatever.) On top of that, he would end up playing the real-life inspiration for the Count, Vlad Dracula, in a documentary entitled “In Search of Dracula.” And even THAT is not the end, as Lee would narrate an (abridged) audiobook of the Bram Stoker novel in 2009. Put it all together, and you can make a case for Lee tackling the Count a whole dozen times. Even if you only count the initial ten, that’s more than any actor has EVER played Dracula, at least in movies: that’s more than Bela Lugosi, Adam Sandler, and John Carradine COMBINED.

If you will pardon the expression…HOT. DAMN.

Carving out a name for himself as the King of the Vampires was something that Lee would always have something of a love/hate relationship with. On the one hand, Dracula was the role that brought him fame and recognition beyond any other, and to this day he is one of the most iconic and lauded interpreters of the character, especially through the Hammer Horror franchise. On the other hand…if we’re being completely honest, out of all ten of his film appearances as the Count, there are really only a couple that I would solidly and honestly consider to be good movies, with few major flaws to speak of. The rest all range from “okay” to “OH GOD WHAT IS THIS TRAVESTY MAKE IT STOP.” Lee, himself, was well-aware of the flaws in the material for most of his pictures, and as a fan of the Bram Stoker novel, he hated how the writers – especially with the Hammer features – never seemed to use the character to what he felt was their full potential.

Perhaps more important and tragic than the lackluster material, however, was what it did to Lee’s career, and it was this, above all else, that proved to be Lee’s ultimate bitter point with the role and the movies he was in for it: no matter what else he did, for decades upon decades, Lee – like the aforementioned Lugosi – was seen as Dracula. This lasted well into the modern day: while younger viewers of today will probably recognize him better for Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or his Tim Burton film appearances, the directors of those same movies never failed to remind Lee with jokes about his role as the Count…something which seemed to mildly frustrate the great man, even then. In fact, any time a director DIDN’T make a joke about Dracula, or only did it once, Lee would point this out as being something that endeared them to him. All the way to the end, the vampire lord dogged this man, and Lee’s commentary on his tenure was, for the most part, quite sour.

Having related all this, the ultimate question one must ask about Christopher Lee and Count Dracula is…why? Why, when the actor so clearly had resentment against so many of the films, and repeatedly stressed his desire to put that character aside and move on, did he keep coming back to it, again and again and again? With Hammer, Lee has gone on record saying he was basically blackmailed into doing most of those movies…but this doesn’t explain his appearances in the non-Hammer properties. And for all the bitterness he had, when Lee was actually asked about the CHARACTER, and his approach to the role as an actor, he always spoke of it fondly, with enthusiasm and analytical intensity.

I think the ultimate answer is that, for all the ups and downs Dracula provided Lee, it was, nevertheless, a role he legitimately cared about. He may not have liked the movies, but he liked the Count, and he was protective of the part. Even in the worst of his Dracula outings, he is always A+ in his delivery of whatever material he’s given. He took steps to try and inject something special into the character, when even the writers often clearly hadn’t the foggiest idea of what they were doing. And in every story you hear about the movies, in every clip from behind-the-scenes you see, he’s having fun. Whatever curse Dracula brought to Christopher Lee…perhaps the pains, in the end, were worth it. Lee may or may not have been proud to see Dracula take the top spot on this list…but it’s the spot his Dracula deserves.

Thank you all for joining me on this adventure through the wild and wonderful career of Sir Christopher Lee. What countdown shall I do next? Only time will tell. ;)

Once again, Happy Birthday, Sir Christopher. I hope that yourself, Peter Cushing, and Vincent Price are having fun up there in that big mystery movie in the sky.

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 5

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! Today is Christopher Lee’s official birthday! It is only fitting that, on this auspicious occasion, we move into the Top 5. Today’s Subject, My 5th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Count Dooku, from Star Wars.

Whatever one may think of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy (that’s a topic so full of debate, especially in light of more recent Star Wars features, that I don’t DARE touch it here), I think most would agree that Christopher Lee’s iconic Sith villain, Count Dooku – a.k.a. Darth Tyrannus – is a highlight of the latter two movies, as well as the animated spin-off movie “The Clone Wars,” which acted as a sort of pilot for the CGI series of the same name. (These are actually, to my knowledge, the only times Lee has actually played the character; the rest of the time, Dooku has been voiced by Corey Burton or other actors, so I’m going to focus this entry primarily on the movies, in terms of what I discuss.) This was one of the roles that brought Lee back into the limelight; since the mid-80s, at least, his career had been on something of a decline. He was still working, of course, but nothing seemed to really get anyone’s attention, so to speak. It was “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones” in 2002 (as well as the start of a certain other trilogy the year before, which I’ll get to in a couple of days) that reminded people of what a grand performer Lee was, and brought him to the attention of a whole new generation of fans. Originally, the character of Count Dooku had been envisioned as a COUNTESS, and various character designs and concepts for a female Sith Lord were thrown back and forth at Lucasfilm with that in mind. (Fun fact, at least two of these concepts would later find life in the form of two other characters, Asajj Ventress and Zam Wessell.) However, somewhere along the way, George Lucas decided it would be a fine idea to cast the great Christopher Lee as the villain, so the character was retooled in the vein of the sort of imposing, upper-class renegades Lee was known for portraying. For Lee, the part was a second chance at glory: he’d actually been offered a role in “A New Hope” decades before (which role it was seems to change depending on which account you read), but had turned the film down due to a busy schedule. Knowing how popular the Star Wars franchise was, and how much money it would bring him, he obviously wasn’t going to turn down the opportunity a second time. There was something else appealing to the role, which is rather sweet when looked at in hindsight: in a twisted, backwards way, this role enabled him a final shot at a “collaboration” with his old pal, Peter Cushing. Cushing, of course, had appeared in “A New Hope” as Grand Moff Tarkin; by playing Count Dooku in the same franchise, and taking part in the same over-arching story, Lee, in essence, would inject himself once more into the same story and project as Cushing. Posthumously, the pair could work together once again. This was lost on no one working on the picture, Lee included. That’s genuinely touching, when you think about it. As far as the character and performance go, in the movies, at least, we actually don’t get that much of Dooku onscreen – he’s only physically present in the last third of the second film, and the opening act of the third, and his role in the animated film isn’t much bigger. But with what time we DO get, we are given an interesting and wonderfully decadent character. An interesting thing Lucas did with the Prequel films was how he used the villains: each of the major Sith followers in the films – Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and General Grievous – are meant to be dark reflections of Anakin Skywalker, foreshadowing the future path he will take when he becomes Darth Vader. With Dooku, the parallels are curious, and surprisingly subtle. Dooku is an elegant old grandmaster; a relic of a bygone age who has, ironically, turned in on itself. He is a figure representing a specific period of the Jedi Order, but as a traitor to that same order, and their adversary, he proves that even the most seemingly incorruptible, noble, or otherwise well-meaning figures can fall to darkness if pushed in the right direction. (Hint-Hint.) There’s a touch of sympathy to Dooku, as he was Yoda’s student, which gives the two a unique relationship; furthermore, he was Qui Gon Jinn’s own master, and the way he speaks of his former apprentice makes it clear he truly did care for him, and misses him deeply. You get the feeling, from the way Dooku talks, that it might have been the loss of Qui Gon that helped push him towards the Dark Side: this foreshadows how losses in Anakin’s life will help to propel him towards the path of Vader. Of course, Dooku is not Vader, and his ultimate downfall only proves this, with clever foreshadowing once more in play…but, for the sake of potential spoilers (not that I imagine it will be spoiling much for anybody), I think I’d better stop there. Suffice to say, as one of my favorite characters from the Prequel trilogy, and one of my favorite Star Wars villains overall, Count Dooku is more than worthy of a spot in my personal Top 5. Tomorrow, I discuss my Number 4 choice for the countdown! Happy Birthday, Sir Christopher Lee: there’s still more to come in your name.

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 9

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! Today’s Subject, My 9th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Dr. Marlowe & Mr. Blake, from I, Monster (1971).

“I, Monster” is…weird. Mostly because of its title and its main character, played by Lee. To put it bluntly, this movie is a pretty darn straightforward adaptation of the classic story “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.” The plot follows the book quite closely, and even retains much of the original dialogue from the novel in various places. However, it keeps all the character names – Utterson, Lanyon, and so forth – EXCEPT for the title roles. At the time, no one was interested in funding “another Jekyll & Hyde film.” Therefore, the movie not only makes its title “I, Monster,” which…doesn’t even really seem to fit the story, to be honest…but it also changes Henry Jekyll to “Charles Marlowe,” and Edward Hyde to “Edward Blake.” Nothing else changed with the piece, but evidently, this was enough to fool the backers needed. So, in other words, this is a Jekyll & Hyde movie where Jekyll & Hyde are not called Jekyll & Hyde, but are still Jekyll & Hyde. In Lee’s own words on the matter, “You work that out if you want to, but to me, it’s COMPLETELY incomprehensible, even to this day!” This was a movie made not by Hammer, but by Amicus Productions. The self-proclaimed “Studio That Dripped Blood” was, in essence, a ripoff Hammer company, and fittingly, this film can basically be seen as a ripoff Hammer Horror movie, right down to the fact Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing play the lead roles. Putting the baffling title and character name changes aside, “I, Monster” is, nevertheless, one of the more underrated and underappreciated versions of the classic story ever put to the screen. It’s probably the most obscure film in my Top 10, and it’s not one that’s highly regarded: finding good reviews of the movie (heck, finding good copies of the movie suitable for viewing, even) is very, VERY hard. Personally, I really like this version! It’s not perfect, however: my primary issue lies in the pacing. Most of the film has this sort of creeping, tense pace, with spurts of quick action moving through it, as we follow the progression of Lee’s character through his experiments and his descent into madness and self-destruction, as well as getting a great deal of focus on the relationship between himself and his best friend, Mr. Utterson (played by Cushing), and so on…but then, in the last quarter, everything sort of feels like it’s on fast-forward, as if they realized they were running out of time on the picture and just decided to skim through a lot of the last act. Beyond that, however, I think this is a really, REALLY good version of Jekyll & Hyde, and Lee is the main reason why (which is the case with most takes on J&H). He brings a great deal of depth and nuance to Marlowe, as the role gives him a chance to show more vulnerable sides than many of his characters revealed, but he can still command authority when needed. It’s probably one of my favorite takes on Jekyll ever done, mixing the right amount of underlying darkness and superficial sympathy the character requires. I especially love the scenes between him and Peter Cushing’s Utterson: this is one of the films where, in my opinion, the real-life friendship these two actors shared shines strongly through the celluloid. The almost brotherly bond the pair have onscreen really does call to mind the relationship we all know about from behind the camera, and it helps to make both characters, and the story, all the stronger. As Blake, meanwhile, Lee goes through an interesting transformation: inspired by the 1920 silent film version of the story, starring John Barrymore (incidentally, that is my favorite film version of the story), this movie plays with the idea that, as time goes on, the Hyde character becomes increasingly more hideous and monstrous, his exterior ghoulishness matching the evil in his soul. Not only does he change physically, however, but even elements of his personality change; the movie depicts the potion as an addictive drug, and like all addictive drugs, the more you use it, the more the negative effects take a toll. When Blake first transforms, he has a near-permanent smile, and is quick and powerful, genuinely creepy and filled with a zest for life, doing terrible things just for the thrill of it…but as the film goes on, he becomes a lumbering beast, snarling and sneering at everything around him, as the evil he does affects his body and seemingly his mind. The more the evil grows, the more Blake, himself, suffers…yet he just can’t help himself. Again, the only downside to “I, Monster” – aside from the bizarre changes to the names and title, which I think even “Nosferatu” would tilt its head at – is that the last act IS pretty rushed, but up until that point, the rest of the movie is a very strong and well-handled psychological thriller and a fine adaptation of the Jekyll & Hyde story. And hey, even if that last section is a bit over-quick, we do still get another classic clash of the horror titans with Mr. Blake vs. Mr. Utterson in a grand brawl. Any movie that allows Cushing and Lee to be best friends AND worst enemies AT THE SAME TIME is clearly deserving of some credit. Tomorrow, I present my choice for Number 8!

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 6

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! Today’s Subject, My 6th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Francisco Scaramanga, from The Man With the Golden Gun.

Christopher Lee and James Bond have more ties than you might think: as it turns out, Lee was actually Ian Fleming’s cousin, and at one point, Fleming had actually suggested Lee (who, at that time, was just starting to make a proper name for himself in movies) to play the titular super spy. Lee would have been perfect casting, seeing as how he actually worked in the secret service for England for years, but alas, this never came to pass. Eon Productions made this up to audiences, however, when they decided to cast Lee to play arguably one of the greatest Bond Villains of all time: Francisco Scaramanga, the titular assassin from “The Man With the Golden Gun.” While “The Man With the Golden Gun” is admittedly one of the more flawed James Bond movies (its tone is all over the place, two major characters are pretty annoying, and the plot is somewhat convoluted, even by Bond film standards), it is, nevertheless, an example of a case where the movie is better than the book. The book, for some strange reason, plays out more like a Spaghetti Western than a James Bond story, and the titular villain of Scaramanga is little more than a black-hatted thug with a fancy weapon. It was the last novel written by Ian Fleming for the series, and you can tell he was sort of strapped for ideas at that point. The movie, for all its own faults, wisely goes in a totally different direction from the novel…and, in deliberately not following the book much at all, it also ends up greatly improving on the character of Scaramanga. Lee’s gilded dastard was envisioned as “the dark side of Bond;” he is one of a few villains throughout the franchise (Raoul Silva, Janus, and Red Grant are other examples) who are meant to be a dark parallel to Bond himself. Like Bond, Scaramanga is a notorious assassin who has somehow managed to remain secretive while also having a noteworthy reputation. He is a brilliant pistol shot, and enjoys the finer things in life, always wearing excellent suits and enjoying the best wines and foods he can find. However, where they differ are their motivations: Bond has his rough edges, his foibles and flaws, but he ultimately works for a heroic cause, and has a basic moral fiber somewhere under the surface. Scaramanga does not: he lives with practically no purpose but to kill and destroy, and he absolutely LOVES his work. Through death, he has made financial killings of his own; through death, he can live the life he’s always wanted. Shooting people is ultimately the only thing that brings him pleasure in life. (And I mean “pleasure” in more than one sense of the word.) Under his sophisticated and at times rather charming demeanor, he is a literal killing machine, and nothing more. This was yet another role that gave Lee a chance to break the mold of the horror actor he was stuck in so perpetually at the time. True, Scaramanga is still the villain, but he’s a rather different creature from characters like Dracula or Fu Manchu. Lee brings an enthusiasm and energy to the part that gives Scaramanga an almost boyish quality; his childlike excitement when Bond comes to “visit” him on his island hideaway (because of course he has one of those) is especially wonderful. He doesn’t just RESPECT Bond, he outright seems to IDOLIZE the guy; you almost get the feeling that Scaramanga’s similarities to Bond are self-crafted, that he’s been building up this moment for himself for years, and the chance to finally see his hero, have dinner with him, and show him around his pad is just as delightful to him as the chance to fight said hero in combat and come out the victor. Of course, the relationship is almost tragically one-sided, as Bond is quite disgusted by Scaramanga, which no doubt only heightens his desire to see Bond fall courtesy of one of his own gold bullets. The best comparison I can think of in a more modern film is the relationship between Syndrome and Mr. Incredible from “The Incredibles”: the villain is just as much the hero’s fanboy as their self-proclaimed nemesis. Bottom line: while “The Man With the Golden Gun” has its problems, the titular villain is not among them. He’s one of my top three favorite Bond Villains, without question, and I actually feel pretty bad for not including him in the Top 5 on this countdown. Hopefully those who rank above him will not disappoint. ;) The top five starts tomorrow. Not only that, but tomorrow marks the official birthday of our honored actor! Who will be chosen to mark that special occasion? Join me next time to find out.

[twistedtummies2]

Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary - Number 3

Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy! We’re in the Top Three! Today’s Subject, My 3rd Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Saruman the White, from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

Alongside his role as Count Dooku in Star Wars, Lee’s appearance in “The Lord of the Rings” was one of the roles that put him back on the map, after almost 15 years of relative obscurity. Throughout the late 80s and the 1990s, while Lee was still a jobbing actor, working steadily, his popularity and prominence had greatly diminished. When Peter Jackson cast him to play the evil wizard, Saruman – one of the main antagonists of the classic Tolkien fantasy novels – people were reminded of the power of this performer. This role, above all others, served as a reminder that Lee could still captivate audiences, and turn in a scene-stealing performance. Saruman was, once again, one of Lee’s favorite roles, and very close to his heart: he was actually a major fan of the Tolkien classics, and made a point of reading them annually. He even brought annotated copies of the books with him onset, at least in the original trilogy. It can easily be argued that, in the first two out of three films, Saruman was honestly the primary antagonist: I’ve always felt that the so-called character of Sauron is less a proper “character” and more of a force of nature. He’s an evil PRESENCE who’s malignant influence causes much of the mayhem in the story, but he’s never really a true FIGURE in the stories, or even in the films. Saruman and Gollum are the two most prominent physical antagonists in the books, and the ones who drive much of the conflict for the story. The same goes for the movies, which, in fact, expanded on Saruman’s role, giving Lee plenty of meat to work with. The reasons why Lee is so brilliant as Saruman are easy to explain: with his tall and willowy stature, and his grand and intimidating vocal presence, he COMMANDED attention each time he appeared onscreen. Even in scenes where he says little, or moves little, he somehow manages to dominate the sequence. Indeed, most fans agree that, of all the changes made between the theatrical and director’s cuts for “Return of the King,” if there was one change that SHOULDN’T have been made, it was removing Saruman’s death scene. While perhaps it could have been shortened for time, seeing Saruman get his comeuppance on the big screen would have been a treat, whereas NOT seeing it proves to be one of the few faults the third pillar has. This would quite literally be a role that would stick with Lee to his dying day: he reprised the character for the prequel Hobbit Trilogy. This wasn’t easy for Lee to manage, as he was very, VERY late in his life by that point, and in fact, much of his work in the third film had to be done by a stuntman. In both movies, he actually had to film his scenes separate from the rest of the cast, overseas, in front of a greenscreen: the travel would have been too much for him, by that point. Even with this in mind, seeing him as Saruman before his corruption is truly a marvel: all those years later, he still had the vocal power and charismatic presence to own the scenes he was in, and it gives us a new perspective on the White Wizard the original trilogy did not offer. Lee said that his favorite part of playing Saruman in the prequel trilogy was the fact that, in essence, he could say goodbye to the role by leaving it with him as a hero, not as a villain. What Lee perhaps did not realize (or perhaps he did, it’s difficult to say) was that this would prove to be one of his final performances. It was the last movie he did that was released during his lifetime: a year after “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” came out, Lee was dead. After so many years playing villains and bogeymen…Christopher Lee’s last character – one of the most iconic of those same roles – went out like a hero. The poetry of Saruman in this actor’s life is inescapable. Tomorrow, our penultimate entry in the countdown: I shall unveil my second favorite pick!