Harper's Film Addiction

I can't afford to make movies, so I talk about them....a lot. Any movie, any genre, any era. For completed Lists of Films go to: https://www.tumblr.com/harpersfilmaddictionlists

[theharpermovieblog]

My profile on Letterboxd https://boxd.it/4W8Yh

[theharpermovieblog]

[theharpermovieblog]

[theharpermovieblog]

🍿🎥NOW MAKING LISTS ON LETTERBOXD🎥🍿

Please follow me

I'll leave the link below in the comments

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

QUATERMASS TRILOGY MARATHON

I watched Quatermass And The Pit (1967)

The third and final film in this Quatermass Marathon.

-Prehistoric remains are found in the London Underground, and they just might be from outer space.-

Once again produced by Hammer Films, "Quatermass And The Pit" is directed by Hammer stalwart Roy Ward Baker and written by series creator Nigel Kneale.

This third entry is a departure from the previous films, in that Quatermass is now played by British actor Andrew Keir. It's also separated from the previous films by a whole decade.

I prefer a British Quatermass. Not that I don't love Brian Donlevy from the first two films, however his American accent doesn't fit the character as much as Keir's proper British one.

It's also rather nice to see a Quatermass film in color. It gives the cheesy special effects and locations a bit more pop and presence. A touch more modern and hip.

Like the other two Quatermass films, we get a lovely build up to an exciting ending. Professor Quatermass must once again fight for what he believes is truly going on, and there's plenty of arguing and theorizing and everything a sci-fi geek like me enjoys.

Of all these films the second may be my favorite. But, this third one is definitely giving it a run for it's money, and it's probably the one I'd most like to see get a remake.

If you like 60's British sci-fi and you haven't seen this, it's 100% for you. If you like 60's sci-fi in general you should check this out. If you're not really a Hammer Films fan or a someone who appreciates a good old fashioned hokey science fiction film, you won't like this.

Personally, I loved it. I loved all three of these films and would love this character to come back into the public consciousness.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

QUATERMASS TRILOGY MARATHON

I watched Quatermass 2 (1957)

The 2nd entry in the Quatermass Hammer film trilogy.

-While working on a domed facility to place on the moon, Quatermass finds it's already been built, surrounded by dangerous meteors and full of armed guards.-

This second entry in the Quatermass series is based off the 2nd BBC television serial of the same name. (I'll probably review the serials at some point, as they are supposedly preferred by the original creator).

Once again this film is being directed by veteran Hammer Films director Val Guest, and once again stars American actor Brian Donlevy as Professor Bernard Quatermass.

"The Quatermass Xperiment" is a bit slow and more procedural, which is something I really enjoy, but "Quatermass 2" has more energy and excitement, and I'll be honest, I liked it more than the first. We get a good conspiracy story with plenty of Sci-Fi elements, meteors that contain dangerous gas, a large domed facility used for a top secret project, armed guards with strange burn marks, and a governmental coverup. There's more action, more excitement and a lot more going on.

The film is once again well shot and directed. It's high energy and frantic pace really brings home the race against time and insurmountable odds being faced by Quatermass and those by his side. Any of whom could be taken over by an evil alien entity at any time. The stakes seem higher than the first film and that's what a good sequel does.

Definitely worth a watch if you like 1950's science fiction films or literature. I had a great time with it.

Of course, if you don't like 50's sci-fi, you probably won't get it.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

QUATERMASS TRILOGY MARATHON

I watched The Quatermass Xperiment (1955)

Long have I wanted to sit down and watch this British Sci-Fi/Horror series of films from Hammer.

-A rocket ship returns to earth, minus two astronauts. The one Astronaut to return alive is sickly and changing in dangerous ways. It's up to Professor Quatermass to figure out what happened and how to stop what's coming.-

After a successful run of "The Quatermass Experiment" serials by writer/creator Nigel Kneale on the BBC, Hammer was quick to buy up the rights for a film version. In making that film, Hammer got an X rating, limiting movie goers to people over the age of 16. Hammer proudly accepted the rating, naming the film "The Quatermass Xperiment" to show off that "X /" rating in a sly way.

This film is directed by Val Guest, a Hammer regular, who made a career of directing sci-fi films and sex comedies.

"The Quatermass Xperiment" is a well shot and well executed Sci-Fi/horror film of the era. The 1950's was awash with horror films about radiation and alien monstrosities come to eradicate mankind. While many of these films are hokey trash, the ones that stand out are really special, and Quatermass is one of the stands outs.

We get the excellent hero, Professor Bernard Quatermass. A middle aged scientist with a good heart and a steadfast belief in science. We also get a sympathetic and unwitting atomic age antagonist in an astronaut returned to earth possessed by an alien. He's unable to fight against what's inside him, unable to stop killing. On his face we see his human side bearing witness to all the horrible acts he is forced to commit, and it makes for a compelling story.

I enjoyed this film. There are some really fun moments, but most of all it's paced out like a well written detective story.

Watching it raised a question in my mind about why there isn't a bigger knowledge of Quatermass in pop culture right now. There's a lot can be done with an alien-fighting Sherlock Holmes-esque hero. Where's the blockbuster remakes? I know I'd be first in line for something like that, but then again my tastes can be weirder than most.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

SUPERMAN TRIPLE FEATURE WEEK

I watched Superman III (1983)

Oof, this is gonna be a brutal watch.

-Superman must defeat Richard Pryor....or something. Who gives a shit, This movie is terrible-

"Superman II" saw the film's producers turning away from Richard Donner as director. A decision which was about as wrong headed as any in film franchise history. Yet, bringing on Richard Lester to replace Donner was somehow a worse decision.

"Superman 3" is nothing more than a feature length piece of evidence as to why Richard Lester was a terrible choice to replace Donner in the franchise, and why I'm so glad there is a "Superman II: Richard Donner Cut".

Lester directed "Superman III" like a full blown dramedy. A dramedy which involves a rape-y Superman, a scene where Clark Kent kills Superman, and which lazily crashes a bad Superman film into a bad Richard Pryor movie. This film is such a departure from the quality of the first two films that Lois Lane actress, Margot Kidder, refused to be in the whole picture, appearing for only one quick scene and swiftly exiting.

Despite the horrible tone and terrible choices, the worst part of this film is that it feels depressingly small in scope compared to the first two films. If you told me that this was a TV movie I'd believe you. Yes, the budget is lower, but it's more than that. It's the writing, the directing and the overall vibe. Superman as a character feels mundane and unimpressive. The villains have zero charisma and zero ability to feel menacing. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor had some comedic aspects in the first two films, but he also felt vicious, intelligent and truly sociopathic. The villains here come off as annoying assholes, bumbling their way into stupid plan after stupid plan. (And, why not a greater threat in general? Superman has already faced off against a rich guy, why write another rich guy as the villain? The stakes were lowered with the quality apparently.)

It's not that Richard Lester is a bad filmmaker. He's not. "A Hard Day's Night", "Help", "The Three Musketeers"....he's made some good ones. I'll even be discussing some of these films soon. However, he didn't understand the tone or the scope of the "Superman" films. He ruined the franchise along with it's producers, leaving it to eventually be buried by Canon films.

"Superman III" is a bad film. A truly bad film. If it weren't for the abysmal "Superman IV: The Quest For Peace", this would probably be the worst outing for the Man Of Steel.

It's boring, it's not funny, it's poorly written and just a waste of time for everyone involved. At one point I wanted to shut it off because I was getting second-hand embarrassment for all those involved.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

SUPERMAN TRIPLE FEATURE WEEK

I watched Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980/2006)

The best Superman movie? Debatable. The best version of 1980'S "Superman II"? Without a doubt.

-After defeating Lex Luthor's evil plot in the first film, Superman must now face off against escaped prisoners from his homeworld, led by the megalomaniacal General Zod.-

The producers of the Superman films, The Salkinds, had massive creative and budgetary differences with "Superman: The Movie" director Richard Donner, leading to Donner's eventual departure from the second film. Donner's replacement was director Richard Lester, best known to me and most for "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help". A comedy director with a bit of adventure and romance under his belt. What Lester brought to "Superman II" was his rather silly sense of humor. And, while the original "Superman" film does have humor, Lester seemed to want to push it more and more into the forefront, eventually leading to an overly comical "Superman III", of which he had sole director credit.

The theatrical release of "Superman II" isn't a bad film, but it suffers from the replacement of Donner. Luckily, in 2006, we received "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut". A film which uses cut scenes, replaced scenes and lost footage to give us the closest thing to the film intended by Richard Donner. A film which much more appropriately, in tone and function, follows up the original "Superman: The Movie".

For me, this is probably the most fun Superman film ever made. Like the first film, it understands the character and the world he lives within, (something other Superman films fail remarkably at). As for story, it's simply a continuation of the original film. It also ups the stakes by adding super powered villains, while not leaving behind Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor.

Of course, I have my issues I have to bring up, like I do with most films. There are certain overly coincidental moments, some truly dated (but fun) special effects, and both versions of this film end in ways I don't love. However, it's to the credit of the film, it's director and it's stars that I can gladly overlook those things and enjoy this film as much as I did when I was a kid. The scenes of Zod taking over the white house and the Disaster film style fight sequence outside the Daily Bugle are awesome moments, which I loved rewatching.

Had Richard Donner not left the franchise, the Superman films may have had a chance to continue to tell interesting stories, while staying true to their tone, style and characters. The dip in quality to follow with "Superman III" and "Superman IV" has never truly been recovered from. "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" gives us a chance to see what could have been and it does so in a spectacular way.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

SUPERMAN TRIPLE FEATURE WEEK

I watched Superman: The Movie (1978)

Since the new Superman trailer has me excited, I thought I'd rewatch the two most classic Superman Films....and one of the worst

-During the destruction of their home planet, a couple send their child to earth, where he gains great power and becomes the hero known as Superman.-

Director Richard Donner is a legend. If you look through his filmography you're bound to both know and love at least one of his films. However, it is his work with "Superman: The Movie", which has truly stayed with me throughout my lifelong obsession with film.

Much like Tim Burton's take on Batman 11 years later, Donner and crew understood the character at the heart of the comic book story they were telling. Taking that story as seriously as any film being made for audiences at the time, rather than letting the character fall into self parody. Something that would sadly change with later sequels.

"Superman: The Movie" might be the only comic book film which I appreciate more as I get older. It's blend of 1970's sci-fi stylings, it's well structured storytelling, it's dated yet still solid special effects, it's snappy dialogue delivered by a fantastic cast (most notably, Gene Hackman).

It is a film of it's time, which somehow transcends it's limitations and the moments when it manages to break your suspension of disbelief.

When it comes to Superman, the Max Fleischer cartoons will always be my favorite version. The color scheme is gorgeous and the character isn't quite as overpowered and unbeatable as he would become. But, if you're looking for a live action version, you can't beat "Superman: The Movie".

Between Zach Snyder's complete misunderstanding of the character and tone and Bryan Singer's failed imitation of this very film, it's not hard to see why this version still holds a special place in the hearts of true Superman fans. It's a hopeful take that embraces it's comic book roots.

"You will believe a man can fly." One of the greatest taglines in movies and one that perfectly instills the magic of cinema.

Sadly, this would be the last time Richard Donner had full control over The Superman films.

But, I'll discuss that in the next review.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

1970'S MADE FOR TV HORROR WEEK

I watched Devil Dog: The Hound Of Hell (1978)

I could say that this is the last 1970's TV movie I'll be reviewing. However, while that's true for this week, I'll definitely be doing a second week of these films. There are just so many of them.

-A family adopts a possessed dog birthed from a satanic ritual.-

How could I not watch this? How could I skip over a movie that features a glowing eyed dog wearing a little demon costume? I'm not made of stone. A bitof cheesy old horror mixed with pure cuteness. I'm all in.

This film is directed by Curtis Harrington, whose work I don't know well. "Devil Dog" stars Richard Crenna, who most would recognize from the Rambo films, but whom I most fondly remember from the film "The Sand Pebbles" alongside Steve McQueen.

However, let's nevermind who directed or who starred in this film. The main draw here is the cute dog, as well as several actors being made to react with genuine fear when looking at said dog. My favorite moment being when the family's maid, Maria, nearly shits her pants in the presence of a genuinely innocent looking puppy.

Sure, "Devil Dog" isn't a very scary or perfect film. The basic narrative is cliche and the very premise is silly to watch unfold, but I have to say, I watched this one with pure glee. It's stupid fun. A dog can make people do shit with his mind. He can possess children to do his bidding. He sets a woman on fire, and in the only genuinely tense moment in the film, he attempts to force Richard Crenna into sticking his hand into a spinning lawn mower blade. It's hard not to get some level of enjoyment from something so ridiculous.

We've seen this type of possessed animal scenario before. An evil cat as a witch's familiar, the hounds of hell protecting the son of the devil, the ever present Raven in Poe's most well known poem, but "Devil Dog" is something else. Something much harder to take seriously. You can literally imagine the 70's television executive trying to come up with a fresh idea they could jam into the same old haunted house idea. "Let's see, we've done ghost, we've done demon, we've done evil child, evil neighbor, evil wife, evil husband....wait I GOT IT!! The Son Of Sam! Evil Dog!"

I will say this about "Devil Dog", it's approached with earnestness. The actors are all taking the material seriously, and there are some genuinely well put together scenes. But, c'mon, it's about an evil dog. A dog which eventually wears fake horns and a wild wig. It can't be understated how hard it is to take this film seriously.

Of the three 1970's TV horror movies I watched this week, this was the most fun and most entertaining. It hit that sweet spot for me and I think it'd be fun for a movie night with friends, of your friends are super nerds and over 40.

It's still doesn't hold a candle to the greatest TV horror films of all time, the Kolchak films, but I enjoyed the watch.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

1970'S MADE FOR TV HORROR WEEK

I watched Something Evil (1972)

Let's continue the 1970's TV horror film week with a movie but a very well know filmmaker.

After moving to a new home with her husband and child, a woman begins being tormented by a supernatural force.

"Something Evil" caught my attention due to one specific reason, the film is directed by Steven Spielberg. I doubt I need to tell you about Steven Spielberg, or that I need to tell you what movies he's made. He's a blockbuster film legend and a man who has won some deserved awards for his craft.

Here we get to see Spielberg in his early days, and get a glimpse into the skills he would hone over his career.

In all honesty, this is not a great film or even a great TV film. "Something Evil" is deeply predictable and frustratingly so. The storyline of a woman stuck at home, dealing with the supernatural, and her husband not believing her desperate cries for help, is one of the most tired tropes in haunted house films. It's boring. However, Spielberg's direction and a good cast do make this film watchable.

Darren McGavin, Sandy Dennis and Ralph Bellamy all turn in good performances. And, it's very obvious that Spielberg is capable of working with actors in both one on one scenes and in big groups with lots of commotion. If you watch a lot of Spielberg's films, you'll see he has a knack for drawing you into casual mundane moments. Parties, house shopping, mowing the lawn...Spielberg brilliantly reflects family life and suburban living back at us in a way that catches our attention. This talent makes his tension building and the more exciting moments pop when juxtaposed. He pulls off this trick well here, even if it doesn't save a rather bland story.

This is an unnecessary watch, unless you're looking to dive into 1970's TV movie history or into Spielberg's entire filmography. Or, if like me, you're a huge fan of Darren McGavin.

While I could appreciate the skills on display, and the brisk runtime, I can't imagine ever sitting through this one again.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

1970'S MADE FOR TV HORROR WEEK

I watched Spectre (1977)

Yet another old TV movie that no one cares about other than very specific nerds like myself.

-An occult criminologist enlists a doctor to go in search a rich man using the occult to his own gain. They eventually cross the demon Asmodeus.-

If you look up "Spectre" you're going to find that most people are interested in this 1977 television pilot because it was created by "Star Trek" creator Gene Rodenberry. Rodenberry's basic idea was a Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson-esque team that deals in the Occult. Surely, had the show been picked up, each week these two men would have solved different supernatural cases, bickering and building their relationship. However, it wasn't to be. "Spectre" was not picked up as a series.

The pilot is directed by Clive Donner, who I only know from his work on the very strange 80's TV movie adaptation of "Babes In Toyland" starring Keanu Reeves and Drew Barrymore.

"Spectre", and other shows like it, are the basis for what would become programs like "The X-Files" and other supernatural detective shows. A genre I'm rather fond of, despite it's eventual decline into mediocrity. My favorite of these shows will always be "Kolchak: The Night Stalker", a shortlived series which itself began as two television films.

As much as I'd like "Spectre" to be as good as "Kolchak" or the "X-Files", it falls a bit short. Sure, it's unfair to judge "Spectre" without it ever getting the opportunity to develop into something more, however it doesn't have the charm or character we got with those other shows.

Carl Kolchak was a good and smart journalist, but also a pest and a bad gambler in a shitty suit. A loveable scamp. Mulder and Scully were somewhat reserved, but their relationship was well balanced and it endeared us to them. Not to mention a bit of sexual chemistry. "Spectre" has William Sebastian and Dr. "Ham", who don't have enough chemistry and aren't fully fleshed out characters, other than being direct correlations for Holmes and Watson. (Of course this Holmes believes in magic and myth and burns evil succubus women with books,)

"Spectre" is a little too mediocre, which led me to get bored halfway through. Had it been picked up for series, I think it would have needed some retooling, but it could have been fun. Especially if the leads were a bit more fun themselves.

It's worth checking out if you have an interest in the genre or nostalgia for the era. If not, it's best to pass this over.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

I watched Dollman (1991)

Yes, I have time on my hands and on occasion I fill that time with whatever B-Grade suit I can find. It's like candy.

-An alien cop and his nemesis crash land on Earth to find they are a miniature size compared to the human race.-

I'm not a huge Albert Pyun fan, but I'm not totally negative on him either. Pyun was a filmmaker of low budget sci-fi and action films. He often worked with studios like Full Moon, which is a low budget film studio made big during the home video boom of the 1980's and 90's.

While Pyun's filmography is full of several duds in my opinion, he also managed to put out the occasional science fiction film that showed his wonderful level of creativity. His dystopian cyber-punk futures and distant worlds were often straight from the pages of a dark 90's comic book...even if his budgets didn't allow for perfect execution. And, even if the stories taking place within these worlds were cliche and boring.

"Dollman" tips over the edge into slightly entertaining for me. The film's beginning takes place on an earth-like planet, and while it features some unnecessary moments, it is fun and violent and interesting enough to catch your attention. When we get to earth there are still some fun and dumb moments, but we also get some domestic moments that drag. The titular Dollman does a lot of hiding out with a mother and son and it all feels like missed opportunities for entertaining antics and gags.

What I personally enjoyed most about this film is that it comes from a time when FULL MOON was still trying. There was effort put into their low budget straight-to-video productions. Producer Charles Band was directing genre classics for his own production company and giving opportunities to other creative horror and sci-fi filmmakers.

These days FULL MOON seems passionless to me. The acting has gotten worse, the creativity seems gone and the films feel somehow cheaper and uninspired. Seriously, they've even gone so far as to make a film through heavy use of AI, which seems like a betrayal of the very spirit of independent artistry they once stood for.

So, to go back to the era of FULL MOON where actors like Tim Thomerson and Jackie Earl Haley were giving their all, and where directors like Albert Pyun were being given an opportunity to make flawed yet strangely unique films, was nice.

I'm not recommending this to anyone. However, for straight-to-video era nerds, "Dollman" is probably up your alley. (Especially the imagery of a severed head kept afloat by a drone-like device.)

There are definitely better films in the FULL MOON collection, but this is far from their worst.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

I watched Drowning By Numbers (1988)

Not for everyone, but I loved it.

-After drowning her cheating husband, an older woman brings her younger female family and the local coroner into a cover up, which eventually leads to more murder.-

Writing a quick synopsis for this film is a bit difficult, as the seemingly simple plot can't be described without the strange and dreamy tone being discussed.

While the film is about three generations of women killing their husbands by drowning, it's not quite so straightforward. "Drowning By Numbers" is written and performed like a fable strained through a stage play. It's characters are casual about their misdeeds. The disturbing things which go on in this community are met with a dry comic tone. Honestly, The best I can describe this film is, a darker Wes Anderson before Wes Anderson.

Director Peter Greenaway is a real artist of film. He not only creates a unique world with interesting characters, but almost every image he puts up on screen is worthy of hanging in a museum. The often cluttered frames are bursting with gorgeous imagery, whether it's the colorful sight of insects moving along half eaten fruit or the drab grey skies of English beaches. Meticulously framed and presented, and I ate it up.

There is pretty cinema, and then there is artistic cinema , which Greenaway seems to accomplish with ease.

I adored this movie. It's weird, and often confusingly strange, but it never denies it's own indulgences.

With themes of female empowerment and the refusal of playing by the rules, "Drowning By Numbers" offers something to think about, but more so it offers a purely British style and wit which is easy to get lost in. Add in a fantastic cast and you get something I'd describe as decadently wonderful.

Of course, I don't recommend this to everyone. The person I watched it with wasn't nearly as taken with it as I was, however if you're anything like me, you'll enjoy this film, and maybe become a new fan of Peter Greenaway.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

I watched Spawn (1997)

Childhood disappointment in under 2 hours.

-A talented government killer is betrayed and murdered, only to return to earth as a soldier of hell.-

Director and effects supervisor, Mark A.Z. Dippé, has never made a truly good film. He's been behind a few lower budget Garfield animated films and a few "Shark Tale" and "Finding Nemo" ripoffs. However, it could be argued that "Spawn" is his worst film overall. Even if that argument is based solely on the fact that "Spawn" takes a violently cool comic book and turns into a cheap PG-13 garbage fest.

Todd McFarlane's "Spawn" comic book series, along with it's excellent animated HBO adaptation, is a really cool little piece of both comic book history and 90's pop culture. The art was cool, The costume was cool, the cape was cool, the story was cool, the villains were cool, the heavily detailed toys were awesome. The character of Spawn was, without a doubt, one of the biggest superheros of the 1990's...at least among my friends.

Sadly, This film adaptation robs the character and story of its harder edge, settling for those 13 year old ticket sales. Which, I suppose, could have worked if the film had a decent script, a decent director and/or decent action sequences. However, the action scenes are boring due to horrible directing (hard to believe "The Matrix" was only a year away). Also, the script seems rushed, is poorly written and delivers an emotionless take on the original story, which often feels more like a bad television pilot.

The one upside here is John Leguizamo. He plays the evil Clown/Violator character and he's consistently hitting the right tone. He's menacing, he's funny, he's gross, he's legitimately entertaining. Even the monstrous Violator special effects are still impressive to this day. It's as if this one character was meant to carry this whole film.

Every other actor here seems to be overacting in a bad way, rather than heightening like Leguizamo is. I specifically don't know what Martin Sheen is doing, but holy shit it's not working.

It's not that "Spawn" is simply a bad movie. It's the fact that it's a property which had already been successfully adapted into something good. There was enough of a blueprint to follow to build a franchise.

It's also the fact that finding any redeeming qualities can be a struggle. For every impressive Violator special effect there are 2 shockingly bad special effects. For every John Leguizamo, there is a Martin Sheen. For every good bit of dialogue...oh wait, there is no good dialogue on the entire film.

"Spawn" is a poorly written, choppy, cheesy, turd of a superhero movie. It ruins it's main character and his story.

I didn't even enjoy this when I was a kid.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2025 MOVIE LIST

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

1960's SCI-FI SPECTACULAR WEEK

I re-watched The Last Man On Earth (1964)

A great way to end this theme week.

-The lone survivor of an apocalyptic disease must fend off the vampiric living dead.-

I am HUGE fan of author Richard Matheson, especially his novel "I Am Legend". A book which every bit lives up to it's intriguing title. A story which makes us question our place in society and what it means to cling to survival against the coming future and our own dwindling relevance.

Matheson's book is a classic of literature, and one which deserves to be celebrated. Sadly, the film versions of "I Am Legend" including the Charlton Heston led "The Omega Man" and the Will Smith led "I Am Legend" change too much of the story and the themes to remain true to what Matheson intended.

The closest adaptation to the book is this film, "The Last Man On Earth", starring film legend Vincent Price and directed by Sidney Salkow. Matheson wrote the script, but didn't like the film and chose to remove his name from it. Reportedly he eventually wanted Harrison Ford and George Miller to make a version of his book together, but sadly that never materialized. What an amazing film that could have been.

"The Last Man On Earth" is certainly a dated and cheap film, and some moments can even make you giggle just a bit. Just listen to the droning vampires and you'll notice they don't come off nearly as spooky as they should. However, since it retains several necessary elements of the story, and because of Vincent Price in the lead role, the film is rather enjoyable.

For me, the book's greatest moment is it's end revelation and that revelation's connection to the title "I Am Legend". It is profound and heartbreaking. This film keeps that ending intact, which no other film version has done.

Truly though, the charm of this film comes in it's cheesier moments. You know those droning vampires I mentioned? Well, their shambling nonsense comes with a jazzy tune behind on the soundtrack and, while outdated, it's just a loveable bit of beatnik cool. The scenes of driving stakes into sleeping vampires are poorly shot, but make you smile at the awkward attempt.

Most notably, Price's performance is as good as all his other theatric horror performances. It's over the top, yet driven by real emotion. A balance Price could walk with relative ease. Pure entertainment.

Much like the novel it's based on, "The Last Man On Earth" ends up being a fun ride, despite it's darker themes.

I highly suggest seeking out the restored versions, either in color or black and white. Some copies of this this film which are floating around are too fuzzy and grainy and beat up to really enjoy.

But, I definitely recommend this. Go in with the mindset that you're going to watch a cheesy and cheap flick and you'll enjoy yourself.

(I also recommend "The Omega Man". It's not book accurate, but it's very fun. Avoid the Will Smith version. It's a terrible mess of CGI and cliched storytelling.)