Connect with us

Misc

Horror 101: Exploring the Cozy Gothic Scares of Hammer Horror

When I finally started watching Hammer horror in my late teens, I fell in love with these films, an infatuation that only grew as I ventured deeper into the company’s vaults. But talking about them to other horror fans in the U.S., I’m usually met with blank expressions. Some folks seem vaguely aware of Hammer and its biggest stars, sheepishly admitting they’ve never seen any of the films before asking, “Where do I start?” That’s an important question, because picking the wrong entry point with Hammer can be off-putting. Never fear, though: you’ve got a well-traveled guide to accompany you on this journey. On this month’s Horror 101, take my hand as we travel through the hallowed halls of Hammer to find the right starter film for you — and explore why Hammer is still synonymous with Gothic horror excellence.

Published

on

Growing up in the UK as a kid obsessed with movies, two titans of the British film industry were on my radar from a very young age: James Bond and Hammer Film Productions. They were names that constantly cropped up in the TV guide, and while I associate the former with lazy Sunday afternoons spent on the couch with my dad, the latter held an air of mystery for me for years, its film synopses read and re-read, conjuring feverish imaginings in my young mind.

All about Hammer horror

When I finally started watching Hammer horror in my late teens, I fell in love with these films, an infatuation that only grew as I ventured deeper into the company’s vaults. But talking about them to other horror fans in the U.S., I’m usually met with blank expressions. Some folks seem vaguely aware of Hammer and its biggest stars, sheepishly admitting they’ve never seen any of the films before asking, “Where do I start?”

That’s an important question, because picking the wrong entry point with Hammer can be off-putting. Never fear, though: you’ve got a well-traveled guide to accompany you on this journey. On this month’s Horror 101, take my hand as we travel through the hallowed halls of Hammer to find the right starter film for you — and explore why Hammer is still synonymous with Gothic horror excellence.

What are the origins of Hammer horror?

Hammer was founded in 1934 by music hall comedian William Hinds, better known by his stage name, Will Hammer. The following year, Hinds partnered with former cinema owner Enrique Carreras to form Exclusive Films, which would distribute Hammer’s output. A handful of movies came out of this early period, including one starring Bela Lugosi (1935’s The Mystery of the Mary Celeste), but a slump in the British film industry quickly caused Hammer to close its doors. They wouldn’t reopen until 1946, when the company began capitalizing on the demand for so-called “Quota Quickies,” films that would satisfy the then-requirement for UK cinemas to show material of domestic origin.

Hammer certainly wasn’t the only player in this arena. But where other film production companies of the day have fallen into obscurity, Hammer became a household name due in part to its uncanny knack for identifying opportunity. This began with adaptations of popular radio serials, then television shows, leading to Hammer’s fateful 1955 film The Quatermass Xperiment, released in the U.S. as The Creeping Unknown.

Advertisement

An adaptation of Nigel Kneale’s popular BBC sci-fi serial The Quatermass Experiment, Hammer’s Xperiment is a story of space exploration gone wrong. The film not only leaned into the rising popularity of sci-fi horror in the 1950s, but strategically dropped the “E” from the source material’s title to cash in on the British Board of Film Censors’ new X certificate. And X-rated it was: The Quatermass Xperiment features a haunting performance by Richard Wordsworth as an astronaut gradually mutating into a grotesque entity, enhanced by horrific body horror effects from makeup artist Phil Leakey.

Hammer had, somewhat to its surprise, struck gold. Up until now, the company had largely produced spy thrillers, comedies, and noir, but the positive response to The Quatermass Xperiment suggested that audiences were hungry for horror. To test the theory, Hammer turned its attention to an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s 1818 Gothic masterpiece, Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus.

This was by no means a sure bet. By the 1950s, the Universal Monsters were looking a little toothless, having largely given up scares in favor of Abbott and Costello comedies, so there was no guarantee that audiences would be interested in a return to the creaking castles and laboratories of yore. What’s more, Hammer was wary of getting sued by Universal, so it couldn’t even fall back on a nostalgic look for its creature.

This turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Rather than falling back on the iconic square-headed monster design that audiences were no longer scared of, Leakey created a creature that is almost as shocking today as it must have been to viewers in 1957, complete with rotting, misshapen flesh and one blind, milky eye. Combined with Hammer’s last-minute decision to shoot in color for the first time in the company’s history, making its house blood — the brilliantly red “Kensington Gore” — truly pop, this makeup job would ensure that The Curse of Frankenstein was met with much the same reaction that the Terrifier films are today. Critics called it gruesome and revolting, but audiences couldn’t look away.

What makes a Hammer horror film?

With The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer had created a template that it would use to dominate the British horror film industry over the following decade. This included hiring director Terence Fisher, screenwriter Jimmy Sangster, and cinematographer Jack Asher who would collectively help shape the feel of Hammer horror, one that balanced surprisingly lush production value with frugal budgets and tight turnaround times.

Advertisement

But it was the two actors recruited to play the titular scientist and his creation who would become the faces of Hammer horror: Peter Cushing, the gentleman of horror, and the indomitable Christopher Lee.

By the 1950s, Cushing was already a household name in Britain thanks to his award-winning work on live TV. A fan of James Whale’s 1931 adaptation for Universal, Cushing was keen to appear in a Frankenstein film and, recognizing the potential for a TV star to lure audiences back to the theater, the ever-savvy Hammer was only too happy to oblige.

Lee, on the other hand, was a complete unknown. After a post-war stint hunting Nazis, he had spent a decade trying to break into the industry but was repeatedly told he was too tall to be a leading man. His intimidating height and experience with mime made him perfect for Frankenstein’s mute creation, which he portrays with a tremendous amount of pathos, but he was capable of so much more.

Lee’s big break came when Hammer cast him as the eponymous Count in its 1958 follow-up, Dracula (retitled Horror of Dracula for its U.S. release). Injecting an edge of brooding, sexy danger into the film that has inspired countless imitators, Lee would reprise the role of Dracula in six sequels for Hammer — often facing off against Cushing as various members of the Van Helsing bloodline — and is widely regarded in the UK as the definitive bloodsucking baddie.

After becoming fast friends on the set of The Curse of Frankenstein, Cushing and Lee would go on to star in dozens of Hammer horror films, sometimes together and sometimes apart, as well as numerous films for rival company Amicus. But they’re not the only familiar faces you’ll start to see as you explore the house of Hammer. Ralph Bates, André Morell, and Star Wars’ David Prowse pop up frequently, along with a slate of memorable leading ladies, including Barbara Shelley, Veronica Carlson, and Ingrid Pitt.

Advertisement

By building a stable of actors, writers, directors, and production personnel that it reunited time and again, Hammer established a distinctive look and feel for its films that, once you’ve watched a few, is not unlike slipping into a warm bath. Hammer horror films are, above all, cozy. But that doesn’t mean they can’t offer any thrills today.

Where should you start with Hammer horror movies?

Hammer is perhaps best known for its Dracula movies, and this series remains an excellent entry point. While some of the sequels are certainly better than others, 1960’s The Brides of Dracula is — for my money — one of the best (and queerest) films that Hammer ever made. Despite the title, it is one of only two films in the series that Lee did not star in, but actor David Peel is an admirable replacement as the polyamorous Baron Meinster in his swishy lavender cloak.

Lee returned for the series’ third entry, 1966’s Dracula: Prince of Darkness, giving a deliciously menacing performance despite being so dissatisfied with the script that he refused to speak any of his dialogue. He would grow weary with the role and the typecasting it entailed over the years, but that never stopped him from giving it his all. Later entries like Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972) are delightfully silly if you stick with the series, with the Lee-less final film —The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974) — even adding copious martial arts.

After you’ve had your fill of vampires, The Curse of Frankenstein is a personal favorite, though it admittedly takes a little while to get going. Cushing’s icy performance as Victor Frankenstein is something of a rarity, with the actor usually playing the kindly hero to Lee’s wicked villains, and the film’s visual influence on The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) is striking. Cushing resurrected Frankenstein in every sequel except the soft reboot (1970’s The Horror of Frankenstein), with the very last — 1974’s Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell — holding up especially well, despite Cushing’s regrettable wig.

Hammer’s other classic monster movies are also worth a watch, though perhaps not as your first course. The Mummy (1959) boasts another superb mute performance from Lee and some of Hammer’s most lavish production design, but the uneven pacing and overreliance on flashbacks bog it down. The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), meanwhile, marks the first starring role of Oliver Reed, playing Hammer’s only lycanthrope.

Advertisement

Once you’ve gotten a taste for Hammer’s style, consider taking a deeper dive into the company’s catalog with these top picks:

  • For zombies: Plague of the Zombies (1966). Two years before George Romero’s landmark Night of the Living Dead (1968), Hammer was experimenting with an undead epidemic in rural Cornwall. Like many early zombie movies, this one involves voodoo rather than biting and brains, but you can see the bones of the soon-to-be zombie craze lurking in his atmospheric chiller.
  • For satanic panic: The Devil Rides Out (1968). Good luck finding it streaming, but this cult Hammer film is one of director Terence Fisher’s best. Lee brings his usual suave flair to the Duc de Richleau as he faces off against the leader of a devil-worshipping cult (Rocky Horror’s Charles Gray). For more of Lee playing the good guy for once, check out 1964’s The Gorgon.
  • For lesbian vampires: The Karnstein Trilogy, consisting of The Vampire Lovers (1970), Lust for a Vampire (1971), and Twins of Evil (1971). Twins has the least lesbianism but makes up for it with a razor-sharp performance from Cushing as the puritanical Gustav Weil. For more queer thrills, albeit of a somewhat problematic nature, 1971’s Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde delivers a campy, gender-bending take on the classic source material.
  • For sci-fi scares: The Quatermass Xperiment. Hammer’s first foray into horror largely holds up, and the moody black-and-white look serves as an interesting contrast to the vibrant Eastmancolor that Hammer is known for. Quatermass 2 (a.k.a Enemy From Space) from 1957 is a little rockier, but Quatermass and the Pit (1967) is well worth a watch.
  • For mystery, my dear Watson: Hound of the Baskervilles (1959). The first Sherlock Holmes adaptation to be shot in color, Hammer’s interpretation of the beloved novel ramps up the horror elements, though its hell hound leaves something to be desired. However, Cushing makes for a wonderful Holmes and would don the deerstalker multiple times throughout his career.

What happened to Hammer horror?

They say all good things must come to an end, and for Hammer, that end appeared nigh in the 1970s. The horror landscape was undergoing some seismic changes, and films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) made Hammer’s brand of Gothic terror look positively quaint.

Hammer struggled onward for a few more years, taking advantage of Britain’s loosening censorship rules to amp up the sex and violence, but it was too late. After the weak Lee vehicle To the Devil a Daughter (1976) and the Hitchcock remake The Lady Vanishes (1979), the company made the shift to the small screen with the anthology series Hammer House of Horror (1980) and Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense (1984), before shuttering its windows, seemingly for good.

But much like the vampire that helped build it, you can’t keep Hammer down for long. In the early 2000s, the company began to stir in its coffin, starting with the release of Beyond the Rave on MySpace (remember that?) in 2008. Over the next few years, Hammer would remake the 2008 Swedish film Let the Right One In, cast a fresh-off-of-Harry-Potter Daniel Radcliffe in The Woman in Black (2012), and even welcomed Lee back into the fold one final time for The Resident (2011).

And it’s still going. In 2023, Hammer was acquired by theater producer John Gore, who states on the company’s website that he aims to “celebrate and preserve the unmatched legacy of Hammer and to usher in a new era of storytelling that captivates audiences worldwide.” The first film under Gore’s watch, 2024’s Doctor Jekyll, isn’t quite the return to form that fans like me hoped for, but the bewitching performance from Eddie Izzard is worth the price of admission alone.

What’s next for Hammer? At the time of writing this, it’s hard to say: Hammer hasn’t announced any new projects since the release of Doctor Jekyll. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that Hammer never stays dead for long — so it’s probably best to carry some garlic on your person, just in case.

Advertisement

Sam McLaren is a queer Scottish writer, drag performer, and horror fanatic based in NYC. Her work has appeared in Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, and, of course, Horror Press, with a focus on her three specialist subjects: Hannibal, Hammer Horror, and gay nonsense. When she's not writing about horror, she's usually performing it under her stage name, Angus Beef.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Misc

‘The Fly’ Movies Ranked (There’s More Than You Think)

Published

on

When people talk about the 1980s’ great horror remakes, they always bring up three titles updating 1950s sci-fi classics. Those would be John Carpenter’s The Thing, David Cronenberg’s The Fly, and Chuck Russell’s The Blob. It is generally recognized that both the originals and the remakes are pretty great in all three cases. However, when it came time to bring you good folks a ranking for Horror Press’ sci-fi month, one emerged victorious. Now, each franchise has at least three movies. 1958’s The Blob has a sequel (Beware! The Blob, from 1972). And 1982’s The Thing has a prequel (2011’s The Thing). However, The Fly franchise actually has five movies altogether. The extended Fly franchise isn’t talked about as much as it should be, and it’s highly deserving of a ranking. So let’s take a deeper look at this oh-so underrated series.

The Fly Movies Ranked

#5 The Fly II (1989)

The sequel to David Cronenberg’s The Fly gets a bad rap, because it’s not David Cronenberg’s The Fly. In The Fly II, Eric Stoltz plays Seth Brundle’s son, Martin. In the tradition of many a puberty metaphor, his dormant fly DNA triggers a transformation when he reaches sexual maturity. All in all, this movie is actually pretty good. It has a decently emotional narrative centered on the idea of parents passing a disease to their children. It has a bombastic score by Christopher Young. And it’s pretty gooey and gross, in the grand tradition of fun 1980s horror. However, it’s still a bit goofy and repetitive in a way that prevents it from climbing higher up the list. Plus, the only actor from the original 1986 movie who comes back (outside of archive footage) is John Getz. No shade on Getz, but he’s no Jeff Goldblum or Geena Davis.

#4 Curse of the Fly (1965)

On the other hand, Curse of the Fly wields goofiness as its most memorable strength. It gets away with it because it is never ever boring. However, the third Fly movie goes totally off the rails as far as the franchise is concerned. So it’s not going to be that satisfying as the third stepping stone of a larger marathon. It basically forgets that these movies are about scientists accidentally blending their DNA with houseflies. Instead, it expands its scope to a broader “mad science” realm. Primarily, it follows a young woman discovering the sinister secrets harbored by the rich family she hastily married into. It’s part Rebecca, part The Island of Dr. Moreau, and all weird. In a very good way.

#3 Return of the Fly (1959)

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. The son of the guy from 1958’s The Fly finds himself caught up in the aftermath of his father’s experiment. Unfortunately, the human-fly hybrid stuff here isn’t that interesting. It plays more like a generic 1950s monster movie than any of the other installments. However, that bit only comes in the third act, after an hour of pure mayhem! We’re talking even more experiments gone wrong (a guinea pig is given human hands in one memorably surreal moment). We’re talking juicy family melodrama. We’re talking backstabbing, duplicity, and Vincent Price. Overall, it’s a pretty good time! Also the male lead, Brett Halsey, is a total babe. You know, if that helps.

#2 The Fly (1958)

The Fly could easily have been terrible. It’s quite obviously cheap, and some of its special effects are dodgy. It’s not particularly action-packed, either. It mostly focuses on the investigation of the mysterious death of the brother of François Delambre (Vincent Price). Given that this is a movie called The Fly, you get no points for guessing what happened to him. However, even if you’re several steps ahead of the mystery, it’s still a rock-solid thrill ride. Both in the present and in flashbacks, the movie largely focuses on the dead man’s wife, Helene (Patricia Owens). This allows it to revel in watching her cozy domestic life swiftly unravel, which requires no special effects at all. It’s a hell of a satisfying watch that swivels between nihilistic horror movie and charming 1950s sci-fi romp. And I like both of those things very much!

#1 The Fly (1986)

I sometimes break from tradition with my No. 1 picks, but that will not be the case here. No way, no how! Cronenberg’s remake of The Fly does everything you want a remake to do. First, it amps up the special effects something fierce. His The Fly is a gruesome, gut-churning adventure. It constantly asks, “Could the human body get any grosser?” and always answers that question with a firm yes. However, it also takes the bare-bones plot of the original and adds a huge amount of depth. While both movies follow couples being challenged by the man becoming a fly-human hybrid, the remake’s romance is infinitely richer. The Fly is not only a great remake, but the ultimate auteur horror film. It feels like nothing less than David Cronenberg cracking open his skull and smearing his brain across the camera lens.
Continue Reading

Misc

The Krampus-Is-Coming Giveaway!

Published

on

Now that Thanksgiving has come and gone, the Holiday season has REALLY kicked off. We’ve covered our fair share of Holiday horror from underappreciated gems like Christmas Bloody Christmas and Dial Code Santa Claus to Black Christmas and Krampus! In the hopes of spreading some Holiday cheer (and fear!), the curator of all things Horror Press, James-Michael, has decided to bring the cloven-foot killer that is Krampus into your homes! But this isn’t your ordinary Krampus…this Krampus is chock full of special features and gift wrapped in 4K!

If you haven’t seen Krampus, then what are you doing with your life? For those unfamiliar, Krampus follows a large family gathering of frustrating people who all get snowed in three days before Christmas. One by one, the family gets picked off by Christmas-themed creatures. Sometimes, the holidays truly are killer.

Enter Our Holiday Giveaway!

How to Enter:

Step 1. Make sure to FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM!

Step 2. LIKE the giveaway post!

Step 3. TAG A FRIEND who you think Krampus should visit!

Advertisement

The winner will be announced on Monday, December 15th and notified via direct message. If the winner does not respond within 24 hours, we’ll randomly select another winner.

WHAT YOU’LL WIN

What’s included in Krampus: The Naughty Cut? Let’s unwrap it and look:

  • Audio commentary with director/co-writer Michael Dougherty, and co-writers Todd Casey and Zach Shields
  • NEW interviews with Michael Dougherty, Visual Effects Artist Richard Taylor, Actors Allison Tolman, David Koechner and Emjay Anthony, Co-Writer/Co-Producer Todd Casey and more…
  • Alternate ending
  • Deleted/extended scenes
  • Gag reel
  • Krampus Comes Alive! – Five-part featurette including Dougherty’s Vision, The Naughty Ones: Meet the Cast, Krampus and his Minions, Practical Danger, and Inside the Snowglobe: Production Design
  • Behind the scenes at WETA Workshop: Krampus
  • And more!

So head over to our Instagram, follow our account, like our giveaway post, and tag a friend who you think Krampus should go visit!

Good luck!

**Giveaway entries are limited to addresses in the United States.**

**All entries must be 18 or older to enter**

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria