To the Devil a Daughter (1976) - Peter Sykes

There's only a handful of Hammer films that I could really claim as firm favourites, and even fewer that I'd say were beautiful to watch. To the Devil a Daughter manages to tick both of those boxes for me though. After all, just like The Devil Rides Out (which if push comes to shove I'd say is my favourite Hammer flick), it's Christopher Lee in an adaptation of a story by Dennis Wheatley. It's not only that though, the cast is eclectic enough to make my mouth water. There's Richard Widmark proving that even in his twilight years he had a menace about him, and could slap people about with the best of them, Nastassja Kinski making up for what she lacks in acting chops by giving mid seventies Britain some full frontal nudity and Denholm Elliott giving a wonderfully nervous performance, as Denholm at his best always did. Then there's a gaggle of smaller roles filled by such actors as Honor Blackman and Frances de la Tour all of whom have little to do, but do it well.

Plot wise, Catherine (Nastassja Kinski) has been raised as a nun since childbirth by Father Michael (Christopher Lee). However it soon becomes apparent that things aren't quite what they seem, Lee for starters has set up a church that looks Catholic to the outside world but is actually worshiping a demon called Astaroth. For some reason or other Catherine's dad (Denholm Elliott) has agreed for her to give up her body on her eighteenth birthday so that Astaroth may walk the earth. You know like you do. As the day approaches Denholm bottles it and backs out of the deal, persuading occult writer John Verney (Richard Widmark) to take care of her while he tries to sort everything out.

Most of the above makes sense as you're watching it, but after that things start to get a little odd, and to be honest I normally struggle to keep up with some of the logic in the film. Lee is great as Father Michael, leering into the camera at every opportunity, he was a big star by now and this would end up being his last Hammer role. It's funny to think that two men in their sixties can be so entertaining when pitted against each other, but Widmark and Lee battling it out for Kinski's soul are the real high points of the film.

It's almost inevitable that the The Devil Rides Out and To the Devil a Daughter will always be intertwined despite being made some eight years apart, since they share the same studio, star and source novelist. But whereas The Devil Rides Out is the better film by an absolute country mile, To the Devil a Daughter is the better looking, thanks to Sykes really being able to frame shots well whilst still telling the story. Splitting the screen into four with a crucifix for example at the start, or that gorgeous tracking shot up Christ's body in the same section. Great locations scenes too, with loads of the film being set in St Katharine Docks in London.

Something that works less well, and might have been better if Sykes had a bit more clout is the wrinkly embryo devil thing, which looks pretty naff. Watch the scenes it's in with the sound off and you'll think of The Muppets.  Now that can't be good for a horror can it? But that pales next to the biggest problem the film has, the end scene. It's all really abrupt and has the feel of studio interference all over it. Still it's not enough to ruin the film, it's not like Lee breaks out in song, although I'm sure he would have if given the chance.

The Exorcist really changed the horror landscape forever, overnight Hammer films looked incredibly passe and it became obvious that they were either going to have to up their game or become a relic of the past. To the Devil a Daughter feels to me that they did too little too late. Only one more Hammer film dribbled out of the studio after this - '79's remake of The Lady Vanishes. It flopped and the studio folded. It's a shame since if To the Devil a Daughter had been made just a few years earlier, Hammer's fortunes might have been totally different. If you're a Hammer head then you've seen this multiple times, if you're not but like your British horror then you could do far worse than seeing this.

Häxan (1922) - Benjamin Christensen

Strange to think that Denmark and to a lesser extent Sweden were once the big boys of the silent film industry in Europe. But they were, of course a huge war is all it takes to shift the balance a little, but for a while this is where the best films were being made. Benjamin Christensen was not only one of the top directors of his day but he was also a fine actor too. In this strange documentary/feature hybrid he did both, excellently.

Now I'm going to be honest here, this is the only film of Christensen's that I've seen, so I'm not really able to judge how it sits with the rest of his work. Look it up on line and you'll see it's universally hailed as his masterpiece. But that could just be that people have seen naff all else by him too, but can't bring themselves to 'fess up. Anyway the word masterpiece is an appropriate one to use to describe this treat of a film.

Now after spending the day traveling home from England yesterday, all I could think about was what would I watch when I finally got a chance to sit down alone and sink into a film. Slouching around the airport seeing fellow travelers (no not the type that juggle and have dreadlocked kids), dealing badly with the news that their flights were cancelled, it was this film that I kept popping into my head.

Split into seven segments all connected, but not necessarily by plot (of which there is none really) the film moves along at a rapid pace (for a silent film from the 20's). It's not quite McG, but then you wouldn't want it to be would you? Christensen spent years researching the various tales of witchcraft in Europe, and it shows. The first 15 minutes or so sets the scene by going through a series of prints/paintings/texts about witches. Taking it's time to explain just what is going on within the frame, sometimes with the use of a handy pencil being directed at the image in question so that we don't miss a thing. After this Christensen recreates certain scenes such as the trial of a witch, the Devil seducing womenfolk all the usual malarkey you'd expect from a film whose title translates as The Witch.

Christensen himself plays the Devil, and his portrayal of Old Nick is possibly the greatest I have ever seen. Yep even better than Pacino in The Devil's Advocate, cough cough. Christensen has the same knack for finding faces as his fellow countryman Carl Dreyer. Dreyer of course would make what could be argued as possibly the greatest silent film ever, The Passion of Joan of Arc just six years after this. Both films share a common theme, that of women being accused of witchcraft. Unlike Dreyer's film though most of the camera set ups are static in this film. However it does do some things that are extremely out of place for a film from this era, and is in fact quite post modern in a Godard sort of way. One of the actress's in the film is shown trying out a thumb screw as herself and not as a charater, while in another scene we are told a story about another of the actresses. Hardly racy by todays standards but very weird for the 20s.

Then there is the gore, a finger being pulled off of an already dismembered hand, and a baby being drained over a boiling pot are just two of the images that will stay with me long after the rest of the film has faded from memory. But I think the thing that impressed me most of all was the final segment of the film. It's set in modern times (1920s), and tries to address just what it was that made people consider others to be witches, and how the same things would be dealt with now. It works really well, and concurs with something I was thinking about myself whilst watching the film. Which was just how awful life was back in the middle ages, that basically someone totally innocent could be dragged from their home, tortured until they confess to whatever they are being asked to confess to and then executed. Those were harsh old fucking times, but then I thought about the poor sods at Guantánamo Bay and realised things haven't changed that much really.

The House of the Devil (2009) - Ti West

Satanists always seem to get a raw deal when it comes to the cinema. From Minnie & Roman Castevet and their circle of friends in Rosemary's Baby, down to Angel Blake and her mates in Blood on Satans Claw, they're always portrayed as up to no good. If they're not sacrificing a goat one minute then they are doing something ungodly with a chicken, let's not even mention virgins or we'll be here all night. The funny thing is unlike other minorities you never see them picketing the local multiplex do you?

Now I'm fairly certain that I've never actually known any worshipers of Old Nick, but I've had my suspicions. Mainly the management of the Virgin Megastore I worked at once. I can't be certain though. And of course like everyone else I have my own favourite screen satanist, mine being Mocata (Charles Grey) in The Devil Rides Out. He's a right nasty piece of work, but luckily Christopher Lee is on hand to battle on the side of good for once, 'Don't look at the eyes' indeed.

Anyway in case you haven't already guessed The House of the Devil is about satanists. You probably could have worked it out even if I hadn't told you, the title is a dead giveaway for a start. Despite the fact that this is from 2009, it has a very eighties feel to it, intentionally so since it is set in that period. Very nicely done it was too. You see the thing most directors get wrong when trying to make 'a film like they used to in them olden days', is they use modern techniques and after a few seconds of nosebleed editing and Mickey Bay style camera madness, you know you are anywhere but the period they have tried so hard to create.

So the film itself is a slow tension building corker, well it would be if it didn't blow it's load in the last reel and spoil most of what had gone before it. Which is a shame because it was all going so well. The mirror in the school was even covered in finger smudges, one of those things that makes me happy along with dirty cars and glass doors with hand prints on them. Anyway basically girl desperate for money babysits for a couple in the middle of nowhere, on the night of a lunar eclipse. So far so normal, until Tom Noonan is introduced as the father of the house. Now anyone who knows their films will know straight away that something is up here, since old Tom almost always plays a wrong 'un. As I said the build up is great, a few things are thrown away which could have been used better, and what little plot there is becomes a tad confusing when it needn't be. Both me and the good wife had to talk through a particular scene to try and figure out just why our heroine became so spooked. In the hands of a slightly better writer this sort of thing wouldn't happen. So my final conclusion is that this is like a stopgap, something to tide you over until a real scary film comes along. Considering just how rarely decent horror films do turn up, you could be in for a long wait.