Charles Herold (cherold) There's some really good stuff in the Old Dark House parody Dark and Stormy Night. A fortune teller is wonderfully strange and funny, a cab driver beautifully captures the cadences of a '30s actor, director Blamire does a pitch perfect impression of a terrible actor, and the movie really captures the look of its inspiration. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as funny as the two Skeleton of Cadavra films.I think a lot of the problem is that the Old Dark House genre was generally comedic; the movie the genre was named after was a comedy. The movies feature wise cracking reporters and detectives, offbeat characters, inane plot twists, in-jokes (in one, a character asks Basil Rathbone his opinion on what's going on and he replies "who do you think I am, Sherlock Holmes?), and purposefully broad performances. The Cadavra movies parodied humorless incompetence, but how do you parody something that is already funny?The result is a movie pretty close to the movies it's a take-off of, and I think the director might have been better off simply attempting to create a real ODH movie rather than a mock-up. Since it's hard to parody comedy, the movie drifts, even further than Blamire's previous films, into absurdist theater, and the movie is best and funniest when it throws non-sequitors at the audience with like darts. Dark and Stormy Night is funny, and Blamire's usual cast gives their usual fine performances (Blamire's wife does an excellent job as a wise- cracking reporter), but this is not Blamire's best.

Coventry "Dark and Stormy Night" is my second encounter with the work of writer/director Larry Blamire; following "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra". Both films establish the same fact, namely that Blamire is a devoted and fanatically enthusiast fan of old-fashioned cheap and cheesy B-movies. "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" was the ultimate tribute to nonsensical Sci-Fi movies from the 1950's and 60's, complete with all the clichéd story lines and campy alien monster designs you could ever imagine, whereas this "Dark and Stormy Night" is a parody of all those typical old dark house movies and Agatha Christie mysteries. In good old "And then there were none…" tradition, a whole bunch of seemingly unrelated individuals arrive at a creepy isolated estate during a … well, dark and stormy night! The estate belonged to the rich but recently deceased Sinas Cavinder and everyone there gathered for the reading of his will. Moments before a giant revelation, however, the lights go out and lots of turmoil can be heard. When the lights are back on, the attorney has been stabbed to death and the invitees have to figure out the secret of the testament, knowing one of the group is a murderer. The rest of the night is filled with assassination attempts, dark corridors and secret passages, random gorilla encounters and a competitive battle between two freelance journalists. Personally, I think it's truly praiseworthy how Larry Blamire exclusively wants to bring comedy through substantial jokes, stereotypical characterizations and subtle references towards old movies. There are numerous spoofs and parodies being made nowadays, but they always revert to crude and vulgar sex jokes. "Dark and Stormy Night" doesn't feature any infantile humor like that. You won't hear me claim that all gags and references are successful and laugh-out-loud hilarious (far from it…), but at least the nature of the jokes never becomes embarrassing. The acting performances are decent, especially Larry Blamire himself who portrays one of the invitees in a deliberately wooden and amateurish fashion. There are some nice decors and the man in the gorilla suit is a delightful detail, seeing so many of those old haunted house movies had a gorilla locked up in the basement.

Scott_Mercer I am a big fan of Blamire's oeuvre. And his hors d' oeuvres. But his cooking skills aside, let me tell you why all the other people that thought this movie was meh were WRONG.1) Characterization. Blamire and his now expanded stock company have much more juicy roles to chew on here. The roles in his original, Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, are rather flat and lifeless, but this, of course, is on purpose. Paul Armstrong is about as affectless and monotone as you can get, and Betty is as laid back and submissive of a Fifties Femme as you could ever dread running across (she makes Betty Draper/Francis on "Mad Men" seem like Wendy O. Williams...the late punk rocker chick, not the TV talk show host). Likewise, Ranger Brad is supposed to be portrayed by an actual park ranger that was recruited into the film. Roger Fleming is the only character that is allowed to overact, apart from the malapropisms and social awkwardness of Kro-Bar and Lattis. Animala says about two words. Don't get me wrong, Jennifer Blaire plays the part quite well, including her forbidden animal dance. Ironically, one of the most vital characters is actually DEAD. (That would be the titular skeleton.) But here in Dark and Stormy Night, we are treated to a truckload of familiar characters, with each one given their very own chunk of drywall to masticate. Let us first consider the case of Jennifer Blaire. In the (arguably) female protagonist role (she is arguably the protagonist, there is no arguing she is female) of Billie Tuesday, she says more in her first sentence of dialog than Animala did in both movies she was in. About the only character purposefully underplaying it is Larry Blamire as Ray Vestinghaus, and perhaps Jeens the butler. Everyone else heaves, cries, howls, shouts, screams and emotes almost as loudly as the constant thunder cracks punctuating every plot point. (This is a good thing...supposed to be a funny movie, remember?)2)Dialog. LSOC and LSRA were taking on the cracked syntax of 50's zero budget sci-fi, via Ed Wood, Richard Cunha and Jerry Warren. Dialog was loaded with "high tech" buzzwords, and purposefully made to sound obscure to the audience. Here, Blamire is tackling the 1940's Poverty Row horror/mystery. In those films, all they had to keep the audiences' interest were snappy dialog and guys in gorilla suits. Dialog in DSN encompasses several 1930's/1940's movie stereotypes. You've got the pip-pip-cheerio mock posh (mosh?) Britishisms of Burling Famish, Lord Partfine and Sabasha Fanmoore, you've got Mark Redfield's Lionel Barrymore take as Farper Twyly, the snappy 40's patois of reporters Billie Tuesday and 8'O Clock Farraday (I guess their honeymoon night must take place at 8 O'Clock on a Tuesday. Thank you! Try the veal!), and the perfect New Yawk speak of Dan Conroy's wayward cab driver, seemingly a refugee who wandered over from the next soundstage where a Bowery Boys movie was being filmed. ("I just want my turty five cents!") All these stereotypes required extra dialog that had to be written and re-written, not the stunted and blunted phraseology of Dr. Paul Armstrong who can't get any more specific than "real advances in the field of science." 3) Action. In spite of the action all taking place in a confined space, I would submit to you that there is more action here than there is in LSOC. (The Lost Skeleton Returns Again is a different story (no, literally, it is a different story) since that takes place during a jungle safari.) In DSN, people are moving, moving, moving. Maybe moving through the same hallway over and over, but moving nonetheless. Also, there are more characters and plot threads to keep cutting between. Which brings me to...4)Plot. The plot here is more complex. More characters, more motivations. More bad guys. There's the hooded strangler, the escaped lunatic, the deranged witch, the unwanted ghosts, the possible killers for the sake of greed. Every possible base in the "creepy haunted house" genre is covered, and covered well. The storm, the washed out bridge, the reading of the will, the locked room murders, the secret passageways, the hooded strangler, the ghost, the retarded half-human offspring locked in the attic.5) Funnier jokes. Yes, LSOC is funny. But damn it, the whole "Have I The Letter?" bit had me ROLLING. And don't even get me started on "It says "You Will Be Next." This is comic gold, people. Worthy of Abbott and Costello at least, or maybe even Monty Python. And that's high praise indeed in my book. Or letter.I could go on about this at further length. In fact, I will in my upcoming scholarly tome, "Have You The Letter?: The Films of Larry Blamire," due in textbook stores imminently. Look out for it! LSOC gets a 7. LSRA gets a 7. Dark and Stormy Night gets an 8. Have NOT seen the forehead movie yet, so I will have to wait on that one. Looking forward to anything else Larry does.

jt1999 This is not a movie. It might be a Groundlings Theater exercise. Or a practice for an SNL sketch. Or a junior high school play. But whatever it is, this ain't a film, no way, no how.Doing a spoof of an old movie requires a certain belief in the genre, an understanding and respect for the source material. It also, and perhaps most importantly, means having actors who believe in what they're doing, believably inhabiting the characters they're portraying and the universe in which the story is set.There is not a single moment in "Dark and Stormy Night" where anybody watching this misfire will ever mistake the caricatures and cartoon figures presented here for real people... or even real movie characters. The acting is all of the overblown, wink-wink, nudge-nudge variety, as if presented on stage and pandering to the audience's reactions. Shooting on HD and converting to black and white is also no substitute for the rich 35mm film look of the movies this is supposed to satirize."Mad" magazine used to do hilarious movie and television spoofs, and they always worked - for the simple reason that the characters believed what they were doing, interacting in their own peculiar universes and never alluding to the fact that it was all a sendup. Mel Brooks knows this. So does Carl Reiner... and Woody Allwn... and whoever wrote "Austin Powers."This is exactly why "Stormy Night" does not work: every single second, we're acutely aware the actors are doing a sendup... as if they're constantly trying to TELL us it's all a big joke. It's like comedians laughing at their own jokes.That, of course, never works. And neither does this.