The Body Beneath (1970)

Let's be realistic.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Prissy priest Algernon Ford (an effectively smug and sinister portrayal by Gavin Reed) is really a vampire who's organizing a gala annual feast for his fellow bloodsuckers. Assisted by pathetic hunchback Spool (the pitiable Berwick Kaler) and a trio of grotesque green-skinned vampire women, Ford has grisly plans for two of his luckless lady relatives: pregnant Susan (comely Jackie Skarvellis) gets chosen to be a breeder for vampire babies while lovely Candace (ravishing redhead Emma Jones) will be used as a blood donor. Writer/director Andy Milligan, whose movies are usually hopelessly cheap, static and inept, here shows a surprisingly substantial amount of flair and finesse. The rough, grainy, but still fairly polished cinematography in particular is occasionally impressive. The neatly varied score alternates between lush orchestral film library music and wonky, droning, atonal synthesizer noises. The gloomy British countryside adds considerably to the spooky and decadent Gothic atmosphere. The solid acting from the competent cast rates as another sterling asset: Reed truly excels in the lead, with sturdy support from Skarvellis, Kaler, Jones, Richmond Ross as Susan's brave, likable boyfriend Paul Donati, Susan Heard as Algernon's fetching, reticent wife Alicia, Felicity Sentence as brassy maid Jessie, and Judith Head as fiery vampiress Elizabeth. In addition, this film takes some interesting liberties with the standard vampire lore: These bloodsuckers don't have fangs, can walk around in the sunlight, and take regular blood transfusions to keep themselves strong. The climactic vampires' ball is both pleasingly lavish and appropriately gruesome. Nice dark surprise ending, too. A nifty vampire horror picture.

Andy Milligan has firmly established himself in my mind as probably the worst horror director of all time. Despite making decent sexploitation flick 'Seeds' in 1968, Milligan has succeeded only in boring me to death with the rest of his crappy oeuvre since then, and this film is certainly no exception. I really don't understand this director at all; it seems like he's trying to make some sort of point as his films all have a similar style, but somehow nothing comes out of them but boredom. Take the plot pace of this film as an example; it's painfully slow and the dialogues are delivered by actors who sound like they're close to death. Quite how Milligan made this film and didn't realise how dull it was is anyone's guess...my only thought on the matter is that perhaps it was the director's intention to torture his audience? The plot supposedly revolves around vampires but for all I care they could have been clowns, postmen, FBI agents or French maids...it doesn't really matter. No film made with as little enthusiasm as this is ever going to be interesting, and after seeing five Milligan films; I doubt I'll be seeing another.

An odd one in Milligan's filmography, this was one of the few "real" movies he attempted. By "real" I mean less concerned with stagy, screaming, off-Broadway plots (let's face it, Milligan at his best, at least by the standards of his own movies). This is an eccentric vampire film unlike any other. Very similar to "Guru, the Mad Monk", it is one of the few Milligan films to feature a dominant performance by a lead actor (Gavin Reed, one of the more professional actors Milligan worked with) with no scheming, bitchy females in sight. Not quite as slow as some of Milligan's other British-era films, it moves along at a nice clip, and the final vampire/cannibal feast manages, at moments, to be atmospheric (though the annoying use of inappropriate stock music is a distraction). The internet is interesting, I first saw a Milligan movie when I was 12, "The Rats are Coming, the Werewolves Are Here", and have been, well, interested in Milligan ever since. While I'm sure the recent Millgan biography has introduced more people to him, thanks to the internet I now know that, judging by some of the reactions to his films, there are at least 25 other people on Earth who appreciate Milligan as I do. Kind of neat.

To say THE BODY BENEATH is a *GOOD* film might be sugaring things a bit heavily, but it certainly stands as one of the more professional achievements put forward by schlock auteur Andy Milligan. The evidence of more technically adept workmanship than in many of his other projects is multi-directional within this eerie little vampire opus, though the the gore is noticeably slight this time around. It's a fairly unembellished bloodsucker story with a few novel twists...a vampire-priest calls a meeting of all existing vampires at his Old England lair. During this meeting, he expresses his concern with the rapidly diminishing numbers of their blood-line, and motions that they move, collectively, to the United States.THE BODY BENEATH looks like a project which Milligan took a bit more seriously than many of his other horror offerings. It's fairly coherent(an amazing achievement for him), and the pacing and exposition actually aren't miles away from the accepted norm. Is this merely a film which denotes the natural progress of it's maker? Is it a sincere attempt to bring something palatable to mainstream horror film fans? Is it a sellout? ...I dunno...all I can say is that it has all the quirky Milligan hallmarks, but it's far removed from the schlock quality of much of his other work.4/10