I only recently discovered Elvira through the first film - Elvira Mistress Of The Dark. Honestly, it was entertaining enough to warrant my buying a DVD of the show (which includes "The Satanic Rites Of Dracula" and "The Werewolf Of Washington"). So I went ahead and watched the sequel...sort of...and...this movie only holds up due to its ideas!So what are these ideas? Okay, its a spoof of Roger Corman movies, particularly the Edgar Allan Poe ones he did (not specifically stated but with the Pit and the Pendulum scene, its hard not to miss) where Elvira and her maid are in 1851 (as far as setup goes, a movie about a horror host being set before films were even invented isn't the strangest thing on display here) and short on money. So they hitch a ride with a Dr Bradley Bradley whose on his way to Castle Hellsubus. While there, everyone remarks on how much Elvira looks like Lady Hellsubus who committed suicide some 10 years earlier and was the first wife of our villain Vladimir Hellsubus (I'm not spoiling that he's the villain...just read the name he's got. He's played by Richard O'Brien. How do you not IMMEDIATELY see that he's the villain just from my review?).As a setup goes, thats not awful. In fact, I'd say its close to damn near inspired. Having someone famous for making fun of bad movies being in a self aware bad movie. It doesn't even go over the top with the premise like Sharknado does in a desperate "WE KNOW THIS IS CRAP! LAUGH!" over and over. As for the other elements that are good - Richard O'Brien is probably the most chuckles you'll get from this but only because he looks like he's having way too much fun with the part (and honestly, Richard Chamberlain backing out and being replaced with O'Brien probably saved the film an extra star). The costumes and set designers can be very proud of themselves. It looked and felt like a classic B-movie while still being a...modern B-movie.So whats bad? Well, all of the above would work if the jokes were written with any form of subtlety. I know I just said "It doesn't even go over the top with the premise" but that was the premise, not the actual humor of the film. Things like one liners about modern pop culture that aren't even funny just detract the entire film. For those that haven't seen it, allow me to demonstrate by quoting some lines that are actually in the film:"The village people say this house is haunted" "Who listens to The Village People anymore?""Shut up! What are you trying to do? Go for an Oscar""Heeeeeeeerrrrrrreeeee's Johan!"The whole FILM is filled with references like that! Its no less funny when you watch it than when you read it.Even if you took the references out, the jokes aren't as "on form" as Mistress Of The Dark. Why? The music score. Now that'll immediately warrant the reaction "how could something like the music score impact on the delivery of jokes?" Well, you know in cartoons where the people behind it play goofy as hell music when they're warranting a laugh or even just to get the audience ready for "something funny is gonna happen."? This film does that in every scene. Literally. I counted. The jokes aren't even on form enough to warrant that. So what we have here is a music score trying too hard to be a cartoon with jokes that aren't even funny enough to carry the film.As for the technical stuff outside of "costumes" and "sets"...oh god. The visual effects in this film are awful. Its mostly done with CGI...CGI in a film that had the overall budget of $1.5 million. I know Cassandra Peterson had to finance the film mostly all on her own but the visual effects in the 80's movie look a million times better and this came out some 13 years after. Hell the Sylvester McCoy Doctor Who intro looks better. Maybe you could say my judgement of the visual effects aren't great considering what was in the budget but needless to say, no matter what eye you look at it through, the CGI doesn't look good. Some of the more practical things like the Pit and the Pendulum, the iron maiden being closed in on people and the corpses all look fine though. Which is rather weird.Whats sad about the film is that the quality of the writing this time around is the single biggest blunder of the film. If this was given a few more drafts, who knows how much longer the series could've gone on for? It could've spoofed so many genres. Maybe the series would have subtlety...okay, thats impossible. But you get what I mean. This film series is, in general, supposed to be fun and yet, the failure of this film sank all chances of it, or any other film in the series, getting another film.As for everything else I didn't mention, its all on my very strong opinion of..."not great not horrible".So my final thoughts? Yeah, this movie is bad but its mostly just "dumb sequel bad". Even then, I've seen plenty of bad sequels that are far worse than this (this wouldn't even break my top 30) and I got some entertainment here and there with a few jokes that worked but thats the killer part - "a few". A lot of the problems are just too great for me to fully enjoy it enough to even consider it "okay". So check it out if you're interested but...just be prepared to not fully enjoy it.

This time, the ever campy Mistress of the Dark has to spend the weekend in a Carpathian castle that appears to be based on every Vincent Price movie. Although it takes place in 1851, the beehive-haired hostess never misses a chance to reference popular culture from a more recent era. Although the production was likely the first time that a number of Romanian citizens learned of Elvira, there's the chance that some of them knew about her in the 1980s: I recently read a New York Times article about someone in Ceaușescu-era Romania who obtained pirated copies of movies from the US and showed them. Most of them were apparently action flicks, but one would hope that Elvira was in there somewhere (understanding that her puns probably wouldn't have translated well into Romanian).The point is, "Elvira's Haunted Hills" is a funny movie, and it's enough to make anyone want to go to Romania. I hear that Dracula's castle is pretty impressive.Deșteaptă-te, române!

On the surface this is a spoof of the films made by Roger Corman and other directors who worked in the genre during the same period. There are direct references to "The Pit and the Pendulum" and "The House of Usher" as well as less direct references to films such as "The Raven" and "The Comedy of Terrors". The overall "look" of the film resembles those films and the work that came out of Hammer Studios during the same period but does so without looking like an imitation of them. With its rich textures and lush colors its appearance is never less than striking.The performances from most of the supporting cast are all way over the top. Scott Atkinson is hilarious in the role of the doctor, Bradley Bradley. Everything he comes out with seems as if it's sucked from his chest and thrown at the camera. The way his accent changes as his role in the proceedings becomes more defined is a brilliant touch. Mary Scheer performs her role as the adulteress as if she were a classic comic book villain, the type whose passion burns most brightly when she's manipulating everyone around her to the max. Elvira's character makes an excellent foil for her. Heather Hopper's portrayal as the sickly Roxanna (part whooping cough, part "Night of the Living Dead" stiff and full time punching bag for the rest of the cast) is a howl. The notion of dubbing in the dialog spoken by Gabriel Andronache (who reportedly speaks next to no English) was a brilliant one. The first scene between him and Peterson is one for the books. Richard O' Brien has a role that that demands all the pork from Ham Central, and it's one that he appears to have relished playing. The scenes he shares with Peterson appear to have been a joy for both of them.The excesses of most of the performances are balanced by the understated work from Peterson and Mary Jo Smith. Smith is absolutely adorable as Zou Zou, Elvira's much-abused maid. She plays the role with a combination of dry wit, self-depreciation and vulnerability that can't help but strike a chord. Peterson plays the "Elvira" character with her usual flair. That mix of impish playfulness and canny intellect combined with sweet innocence, brazen sexuality and doltish buffoonery that made the character a cult classic is wholly intact. Her comic timing remains razor sharp. There's far more to the film though. It goes past the obvious to address (and skewer) a variety of topics. Richard O' Brien's soliloquies put the most overblown passages of Shakespearean Theatre to shame. The dubbing in foreign action films takes a hit or three. The way the use of accents is often bungled by actors and filmmakers is harpooned in a way that's wonderfully original. The "special effects" used for the cataclysmic moment of the film look as if they were intended to be worse than things Ed Wood would've come up with (though it doesn't quite hit that mark). Aging women who cram killer bodies under thick layers of paint (makeup) and thin layers of tight clothing spend parts of the film taking one hit after another.There's no doubt the reigning Queen of Vamp Camp is showing her age. But she's using it to great advantage. The character seems older. Her sexuality is more overt. She has less patience for playing at being coy. She works too hard to be the center of attention. She doesn't miss any chances to show her "assets". The camera captures the physical side of things. One of the most revealing of them highlights the ways gravity works on an aging figure regardless of how well it's been taken care of, and it happens early in the film as if to make sure all the viewers take note her of age. Peterson is far too intelligent not to have noticed it but she left it in. If anyone is the right person to be spoofing the foibles of aging vamps it's Cassandra Peterson. She's old enough to be one of those characters in day-to-day life and she would look great in any of the outfits they pour themselves into. More importantly, she understands any subject matter she touches thoroughly, addresses it without meanness or cynicism and applies a measure of balance to it in the process. She jabs Zou Zou for her looks but makes sure that character is the first to light a fire under somebody's libido. The man with the dubbed-in-lines may look silly because his mouth doesn't match his words but he gets the girl. The aging vamp may fall in holes because she's wearing heels instead of runners the way those vamp wannabees would but the male characters still can't keep their hands off her. It all works because of Peterson's charm and because of the balanced overview she brings to the subject matter.This is a picture that may find its wider audience in years to come. It's played as camp in a way that may alienate a lot of viewers and there's no doubt a lot of the jokes are lame. But that's all done intentionally. Essentially, it's a good movie that's made to look as if it was bad. Don't be fooled. There's a lot there to stimulate thought and enough light fun to make it easy to keep going back for another look. Today's dog (though it's anything but one) may be one of tomorrow' classics.Thanks Cassandra. This was worth waiting for.

If you are a fan of Elvira then you might just get a kick out of this movie. It was a long over due sequel. it might have had better success if it was released closer to the original Elvira movie. or if they had mad a fuss about it and re released Elvira Mistress of the Dark. If you were a fan of Elvira when you were a kid and saw the original Elvira movie and the TV show you might have been waiting a long time for the Elvira sequel. you might be disappointed by the story line but you will not be sad about the was Elvira still looks okay is was alright ill recommend it. Ilke give it a 7 out of 10. if you liked Elvira then watch it but i still recommend the first movie she did more then this one.love yours truly also you can email me at [email protected]