|
|
Post by johnnypt on Oct 14, 2020 19:17:18 GMT -5
Dracula’s restoration is so good it really feels like a different film.
|
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Oct 14, 2020 20:44:07 GMT -5
I watched Dracula the other night. I purchased a 6 DVD set a few years back and it's scratched the itch. I'm not a huge Universal film buff. I dig the reviews though! My youngest girls (8 & 5) are enamored with The Wolf Man. They think it's funny (and annoying) that the film is in "grey".
Glad to hear the younger generation is appreciating these films, even if they are "grey".
|
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Oct 15, 2020 10:22:20 GMT -5
Freaks (1932) - Tod Browning has always seemed a bit tragic to me. He kickstarted talkie horror movies with his Dracula, but never benefited from it. His next horror movie certainly didn't help. Banned, denounced and a box office failure, Freaks was the beginning of the end for Browning. Using real life "freaks" instead of professional actors, the film's acting is very uneven, but the use of real people in the roles is unforgettable. Is it exploitation? It's easy to sit back nearly a century later and say these circus performers were being exploited. But back then, there were precious few options for people like that. And Browning does treat them as people, not monsters. His sympathies clearly lie with those who, through no fault of their own, have no place in normal society. The climax remains as harsh and uncompromising now as it did then (even with the mawkish reshoot tacked on to the end). Of the three Browning films I've seen, this is the best.
Mark of the Vampire (1935) - SPOILERS: There are no vampires in Mark of the Vampire. Knowing that going in, how does the film fare? It starts off in familiar Universal territory, with Eastern European peasants and foggy graveyards. We could be somewhere in the vicinity of Goldstadt-Frankenstein-Vasaria-Visaria. There's even Lionel Atwill a few years before he became a Universal mainstay. The locals believe that Count Mora (a mostly silent Bela Lugosi) and his daughter Luna (Carroll Borland) stalk the land by night and feed on the blood of the living and keep the vampires at bay by hanging bat-thorn at their windows. Bat-thorn? Bat-thorn??? Yeah. Anyhow, alleged vampire expert Professor Zelen (a very hammy Lionel Barrymore) shows up and we get a virtual replay of Dracula, at least until we get the big plot twist near the end.
This movie lacks a musical score, which is very glaring when you realize the exact same year Franz Waxman was knocking out of the ballpark with his Bride of Frankenstein score. Browning's apparent inability to fully embrace the new sound era may have also contributed to his downfall. Like Freaks, a half and hour of this movie is missing. It's apparent from the very abrupt intro of the main characters at the start and the graveyard scene where a white wolf appears briefly in the background and is never seen or mentioned again. The last fifteen minutes or so feel very truncated. It doesn't help that the vampires which the movie has built up for so long not only are not even vampires, they play little role in the actual scheme to get the Baron to confess to a murder. And speaking of this scheme, just how do Mora and Luna do their "bat-to-vampire" transformations, anyhow? This kind of live FX trick would be hard to do now, let alone back then, and on the spur of the moment no less. As for the plan, I have the feeling that any lawyer worth their salt could get the whole confession thrown out of court. Maybe if the fake vamps were used to scare a confession out of the Baron, it might have alleviated some of the problems. That said, the last scene -- the only one where Lugosi speaks -- almost makes up for it. Almost.
Maybe the missing half hour would have clarified plot points and story logic, but we may never know. It's a pity we have to judge so many of Browning's movies by what the studio made of them. He deserves to be judged by his own merits and faults. But we can't. And that's the biggest tragedy of them all.
Next: Dracula 1979 AD
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Oct 15, 2020 14:18:14 GMT -5
Freaks (1932) - Tod Browning has always seemed a bit tragic to me. He kickstarted talkie horror movies with his Dracula, but never benefited from it. His next horror movie certainly didn't help. Banned, denounced and a box office failure, Freaks was the beginning of the end for Browning. Using real life "freaks" instead of professional actors, the film's acting is very uneven, but the use of real people in the roles is unforgettable. Is it exploitation? It's easy to sit back nearly a century later and say these circus performers were being exploited. But back then, there were precious few options for people like that. And Browning does treat them as people, not monsters. His sympathies clearly lie with those who, through no fault of their own, have no place in normal society. The climax remains as harsh and uncompromising now as it did then (even with the mawkish reshoot tacked on to the end). Of the three Browning films I've seen, this is the best.
Mark of the Vampire (1935) - SPOILERS: There are no vampires in Mark of the Vampire. Knowing that going in, how does the film fare? It starts off in familiar Universal territory, with Eastern European peasants and foggy graveyards. We could be somewhere in the vicinity of Goldstadt-Frankenstein-Vasaria-Visaria. There's even Lionel Atwill a few years before he became a Universal mainstay. The locals believe that Count Mora (a mostly silent Bela Lugosi) and his daughter Luna (Carroll Borland) stalk the land by night and feed on the blood of the living and keep the vampires at bay by hanging bat-thorn at their windows. Bat-thorn? Bat-thorn??? Yeah. Anyhow, alleged vampire expert Professor Zelen (a very hammy Lionel Barrymore) shows up and we get a virtual replay of Dracula, at least until we get the big plot twist near the end.
This movie lacks a musical score, which is very glaring when you realize the exact same year Franz Waxman was knocking out of the ballpark with his Bride of Frankenstein score. Browning's apparent inability to fully embrace the new sound era may have also contributed to his downfall. Like Freaks, a half and hour of this movie is missing. It's apparent from the very abrupt intro of the main characters at the start and the graveyard scene where a white wolf appears briefly in the background and is never seen or mentioned again. The last fifteen minutes or so feel very truncated. It doesn't help that the vampires which the movie has built up for so long not only are not even vampires, they play little role in the actual scheme to get the Baron to confess to a murder. And speaking of this scheme, just how do Mora and Luna do their "bat-to-vampire" transformations, anyhow? This kind of live FX trick would be hard to do now, let alone back then, and on the spur of the moment no less. As for the plan, I have the feeling that any lawyer worth their salt could get the whole confession thrown out of court. Maybe if the fake vamps were used to scare a confession out of the Baron, it might have alleviated some of the problems. That said, the last scene -- the only one where Lugosi speaks -- almost makes up for it. Almost.
Maybe the missing half hour would have clarified plot points and story logic, but we may never know. It's a pity we have to judge so many of Browning's movies by what the studio made of them. He deserves to be judged by his own merits and faults. But we can't. And that's the biggest tragedy of them all.
Next: Dracula 1979 AD
Freaks is still one effed up movie almost 90 years later. Mark of the Vampire is a more effective vampire movie than Dracula until... |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Aiken on Oct 15, 2020 14:21:21 GMT -5
I watched Dracula the other night. I purchased a 6 DVD set a few years back and it's scratched the itch. I'm not a huge Universal film buff. I dig the reviews though! My youngest girls (8 & 5) are enamored with The Wolf Man. They think it's funny (and annoying) that the film is in "grey". Glad to hear the younger generation is appreciating these films, even if they are "grey".
The Wolfman is my favorite of the bunch, not the best film (Dracula and Frankenstein probably get my vote), but I enjoy it best of all. The setting, the main character, it's just enjoyable to watch. I was so disappointed when I found out it was shot on a lot and not in the European countryside, but that's movie magic! |
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Oct 19, 2020 10:48:10 GMT -5
Dracula (1979) - The '70s were big for the Count. While the Hammer Dracula series petered out early in the decade, there were TV versions of Bram Stoker's novel on both sides of the Atlantic and Marvel's Tomb of Dracula was a non-superhero surprise hit in the comics. So perhaps it was inevitable there would be yet another big screen adaptation of the archetypal vampire story, this time helmed by John Badham and starring Frank Langella as Dracula.
The plot follows Deane and Balderston more than Stoker and there's a great many changes off the bat. Lucy (Kate Nelligan) and Mina (Jan Francis) switch roles, with Mina becoming the daughter of Van Helsing (Sir Laurence Olivier), who is not a vampire expert to begin with (though he's a quick study). Also, the action is kept entirely in England with Cornish location shooting and sets by Edward Gorey. The script may recall the 1931 version, but the execution owes a lot to Hammer. It's also the first time on the big screen we see Dracula with most of his powers: changing into a wolf and bat, scaling walls, controlling mist. Interestingly, and unlike most screen vampires, it remembers the bit from the novel where the Count is able to roam around outside so long as it's overcast. As Dracula himself states, it's always daytime somewhere in the world.
And of course, the sex. Langella is the sexiest Count, a seductive predator with claw-like fingers. It's easy to believe he could walk off with every woman he meets, even without his unfair advantages. But as romantic as he seems, the movie never lets you forget the he presents. Dracula may promise Lucy an eternity as his queen, but after seeing the wretched, zombie-like Mina, one has to wonder if would really be as glorious as he claims.
Keep an eye open for future Seventh Doctor Sylvester McCoy at Seward's asylum.
With all respect to Lugosi and Lee, this is probably my favourite big screen Dracula.
Next: Sharper than a serpent's tooth
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Oct 19, 2020 15:59:03 GMT -5
Dracula (1979) - The '70s were big for the Count. While the Hammer Dracula series petered out early in the decade, there were TV versions of Bram Stoker's novel on both sides of the Atlantic and Marvel's Tomb of Dracula was a non-superhero surprise hit in the comics. So perhaps it was inevitable there would be yet another big screen adaptation of the archetypal vampire story, this time helmed by John Badham and starring Frank Langella as Dracula.
The plot follows Deane and Balderston more than Stoker and there's a great many changes off the bat. Lucy (Kate Nelligan) and Mina (Jan Francis) switch roles, with Mina becoming the daughter of Van Helsing (Sir Laurence Olivier), who is not a vampire expert to begin with (though he's a quick study). Also, the action is kept entirely in England with Cornish location shooting and sets by Edward Gorey. The script may recall the 1931 version, but the execution owes a lot to Hammer. It's also the first time on the big screen we see Dracula with most of his powers: changing into a wolf and bat, scaling walls, controlling mist. Interestingly, and unlike most screen vampires, it remembers the bit from the novel where the Count is able to roam around outside so long as it's overcast. As Dracula himself states, it's always daytime somewhere in the world.
And of course, the sex. Langella is the sexiest Count, a seductive predator with claw-like fingers. It's easy to believe he could walk off with every woman he meets, even without his unfair advantages. But as romantic as he seems, the movie never lets you forget the he presents. Dracula may promise Lucy an eternity as his queen, but after seeing the wretched, zombie-like Mina, one has to wonder if would really be as glorious as he claims.
Keep an eye open for future Seventh Doctor Sylvester McCoy at Seward's asylum.
With all respect to Lugosi and Lee, this is probably my favourite big screen Dracula.
Next: Sharper than a serpent's tooth
I remember when Langella first did Dracula on Broadway back in 1977 which led to this version. It was pretty popular considering it was based on the old Lugosi play from the 20s. I also remember the trailers and commercials for it in 1979 though I was too young to see it. I thought it was neat how he changed into a wolf while jumping through the window. When I finally saw it...eh, it was ok but could've been a lot more. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Oct 19, 2020 19:14:42 GMT -5
Love At First Bite was terrific, one of the best horror comedies ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleshelm on Oct 20, 2020 18:15:29 GMT -5
I thought Gay Blade was pretty funny myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Oct 20, 2020 19:18:57 GMT -5
The Reptile (1966) - '66 was a big year for Hammer. Four of their movies came out that year, of which, this is probably the least-remembered. Newlyweds Harry Spalding (Ray Barrett) and Valerie Spalding (Jennifer Daniel, of Kiss of the Vampire fame) arrive in the Cornish village where Harry's brother died under mysterious circumstances. Unfriendly locals (of which Hammer mainstay Michael Ripper is an exception) don't help, but seemingly innocent young Anna (Jacqueline Pierce) is very welcoming. Surely she can't have any connection to the deaths plaguing the village, could she?
The other Hammer films that year went over-schedule and over-budget. The Reptile got the worst of it. In the big fiery climax, a window is broken, letting in cold air which paralyses the wereserpent and . . . that's about it. We needed something a bit more. It's a shame, because the performances are good across the board. Props especially to Noel Willman as Anna's father, trying and failing to conceal his family's terrible curse. The movie is restrained by Hammer standards with only a little gore and not much in the way of cleavage. The movie's not bad, but not nearly as good as it could have been. A minor Hammer.
Next: Twilight of the Terror Titans
|
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Oct 23, 2020 10:15:17 GMT -5
The Black Sleep (1956) - Horror in the '50s tended more to the atomic than the gothic. The color horrors of Hammer and AIP were still a few years off. Directed by Reginald Le Borg, who directed a few Universals back in the '40s, this black & white throwback features a number of classic horror stars in a quasi "monster rally". Young doctor Gordon Ramsay (Herbert Rudley) is saved from being hanged for a crime he didn't commit by Dr. Cadman (Basil Rathbone) by use of a drug called "the Black Sleep", which mimics the effects of death. Cadman has been experimenting with some advanced-for-the-19th-century brain surgery using the Black Sleep. His castle is filled with the horrific results of his past experiments, played by Bela Lugosi, John Carradine, Lon Chaney Jr. and Tor Johnson.
Poor Bela. In his last completed film role (before his "appearance" in Plan 9 From Outer Space), he's relegated to being a mute in a movie that already has two. Lon Chaney Jr had trouble speaking in later years, and Tor Johnson works best without dialogue, but why the silent treatment for Lugosi? The film is talky as it is. Why not let Lugosi get in on it too? Rathbone is great as the ends-justify-the-means mad scientist and Akim Tamiroff (in a role originally intended for Peter Lorre) is hilariously oily as his amoral assistant. Chaney Jr. is doing his patented "big, childlike brute" thing he often fell back on. Carradine has a small but memorable part as a prisoner who believes he's Bohemund, King of Jerusalem. And Tor is, well, Tor. Sadly, there's no one shot of all the horror stars together in a single scene, though they appear together in the vast number of publicity stills that were taken. The movie gets surprising gruesome in places, with a scene of a brain being cut and drained of fluid.
The Black Sleep isn't a terrible movie, but considering the talent involved, it could have been so much more.
Next: Humans are such easy prey
|
|
|
|
Post by themirrorthief on Oct 23, 2020 11:06:27 GMT -5
Hammer put a lot of hot babes in their flicks...nice
|
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Oct 24, 2020 10:06:18 GMT -5
From Beyond (1986) - Stuart Gordon's follow-up to his H. P. Lovecraft adaptation Re-Animator re-unites Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crompton. Once again, one of Lovecraft's lesser-known stories is the basis. Dr. Pretorious (Ted Sorrel) has developed the Resonator, which stimulates the pineal gland, allowing humans to see creatures which normally lie beyond the normal range of their senses. When Dr. Tillingast (Combs) is accused of murdering Pretorious, psychiatrist Dr. McMichaels (Crompton) has Tillingast recreate the experiment, with results that warp mind and body alike.
It doesn't quite reach the same dizzying heights of gory excess as Re-Animator, but the makeup and animatronics are first-rate. It lack's Re-Animator's wicked sense of humour and injects a strong sexual element not present in the original (or really, anywhere in Lovecraft's work). Gordon intended to do an entire series of Lovecraft adaptations with the same cast, like Corman's Poe cycle, but would only make one more with that cast and two without.
Next: Decade of the American Vampire
|
|
|
|
Post by charleshelm on Oct 24, 2020 10:46:09 GMT -5
From Beyond is well worth a watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Oct 24, 2020 14:05:00 GMT -5
Hammer put a lot of hot babes in their flicks...nice I remember watching one of the Dracula films when I was younger and I asked my parents why all the women in these movies had such big boobs. |
|
