|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 20, 2019 17:21:37 GMT -5
You can really tell that I not only had today off but also that the wife is out of town... Dracula Triple Feature Nosferatu  1922, Prana-Film This is the one that started it all and it deserves every bit of praise it gets. Like a lot of my favorite horror films Nosferatu isn't scary in any real sense of the word; there are no loud noises(it's a silent film duh!) no gore or things jumping out at you when you least expect it, but rather the film is a master class on how to slowly build an eerie atmosphere that is utterly enchanting. With it's shadow play and stark black and white imagery it's a film that haunts you and really sticks in your mind after you've seen it. 10/10 Shadow of the Vampire .jpg) 2000, BBC Films I originally saw this as a double feature with Nosferatu back when it came out so I was looking to recapture that experience today. While in a lot of ways it's almost more of a dark comedy than a real horror film it's none the less a beautiful film that just revels in the tropes of the genre. What really shines here are the performances of Eddie Izzard , John Malkovich and especially Willem Dafoe who is so perfect as Schreck/Orlock that it's often difficult to tell which scenes are recreations and which are actual shots from the original film. All in all it's a great tribute to Nosferatu as well as a fun vampire film in its own right. 10/10 John Badham's Dracula  1979, Universal Why this version before the 1931 original? Because, I'm a normally straight identifying male and I think Frank Langella could easily seduce me. I love Bella, don't get me wrong, and he had a great screen presence but I could just never imagine him as playboy wooing the women of London while with Langella there's just something to his quiet demeanor and smoldering gaze that simply makes you want him(again, I'm a straight guy and I can't deny the attraction) and at the same time there is a predatory feeling about him as well that sells the danger of him as well which is the perfect combination for Dracula. That's not to say the film is the perfect adaptation, it inexplicably switches the roles of Lucy and Mina as well as making Mina the daughter of Van Helsing in an attempt to slim down the cast but makes it feel kind of like a contrived, small world, soap opera to those familiar with the source. Still and all it's a great film and definitely one of my favorite versions of Dracula.
8/10 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 17:50:34 GMT -5
John Badham's Dracula 1979, Universal Why this version before the 1931 original? Because, I'm a normally straight identifying male and I think Frank Langella could easily seduce me. I love Bella, don't get me wrong, and he had a great screen presence but I could just never imagine him as playboy wooing the women of London while with Langella there's just something to his quiet demeanor and smoldering gaze that simply makes you want him(again, I'm a straight guy and I can't deny the attraction) and at the same time there is a predatory feeling about him as well that sells the danger of him as well which is the perfect combination for Dracula. That's not to say the film is the perfect adaptation, it inexplicably switches the roles of Lucy and Mina as well as making Mina the daughter of Van Helsing in an attempt to slim down the cast but makes it feel kind of like a contrived, small world, soap opera to those familiar with the source. Still and all it's a great film and definitely one of my favorite versions of Dracula.
8/10 I'm curious why you mentioned "soap opera" here ... see bold part of your previous post and thanks for offering me an explanation here. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 20, 2019 18:01:14 GMT -5
John Badham's Dracula 1979, Universal Why this version before the 1931 original? Because, I'm a normally straight identifying male and I think Frank Langella could easily seduce me. I love Bella, don't get me wrong, and he had a great screen presence but I could just never imagine him as playboy wooing the women of London while with Langella there's just something to his quiet demeanor and smoldering gaze that simply makes you want him(again, I'm a straight guy and I can't deny the attraction) and at the same time there is a predatory feeling about him as well that sells the danger of him as well which is the perfect combination for Dracula. That's not to say the film is the perfect adaptation, it inexplicably switches the roles of Lucy and Mina as well as making Mina the daughter of Van Helsing in an attempt to slim down the cast but makes it feel kind of like a contrived, small world, soap opera to those familiar with the source. Still and all it's a great film and definitely one of my favorite versions of Dracula.
8/10 I'm curious why you mentioned "soap opera" here ... see bold part of your previous post and thanks for offering me an explanation here. It's a common trope among soap operas, or at least it was when I used to watch them with my mom growing up, that when new characters would show up they would often be revealed to be connected to everyone else in some way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 18:55:08 GMT -5
thwhtguardian ... Thanks for the explanation and understood what you are saying here and having seen this movie it's makes total sense.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 20, 2019 19:10:55 GMT -5
Faust (1926) is one of my favorite films of all time, even though I've only seen it three times. It is so long and disjointed that it demands a lot from its viewers, and yet the journey is always worth it by the time of the heart-breaking close. Is it horror? Well, the first 40 minutes are some of the finest silent era horror you will ever see, with mind-boggling special effects that often leave me wondering how in the world they were executed. But the film is so much more than that, essentially being divided into six interrelated chapters that each possess a soul and style of their own.
If you've never seen it before, you owe it to yourself to at least watch the first 49 minutes of the film. After that, the special effects largely drop out and the story appears to meander and lose direction, but it all comes together for one unforgettable climax if you have the patience to see it through.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 20, 2019 21:06:14 GMT -5
The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)
Style over substance! This relatively simple serial revenge film utterly stands out because of the frankly bizarre aesthetics Vincent Price's Dr. Phibes employs, from mechanized big band players, to the sinister elevator organ, to the elaborate Exodus-inspired methods of murder/revenge. It's hardly a great film, but it's certainly an unforgettable one that I enjoy returning to again and again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 7:22:02 GMT -5
You can really tell that I not only had today off but also that the wife is out of town... Dracula Triple Feature Nosferatu 1922, Prana-Film This is the one that started it all and it deserves every bit of praise it gets. Like a lot of my favorite horror films Nosferatu isn't scary in any real sense of the word; there are no loud noises(it's a silent film duh!) no gore or things jumping out at you when you least expect it, but rather the film is a master class on how to slowly build an eerie atmosphere that is utterly enchanting. With it's shadow play and stark black and white imagery it's a film that haunts you and really sticks in your mind after you've seen it. 10/10 I don't know this is the film that you watch recently and this is my 1st time that I saw this film in YouTube last night and this really move you in a way that's really shines and full of meaning and the atmosphere is truly an amazing film that really suck you in. I really do know nothing about these players and they all did their part extremely well, full of force, and most of all make you as a part of the film itself. I'm not really a fan of gothic horror ... but this is a masterpiece of true horror that's really shines and most of all it's engaging, has great pacing, tells a story as it is, and most of all the background and the atmosphere of it is just compelling, make you wonder what's going to happen next. Truly an original film and this one is a winner in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Oct 21, 2019 7:37:55 GMT -5
The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)Style over substance! This relatively simple serial revenge film utterly stands out because of the frankly bizarre aesthetics Vincent Price's Dr. Phibes employs, from mechanized big band players, to the sinister elevator organ, to the elaborate Exodus-inspired methods of murder/revenge. It's hardly a great film, but it's certainly an unforgettable one that I enjoy returning to again and again. On my watch list for next weekend is both Phibes films! Truly bizarre and creative killings enhanced with Vincent Price at his best! Over this weekend beside Svengoolies The Mummy's Hand, it was gallows humor injected with the frights as I watched Beetlejuice, The Frightner's, Scooby Doo on Zombie Island, Scooby Doo Returns to Zombie Island, Scooby Doo and the Curse of the 13th Ghost and Disney's Ichabod Crane and the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Chills and laughs go together like peanut butter and jelly with the Horror movies. Just not enough hours in the day or would have added Some Abbot and Costello Universal monsters as well. Those shall have to be watched throughout this week along with other goosebumps of delight! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 7:49:17 GMT -5
Frankenstein (1910)
This is an Edison Classic film done back in 1910 with storyboards showing the movie from Start to Finish in under 13 minutes of YouTube time and I watch this film on an annual basis for fun and enjoyment. This is a truly a grand film and it's has 90 seconds of true spookiness of how Frankenstein created his "Monster" ... back then it would be a terrifying sight to see because movies went that available back then and this would astound viewers in 1910.
This is a groundbreaking movie and I first seen this movie back in 1976 in Rochester, New York visiting Edison Museum and watch it three times that day and got my Mom and Dad to see it on the last viewing and told them it's only 13 minutes long and it would be a fun thing to watch. My Dad didn't like it at all ... but my Mom did and we both enjoyed it immensely; and done with style and great storytelling that all viewers can appreciate.
I watched this movie twice and thinking another viewing in order on a later date.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 21, 2019 8:04:57 GMT -5
I guess that begs the question of whether we are counting short films. I watched quite a few of them this season (including The Portrait and Yhe Devil and The Statue, both of which I watched for the first time last night), but I was holding to the old film club's minimum requirement of 40 minutes. Some of these are under 2 minutes in running time. What say we? Should I go back and share/count these?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 21, 2019 8:30:24 GMT -5
Squeezed this one in before getting ready for work this morning... Don't Be Afraid of the Dark  1973, ABC This was one of those made for TV movies that always seemed to get replayed on the weekends when I was growing up and it used to scare the pants of my brother and I; though we'd often have fun with it too mimicking the little goblins cries of, "Saally...Salllyyy." whenever we wanted to creep each other out and later as an in-joke during any moment that was slightly creepy(like the lights going out at Christmas dinner one year). Given it's age and at times obviously low budget the film has lost much of its terror as I've grown up, I found myself chuckling a little a few times while re-watching it this morning, but it's still legitimately creepy at times and the premise of, "What if there really are things behind the bumps in the night?" is one that still works well to this day. While I do enjoy the 2010 remake written and produced by Del Torro there's something about the little cone headed goblins of the original that makes it a little bit superior in my mind. I mean seriously check these guys out:  Though when ever they are shown in full light it would lead me to chuckle a bit, leading me to think they would have been much better served as staying in the shadows:  7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 21, 2019 8:35:07 GMT -5
I guess that begs the question of whether we are counting short films. I watched quite a few of them this season (including The Portrait and Yhe Devil and The Statue, both of which I watched for the first time last night), but I was holding to the old film club's minimum requirement of 40 minutes. Some of these are under 2 minutes in running time. What say we? Should I go back and share/count these? I'm okay with counting them, especially this month as horror works so well in short form. And since I've never heard of either The Portrait or the The Devil and the Statue I'd certainly like to read your views on them if you like! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 21, 2019 8:40:58 GMT -5
I guess that begs the question of whether we are counting short films. I watched quite a few of them this season (including The Portrait and Yhe Devil and The Statue, both of which I watched for the first time last night), but I was holding to the old film club's minimum requirement of 40 minutes. Some of these are under 2 minutes in running time. What say we? Should I go back and share/count these? I'm okay with counting them, especially this month as horror works so well in short form. And since I've never heard of either The Portrait or the The Devil and the Statue I'd certainly like to read your views on them if you like! It does skew the competition aspect of this a bit, for those who care. 20 two minute films beat out 1 film of normal running length, which is why I ask. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 21, 2019 8:50:52 GMT -5
I'm okay with counting them, especially this month as horror works so well in short form. And since I've never heard of either The Portrait or the The Devil and the Statue I'd certainly like to read your views on them if you like! It does skew the competition aspect of this a bit, for those who care. 20 two minute films beat out 1 film of normal running length, which is why I ask. I definitely see your point, perhaps a separate category for shorts like Brutalis is doing for his TV watching? It's definitely relevant and I like reading about it, but perhaps we don't ultimately count it. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 21, 2019 9:08:36 GMT -5
It does skew the competition aspect of this a bit, for those who care. 20 two minute films beat out 1 film of normal running length, which is why I ask. I definitely see your point, perhaps a separate category for shorts like Brutalis is doing for his TV watching? It's definitely relevant and I like reading about it, but perhaps we don't ultimately count it. Maybe just share them for fun in this same thread, but don't count them? |
|
