|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 11, 2019 13:31:07 GMT -5
It's the final film set in Hammer's Dracula continuity. No Dracula, no Christopher Lee, but Peter Cushing is back, working with kung fu masters to fight kung fu vampires in China. It's so ridiculous, and yet tremendous fun! Worth checking out, and thanks for the short description here. Anything with Peter Cushing is worth checking out so I'd encourage anyone who hasn't seen this one to watch it if they have the chance. I think what took me by surprise here was the way the vampires would move by hopping. It turns out that this is part of Chinese folklore. I suppose this would be easy to mock if someone were so inclined, but I often find unusual little touches such as these to be off-putting rather than amusing when used within the context of a horror film. Sort of like Lon Chaney's point that "clowns can be funny, but there's nothing funny about a clown at midnight". |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 11, 2019 13:39:10 GMT -5
I'll post this here since I suspect that this is where it'll garner the most interest: www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/legendary-comics-reunites-horror-icons-bela-lugosi-dracula-new-graphic-novel-1246809
Despite the fact that no one is as associated with the role of Dracula as Bela Lugosi, the man only played the character on film twice (well, three times if you include a cameo in Hollywood on Parade where he kills Betty Boop). As such, there isn't as much of him out there as there should be. I think the fact that we're getting Bela Lugosi's likeness in an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel is fantastic and long over due.
As for Hollywood on Parade, here's a clip. Bela makes his entrance at 1:40.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 11, 2019 13:59:59 GMT -5
Reliving Glen or Glenda / I Led Two Lives (1953) this afternoon. I don't care what anyone says about Plan 9; THIS is the worst film ever made -- so hilariously strange and awful that it's utterly unforgettable, and the story about how it got made and distributed is perhaps even more insane. And the truly most outrageous part? THIS was my introduction to Bela Lugosi. Many of you started with Dracula; I started with this: Sooooo bad. But can you really call yourself a Bela Lugosi fan if you've never seen it? I love Glen or Glenda? but I haven't seen it for a while. I've had it saved on YouTube for months! I'm hoping to get to it at some point before Halloween. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 11, 2019 14:03:12 GMT -5
The Devil Bat (1940)There isn't all that much worth discussing about this poverty row film. The acting is surprisingly good, but the story itself is absurd, as a chemist who believes he was wronged uses a new shaving cream to mark his victims for death by the fangs of a giant bat he has created through radiation. What I do love about this film is how much time it gives Bela to monologue, as well as play different facades as both a kindly inventor and a man torn apart by a yearning for revenge. Lugosi is great! But I also love the journalists, who, if I remember correctly fake some bat photos so they have something to give to the newspaper! The state of journalism in the 1940s! |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 11, 2019 14:10:46 GMT -5
The Phantom Creeps (1939)Barely a horror film, really. It's a serial starring a mad scientist committing crimes, but he IS a mad scientist, it IS Bela Lugosi, and he builds a creepy robot and turns himself invisible, so there's a horror element or two thrown in there. I keep trying to like this one, as I like classic movie serials and I LOVE Bela, but this one just doesn't do much for me. I own the full serial but have given up on trying to watch it, settling for the briefer version cut together for feature film release. Nearly done with it now as I type this, but the fact that I'm typing this WHILE watching tells you how much I'm not enjoying it. Oh well. It all sounds so good on paper. I saw this one for the first time just a few weeks ago. I seem to have liked it a little bit more than you. Just a little. I haven't seen all of Lugosi's post-Dracula films yet, but I'm only missing three or four, and this was the last one I hadn't seen that had a horror element of any kind. The others I haven't seen have titles like The Gift of Gab and The Best Man Wins. And then there's The Devil's in Love, which has a promising title, but doesn't seem to be about Satan himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 11, 2019 14:29:38 GMT -5
I think I forgot to list several that I watched last week:
Lady Frankenstein (1971): Joseph Cotton is Baron Frankenstein! He is killed by his creation and his daughter takes over the project!
The Monkey's Paw (1948): A 60-minute adaptation of the famous story. I can only recommend this to people who find old British films rather charming even when they aren't really very good. It's not nearly as good as Dead of Night. And it's not nearly as annoyingly charming as 1941's The Ghost Train, which I highly recommend to people who like a unique cinema experience every once in a while.
I also saw Hereditary (2018), which has a great performance from Toni Collette, but otherwise I found it long, pretentious and contrived.
And last night, I watched the RiffTrax version of Voodoo Man! I went through a period where I saw Voodoo Man a lot, but I haven't seen it for at least ten years. (The two Poverty Row Lugosi films I watch almost every year are Bowery at Midnight and The Corpse Vanishes.) The RiffTrax version is hilarious, but Voodoo Man is pretty awesome without it. (I gotta admit, I love the way that the RiffTrax version ended with "Night Train to Mundo Fine." I remembered most of the lyrics and I've been humming it all day.)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 11, 2019 21:45:29 GMT -5
I tried to watch Hocus Pocus (1993) tonight, at my girlfriend's request. I'm sorry, but I don't get the appeal. Too far outside of my familiar territory, I suppose.
Not even counting this one. I slept through half of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 11, 2019 23:58:13 GMT -5
This might seem a stupid question, but do you think the white-out of the bulk of Dorothy Arnold's name at around the 0:43 mark is dues to the deteriorated condition of whatever copy we're watching on this clip, or was it there from the beginning? I only know the name was Dorothy Arnold because I went back and replayed the clip from the start, and thus saw her name in the earlier credits. Great face, BTW, from that brief glimpse; you can see why she was given star billing.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 12, 2019 6:09:23 GMT -5
This might seem a stupid question, but do you think the white-out of the bulk of Dorothy Arnold's name at around the 0:43 mark is dues to the deteriorated condition of whatever copy we're watching on this clip, or was it there from the beginning? I only know the name was Dorothy Arnold because I went back and replayed the clip from the start, and thus saw her name in the earlier credits. Great face, BTW, from that brief glimpse; you can see why she was given star billing. It's definitely a washed out copy, so her blouse may have originally been off-white enough to contrast against the lettering ng. Or it may just have been the byproduct of a sloppy rush job, editing a serial into a feature length film with no particular concern for artistry nor detail. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 12, 2019 22:22:10 GMT -5
The Mummy (1932, via Svengoolie)
Were you watching tonight too, @mechagodzilla? Always a pleasure to view, even if this was never a favorite of mine. Though I adore the cinematography of Karl Freund, I've always found the mindless reboot of this film (The Mummy's Hand) and its sequels to be a lot more fun.
And that's exactly what's playing next week!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2019 0:15:05 GMT -5
The Mummy (1932, via Svengoolie)Were you watching tonight too, @mechagodzilla? Always a pleasure to view, even if this was never a favorite of mine. Though I adore the cinematography of Karl Freund, I've always found the mindless reboot of this film (The Mummy's Hand) and its sequels to be a lot more fun. And that's exactly what's playing next week! I just finished watching it and the dramatic ending of where Helen Grosvenor recanting that Ancient Prayer and reminding herself that she wants to be saved and do away Imhotep played by Boris Karloff was so dramatic and powerful that she overcame the spells of Imhotep. It was the end of him and the special effects was done in excellent form. I haven't seen this film for a long time and it's really more like a battle with Helen and Imhotep all the way and it's chills my bones. The two Whemples and along with Doctor Muller that played by Edward Van Sloan all done their part in grace, precision, and style that really shines in this impressive film done by the directing of Karl Freund who did an impressive job with it. Man, this film rocks and I really enjoyed this true horror and fantasy film that packed a punch! Next week it is the Mummy's Hand ... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2019 7:15:16 GMT -5
Mystery Science Theater 3000: HobgoblinsA super low budget RIP-off of Gremlins, this one was so bad that Mike and the robots actually walked out of the theater in the middle of the film. Truly truly awful! I saw this just and it's so bad ... it's laughable beyond belief and this best describe by this picture below:  Budget: $15,000 and the actors ... they were paid "Peanuts" and rightly so. With a wacky credit too. PLEASE REMAIN SEATED UNTIL THE FILM COMES TO A COMPLETE STOP. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2019 12:34:57 GMT -5
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)The first time I watched this film, I was utterly blown away by Barrymore's acting. Somehow though, I enjoy this one less upon repeated viewings. Still a good film, but not as outstanding as I remembered. I think I need to put myself in the historical context of 1920 to get the most out of it. If you compare both Barrymore's acting and the general production values of this film with anything else that had been produced up to that point, it's utterly groundbreaking. I just watched this for the 1st time ... I just can't believe that I watched 3 movies in 24 hours ... it's addicting and this movie is Barrymore's best and I just find it fascinating for a 1920 movie and this is an amazing film considering it was made that year. The pairing of Barrymore and Mansfield is notable, excellent, and did their scenes quite well and their mannerisms were easy to follow. I wished this movie was longer ... 79 minutes did not cut for me and that alone was heartbreaking because I wanted more of Barrymore and Mansfield and Gina ... the exotic dancer that was played by Nita Naldi that was enchanting and superb. I agree with your statement in bold ... shaxper. Great Film at the time it was made and I think it's on par of Spencer Tracy's version and one step below of Fredric March's version. It's that good based on Barrymore's stellar performance in this film. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 13, 2019 21:42:40 GMT -5
My grading companions for the evening:
Murder by Television (1935)
How weird to do a murder mystery where the solution, revealed at the end after tremendous build-up, is in the title of the film. Ah, the days when television was this revolutionary new technology, though I doubt folks bought the far-fetched premise of this film even then. Bela's in it, of course (playing identical twin brothers, actually), but it's not a very memorable role for him.
Night of Terror (1933)
Your standard Old Dark House mystery, albeit with a disappointingly non-mad scientist at its center planning to kill and reanimate himself. The real charm of this film is Bela in the role of mysterious foreign butler Degar, and his enigmatic precognitive wife, Zika. Bela plays a suspicious, menacing, and thoroughly unlikable character who seems to scream "I did it" with every glaring facial expression, and yet when all is revealed, he becomes a surprisingly endearing character that we grossly misjudged. Really really good role for him, even in spite of the film's otherwise forgettable nature.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 14, 2019 1:00:27 GMT -5
Insomnia tonight, so I decided to take in another film. I was looking for the old dark house film where the head servant sleeps in a coffin. Whatever film that was, it apparently wasn't Night Monster (1942), which I mistakenly re-watched instead.
Man, this one stinks as much as it did the first time around, and the ending is just plain ridiculous. But there's something about the old dark house genre that works for me even when the film is a dud, so I had fun all the same.
|
|
