shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 6, 2020 11:42:58 GMT -5
Glen or Glenda / I Changed My Sex (1953) Believe it or not, this was my first introduction to Bela Lugosi. While many of you knew him first from Dracula and therefore see the career that followed as a tragic fall from grace, I knew him first as the odd, over-the-top, but somehow mysteriously compelling B actor so often celebrated by the generation that grew up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and the cynicism of the 1990s. And really, is there a better testament to Bela's later career than this film, in which any other actor would be embarrassed to take part, but in which Bela gives it his absolute best and, at times, truly wows us? Bad as this film was, no one was giving Bela this much freedom and screen time at this point in his career, and when he is given long, meandering, meaningless narration, with an unmoving camera trained on his face, he sells it with every raised eyebrow, twisted upper lip, and brooding inflection. As a film, this thing is a wreck. As an artifact of Lugosi's persona and abilities, it's priceless. Plot (0-5 points): You have to give Wood respect for tackling an issue in 1953 that is still hard for many to take seriously seven decades later. However, the writing is terrible, the plot nearly impossible to follow (how many stories within stories are we given? I lose track every time), and the incorporation of both stock footage and strange s&m dream sequences further confuses the film and makes it a train-wreck of ideas. 0/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): The lighting of the Lugosi sequences is brilliant and so respectful of his image. Bela hasn't looked this good in years, even while we know he doesn't actually look good at this point. Wood truly comes across as a genuine fan of Bela, and the directing of these sequences demonstrates that clearly. As for the rest of the film...yuck. 3/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Wood himself is a surprisingly decent, if decidedly low-energy, actor. I have no idea if the Ed Wood biopic is accurate in asserting that Wood mostly had friends playing these roles, but regardless, they are not Hollywood material. 0/3
The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): This is really the first time a director has given Bela so much space to just play for the unwavering camera, and he mostly owns it, even if he seems a little bizarre, manic, and over the top at times. He's an old, tired man fighting a drug addiction, of course, but he mostly makes it work in spite of this, and his facial expressions, mannerisms, and inflections still manage to induce chills and delight in me upon watching him in this role, over and over again. 8.5/10Overall: If Ed Wood did one thing right as a director, it was giving Bela this opportunity to truly shine, not confined to some secondary role, but instead invited to truly show off his range and ability, even if the lines he is delivering, and the film he is in, are absolute travesties. For that reason alone, this is hardly the worst Bela Lugosi film. 11.5/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 6, 2020 12:27:09 GMT -5
You Asked For It (TV, 1953) At the write-in request of a long time fan, television viewers got to see Bela as Dracula one last time, followed by a brief (and scripted) interview in which Bela solicits two upcoming projects that never ended up coming to fruition, The Phantom Ghoul in 3D and a television series called Dr. Acula. Plot (0-5 points): What plot? It's a few brief minutes of Dracula being awakened from sleep in a coffin, hypnotizing a young woman, and turning her into a bat. 0/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Really excellent for a brief television skit, and the camera is surprisingly expressive for live television. The sets, the smoke, the lighting, the sound of a storm in the distance all work beautifully. 4/5Other Actors (0-3 points):I enjoyed the monstrous assistant well enough. The damsel in distress didn't have very much to do, and the plain-clothed assistant, I'm sure, was a product of the unique demands of orchestrating a live program with so many different skits. 1/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): While Bela had been asked to play Dracula for countless television and radio programs over the years, all the ones I'm familiar with played it for laughs. This is the first time Bela is invited to take the role seriously and play the protagonist, and I swear he's really playing Dracula again. He's more consistent with the part here than he was for any of his other film vampire roles. Granted, he's a lot older, but he still makes it work in ways that he didn't in Mark of the Vampire, Return of the Vampire, nor Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. And while he stumbles on his lines a bit in the rehearsed interview that comes after, he ultimately jumps into the role once again and is a total delight. 9/10Overall: While this wouldn't be Lugosi's final role seen by general audiences (The Black Sleep gets that honor), it's a beautiful end note for his career, playing the role he was best known for once again, and resurrecting it (pardon the pun) beautifully. 14/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 6, 2020 13:11:06 GMT -5
The Red Skelton Show (Television, 1954) Bela, Lon Chaney Jr, and Vampira, all in one TV skit. Oh my. This was the skit around which an urban legend formed that Bela was thrown by Skelton's ad-libbing and then utterly flubbed the performance, as most widely perpetuated by Tim Burton's Ed Wood biopic. But this theory died once the episode became readily available, first on home video, and now on Youtube. If anything, Skelton seems to admire Bela throughout the performance, first in delivering the line to a screaming victim, "Don't ad-lib. You're amongst stars, kid" (referring to himself and to Bela), and later, when Bela ad-libs a line he barely begins delivering and Skelton totally breaks character in stitches over whatever it was Bela was about to say. I've watched the moment three times now and still can't figure out where Bela was going with his line that Red so clearly saw, but the delivery certainly is smooth. Plot (0-5 points): Nothing much, here. The neighborhood brush salesman stops at the home of Professor Lugosi and unwittingly becomes the subject of his next experiment. The skit itself isn't funny at all, but Skelton's meta-humor is. 1/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Adequate spooky laboratory and graveyard. Nothing special. 3.5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Chaney Jr. doesn't mind playing the secondary part and plays it well. Vampira's dead-pan delivery really pays off by the close. Skelton appears so good-natured and seems like he genuinely appreciates working with these three. 3/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): He's clearly nervous at the start, perhaps because this is his first work in a year, perhaps because he looks terrible despite the make-up people's best efforts to conceal it, or perhaps because of the methodone, and so he stumbles on the arrangement of his words at times, and it's a little "off". He really goes for it, breaking into song and dance as demanded by the script, but his timing is awkward. Not enough to stop the show, as the rumors had suggested, but awkward all the same. However, by the second half, he seems far more at ease to the point that he is making Skelton break character and laugh, and the two almost seem like kids playing for their own amusement. It's a delight. 6/10
Overall: A very mixed performance for Bela that begins badly and ends incredibly strong. 13.5/23
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 6, 2020 14:20:12 GMT -5
Glen or Glenda / I Changed My Sex (1953)Believe it or not, this was my first introduction to Bela Lugosi. While many of you knew him first from Dracula and therefore see the career that followed as a tragic fall from grace, I knew him first as the odd, over-the-top, but somehow mysteriously compelling B actor so often celebrated by the generation that grew up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and the cynicism of the 1990s. And really, is there a better testament to Bela's later career than this film, in which any other actor would be embarrassed to take part, but in which Bela gives it his absolute best and, at times, truly wows us? Bad as this film was, no one was giving Bela this much freedom and screen time at this point in his career, and when he is given long, meandering, meaningless narration, with an unmoving camera trained on his face, he sells it with every raised eyebrow, twisted upper lip, and brooding inflection. As a film, this thing is a wreck. As an artifact of Lugosi's persona and abilities, it's priceless. Plot (0-5 points): You have to give Wood respect for tackling an issue in 1953 that is still hard for many to take seriously seven decades later. However, the writing is terrible, the plot nearly impossible to follow (how many stories within stories are we given? I lose track every time), and the incorporation of both stock footage and strange s&m dream sequences further confuses the film and makes it a train-wreck of ideas. 0/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): The lighting of the Lugosi sequences is brilliant and so respectful of his image. Bela hasn't looked this good in years, even while we know he doesn't actually look good at this point. Wood truly comes across as a genuine fan of Bela, and the directing of these sequences demonstrates that clearly. As for the rest of the film...yuck. 3/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Wood himself is a surprisingly decent, if decidedly low-energy, actor. I have no idea if the Ed Wood biopic is accurate in asserting that Wood mostly had friends playing these roles, but regardless, they are not Hollywood material. 0/3
The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): This is really the first time a director has given Bela so much space to just play for the unwavering camera, and he mostly owns it, even if he seems a little bizarre, manic, and over the top at times. He's an old, tired man fighting a drug addiction, of course, but he mostly makes it work in spite of this, and his facial expressions, mannerisms, and inflections still manage to induce chills and delight in me upon watching him in this role, over and over again. 8.5/10Overall: If Ed Wood did one thing right as a director, it was giving Bela this opportunity to truly shine, not confined to some secondary role, but instead invited to truly show off his range and ability, even if the lines he is delivering, and the film he is in, are absolute travesties. For that reason alone, this is hardly the worst Bela Lugosi film. 11.5/23 I love Glen or Glenda. I've seen The Violent Years quite a few times and I've seen The Sinister Urge twice. But otherwise, Glen or Glenda is the only Ed Wood film I've seen more than once, and I've probably seen it five or six times over the years. Plan Nine and Bride of the Monster both have their hilarious moments (and I've watched Bela's famous Bride of the Monster monologue a bunch of times). But I have no desire to ever sit through Plan Nine or Bride ever again. Glen or Glenda, however, is saved on my YouTube account so I can watch it whenever I want. PULL THE STRING! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 6, 2020 14:25:44 GMT -5
I love Glen or Glenda. I've seen The Violent Years quite a few times and I've seen The Sinister Urge twice. But otherwise, Glen or Glenda is the only Ed Wood film I've seen more than once, and I've probably seen it five or six times over the years. Plan Nine and Bride of the Monster both have their hilarious moments (and I've watched Bela's famous Bride of the Monster monologue a bunch of times. But I have no desire to ever sit through Plan Nine or Bride ever again. Glen or Glenda, however, is saved on my YouTube account so I can watch it whenever I want. PULL THE STRING! I agree that Bride of the Monster is relatively unwatchable outside of Bela's monologue (which, until I watched Ed Wood this week, I had always assumed was my own private favorite Bela moment), but Plan Nine is too fun NOT to watch over and over again. I own the Riff-Trax commentary version, and it is priceless! |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 6, 2020 14:29:40 GMT -5
Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) I may have been surprisingly enthusiastic about Mother Riley last time around, and I may not have minded Brown and Carney, but I draw the line at Mitchell and Petrillo, an insultingly unoriginal theft of Martin and Lewis that isn't even close to being in the same ballpark. Petrillo alternates between obnoxious and surprisingly endearing, but he's never ever funny, and Mitchell is just godawful to the point that I can't decide which is worse: his acting or his crooning. When they've got him in an ape suit for the last twenty minutes of the film, I find the whole thing a lot more tolerable. Plot (0-5 points): Every joke is stolen, and the plot is utterly derivative and absurd. 0/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Surprisingly excellent lighting, but that's pretty much the only positive. Nothing else looks especially low budget, but it certainly isn't high budget nor meticulous either. 2/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Duke Mitchell hurts my soul. No one else in this film is worth a damn either, except maybe Ramona the chimp. Petrillo would be adequate if he weren't just a blatant rip-off of Jerry Lewis. -1/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): he is so tired and worn out that it almost hurts to see him in this one, and yet he still gives a first class effort in most scenes. At times, if you can look past the drained-of-life look he bares so tragically, he's almost playing Murder Legendre from White Zombie again. Even in scenes where he is off to the sides, and the camera barely notices him, he's giving it his all. There are only two scenes in the film where his acting is awkward and not on point, and I find it curious that both scenes have him walking across the set. Leg pains. Poor Bela. I truly cringe when he gets knocked over late in the film, and it isn't a stunt double. He looks genuinely scared and entirely too aware that it's coming. Yet, in spite of the pain and frailty, he gives this film his best. 7/10Overall: This film didn't deserve him, but I'll take any opportunity to see Bela in one more film. I'm far too aware that there are far too few of them left. 8/23 This movie ... Yeah, it kind of creates its own category as a bad movie. I give it lots of extra points because of that scene where Bela explains "the science." It's the greatest bad scientific explanation in a bad horror movie that was ever filmed! Another reason I kind of like this is because, despite being bad, it definitely makes an effort to be bad in its own special way and so it's never boring. And I have a sort of weird admiration for Sammy Petrillo. He had a lot of guts! The Jerry Lewis schtick barely works even when Jerry Lewis does it. Imagine trying to do it when you're not Jerry Lewis! (I say this as a HUGE Jerry Lewis fan who is always waiting for the cringe-worthy moments that creep into all of Lewis's movies, even the acknowledged classics. It's part of the Jerry Lewis experience! (The one exception is The Bellboy, which is my favorite. I doubt I would even be a Jerry Lewis fan if I hadn't seen The Bellboy as a kid.)) I only saw Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla once, and it's been twenty years now! I keep meaning to watch it again … but I always hesitate at the last minute because IT'S PRETTY BAD! |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 6, 2020 14:36:32 GMT -5
It’s been a while since I saw Mother Riley Meets the Vampire. My friend who is also a big Lugosi fan had it on VHS and I asked if we could watch it. He was rather reluctant ... and I remember understanding why after a few minutes. I also remember looking at him with my mouth open and a look on my face that made him say “I have no idea what that means, I have rewound that dialogue a bunch of times.” But the details escape me. I'd say you captured the first ten minutes of the film quite well. It does get better. Fair enough. But did you watch the whole thing? There's no denying the very nature of the gig was a low point for Bela and that, if you expect dark, moody, and morbidly gorgeous Dracula-era Bela, this film conflicts badly with that, but if you love Bela for his personality and his B work, there really isn't anything a film like The Devil Bat had that this one does not. To be clear, I'm not espousing that Mother Riley is a GREAT film -- I'm arguing that it's as underrated as Dracula is overrated. Sounds like I've got some viewing homework! I saw the whole thing. It was a chore! My friend was saying "I tried to warn you!" But I would probably get it a lot better if I saw it again. I've seen a lot more British movies and British television since then. I will probably see it again eventually. Maybe on a double bill with Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla. I hope you find Ghost Train. I saw it five years ago, and I think if I had seen it 20 or 25 years ago, I would have thought it was awful. One of the characters is a music hall comedian. He's so obnoxious! I find him hilarious because I know a little bit about music hall comedy. But some of the other characters don't think he's funny at all! I saw it on YouTube. Maybe it's still there. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 6, 2020 14:39:58 GMT -5
Hey! It's still there!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 7, 2020 9:40:39 GMT -5
Bride of the Monster (1955) Definitely the least terrible of the Ed Wood Lugosi trilogy. The acting is bad, but not horrifically bad, the script almost kinda' sort of makes sense, and even when it doesn't, the film is mostly Bela scenes, so I can't complain too much. Once again, Wood gives Bela the screentime and freedom that no one else was offering him, and so the true Lugosi fan can still find worth in this lousy film. Plot (0-5 points): Good for an Ed Wood film; terrible for anyone else. I do give the film credit for giving Bela a true CHARACTER with true motivations, both obvious and subtle. I love how hyper-aware Dr. Vornoff is of his reputation to the extent that he needs to state his full name to everyone he meets, testing whether or not it rings a bell. As for the plot and the remainder of the characterizations and dialogue, yeck. 1/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): None of that brilliant lighting Wood used on Lugosi in Glen or Glenda. The sets are bare-bone, and the giant octopus and its matched stock footage are utterly laughable. At least the score is used well in places. -1/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Pretty bad. 0/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): For the past decade, Bela was mostly playing villains who were there to further the plot, not to have their own characterizations and depth. I LOVE that this film is more focused on Bela than on the "good guys" seeking to stop him. He is so over the top on this one. Whether it's the methodone, the thrill of having work once again, or likely a combination of the two, Bela is often hammy, but I love it. He is so thoroughly endearing in his over-acting. Is it the level of quality and control seen in films like White Zombie and The Murders in Rue Morgue? Of course not, but it's really and truly fun anyway. And, of course, we get that memorable speech that Wood clearly wrote more about Bela and the industry that had forgotten him than about Dr. Vornoff: Not Bela at his acting best, but he is having so much fun, and thus so are his fans. 8/10Overall: A truly terrible film, but not a terrible opportunity for enjoying Bela. 8/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 7, 2020 14:39:13 GMT -5
The Black Sleep (1956) It's tempting to see this film as a slight to Bela, casting such Hollywood horror legends as Basil Rathbone, Lon Chaney Jr., and John Carradine in one film and then giving Bela the part of the mute servant, but The Bela Lugosi Blog tells a different story, in which Bela, having just completed his narcotics treatment at the state hospital, was given the role as a mercy -- something to do in order to give him work and recognition even though he was still recovering from his ordeal and not really up to playing an active role. It's possible the role of the mute servant was even written to accommodate him, as it serves no real purpose in the film. The producers, cast, and crew even presented Bela with a leather-bound script book on the set of the production, containing his full list of screen credits.  If my theory is correct, that the reasons Bela could not get work had less to do with being black-listed or forgotten and more to do with his drug usage making him unusable to producers and directors, then this "welcome back" makes sense. Lugosi was still a household name by this point, regularly being invited to play himself on radio and TV. Surely, the film companies looking to compete with the new atom age giant monster films would love putting Karloff and Lugosi back in their classic roles, but Karloff wasn't interested in playing the monster anymore, and Bela was unreliable. Maybe that was Bela's real incentive to get clean, and maybe that explains the big welcome back. Too bad Bela would die within two months of this film's premiere. Plot (0-5 points): It's sort of The Body Snatcher, only with far less nuance and uni-dimensional characters. The "black sleep" is not a fascinating enough concept upon which to build an entire premise. 1/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Cool castle, and a few moments of excellent lighting, but generally speaking the film lacks the expressive tone of the classic horror films it's trying to channel 3/5Other Actors (0-3 points): This is, by far, the best role I've even seen John Carradine in as the crazed maniac who believes he is an ancient Hebrew king. Basil Rathbone seldom ever does much for me. I've never understood the appeal. And the hero of the film is every bit as dry and as one note as he is, making for some truly dull exchanges. Lon Chaney Jr. plays a convincing enough maniac. And Tor Johnson actually works out in this first legitimate acting role. I'd love to know the story of how he got hired for this thing! 1.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): It's hard to tell where the lines is between acting and reality on this one. Bela plays a frail, gentle-seeming, confused and pained servant who does not speak. Somehow, he's still adorable and empathetic in his scenes, but he also isn't given very much to do. 2/10Overall: What should have been the half-step before a major Lugosi comeback ended up being the final film to see release within his lifetime. 7.5/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 7, 2020 14:39:31 GMT -5
One film left. Should be pretty obvious what it is...
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on May 7, 2020 23:56:46 GMT -5
Watched Bride of the Monster by way of MST3K this January. I likely would never have desired to if I hadn't seen Ed Wood directly beforehand and had my curiosity piqued. Terrible, terrible film, but at least it got Lugosi working again.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 8, 2020 6:50:55 GMT -5
Watched Bride of the Monster by way of MST3K this January. I likely would never have desired to if I hadn't seen Ed Wood directly beforehand and had my curiosity piqued. Terrible, terrible film, but at least it got Lugosi working again. And yet it's probably Wood's highest quality film 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on May 8, 2020 16:05:23 GMT -5
I remember seeing Tor in The Lemon Drop Kid (a comedy with Bob Hope) and going WTH? Was that Tor Johnson? And indeed it was! He was seldom credited, but Tor was a bit player and an extra in bunches of Hollywood movies in the 1930s and 1940s.
Including one of my favorite W.C. Fields movies, The Man on the Flying Trapeze, wherein he plays one of the wrestlers.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
|
Post by shaxper on May 8, 2020 17:08:10 GMT -5
I remember seeing Tor in The Lemon Drop Kid (a comedy with Bob Hope) and going WTH? Was that Tor Johnson? And indeed it was! He was seldom credited, but Tor was a bit player and an extra in bunches of Hollywood movies in the 1930s and 1940s. Well I'll be darned. Just one more way in which the Ed Wood film lied to us. I recently bough the W.C. Fields boxed set and still need to make my way through it. My daughter and I are currently finishing up the Harold Lloyd collection. |
|
