|
|
Post by commond on Oct 4, 2024 7:18:47 GMT -5
Venus in Furs is my favorite Franco film, but I don't really watch Franco for great works of cinema. Franco is great for trashy films like Vampyros Lesbos. The trashier the better. His early works like The Awful Dr. Orlof and The Diabolical Dr. Z are straight forward horror films. I have plans of my own to watch some Franco this month.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Oct 4, 2024 7:26:33 GMT -5
I watched the 1957 giant monster film The Giant Claw. This one's reputation is defined by the laughably ridiculous looking threat, a giant bird puppet...
...but it was surprisingly well done! The technical dialogue about radar testing and air traffic sounded authentic enough to be convincing, and there were several little things that impressed me. For example, a trio escapes from a plane crash and huddles on the ground in anticipation of an explosion. Seen it a hundred times, but I don't usually see the debris actually raining down around the evacuees, they usually just depart after the off-screen explosion. The military officer in charge threatens the hero for reporting a UFO. Seen it a hundred times, but I was surprised to find the officer's over-reaction justified: the presumed false alarm caused a scramble of interceptors, one of which didn't return. Yeah, I could see an officer getting angry at a likely casualty.
Sets are convincing, acting is respectable. Yeah, the bird is absurd, but this deserves to be appreciated as more than an object of ridicule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 4, 2024 14:55:13 GMT -5
The Invisible Man (1933).
This was always a favorite. I remember first watching this on the late show when I was probably in late grade school.
Random thoughts...
Kemp is a weenus.
I know that James Whale thought that Una O'Connor was terribly funny. She mostly annoys me.
The special effects are honestly still pretty darn effective.
The train having a switch that will send it over an embankment is beyond silly.
Legend has it that Claude Rains was ready to retire before he got this picture. He was apparently doing mostly theater work and not making much money and was thinking of buying a farm in New Jersey. I'm very glad he didn't retire.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 4, 2024 17:02:19 GMT -5
A Lizard in a Woman's Skin (Lucio Fulci, 1971)
Considered by many to be Fulci's finest film, this was less of a horror film and more of a psychological thriller about a woman who is coerced into believing she committed a murder she witnessed in a dream. The first act is a trippy fever dream. The rest of the film is more of a traditional whodunit. Some clever twists along the way, but didn't srike me as Fulci's best unless you're particularly captivated by the first act.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 4, 2024 22:48:31 GMT -5
Tonight's entry is Vampira, aka Old Dracula, starring David Niven and Teresa Graves. The American title was an attempt to piggyback on the success of young Frankenstein. It didn't work. This is light fare, with rather tired one liners and just plaind bad jokes, from Jeremy Lloyd, co-creator of Are You Being Served? and Allo, Allo, as well as a cast member on Laugh-In. Graves was a cast mate and we get several familiar faces, from Brotosh tv, film and series, like Bernard Bresslaw, of the Carry On series (as well as The 5th Musketeer and Krull), Monty Python's Carol Cleveland (who gets roughed up by a mugger and rescued by Count Dracula), Nicky Henson (Fawlty Towers, "The Psychiatrist") and Jennie Lindin (Barbara, in the film Doctor Who and the Daleks). Dracula (David Niven) has opened his castle up to tours, both for the cash (a common theme, in the UK, in the 70s) and for a steady supply of blood. A group from Playboy comes there, for a photo shoot and one of them has the perfect blood type to revive Vampira, the Count's love, who has been in stasis, since the 1920s. However, a mix-up of vials prevents them for identifying the distinct donor and the combination of the others, including an African-American model, leads Vampira to take on other ethnic characteristics, like skin color. Dracula, Vampira, and his servant Maltravers travel to London to find the right girl and get a transfusion, to fully restore Vampira. Henson is Marc Williams, a writer involved with the shoot, who learns of Dracula and is put under his control, to find the right girl. Linden is a chaperone and support Girl Friday, who gets caught in the middle.
It's mildly amusing, at times, mildly offensive, at times, but too ridiculous to be mean-spirited. Niven ends up doing blackface, which is an unfortunate choice, for him, and the most offensive part, though you could make the case for the plot convenience that blood would carry the ethnic traits, when such a transfusion would not. Guess Jeremy Lloyd missed that episode of MASH. Quite frankly, there has always been a casual streak of racism in his work, if you have watched 'Allo, Allo or Are You Being Served? (though David Croft isn't above it either). Like I say, it lacks enough substance to really revile and is more in the vein of shaking one's head at ignorance.
This was made in an era of sex comedies and wishes to be that, but isn't sexy or subversive enough, nor does it try to be Blaxploitation, real horror or even rise to occasionally funny. What makes it watchable is the cast, who give their all to weak material, even if David Niven can't seem to deliver the punchlines (they are weak).
I can't really condemn the film and it isn't amateurish, just full of itself and derivative of better ideas. It's not daring enough to be edgy or subversive and Dracula AD 1972 does vampires, in the 70s, better. It's diverting enough, for a rainy afternoon, with nothing better on.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 5, 2024 2:03:58 GMT -5
I saw Body Double October 1st because it was playing at a local theatre but on second thought probably I shouldn't have included it in the Hallowe'en thread as it doesn't really feel like a Hallowe'en movie to me: in spite of the presence of some horror elements, the overall atmosphere is more thriller-like. So last night I watched my first true Hallowe'en movie of the month: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the 1920 silent version with John Barrymore. A famous film but one I had not seen in its entirety until now. I really liked this: the sets looked great, very atmospheric, and Barrymore delivered an excellent performance both as Jekyll and as Hyde. I like John Barrymore a lot and have seen several of his 30s movies the last year or two but this is also the first time I've watched any of his silent movie performances. As Jekyll he mostly just has to look noble and handsome and it was amusing to see how the director made sure to get in a few shots of the famous profile in some of the early scenes. But as Hyde of course he has much more to do and he's convincingly evil and menacing and also quite energetic physically, especially in the first transformation scene.
One disappointment, not in the movie itself but in the version I found online, was the soundtrack: it wasn't named in the description but it sounded like some Bach-style organ pieces in the first half or so and then an organ concerto (organ plus orchestra) in the second half. I didn't recognise either but they both sounded good to my ears and I'd listen to them again if I could find out what they were exactly. The problem is, it seems to me they were just slapped onto the movie without any regard to what was happening onscreen. For example, there were dance-hall settings and convivial drawing-room scenes where'd they''d be playing this solemn church-style organ music - which would have been totally appropriate for some scenes but not these. And towards the end, when the drama was reaching its climax, the music just happened to be in the middle of a jaunty, cheerful section that was completely wrong for that moment. Anyway, excuse the digression. The movie itself was fine and I'm glad I finally got around to seeing it. I might try one or two other versions Jekyll and Hyde if I can fit them in this month, possibly including the early-70s tv-movie with Jack Palance that I remember liking as a kid but have not seen since then. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 5, 2024 11:55:36 GMT -5
Playing catch up here:
I started out on October first with Time Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. I know, I know, ostensibly this is a Christmas movie as it explores the meaning of Christmas and the feeling those who celebrate it get in their hearts...but it's told by a bunch of monsters so it totally counts. Not only that but it's a favorite of mine specifically because it gives me what I always wanted from the old Universal House of... movies: all my favorite monsters together on the same screen and in a way that makes sense. Sure, it's not Dracula and we only get a stand in for the Bride of Frankenstein in Sally, but its close enough and it looks amazing.
In that same ballpark I went with 2004's Van Helsing, it doesn't link up with the classics exactly how I'd like( Jackman's Van Helsing simply isn't the same character Edward Van Sloan played in 1931 or the character from the novel) but the depictions of Dracula, the Wolfman, Frankenstein's Monster and Mr. Hyde are just too awesome to miss. The subplot with Van Helsing and Dracula being related definitely brings it down a peg but the depictions of the Frankenstein Monster definitely saves it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 5, 2024 13:18:58 GMT -5
For today's viewing I went with the new adaptation of King's 'Salem's Lot. This one was stuck in post production hell for the last two years, so long that I had completely forgotten that it even existed until I happened to switch on HBO Max today to look for something to watch while I did the laundry and saw it at the top of the home page. Unlike the newer adaptation of IT I don't think this one ever really transcended the original miniseries. The vampire effects were good but the vampires themselves lacked that ephemeral feeling of the original( especially Danny). I think the only real plus was the way the crosses glowed and how the vampires looked like they were being blown away by typhoon winds when the vampires see the crosses as it made for a really unique visual look.
After watching this version I had to stop and think, despite loving horror films and fiction I haven't actually read a lot of vampire novels. I've read Dracula of course, and Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla, King's Salem's lot, Kim Newman's first Ano Dracula and Del Toro's Strain Trilogy...and I think that's it. For such a huge part of the monster genre it feels weird to realize just how little I've read especially considering how many vampire films I've seen
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 5, 2024 16:40:53 GMT -5
The Curse of Frankenstein (Terence Fisher, 1957)
Felt like a change of pace from giallo films, so I opted for a Hammer film. I can count on one hand the number of Hammer films I've seen. I've always preferred the Universal Studios films to the Hammer films when it comes to monster pictures, but now's the time to give them another shot. As many of you will already know, this film focuses more on the madness and ambition of Frankenstein than the monster itself. It takes a long time for he monster to appear, and even longer for any horror to occur. It's a testament to Peter Cushing's talent that he's able to carry the film for so long without any serious action. His performance arguably raises the film above the quality of its script. The monster's costume design is fascinating. Lee looks nothing like the Karloff monster. Lee was tall, but his Frankenstein didn't come across as physically intimidating. Instead, he has this lanky awkwardness to him as though he's struggling to get his body parts to co-operate with each other. I don't know how you'd describe his look, but it struck me as timeless. You could give the monster a similar look today and it would resonant with audiences. The second half of the film is entertaining enough to make up for the long preamble, and Cushing and Lee are worth the price of admission (Robert Urquhart got on my nerves a bit, mostly due to his one-note character motivation -- though one suspects his feelings for Elizabeth ran deeper than the film depicted.)
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Oct 5, 2024 17:07:53 GMT -5
The Curse of Frankenstein (Terence Fisher, 1957)
Felt like a change of pace from giallo films, so I opted for a Hammer film. I can count on one hand the number of Hammer films I've seen. I've always preferred the Universal Studios films to the Hammer films when it comes to monster pictures, but now's the time to give them another shot. As many of you will already know, this film focuses more on the madness and ambition of Frankenstein than the monster itself. It takes a long time for he monster to appear, and even longer for any horror to occur. It's a testament to Peter Cushing's talent that he's able to carry the film for so long without any serious action. His performance arguably raises the film above the quality of its script. The monster's costume design is fascinating. Lee looks nothing like the Karloff monster. Lee was tall, but his Frankenstein didn't come across as physically intimidating. Instead, he has this lanky awkwardness to him as though he's struggling to get his body parts to co-operate with each other. I don't know how you'd describe his look, but it struck me as timeless. You could give the monster a similar look today and it would resonant with audiences. The second half of the film is entertaining enough to make up for the long preamble, and Cushing and Lee are worth the price of admission (Robert Urquhart got on my nerves a bit, mostly due to his one-note character motivation -- though one suspects his feelings for Elizabeth ran deeper than the film depicted.) I prefer Universal’s interpretation of Frankenstein, but this one is enjoyable. I’m sure you’ve seen Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, that’s my favourite of this particular series. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 5, 2024 17:09:05 GMT -5
I forgot about Van Helsing, another one I missed when it came out. I might try to get that one in if I find time for any newer movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Oct 5, 2024 17:09:27 GMT -5
For today's viewing I went with the new adaptation of King's 'Salem's Lot. This one was stuck in post production hell for the last two years, so long that I had completely forgotten that it even existed until I happened to switch on HBO Max today to look for something to watch while I did the laundry and saw it at the top of the home page. Unlike the newer adaptation of IT I don't think this one ever really transcended the original miniseries. The vampire effects were good but the vampires themselves lacked that ephemeral feeling of the original( especially Danny). I think the only real plus was the way the crosses glowed and how the vampires looked like they were being blown away by typhoon winds when the vampires see the crosses as it made for a really unique visual look. After watching this version I had to stop and think, despite loving horror films and fiction I haven't actually read a lot of vampire novels. I've read Dracula of course, and Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla, King's Salem's lot, Kim Newman's first Ano Dracula and Del Toro's Strain Trilogy...and I think that's it. For such a huge part of the monster genre it feels weird to realize just how little I've read especially considering how many vampire films I've seen I did like this book:  |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 5, 2024 20:28:56 GMT -5
The Invisible Man (1933). This was always a favorite. I remember first watching this on the late show when I was probably in late grade school. Random thoughts... Kemp is a weenus. I know that James Whale thought that Una O'Connor was terribly funny. She mostly annoys me. The special effects are honestly still pretty darn effective. The train having a switch that will send it over an embankment is beyond silly. Legend has it that Claude Rains was ready to retire before he got this picture. He was apparently doing mostly theater work and not making much money and was thinking of buying a farm in New Jersey. I'm very glad he didn't retire. This is playing at the local cinema here in a couple weeks so I'm hoping to see it then. I've watched a lot of the classic Universal and other Hollywood horror over the last couple of years but this is one I haven't seen for many years so looking forward to it. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 5, 2024 20:33:08 GMT -5
For today's viewing I went with the new adaptation of King's 'Salem's Lot. This one was stuck in post production hell for the last two years, so long that I had completely forgotten that it even existed until I happened to switch on HBO Max today to look for something to watch while I did the laundry and saw it at the top of the home page. Unlike the newer adaptation of IT I don't think this one ever really transcended the original miniseries. The vampire effects were good but the vampires themselves lacked that ephemeral feeling of the original( especially Danny). I think the only real plus was the way the crosses glowed and how the vampires looked like they were being blown away by typhoon winds when the vampires see the crosses as it made for a really unique visual look. After watching this version I had to stop and think, despite loving horror films and fiction I haven't actually read a lot of vampire novels. I've read Dracula of course, and Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla, King's Salem's lot, Kim Newman's first Ano Dracula and Del Toro's Strain Trilogy...and I think that's it. For such a huge part of the monster genre it feels weird to realize just how little I've read especially considering how many vampire films I've seen I did like this book: [The Rivals of Dracula] That looks like a good one, might have to look for it myself. I have a couple other vampire anthologies that try to give an overview of the kind of thing that came before and after Dracula that seem to be pretty good so far: Dracula's Guest, Dracula's Brood, and Dracula's Guest. The last two are a pair from the same editor; there's some overlap between the stories in those two and those in Dracula's Guest. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 5, 2024 22:18:15 GMT -5
And today we had The Wolf Man (1941).
It’s been so long since I’ve seen this one. Honestly it’s probably between this one and Frankenstein for my favorite straight Universal monster movie. Chaney is great, as is Rains (probably a tad young to be Chaney’s father though). I can definitely see how this could have been done as set out in Curt Siodmak’s original screenplay, with it being ambiguous whether the transformation was real or just in Talbots’s mind.
Just a great monster movie.
|
|
