shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 7, 2015 19:33:08 GMT -5
I agree that the film isn't memorable overall, but it's one of Bela Lugosi's finest performances, and I love Bela Lugosi.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 7, 2015 19:46:31 GMT -5
I agree that the film isn't memorable overall, but it's one of Bela Lugosi's finest performances, and I love Bela Lugosi. I love Bela as well, and any time he was on screen during Morgue it was good...but the rest? Not so much. I loved his speech at the beginning. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 7, 2015 20:01:39 GMT -5
I agree that the film isn't memorable overall, but it's one of Bela Lugosi's finest performances, and I love Bela Lugosi. I love Bela as well, and any time he was on screen during Morgue it was good...but the rest? Not so much. I loved his speech at the beginning. I think what I loved most was how seriously he played his conversations with "Eric," as if the ape were saner than any human alive. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 7, 2015 20:16:35 GMT -5
I love Bela as well, and any time he was on screen during Morgue it was good...but the rest? Not so much. I loved his speech at the beginning. I think what I loved most was how seriously he played his conversations with "Eric," as if the ape were saner than any human alive. Yeah, when he said he was going to translate for Eric I was prepared for something really hammy but he played it totally straight in a way I didn't think was possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 7, 2015 20:35:57 GMT -5
Shax wrote: "I guess people remember this film because of Chaney's makeup and because its lost. Maybe there's a reason no one bothered to save this one." I remember reading, and more knowledgeable fans than I may correct me, but that to achieve that skull-like look to his eyes, Chaney inserted some kind of wire hook above and below each of his eyes to widen them. Must have been very painful. I've read(In I think "A Man with a Thousand Faces") that it was a kind of glass-less monocle that he wore in each eye to get that skull kind of look, but yeah either way it must have been damn uncomfortable. As for my view on London After Midnight I have to agree with Shax in that I find it confusing that they didn't just make it an actual vampire. I've read that their reasoning was that they didn't think people would take that seriously, which seems odd to me. I will say however that even though we don't get the whole feel of the movie due to the last print having been destroyed by the 1967 MGM fire I still like it better than Mark of the Vampire as I love Chaney's creature effects and the idea of the detective doubling as the vampire is more interesting to me than hiring two people to be vampires as they did in Mark of the Vampire. That sounds like a better description of the devices. BTW, your mention of Chaney's book reminds me that anyone reading this thread should watch Cagney as Chaney in the film of the same name. often about as accurate as other film bios, but Cagney is excellent -- I love the scenes between Chaney and his deaf parents signing to each other and Cagney rapidly making himself up as a Malay Lascar -- and the scenes recreating early Hollywood and the re-creations of famous Chaney scenes are fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 7, 2015 22:13:15 GMT -5
I've read(In I think "A Man with a Thousand Faces") that it was a kind of glass-less monocle that he wore in each eye to get that skull kind of look, but yeah either way it must have been damn uncomfortable. As for my view on London After Midnight I have to agree with Shax in that I find it confusing that they didn't just make it an actual vampire. I've read that their reasoning was that they didn't think people would take that seriously, which seems odd to me. I will say however that even though we don't get the whole feel of the movie due to the last print having been destroyed by the 1967 MGM fire I still like it better than Mark of the Vampire as I love Chaney's creature effects and the idea of the detective doubling as the vampire is more interesting to me than hiring two people to be vampires as they did in Mark of the Vampire. That sounds like a better description of the devices. BTW, your mention of Chaney's book reminds me that anyone reading this thread should watch Cagney as Chaney in the film of the same name. often about as accurate as other film bios, but Cagney is excellent -- I love the scenes between Chaney and his deaf parents signing to each other and Cagney rapidly making himself up as a Malay Lascar -- and the scenes recreating early Hollywood and the re-creations of famous Chaney scenes are fascinating. I've yet to see the film, and I think that should change in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 8, 2015 11:45:08 GMT -5
The Phantom of the Opera (1925) I'm a huge fan of this movie as it's the film that got me into both silent movies and Lon Chaney. When he comes out dressed as Poe's Red Death at the masquerade and the film briefly switches to color is one of the coolest things I've ever seen in a movie. London After Midnight (TCM restored cut, 1927) I thought the 2002 restoration was actually quite good despite it being made of still photographs from the lost film. I recommend checking it out solely for the special effects makeup that Lon Chaney wears and created. It's one of his best and most gruesome. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 8, 2015 13:51:17 GMT -5
The Phantom of the Opera (1925) I'm a huge fan of this movie as it's the film that got me into both silent movies and Lon Chaney. When he comes out dressed as Poe's Red Death at the masquerade and the film briefly switches to color is one of the coolest things I've ever seen in a movie. London After Midnight (TCM restored cut, 1927) I thought the 2002 restoration was actually quite good despite it being made of still photographs from the lost film. I recommend checking it out solely for the special effects makeup that Lon Chaney wears and created. It's one of his best and most gruesome. I haven't seen London After Midnight, but I'm curious how the restoration from still photos worked. Do they just have the still photo on the screen then cut to the text boxes with the silent movie dialogue and description of the action? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 9, 2015 6:52:31 GMT -5
I'm a huge fan of this movie as it's the film that got me into both silent movies and Lon Chaney. When he comes out dressed as Poe's Red Death at the masquerade and the film briefly switches to color is one of the coolest things I've ever seen in a movie. I thought the 2002 restoration was actually quite good despite it being made of still photographs from the lost film. I recommend checking it out solely for the special effects makeup that Lon Chaney wears and created. It's one of his best and most gruesome. I haven't seen London After Midnight, but I'm curious how the restoration from still photos worked. Do they just have the still photo on the screen then cut to the text boxes with the silent movie dialogue and description of the action? pretty much, though they occasionally zoom in on photos giving the illusion of motion. Another thing on Rue Morgue I read last night; the film was a compensatory project to make up for Frankenstein where Bella was originally cast as Doctor Frankenstein. When directors changed he was shuffled to the role of the monster but he balked at being mute and so was given Murder in the Rue Morgue. Man, I had heard about being tapped to be the monster, but never the good doctor, can you imagine what that would have been like? Universal really missed the boat there. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 9, 2015 7:48:53 GMT -5
I haven't seen London After Midnight, but I'm curious how the restoration from still photos worked. Do they just have the still photo on the screen then cut to the text boxes with the silent movie dialogue and description of the action? pretty much, though they occasionally zoom in on photos giving the illusion of motion. Influenced, no doubt, by the classic style of the Grantray-Lawrence studios... |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 9, 2015 7:58:10 GMT -5
pretty much, though they occasionally zoom in on photos giving the illusion of motion. Influenced, no doubt, by the classic style of the Grantray-Lawrence studios... Ha,it definitely has that Max the 2,000 year old mouse feel to it now that you mention it. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Jul 9, 2015 14:37:49 GMT -5
FWIW, I know a lot of hardcore "Universal horror" fans who revere the A & C movie. I also think it's the best A & C flick, too. Obviously you're correct. How could you not love a movie with Frankenstein, Dracula, & the Wolfman, with 2 out of the three portrayed by the genuine iconic actor (Bela Lugosi & Lon Chaney Jr.). Plus a surprise bonus at the end. I think I've mentioned this before, but when my wife and I got our first VCR back in the mid-80s, the first tape we rented to put in it was this one. In addition, the story is probably the tightest A & C ever did-- aside from a few of the comedians' verbal routines, every element in the story needs to be there for the whole thing to come together. The direction is fluid, the score, exciting and quirky at once, is exemplary, and Glenn Strange's Monster-- who barely gets to move off the surgical table in the previous two "monster mash" flicks-- gets to stalk around, tear up furniture, and even kills someone (just one of the lesser villains, though). |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 9, 2015 14:51:34 GMT -5
Obviously you're correct. How could you not love a movie with Frankenstein, Dracula, & the Wolfman, with 2 out of the three portrayed by the genuine iconic actor (Bela Lugosi & Lon Chaney Jr.). Plus a surprise bonus at the end. I think I've mentioned this before, but when my wife and I got our first VCR back in the mid-80s, the first tape we rented to put in it was this one. In addition, the story is probably the tightest A & C ever did-- aside from a few of the comedians' verbal routines, every element in the story needs to be there for the whole thing to come together. The direction is fluid, the score, exciting and quirky at once, is exemplary, and Glenn Strange's Monster-- who barely gets to move off the surgical table in the previous two "monster mash" flicks-- gets to stalk around, tear up furniture, and even kills someone (just one of the lesser villains, though). Plus the villain he killed really had it coming. And it gives me the chance to use the word "defenestration". |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 12, 2015 14:38:30 GMT -5
I watched Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein back to back and all I can say is, "We belong dead!"
Seriously, that has to be one of the best final lines from any character.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 13, 2015 20:32:26 GMT -5
Young Frankenstein  Okay so this one is a bit of a stretch as it's not by Universal or filmed during the right period ... and it's a comedy instead of a horror film. But despite being a parody of the Universal Frankenstein film it perfectly captured the tone and look of the films(in fact it used many of the original sets and props). Further although going for laughs there's no doubt in my mind that Gene Wilder would have been fantastic if he had chosen to play it straight. |
|
