|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jul 14, 2015 8:15:57 GMT -5
Young Frankenstein is always welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 14:42:46 GMT -5
Watched the Original King Kong today on TCM after taking a short nap after workout. Seen it about 12-15 times in my life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 14, 2015 16:32:55 GMT -5
Watched the Original King Kong today on TCM after taking a short nap after workout. Seen it about 12-15 times in my life. The winnah and still the champeen. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 14, 2015 17:50:04 GMT -5
Watched the Original King Kong today on TCM after taking a short nap after workout. Seen it about 12-15 times in my life. One of my Top 5 favorite movies of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 14, 2015 22:40:26 GMT -5
Watched the Original King Kong today on TCM after taking a short nap after workout. Seen it about 12-15 times in my life. One of the greatest movies of all time! I saw it for the first time when I was about five years old (in the late 1960s) when Channel 4 would show it every Thanksgiving. I bet I saw it ten times before I was 20, and I must have seen it 10 or 15 times since then.
My number three movie! (Number one is Casablanca. Number two is Dracula (1931).)
I didn't catch King Kong on TCM today but I did turn on the TV while Son of Kong was playing and I watched it for a few minutes. But I turned it off after just one scene because I realized it was near the end and I just couldn't take it! The end is so sad.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 14, 2015 23:53:27 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. I think any homage is fair game, and really, even though it was clearly a parody of Son of Frankenstein, the original, Bride, and Young Frankenstein make up an almost holy trinity in our household. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 15, 2015 10:37:40 GMT -5
Watched the Original King Kong today on TCM after taking a short nap after workout. Seen it about 12-15 times in my life. One of the greatest movies of all time! I saw it for the first time when I was about five years old (in the late 1960s) when Channel 4 would show it every Thanksgiving. I bet I saw it ten times before I was 20, and I must have seen it 10 or 15 times since then.
My number three movie! (Number one is Casablanca. Number two is Dracula (1931).)
I didn't catch King Kong on TCM today but I did turn on the TV while Son of Kong was playing and I watched it for a few minutes. But I turned it off after just one scene because I realized it was near the end and I just couldn't take it! The end is so sad.
It is sad, poor baby kong. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 23, 2015 10:38:58 GMT -5
Dracula (1931)
Though I've seen this film at least a half dozen times (love the first 30 minutes; get very bored after), I tried to approach it this time as a theater-goer of 1931, seeking to understand just what made this film so powerful at the time. Granted, the gothic style is brilliant, and Browning, Lugosi, and Frye all bring their best to the film, but it isn't scary to me -- at all.
But to an audience of 1931...?
American film studios of the time seemed far more protective of their theater-going audiences than their international peers. While brilliant horror had been coming out of Germany for nearly two decades by this point, America hadn't made a legitimately scary film about the supernatural since the 1910 version of Frankenstein. In all films that followed, the horror was either caused by a regular criminal/murderer who performed his misdeeds off camera and got caught in the end, or by a scarcely seen supernatural force that was exposed as a hoax by the end. Universal had broken new ground by making films about true monsters (Hunchback, Phantom, Man Who Laughs), but these were all beings with normal hearts and minds, just a deformed exterior.
Dracula was the FIRST American film since 1910 to depict an actual malicious supernatural entity.
Beyond that, though, the film (and the play it was based upon) did so much more to amp up the tension in the film.
For one thing, whereas most previous American horror films would feature protagonists who were alarmed and afraid (thus the dramatic irony that the supernatural force would prove to be a ruse), Dracula begins with a protagonist who is decidedly unafraid, despite numerous warnings about Dracula in the first minutes of the film, believing it all to be a hoax (thus the more disturbing dramatic irony of "W...wait a second; so we're going to find out this ISN'T a hoax this time?").
For another, the protagonist is killed in the first ten minutes of the film! In the book, Renfield is just a resident in the insane asylum who answers Dracula's call later in the story, but the film version positions him in the role Harker had in the novel just so that we can be surprised in this way. Holy crud! People actually die in this thing, and if the guy we thought was the protagonist got it, then nothing is sacred. All bets are off.
For a third, Renfield doesn't actually die, instead transformed into some twisted being that we continue to watch for the rest of the film -- a constant reminder that all bets are off.
And finally there's the fact that Dracula is presented as a good looking man about town, We get that scene immediately after he arrives in London where he's just freely walking about on a crowded street. How terrifying this must have seemed at the time. When you leave the theater tonight, he could be the guy walking next to you.
This film still doesn't scare me and, no matter what lens I view it through, it likely never will, but I found all of this fascinating to consider today.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 23, 2015 14:12:30 GMT -5
Dracula (1931)Though I've seen this film at least a half dozen times (love the first 30 minutes; get very bored after), I tried to approach it this time as a theater-goer of 1931, seeking to understand just what made this film so powerful at the time. Granted, the gothic style is brilliant, and Browning, Lugosi, and Frye all bring their best to the film, but it isn't scary to me -- at all. But to an audience of 1931...? American film studios of the time seemed far more protective of their theater-going audiences than their international peers. While brilliant horror had been coming out of Germany for nearly two decades by this point, America hadn't made a legitimately scary film about the supernatural since the 1910 version of Frankenstein. In all films that followed, the horror was either caused by a regular criminal/murderer who performed his misdeeds off camera and got caught in the end, or by a scarcely seen supernatural force that was exposed as a hoax by the end. Universal had broken new ground by making films about true monsters (Hunchback, Phantom, Man Who Laughs), but these were all beings with normal hearts and minds, just a deformed exterior. Dracula was the FIRST American film since 1910 to depict an actual malicious supernatural entity. Beyond that, though, the film (and the play it was based upon) did so much more to amp up the tension in the film. For one thing, whereas most previous American horror films would feature protagonists who were alarmed and afraid (thus the dramatic irony that the supernatural force would prove to be a ruse), Dracula begins with a protagonist who is decidedly unafraid, despite numerous warnings about Dracula in the first minutes of the film, believing it all to be a hoax (thus the more disturbing dramatic irony of "W...wait a second; so we're going to find out this ISN'T a hoax this time?"). For another, the protagonist is killed in the first ten minutes of the film! In the book, Renfield is just a resident in the insane asylum who answers Dracula's call later in the story, but the film version positions him in the role Harker had in the novel just so that we can be surprised in this way. Holy crud! People actually die in this thing, and if the guy we thought was the protagonist got it, then nothing is sacred. All bets are off. For a third, Renfield doesn't actually die, instead transformed into some twisted being that we continue to watch for the rest of the film -- a constant reminder that all bets are off. And finally there's the fact that Dracula is presented as a good looking man about town, We get that scene immediately after he arrives in London where he's just freely walking about on a crowded street. How terrifying this must have seemed at the time. When you leave the theater tonight, he could be the guy walking next to you. This film still doesn't scare me and, no matter what lens I view it through, it likely never will, but I found all of this fascinating to consider today. Very true, there's nothing to terrify us (as modern viewers) in Dracula, but then again there isn't much to terrify us in the novel either. Dracula(both the novel and the film) is more about atmosphere and mood than frights, it's a dark romance rather than a true horror. It's not the fastest paced film around but the fantasy it brings to life is wonderful. For my own viewing I picked up the Son of Frankenstein this morning, and while the sets were every bit as glorious as the two previous Frankenstein films and the characters were just as well done but the regression of the monster from where we saw him at the end of the Bride of Frankenstein was very disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 23, 2015 14:57:58 GMT -5
This is one of my favorites. I bet I've seen it at least 30 times over the years, probably more! When I bought it on VHS in the 1990s, I watched it nine times in the next ten days.
It doesn't scare me a bit, but I do find it very creepy. Like that scene where Mina (the lovely Helen Chandler) is talking to the bat, and then lying to Harker (David Manners) and acting as if she never said a thing.
Also, the scene where Renfield is describing his dream - Rats! Thousands of them, with red eyes like his, only smaller. Each one a life! All these I would have, and more, if I would obey him!
What did he want you to do?
That which has already been done.
Also, Martin the asylum worker reading about what happened to Lucy out of the newspaper. His accent makes it a very effective mixture of comedy and horror.
And what about Lucy reciting that creepy poem in the opera box? That always gives me the shivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 15:22:13 GMT -5
Dracula (1931)
It's has a little bit of everything, for most of you here probably doesn't scare you, but to me it's creepy, it's has a noir feel, haunting, dark, and eerie. It's has a hypontic appeal that's attracts your attention, and most of all it's has a charm of it's own. When Hoosier X mentioned Lucy's reciting the poem always sends shivers down my spine and that's one of the many reasons why it's a classic. Bela Lugosi made Dracula a presence to allow the viewers to know that's he's evil and that alone makes it great movie to watch.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 23, 2015 16:10:53 GMT -5
For my own viewing I picked up the Son of Frankenstein this morning, and while the sets were every bit as glorious as the two previous Frankenstein films and the characters were just as well done but the regression of the monster from where we saw him at the end of the Bride of Frankenstein was very disappointing. I strongly suggest not continuing with the series. It gets much much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 23, 2015 16:34:00 GMT -5
I've seen a few(and I agree about the quality), but had missed this one. If Bride had never been made Son of Frankenstein would have been a pretty decent, if slightly unimaginative, sequel but after the wonder of Bride it just feels terribly hollow.
However, 1973's Frankenstein: The True story was pretty fun. At three hours it was a little overly long, but then again it was originally meant to be viewed as a two part "mini-series". Like the Hammer Frankenstein films the monster here starts out as perfect and only begins to slowly decay over time, which was a novel concept for the hammer films but with the longer running time here makes for a much more gradual and poignant transformation that gives the monster even more sympathy than he usually has. On top of that it has a fantastic cast with Leonard Whiting (from the amazing 1968 Romeo and Juliet) as Frankenstein, Michael Sarrazin("They Shoot Horses, Don't They?") as the Monster, Jane Seymour(who needs no introduction) as Prima (the "bride"), James Mason as Doctor Polidori ( a play on Dr. Pretorius from Bride of Frankenstein and John Polidori a friend of Mary Shelley who famously wrote the Vampyre) and...Tom Baker (of Doctor Who fame) in a bit role as the sea captain.
I think my favorite part however was the creation scene of Prima, the chemical birth devised by Doctor Polidori was beautifully filmed, invoking a sense of awe and eeriness.
This will never replace the James Whale original but it's a great film none the less.
And I know, not from the classical Universal Horror period, but it was produced by Universal and its success lead to 1979's Dracula...which I may rewatch in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 24, 2015 17:40:18 GMT -5
Dracula's Daughter(1936) After all, who could say no to a visage like this?  Seriously, Gloria Holden is absolutely stunning in this movie, with her high cheek bones and big, dark eyes she arrests your attention every time she takes the screen. And although she projects a more tragic aura rather than a horrific one Irving Pichel easily makes up for it as Sandor, the Russian servant. With his deep voice and dark Russian garb is a seriously foreboding presence. Heck even Edward van Sloan, who is the only returning cast member as Van Helsing) seems to take things up a notch with his performance, where as his lines seemed stilted and mechanical in Dracula he seems much more natural here. Like Dracula before it there are no real scares here, though there is a fantastic mood that pervades every scene and more than a few creepy encounters to make it a horror movie in my book. Unlike the previous sequel "The Bride of Frankenstein" which managed to surpass its predecessor "Dracula's Daughter" doesn't truly improve on Dracula but it is just as good in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 18:54:16 GMT -5
Dracula's Daughter(1936) After all, who could say no to a visage like this? Seriously, Gloria Holden is absolutely stunning in this movie, with her high cheek bones and big, dark eyes she arrests your attention every time she takes the screen. And although she projects a more tragic aura rather than a horrific one Irving Pichel easily makes up for it as Sandor, the Russian servant. With his deep voice and dark Russian garb is a seriously foreboding presence. Heck even Edward van Sloan, who is the only returning cast member as Van Helsing) seems to take things up a notch with his performance, where as his lines seemed stilted and mechanical in Dracula he seems much more natural here. Like Dracula before it there are no real scares here, though there is a fantastic mood that pervades every scene and more than a few creepy encounters to make it a horror movie in my book. Unlike the previous sequel "The Bride of Frankenstein" which managed to surpass its predecessor "Dracula's Daughter" doesn't truly improve on Dracula but it is just as good in my mind. That's one movie that I want to see - was it on TV today? |
|
