I was very pleased to find a used copy of this. It was Halloween afternoon and I was browsing a couple stores since I had some time to myself that day. The DVD case was beat all to hell, but I took my chances and I rushed home, made some lunch and started the movie. Thankfully, the disc played just fine.
I saw this movie once around 1990. I thought it was a bit slow but ok overall. That was when I was twelve years old though. This was the height of the Freddy Kruger craze, so it didn't matter to me if the movie was good or not at the time. There was nothing in this movie that was going to make the twelve year old me not wish that I was watching a Nightmare On Elm Street movie. I just wasn't going to be satisfied seeing Robert Englund in anything else. Still, I plodded through the movie and almost immediately erased it from memory.
So here I am, twenty five years later and I can't wait to give this movie another chance. A proper chance. I can't count how many movies I didn't care for as a kid that I absolutely love now. I suspect that Englund's Phantom will hold up better this time around. It does, and then some.
I knew that casting Robert Englund in this movie was an attempt to cash in on the Freddy Kruger following at the time. I felt that way then, and I still feel that way. Hey, at the very least, it worked on me back in the day. Englund's Phantom is nothing to scoff at either. He gives oa great performance here. You don't sympathize with this Phantom. He's a selfish killer that sold his soul to the devil long ago. He's been given unnatural strength and a quickness that isn't quite explained. Remember in old Friday the 13th movies, where no matter how fast those teenagers run, Jason could walk and still catch them? Yeah, it's more impressive than that even. I think giving this movie more of a supernatural feel than any of the other existing Phantom movies helps set it apart from the others. I'm sure the decision to go that route was based solely on the time this picture was made though. The mid-80's to early 90's were all about the supernatural slasher flicks, and this Phantom movie blends right in. Bill Nighy of Underworld fame also makes an appearance in this. Not necessarily a memorable role for Nighy but he does an adequate job. The female lead, played by Jill Schoelen, came across a bit hollow to me. I suspect that she was chosen more for her singing talent than her acting. If I'm wrong and her opera singing was dubbed, then they clearly should have chosen a different actress in my opinion. Maybe the budget wouldn't allow for a bigger name actress? I suppose I should find a copy of the Blu-Ray and see if that sheds any light on the casting of this movie. And so there's not any confusion, understand that this movie is not a musical. It's a horror movie first and foremost and stays that way. You get what you'd expect from a Phantom of the Opera movie: Gothic atmosphere, great costumes and set design, a bit of a love story. But you also get some things that you don't see coming like people skinned alive, supernatural dealings with the devil and time travel. Yes, I said time travel. I don't know how else to explain some of what happens in this. Also, unlike previous Phantom movies, there is not mask for the Phantom to hide behind. Instead, he just keeps sewing on fresh pieces of human flesh. Almost makes you want to see Englund's Phantom and Neeson's Darkman go at it for a few rounds.
I liked this movie more than I thought I would. It was good Halloween afternoon flick that really helped my day along. It was a good day.
GRADE: B-
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Man-Thing (2005)
Yes, it was just 10+ years ago that Marvel was licensing out their comic book properties rather than making the movies themselves. Sony was making some very successful Spider-Man films. Fox got the rights to make X-Men and Fantastic Four movies. New Line Cinema really were the ones to get the ball rolling with Blade. And Lions Gate Films were able to nab a couple Marvel characters in The Punisher and Man-Thing. Now while Punisher is a pretty big deal for LGF, one has to wonder how or why they went after Man-Thing. It's almost as if Marvel threw in the rights to Man-Thing to sweeten the deal a bit. Was there anyone really excited to see a Man-Thing movie? I'd wager that most people have never even heard of Man-Thing. You mean Swamp Thing don't you? No, apparently Marvel unveiled Man-Thing in May of 1971. Two months before Swamp Thing. And if you do a little more research on these two strangely similar comic book characters, you'll find that their humble origins have a lot in common, in and out of the comic books. Seems that there may or may not have been some DC writers rooming with some Marvel writers at the time and with everyone running in the same social circles and what not, comic book fans sort of ended up with the same character in both Marvel and DC. As the years went by, the characters would do more to separate themselves from their rival comic counterpart and Swamp Thing would become the more popularized of the two. Though, that may have a lot to do with the fact that the Swamp Thing movie directed by Wes Craven came out in 1982, while we waited another 23 years for Man-Thing to get a movie. I confess that as a kid, I knew who Swamp Thing was while not learning about Man-Thing for another 12 years or so. And even thing, thinking that Man-Thing must have been the clone and not the other way around.
Ok, so what about the movie???? Man-Thing is one of those high end, low budget films. It's not a major production, but it's not so small a production either. Filmed mainly in Australia with Australian actors/actresses, Man-Thing actually does a pretty good job of keeping you interested. And it's pretty atmospheric too. One of the main things that I look for in a movie is the atmosphere or mood of the film. Man-Thing really does a great job of putting you in the swamp and leaving you there at times. Just a sound stage you say? That may be the case for a good part of the film, but it works. The lighting of the swamp is eerie and a bit unsettling. I loved the mixture of greens, browns and yellows that we get. How someone didn't even encounter a gator, much less get eaten by one remains a mystery though.
I'm sure that a lot of people disagree with me. I've seen the low ratings and bad reviews this movie got. I don't care. I like this film. Yes, it got its debut on the Syfy Channel and not in theaters. Yes, there is some bad acting. No, it's not one of the greatest movies that I've ever seen. Plot you ask? Newly appointed Sherriff of Bywater, Mississippi encounters missing people, oil tycoons, native American terrorists, hot blonde school teachers, redneck locals and one massive man like thing.
GRADE: B
Ok, so what about the movie???? Man-Thing is one of those high end, low budget films. It's not a major production, but it's not so small a production either. Filmed mainly in Australia with Australian actors/actresses, Man-Thing actually does a pretty good job of keeping you interested. And it's pretty atmospheric too. One of the main things that I look for in a movie is the atmosphere or mood of the film. Man-Thing really does a great job of putting you in the swamp and leaving you there at times. Just a sound stage you say? That may be the case for a good part of the film, but it works. The lighting of the swamp is eerie and a bit unsettling. I loved the mixture of greens, browns and yellows that we get. How someone didn't even encounter a gator, much less get eaten by one remains a mystery though.
I'm sure that a lot of people disagree with me. I've seen the low ratings and bad reviews this movie got. I don't care. I like this film. Yes, it got its debut on the Syfy Channel and not in theaters. Yes, there is some bad acting. No, it's not one of the greatest movies that I've ever seen. Plot you ask? Newly appointed Sherriff of Bywater, Mississippi encounters missing people, oil tycoons, native American terrorists, hot blonde school teachers, redneck locals and one massive man like thing.
GRADE: B
Thursday, September 10, 2015
They Live (1988)
Two things that I really enjoyed growing up: 1. John Carpenter movies & 2. Pro Wrestling. The 80's were a great time for both. So when you put one of the best directors of the decade with one of the best known wrestlers of the decade, good things are bound to happen right?
First, a little about my love of pro wrestling. My dad encouraged watching pro wrestling in a way. He was always turning the channel to wrestling on a boring Saturday evening, and Ric Flair and the Four Horsemen were always lurking about. Dad was only a mild fan though. He mainly only wanted to hear the outrageous trash talk that always went on. He would often mimic Ric Flair just to have a little fun with me. So we'd watch wrestling together from time to time. I'd root for the good guys, dad would root for the bad guys and fun was had by all. It also didn't hurt that the WWF had a Saturday morning cartoon either. This exposed me to guys like Hulk Hogan, Junkyard Dog, The Iron Sheik, and of course, Rowdy Roddy Piper. Needless to say, I got bit by the wrestling bug and remain a fan even to this day. Though pro wrestling isn't what it used to be.
My love of John Carpenter movies developed mainly through his work with Kurt Russell but that's a discussion for another time.
Roddy Piper is a lot of fun to watch in this one. And Keith David is a great companion for him. I wish this formidable pair would have gotten on the same page sooner though. Imagine how much more bad ass this movie could have been with Piper and David wreaking havoc from the start. Instead they wasted a lot of their energy kicking each other's ass, when they should have been hunting down some illegal aliens. And I don't mean Mexicans or Columbians either. I'm talking extra terrestrial, from another planet aliens that are up to illegal doings. Or are they? Piper learns later in the movie how bad these aliens are but he really doesn't know at first. Instead, he finds out about them and starts opening fire. No hesitation here. If you're not human, you're dead. Doesn't sound very tolerant of the Rowdy one does it? Later in the movie, it's mentioned that humans are like livestock. To me, that implies that they're food at least in some small capacity. They also get blamed for societies woes, so I guess Piper did have some right to fire at will. I mean, it wasn't like President Obama was around at the time to blame for all the shut down factories and police brutality. No, these aliens are clearly out to corrupt mankind, steal our natural resources and possibly eat a few of us. As a fan of the television show V, I can't help but notice some of the similarities here either. Alien invaders sucking our planet dry, dining on humans, lying to our faces. With the main difference being that in V, the visitor's were out in the open while in They Live, the aliens are hiding through some form of hypnotic means. And they've been here pretty much since the 50's.
Piper's character exposes them at the end of the film. At least in the Los Angeles area. And it sort of just ends there. Someone tell Mr. Carpenter to pick out another wrestler and write up a sequel. I can't be the only one that's wondering if the resistance grew from there can I? We can't erase some 30 plus years of alien occupation just by cutting a local L.A. television signal can we? I mean, this movie was left more open than Independence Day was.
GRADE: B
First, a little about my love of pro wrestling. My dad encouraged watching pro wrestling in a way. He was always turning the channel to wrestling on a boring Saturday evening, and Ric Flair and the Four Horsemen were always lurking about. Dad was only a mild fan though. He mainly only wanted to hear the outrageous trash talk that always went on. He would often mimic Ric Flair just to have a little fun with me. So we'd watch wrestling together from time to time. I'd root for the good guys, dad would root for the bad guys and fun was had by all. It also didn't hurt that the WWF had a Saturday morning cartoon either. This exposed me to guys like Hulk Hogan, Junkyard Dog, The Iron Sheik, and of course, Rowdy Roddy Piper. Needless to say, I got bit by the wrestling bug and remain a fan even to this day. Though pro wrestling isn't what it used to be.
My love of John Carpenter movies developed mainly through his work with Kurt Russell but that's a discussion for another time.
Roddy Piper is a lot of fun to watch in this one. And Keith David is a great companion for him. I wish this formidable pair would have gotten on the same page sooner though. Imagine how much more bad ass this movie could have been with Piper and David wreaking havoc from the start. Instead they wasted a lot of their energy kicking each other's ass, when they should have been hunting down some illegal aliens. And I don't mean Mexicans or Columbians either. I'm talking extra terrestrial, from another planet aliens that are up to illegal doings. Or are they? Piper learns later in the movie how bad these aliens are but he really doesn't know at first. Instead, he finds out about them and starts opening fire. No hesitation here. If you're not human, you're dead. Doesn't sound very tolerant of the Rowdy one does it? Later in the movie, it's mentioned that humans are like livestock. To me, that implies that they're food at least in some small capacity. They also get blamed for societies woes, so I guess Piper did have some right to fire at will. I mean, it wasn't like President Obama was around at the time to blame for all the shut down factories and police brutality. No, these aliens are clearly out to corrupt mankind, steal our natural resources and possibly eat a few of us. As a fan of the television show V, I can't help but notice some of the similarities here either. Alien invaders sucking our planet dry, dining on humans, lying to our faces. With the main difference being that in V, the visitor's were out in the open while in They Live, the aliens are hiding through some form of hypnotic means. And they've been here pretty much since the 50's.
Piper's character exposes them at the end of the film. At least in the Los Angeles area. And it sort of just ends there. Someone tell Mr. Carpenter to pick out another wrestler and write up a sequel. I can't be the only one that's wondering if the resistance grew from there can I? We can't erase some 30 plus years of alien occupation just by cutting a local L.A. television signal can we? I mean, this movie was left more open than Independence Day was.
GRADE: B
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Psycho (1960)
Admittedly, I'm not very fluent when it comes to Alfred Hitchcock films. Sure, I've seen Psycho plenty of times before, but who hasn't? My only other exposure to Hitchcock was watching some of the television series and one viewing of The Birds when I was younger. So yes, I have some catching up to do.
SPOILER WARNING: When I started this blog, it was my intention to have a way to gather my thoughts about these classic movies that I love. A way to delve into them more deeply. And if some passerby happens upon these writings, know that any discussion on these films is very welcome. However, because this was conceived mainly as a way to express my opinions of them and because most of these films are decades old, I'm not looking to avoid any spoilers. If you haven't seen Psycho, I'd turn back now.
Even now, when I watch this film, I can't help but compare it to how I felt the first time I saw it. You never get over the first time you see some films. I imagine that a lot of people, whether they have seen Psycho or not are aware that it was Norman doing the killing the whole time, right? Well, I wasn't aware the first time I saw Psycho some 20 years ago and I appreciated the suspense and plot twist very much. Of course, now that I watch it, knowing what I know, it's obvious that it was Norman the whole time, isn't it? Well, yes and no. There are certainly clues in the film. Hints in Norman's dialogue. But even if you catch on early to what is really transpiring at the Bates Motel, Hitchcock does a great job of creating doubts. It's never clear. And that's part of what makes this movie so good.
When you start watching Psycho, it's a different film. By the end, you feel almost like you've sat through two different productions. Janet Leigh's character, Marion is front and center for the first half of it. You've went on this little journey with her that explores her moral dilemma. Hitchcock has made it suspenseful with the use of the traffic cop, a curious car salesman and a nice touch of rain.. And in the end Marion comes to her senses and decides to turn around and attempt to fix her mistake. The talk she has with the nice man that owns the local motel has done her some good, it seems. It's all good from here right?
No. In fact, this is where the movie gets really interesting. We've been on this journey with Marion, but this Norman Bates guy is what really grabs you. Norman is nice, well mannered, and very orderly. Nothing out of the ordinary at first. But spend some time with him and you'll see. Anthony Perkins grabs the audience with his eccentric performance and doesn't let go. And you know who's even creepier than Norman? His mother. A boys best friend is his mother after all.
If you're reading this, then you've probably already seen the film and I haven't said anything that you weren't already aware of. If you haven't seen Psycho, then I've most likely just ruined the end for you. Hey, you were warned. We all go a little mad sometimes.
GRADE: A
SPOILER WARNING: When I started this blog, it was my intention to have a way to gather my thoughts about these classic movies that I love. A way to delve into them more deeply. And if some passerby happens upon these writings, know that any discussion on these films is very welcome. However, because this was conceived mainly as a way to express my opinions of them and because most of these films are decades old, I'm not looking to avoid any spoilers. If you haven't seen Psycho, I'd turn back now.
Even now, when I watch this film, I can't help but compare it to how I felt the first time I saw it. You never get over the first time you see some films. I imagine that a lot of people, whether they have seen Psycho or not are aware that it was Norman doing the killing the whole time, right? Well, I wasn't aware the first time I saw Psycho some 20 years ago and I appreciated the suspense and plot twist very much. Of course, now that I watch it, knowing what I know, it's obvious that it was Norman the whole time, isn't it? Well, yes and no. There are certainly clues in the film. Hints in Norman's dialogue. But even if you catch on early to what is really transpiring at the Bates Motel, Hitchcock does a great job of creating doubts. It's never clear. And that's part of what makes this movie so good.
When you start watching Psycho, it's a different film. By the end, you feel almost like you've sat through two different productions. Janet Leigh's character, Marion is front and center for the first half of it. You've went on this little journey with her that explores her moral dilemma. Hitchcock has made it suspenseful with the use of the traffic cop, a curious car salesman and a nice touch of rain.. And in the end Marion comes to her senses and decides to turn around and attempt to fix her mistake. The talk she has with the nice man that owns the local motel has done her some good, it seems. It's all good from here right?
No. In fact, this is where the movie gets really interesting. We've been on this journey with Marion, but this Norman Bates guy is what really grabs you. Norman is nice, well mannered, and very orderly. Nothing out of the ordinary at first. But spend some time with him and you'll see. Anthony Perkins grabs the audience with his eccentric performance and doesn't let go. And you know who's even creepier than Norman? His mother. A boys best friend is his mother after all.
If you're reading this, then you've probably already seen the film and I haven't said anything that you weren't already aware of. If you haven't seen Psycho, then I've most likely just ruined the end for you. Hey, you were warned. We all go a little mad sometimes.
GRADE: A
Friday, June 12, 2015
Horror Express (1972)
Sir Christopher Lee has passed at the age of 93. Less than a week later, the world is still learning so much about the incredible life this man led. Every day this week I've learned something else about Christopher Lee than I wasn't aware of. Did you know he was once an aspiring opera singer? To those of us have a deep love of classic horror movies, Mr. Lee will always be known as a Horror Icon. But let's not forgot this man was a War Hero first, with a pretty remarkable service record. Christopher Lee put in time as a spy and Nazi hunter long before he donned the crest of Dracula. He was also known to be a great example of an English Gentleman, and I have no doubt that reputation was well deserved. I don't have a bucket list, but if I did, meeting Christopher Lee, perhaps over a cup of tea would have most likely been on it.
Now, in honor of Mr. Lee, I chose to watch Horror Express tonight. It's an obscure movie that is said to be influenced by the short story "Who Goes There?". That story also inspired The Thing From Another World, which of course led us to John Carpenter's The Thing and so forth. At a glance, Horror Express has nothing to do with those other movies. The bulk of those movies take place in Antarctica, involve American and Norwegian base camps that deal with a lot of bad weather and alien life forms. Horror Express takes place on a train, involves a lot of English and Russian characters that deal with people with scary eyes and smooth brains that may or may not be alien life forms. Still with me? But, when you watch Horror Express, I promise you that you'll draw those comparisons to The Thing on your own without even knowing that they were both influenced by the same novella. I know I did. Horror Express tends to delve into the subject of religion versus evolution as well in an attempt to give the movie more substance and for the most part, it works.
It's a bit of a treat here to enjoy Christopher Lee in a lead role that isn't villainous. He plays an archeological professor of sorts. He's no Indiana Jones, but he does have his heroic moments towards the end of this movie. We're also treated to Peter Cushing, who plays a doctor on board the same train. And then, as if the movie was lacking in crazy, Telly Savalas shows up to shake things up. That's right, two Bond Villains and Grand Moff Tarkin are all here to save the day. Or is that Dracula, Kojak and Dr. Frankenstein? I better move on before I start some sort of ultimate movie character time paradox here.
I like this movie. It's obscure, it's underrated, and it almost feels like another great Hammer Films movie, though it isn't. The musical score is said to have been by John Cacavas. This appears to be his first movie score credit and when hearing pieces of it, I thought it sounded a lot like something that would be composed by John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin fame. That's not necessarily a bad thing here.
If you have a chance, give this movie a go some time. The picture quality of the various DVD copies are not exactly top notch but they aren't so bad that you can't enjoy the movie. You may have a copy that skips a little bit the first 15 mins or so, or messed up for a few seconds towards the last third of the movie. It's ok. Just push on through. When I found a copy of Horror Express at the local Goodwill store for 2 bucks I wasn't expecting much in terms of production, but after watching it, this cheap DVD copy faired much better than when I watched Horror Express on Turner Classic Movies a couple years ago on Halloween. There is also a 2011 Blu Ray release of Horror Express but I haven't had a chance to view that one as of yet.
GRADE: B
Now, in honor of Mr. Lee, I chose to watch Horror Express tonight. It's an obscure movie that is said to be influenced by the short story "Who Goes There?". That story also inspired The Thing From Another World, which of course led us to John Carpenter's The Thing and so forth. At a glance, Horror Express has nothing to do with those other movies. The bulk of those movies take place in Antarctica, involve American and Norwegian base camps that deal with a lot of bad weather and alien life forms. Horror Express takes place on a train, involves a lot of English and Russian characters that deal with people with scary eyes and smooth brains that may or may not be alien life forms. Still with me? But, when you watch Horror Express, I promise you that you'll draw those comparisons to The Thing on your own without even knowing that they were both influenced by the same novella. I know I did. Horror Express tends to delve into the subject of religion versus evolution as well in an attempt to give the movie more substance and for the most part, it works.
It's a bit of a treat here to enjoy Christopher Lee in a lead role that isn't villainous. He plays an archeological professor of sorts. He's no Indiana Jones, but he does have his heroic moments towards the end of this movie. We're also treated to Peter Cushing, who plays a doctor on board the same train. And then, as if the movie was lacking in crazy, Telly Savalas shows up to shake things up. That's right, two Bond Villains and Grand Moff Tarkin are all here to save the day. Or is that Dracula, Kojak and Dr. Frankenstein? I better move on before I start some sort of ultimate movie character time paradox here.
I like this movie. It's obscure, it's underrated, and it almost feels like another great Hammer Films movie, though it isn't. The musical score is said to have been by John Cacavas. This appears to be his first movie score credit and when hearing pieces of it, I thought it sounded a lot like something that would be composed by John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin fame. That's not necessarily a bad thing here.
If you have a chance, give this movie a go some time. The picture quality of the various DVD copies are not exactly top notch but they aren't so bad that you can't enjoy the movie. You may have a copy that skips a little bit the first 15 mins or so, or messed up for a few seconds towards the last third of the movie. It's ok. Just push on through. When I found a copy of Horror Express at the local Goodwill store for 2 bucks I wasn't expecting much in terms of production, but after watching it, this cheap DVD copy faired much better than when I watched Horror Express on Turner Classic Movies a couple years ago on Halloween. There is also a 2011 Blu Ray release of Horror Express but I haven't had a chance to view that one as of yet.
GRADE: B
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Dracula (1992)
"Love Never Dies" -- That was the tagline for this movie when it came out in 1992. This movie is as much a love story as it is a horror flick, and it works. Some of Francis Ford Coppola's best work in my opinion. Everything from the set design to the costumes are top notch. The musical score by Wojciech Kilar is amazing. The film is near perfect. Yet it's so different from any of the previous film incarnations that we've seen. That's probably due to the fact that this movie takes after the actual book by Bram Stoker and not after the image of Hollywood's Dracula, though I'm pretty sure there were a few nods to Bela Lugosi in there.
The success of this film starts and ends with the right actor to play Dracula. Gary Oldman was absolute perfection in his portrayal Vlad the Impaler. To portray the many sides of Vlad as well as endure the many hours of make up that I'm sure was required for this role speaks volumes of Oldman. I believe it would have taken a special actor indeed to get through this movie whilst delivering a top notch performance of this iconic character. Luckily, Oldman was available.
So what doesn't work here? Two things I wish I could change about this movie: 1. Keanu Reeves and 2. Hopkins performance. I'll start with Hopkins. I generally enjoy Anthony Hopkins in anything he does and on the surface, he seems like a great fit for the Van Helsing character. But he comes off a bit too eccentric and goofy for me in this movie. Is this perhaps how the Van Helsing character was written in the original novel? Could be. I've tried to read the novel twice and both times bowed out before even getting to Van Helsing. So as someone who isn't completely familiar with the book and is accustomed to a Van Helsing played by Edward Van Sloan or Peter Cushing, Hopkins portrayal of Van Helsing just comes off as some form of cheap comic relief that just doesn't seem necessary. Then again, had Hopkins played the character straight, I'm not sure there would be enough there to make the role memorable, so maybe Hopkins version of Van Helsing is justified here in order to make the character interesting.
My other complaint is the casting of Keanu Reeves. I have trouble seeing him in this movie without thinking of Bill & Ted. Even though the Wyld Stallyns had a time traveling pay phone, they would seem deeply out of place in this film and guess what, Reeves is out of place. Of coarse, I could nitpick even more about the casting. Cary Elwes? Wynona Ryder? Sadie Frost? Tom Waits? All these people do an adequate job and the film doesn't suffer but I can't help but think this movie could have been even better than it was. From what I've read about this film though, it really doesn't get made without Ryder. Word is that Wynona Ryder is the one that brought this project to the attention of Coppola.
Ok, I've nitpicked enough. This really is an excellent movie. Above all, a great Dracula movie should be heavy on creepy gothic atmosphere and have a great actor in the lead role and this does that to perfection.
GRADE: A
The success of this film starts and ends with the right actor to play Dracula. Gary Oldman was absolute perfection in his portrayal Vlad the Impaler. To portray the many sides of Vlad as well as endure the many hours of make up that I'm sure was required for this role speaks volumes of Oldman. I believe it would have taken a special actor indeed to get through this movie whilst delivering a top notch performance of this iconic character. Luckily, Oldman was available.
So what doesn't work here? Two things I wish I could change about this movie: 1. Keanu Reeves and 2. Hopkins performance. I'll start with Hopkins. I generally enjoy Anthony Hopkins in anything he does and on the surface, he seems like a great fit for the Van Helsing character. But he comes off a bit too eccentric and goofy for me in this movie. Is this perhaps how the Van Helsing character was written in the original novel? Could be. I've tried to read the novel twice and both times bowed out before even getting to Van Helsing. So as someone who isn't completely familiar with the book and is accustomed to a Van Helsing played by Edward Van Sloan or Peter Cushing, Hopkins portrayal of Van Helsing just comes off as some form of cheap comic relief that just doesn't seem necessary. Then again, had Hopkins played the character straight, I'm not sure there would be enough there to make the role memorable, so maybe Hopkins version of Van Helsing is justified here in order to make the character interesting.
My other complaint is the casting of Keanu Reeves. I have trouble seeing him in this movie without thinking of Bill & Ted. Even though the Wyld Stallyns had a time traveling pay phone, they would seem deeply out of place in this film and guess what, Reeves is out of place. Of coarse, I could nitpick even more about the casting. Cary Elwes? Wynona Ryder? Sadie Frost? Tom Waits? All these people do an adequate job and the film doesn't suffer but I can't help but think this movie could have been even better than it was. From what I've read about this film though, it really doesn't get made without Ryder. Word is that Wynona Ryder is the one that brought this project to the attention of Coppola.
Ok, I've nitpicked enough. This really is an excellent movie. Above all, a great Dracula movie should be heavy on creepy gothic atmosphere and have a great actor in the lead role and this does that to perfection.
GRADE: A
Monday, February 16, 2015
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Turns out that Dracula had a daughter. Who knew, right? I consider this movie to be underrated by most. It just seems to me that Dracula's Daughter never quite gets the credit it deserves. Maybe it's because it's without the great Bela Lugosi. People often speak of how Universal Studios should have done more Dracula movies with Lugosi and the fact that they didn't is just a lost opportunity, and that may be so. BUT..... Dracula's Daughter can hold it's own against any of the other Universal Monster sequels. In fact, Son Of Frankenstein is the only sequel I can think of that I like more than this movie.
Gloria Holden plays Countess Marya Zaleska. Like her father, she too is a vampire stalking the streets of London. Apparently she followed Dracula there, hoping to burn his body while performing a sacred rite that would lift the curse of vampirism from her and allow her to lead a normal life. She has her familiar, Sandor, in tow as well. Sandor doesn't seem too sure that Zaleska will be able to reverse her condition. If he truly felt that she could give up her undead night life, I'm sure he'd do what he could to put an end to it. At some point, the Countess promised to turn Sandor into a vampire as well and he's starting to get a bit impatient, though it doesn't show early on. The two of them make a formidable pair.
Now, the continuity does seem to break a bit at the beginning of this movie. We supposedly pick up right where Dracula (1931) ended, but there is no Johnathan Harker or Mina in sight. Renfield's body is in a different place than we remember and Professor Van Helsing seems to have found a nice hat he likes. It might sound like I'm just nit-picking but seriously, this doesn't even remotely look like the same castle ruins that we left off with in the first movie. Oh and the police, who couldn't be bothered to help previously, have shown up just in time to question Van Helsing as to why there is a corpse with a stake driven though it. Van Helsing is arrested and spends most of the movie in police custody.
From here the movie pretty much follows the first in that our heroes (Who in this case are therapist and his secretary aided some by the police chief and Van Helsing), attempt to discover the identity of this vampire that is loose in London at night, and put an end to it. All while the Countess is hiding in plain sight, much like Dracula did in the first movie. Zaleska does manage to escape back to Transylvania though and it's a delight that she did because it gives the viewer an excuse to gaze upon that great castle set from the first movie and even explore part of the caste that we didn't see the first time around.
Don't let the fact that Countess Zaleska wants cured fool you. She has her cold hearted, blood thirsty moments. As far as I'm concerned, Zaleska is a vampire worthy of being mentioned along side all the greats. She might not have seen eye to eye with her father but they both knew how to terrorize a city. I highly recommend this movie.
GRADE: A
Gloria Holden plays Countess Marya Zaleska. Like her father, she too is a vampire stalking the streets of London. Apparently she followed Dracula there, hoping to burn his body while performing a sacred rite that would lift the curse of vampirism from her and allow her to lead a normal life. She has her familiar, Sandor, in tow as well. Sandor doesn't seem too sure that Zaleska will be able to reverse her condition. If he truly felt that she could give up her undead night life, I'm sure he'd do what he could to put an end to it. At some point, the Countess promised to turn Sandor into a vampire as well and he's starting to get a bit impatient, though it doesn't show early on. The two of them make a formidable pair.
Now, the continuity does seem to break a bit at the beginning of this movie. We supposedly pick up right where Dracula (1931) ended, but there is no Johnathan Harker or Mina in sight. Renfield's body is in a different place than we remember and Professor Van Helsing seems to have found a nice hat he likes. It might sound like I'm just nit-picking but seriously, this doesn't even remotely look like the same castle ruins that we left off with in the first movie. Oh and the police, who couldn't be bothered to help previously, have shown up just in time to question Van Helsing as to why there is a corpse with a stake driven though it. Van Helsing is arrested and spends most of the movie in police custody.
From here the movie pretty much follows the first in that our heroes (Who in this case are therapist and his secretary aided some by the police chief and Van Helsing), attempt to discover the identity of this vampire that is loose in London at night, and put an end to it. All while the Countess is hiding in plain sight, much like Dracula did in the first movie. Zaleska does manage to escape back to Transylvania though and it's a delight that she did because it gives the viewer an excuse to gaze upon that great castle set from the first movie and even explore part of the caste that we didn't see the first time around.
Don't let the fact that Countess Zaleska wants cured fool you. She has her cold hearted, blood thirsty moments. As far as I'm concerned, Zaleska is a vampire worthy of being mentioned along side all the greats. She might not have seen eye to eye with her father but they both knew how to terrorize a city. I highly recommend this movie.
GRADE: A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)