Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034465)

I think you're right, in a way, on both accounts, that is in your first paragraph, you may be saying the potion is the vehicle for him to get laid in secret and 'not damage his Victorian image/reputation'. And in your second paragraph you're noting the film's, may I say, ridiculous theory about the good of separating the good man and the animal man -- which is not in the novel, and something I didn't like about the film.

You didn't mention what you thought the potion represented. In the short story (only about 170pgs), I think it's alluded to even more than in this or other films. I kind of think it's a bit obvious. I think it's alcohol. For many throughout history it's the potion that causes inhibition, and for some allows, or causes, people to lose contact with their higher brain function, empathy, morality, love and self control. Of course it's also a symbol for whatever else acts to do the same thing... a theory, a practice and societal system. But he does drink it, doesn't he? ::big grin::


Here's a quote from the film about the why he made the potion (which is not in the short story).


So, in the bold, is where it's ridiculous, that is, it doesn't really make any sense within itself. Liberate evil to fulfill itself so it troubles us no more? I'm guessing he means do it, the animal impulses, to get it out of your system? Yeah, like that ever worked. ::big grin:: Both the book and film do point to the same thing, in that, even so with the alcoholic, the more this activity is done, the more it entrenches itself into the person/brain/psyche/soul, not the other way around. It, 'evil', or unchecked selfishness, and insanity, emerges even without the potion, and can't be reversed even with the antidote, so to speak.

Of course I recommend reading the short story, as it's only 170 pages. Love to hear what you think.

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034495)

House of Dracula (1945)
6/10

"Count Dracula (John Carradine) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr) seek cures for their afflictions; a hunchbacked woman, a mad scientist (Onslow Stevens) and Frankenstein's Monster have their own troubles."

It's an interesting story, with some interesting scenes, especially the trippy piano scene. Still, the story and characters are shallow, the dialogue and some acting is rather campy, it's not scary or exciting, little to no build of suspense.


Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1943)
6/10

"Two hapless freight handlers find themselves encountering Dracula (Lugosi) , the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr)."

I liked this better when I was a kid. If you find Costello's regular screen routine funny, than you'll like this. You'll know after the first scene with him. If not, you're in for a long show, cause this is Costello doing his thing over and over again. Other than that, there's not much there; because although the Universal Monster Characters are playing it straight, as they should, it's not convincing, especially Dracula is not at all the character he was in Dracula (1931) he's more of caricature. They get chased around, near misses, some secret passages and gags.

During the scene where Abbott & Costello bring Drac and Frank into the museum, I was really bored to tears. Just didn't find it was funny.

Originally Posted by LuvablePsycho (Post 1034731)

I really want to watch the original black and white version of Village of the Damned. I've never seen it before.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20160615191952

Originally Posted by Oro13 (Post 1034734)

Man, when I was a kid and saw this classic little Mario Bava anthology, it was one of the few that got to me. More specifically, the segment “ The Drop of Water “ freaked me right the fuck out, lol. One of the creepiest little morality tales of all time, and it still holds up today.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-22-2015/gjcFNO.gif
Whole lotta nope right there ::shocked::

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034737)

I've never seen it either. Too bad we can't throw a film party online and watch it all together.

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034737)

I've never seen it either. Too bad we can't throw a film party online and watch it all together.


Yes! I totally agree! It freaked me out as an adult. So beautifully shot and directed. The other two were forgettable to me.

Originally Posted by FryeDwight (Post 1034860)

VOTD is pretty good and George Sanders turns in a stellar performance.

"A Drop of Water" is incredibly creepy and I find "The Vurdulak" impressive as well.

2000 MANIACS (1964). Follow up to Herschel Gordon Lewis's BLOOD FEAST is a better made film, but still pretty bad. Almost a splatter film of BRIGADOON, there are some brutally gruesome scenes and probably unintentional humor ("Rolling in my Sweet Baby's Arms"), but the film suffers from low budget and amateurish cast. **

Originally Posted by LuvablePsycho (Post 1034741)

I think I'd also like to try and read the novel "The Midwich Cuckoos" which the movies are based on.

https://bloodymurder.files.wordpress...ch_penguin.jpg

It's just a very unique concept for a horror story.

Originally Posted by Bloof (Post 1034908)

The book is excellent.

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034880)

Splatter film of Brigadoon. ::big grin:: Speaking of Brigadoon, did you like Sweeney Todd? Just cause it's a musical.

Originally Posted by DeadbeatAtDawn (Post 1034985)

Blood and Black Lace, 1964. 7/10

https://media.giphy.com/media/iAL38OvfFMqnm/200.gif

Originally Posted by DeadbeatAtDawn (Post 1034932)

The Invisible Man, 1933. 9/10

https://66.media.tumblr.com/5a691d42...v3r1o1_400.gif

Originally Posted by Oro13 (Post 1035010)

Man, Claude Rains is criminally overlooked. He was perfect in that role, and even had a great turn as the Phantom in the 1943 version ( which I’m going to watch now ), as well as opposite Lon Chaney Jr. in the Wolf Man.

Also, I’d like to see a new version or update to the invisible man. Could do some really interesting things with current technology, I think Verhoeven’s Hollow Man was the last legit attempt at an update to the story. We’re overdue.

... Just hope they don’t do what they did to the Mummy ( shudders )

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1035015)

What did you think of Verhoeven’s Hollow Man? That was with Kevin Bacon, I believe.

Originally Posted by Oro13 (Post 1035044)

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/...FjD5Oxeegw.jpg

7/10

Synopsis:A mysterious bout of violent and unexplained accidents plague the Paris Opera House, which are blamed on the specter reported to haunt box 5. All the while a young and talented soprano benefits, not only from this string of misfortunes, but flourishes under the tutalege of a mysterious benefactor that (in reality) is the very same monster responsible for these deeds. The Phantom.

Speaking of Claude Rains, this was the first time I recall seeing him in a film, and it really showcases his prowess. First and foremost, he is great as this version of the Phantom. He has the right mix of elegance and intensity, as well as being able to switch gears and be sympathetic or relatable, all of which are required to play the role. Perfectly cast, and is my second favorite performance in his career ( second only to his turn as Jack Griffin in the Invisible Man ). As for the supporting cast, Susanna Foster does a great job in the role of Christine ( the object of the Phantom’s twisted affection ), while her suitors Raoul and Anatole ( played by Edgar Barrier and Nelson Eddy, respectively ) have a great back and forth in their rivalry, and manage to both be likable and a decent subplot ( think Quincy Morris and Arthur Holmwood from Dracula ). The sets are stunning, lavish, and in technicolor. The Paris Opera House is as much of a character in this story as any of its inhabitants, and it manages to be both captivating in its bright colors and posh decorations, but also foreboding with it’s tenebrous shadows and labyrinthine catacombs. The score is very well done and definitely fits with the overall story, thought it does somewhat interfere with scenes here and there.

I only have one issue with this version, but it’s a rather major complaint.
First and foremost, this is only LOOSELY based on Gaston Leroux’s original novel, and is much further removed from it than the classic Lon Chaney version from 1925. The narrative now concerns a down on his luck violinist, Erique Claudin, who snaps and kills a publisher he believes has stolen his music. Instead of being a recluse who was born disfigured that has the voice of an angel, Claudin is disfigured by acid after the attack and takes to the sewers to flee police pursuit, stealing a mask and taking up residence under the opera house, continuing to support Christine. This narrative departure would carry more weight, if we didn’t view it in chronological order with the rest of the film. We already know Claudin is the Phantom, and we know how this came to be before the meat of the story even begins. This serves to demystify him, thus stripping away a huge portion of what makes the character of the Phantom so interesting. This also makes him less intimidating and scary, which ( again ) detracts from the overall screen presence and impact he has on the audience. In every version, the constants have been his love of Christine and of music, but also ( and arguably more importantly ) his motivations behind his misdeeds and the events that twisted him into the monster he has become. These are what makes for a compelling story. Take those parts out, and all you have is the tragic romance which, while it’s certainly a major theme, has nothing to do with the larger overall structure and point, which is that this is a horror story.

That being said, this version of the story became quite popular and more than a few iterations have adopted it in favor of the original. It’s a competent take on the classic story, and definitely worth a watch if you’re a fan of it, classic horror, and that gothic Hammer look/feel.



Lemme rewatch it, and I’ll tell ya in the Latest Movies thread ::smile::

Originally Posted by idoneus1957 (Post 1035132)

They showed the Herbert Lom version the other day, and I briefly thought that I really ought to see it, because Herbert Lom died in 2017.

Originally Posted by idoneus1957 (Post 1035213)

Lom died that long ago? When you're my age, you lose track of how long ago something happened.

Originally Posted by DeadbeatAtDawn (Post 1035250)

The Mad Room, 1969. 7/10

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RuudydXuSs...d+Room+848.jpg

Originally Posted by FryeDwight (Post 1035484)

THE BLACKBOARD JUNGLE (1955). Finished reading the excellent gritty novel by Evan Hunter and although this was quite controversial in its time, find it very stagnant and it really has not improved with age, sadly as Glen Ford and Sidney Poitier are both pretty good. Look for a young Jaime Farr (MASH) here who also is pretty good on the commentary. **1/2

Originally Posted by idoneus1957 (Post 1035557)

I wouldn't call the Asphalt Jungle light. The ending is kind of...musn't spoil.
Then, in the scene with Marilyn Monroe, it sorts of implies that Al Jaffee's character is some kind of pervert. The way he keeps giving nickels to Monroe's character to put in the jukebox so he can watch her dance. And the way he looks at her.
On the other hand, who needs to be perverted to like watching Marilyn Monroe?

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1035491)

Sounds interesting. This directed by Ford too?


The Stranger (1946)
9/10

Written, directed, starring Orson Welles, also has Edward G Robinson. A US government agent is looking for an ex Nasi in the US. Very good. It's a thriller with some horror aspects. This is on Netflix now. Highly recommend it.

Originally Posted by FryeDwight (Post 1035592)

Believe You are thinking of John Ford...don't know if Glenn Ford directed anything. But decent actor and I like a lot of his films.

Originally Posted by FryeDwight (Post 1035647)

THE SET-UP (1949). Seems to be a lot of Noir films being discussed, so let's add another one. This is quite gritty and somewhat depressing flick of a washed up boxer (Robert Ryan is great) who finds circumstances changing from pure pluck and bad luck. Another interesting part of this is that it is shot in real time. Small little gem waiting to be discovered. ***1/2