|
Choco1980 posted:
I'm starting tonight and there's still no way I'm going to approach 78. My personal record was like 54 or 55, somewhere around there. Kicking things off with some James Whale.
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 18:32
|
|
IT BEGINS!!
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Lumbermouth posted:You know what? I've barely watched horror movies, but I saw Mandy last night and really enjoyed it, so what the hell. If you're willing to go with some thread recommendations, I think you'll see some kick-rear end movies this month. There's going to be a "staff picks" section added soon and if you pick from there you basically can't go wrong. And most of the staff picks are available on one streaming service or another.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Friends Are Evil posted:Trying to set some extra challenges for myself. No sequels, no remakes, first-time viewings only, and nothing coming out in theaters counts towards the list. Assuming you haven't seen them, you should add The Ritual and The Eyes of My Mother, which are both on Netflix.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Why not give yourself viral encphelitisis instead. Yikes all remakes. The list itself is better than you'd think though. It's definitely not all bad. NotLD remake, It, Zombie's Halloween, The Thing, The Blob, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Yea 30s and 40s horror is really short. I always tell people to just watch Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein back to back because it's still only 2.5 hours.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
You all are off to a hell of a start, great movies and great reviews so far. Reading first impressions of movies like Hellraiser and The Blob are what I wait all year for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
So I'm going for at least 5 films from each decade, beginning with the 1930s through the 2010s. Hopefully the total will be in the 50-60 range, because I'll be watching more than 5 from some of my favorite decades. Only managed to squeeze one in last night, but a great place to start,  Frankenstein(1931) I grew up with Frankenstein in my DNA, without really even knowing it. My father had grown up with it, some of my favorite movies had been heavily influenced by it, and Karloff of course was an iconic figure in my mind long before I'd ever actually seen the film. Frankenstein's lab, the lightning, the sunken eyes of the monster, the windmill, it all feels like ingrained cultural knowledge that I've always had in me. Around my house growing up, Karloff and Lugosi were Gods. I watched a 20 minute documentary on Karloff that was on the same disc(I have the Universal Monsters blu ray set), and it was very interesting to learn some things about his career at the time of his casting in Frankenstein. I didn't realize how old he was, that he was in his 40s and already a bit of a journeyman actor who's career didn't seem destined for greatness. It actually gave me some interesting info on my next selection, The Old Dark House, which turned out to be Karloff's followup to the huge hit that was Frankenstein. Universal saw an opportunity to make him into a movie star and their marketing machine went into overdrive. So today I'm watching The Old Dark House, and then of course following that up with Bride of Frankenstein. Total: Frankenstein(1931)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Unfortunately as a director I don't think Barker ever realized that potential he showed with Hellraiser. I agree that Nightbreed is over-ambitious and a bit of a mess.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
 The Old Dark House(1932) After the success of Frankenstein, the studio saw Karloff as the next Lon Chaney and marketed The Old Dark House with that in mind. Karloff was sold as a chameleon, the audience would be astounded that the person under the makeup of the mad butler was none other than Frankenstein's monster himself! It's interesting then, to watch the film and see how little acting Karloff was actually allowed to do. It was a bit disappointing actually, I was hoping for a more emotional performance but aside from a last minute twist his character is mostly one-note. So the film did turn out to be very entertaining, just not in the way I was expecting. Mostly because of a solid ensemble cast and a light tone that makes The Old Dark House more of a horror/comedy than other Whale films I've seen. I had no idea Charles Laughton was in the movie, and he's always a welcome presence. He steals most every scene he's in. Ernest Thesiger, of Dr. Pretorius fame, is also here which is great because I'd never seen him in anything other than Bride of Frankenstein. The plot involves a group of people trapped inside the mysterious house during a storm, and their efforts to keep Karloff's alcoholic, super-strong, mute butler under control. But maybe he's not the scariest thing in the house.....  The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) Obviously a film about which many, many words have been written, even just in this Challenge over the years. The emotional power that it still has is amazing, by giving Karloff more freedom within the character Whale was able to make a much deeper monster movie that seems to give you something new every time you watch it. Alienation, friendship, sexuality, the act of creation itself; Bride of Frankenstein is THE quintessential monster movie, the one they've all drawn from much moreso than any other. All the technical aspects are amped up compared to Frankenstein, the sets, lighting, cinematography, even Karloff's makeup. Not that everyone agrees with me there, some prefer the original makeup but I've always loved this battle damaged version. To sum up:  Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Sep 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
 The Mummy(1932) I'm not going in strict chronological order here, so I decided to rewind a little bit from Bride in 1935, to The Mummy which Karloff made the year after Frankenstein along with The Old Dark House. Now this is where it seems that Karloff began to get a chance to flex his acting muscles, and he completely carries the movie with his presence. I read that he sat for 8 hours each day before shooting ever began, and to be honest I'm not even sure it was completely necessary. I mean, is it really the makeup providing the intensity here or Karloff?  (this version of the makeup probably took less than 8 hours, but still) The Mummy was the first attempt by Universal to create a monster where they didn't have a successful novel to build from. According to the wiki article, the story editor that Freund hired was heavily inspired by an Arthur Conan Doyle story called The Ring of Thoth. For anyone who's seen the 1999 Brendan Frasier film, it's funny to go back to that and see just how much of a beat for beat remake it actually is. Personally, Hammer's 1959 version is my favorite because of the color and Lee's physicality, but as the years go on the original does grow on me as I've gained more and more of an appreciation for Karloff. One more 30's film and then it's on to the 40's. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
 The Invisible Man This is a recent rewatch from the May Challenge actually, hopefully one of only a few repeats from May I'll be doing this season. I couldn't pass up The Invisible Man though, it's just too drat good. One thing that jumped out at me this time, which I think someone here already mentioned on a previous page, is how stream-lined and modern the script is. It feels both ahead of it's time and antiquated because of how it seems like current film has lost it's creativity in terms of structuring a story. These days, filmmakers appear to want to get as much crucial exposition out of the way early on, or on the opposite of the spectrum, they withhold important information until an arbitrary point at the end of the story to preserve a "twist". The Invisible Man, on the other hand, is a masterclass in efficient storytelling. No need to waste 20 minutes on an origin story here, the script contains bits of information that you're meant to absorb at critical points during the first act. Instead of being introduced to a loving fiancé, we're shown a deranged man and then asked to imagine his descent by witnessing the lengths to which his loved ones will go to save him. The special effects truly still hold up today, which is a pretty amazing feat. A great, great lead performance by Rains, Whale at the helm, and a dark sense of humor make this my favorite of the original run of Universal horror movies. If you've been sleeping on this one for whatever reason, make a point to correct that this season. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:I thought I was the only one! As much as I love Frankenstein/Bride, The Invisible Man is where it's at. Well I was considering Bride to be the second run, because it's a sequel. I consider Bride to be the best. Invisible Man is close on it's heels though, and to me it's clearly better than any of the others.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I love The Invisible Man. I'll also say it's my 2nd favorite, losing out to Bride of Frankenstein. Yep, we have the same top-3
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:I should re-watch The Invisible Man, last time I saw it was about 6 years ago and it didn't do much for me at the time. If I were invisible I'd do cooler stuff than just knock stuff off tables and steal hats. I think I'll throttle you...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
It's a bummer to see my staff pick not land with somebody but The Wicker Man is certainly not a traditional horror movie and not everyone is going to respond to it, especially not right away.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
 The Wolfman While this is not my favorite Universal monster movie, I felt the need to watch it because of it's important place as the origin of the Larry Talbot character. My next few selections from the 1940s will feature him, and it felt wrong to skip his introduction. It took me a while to come around to it, but Lon Chaney Jr. does have a sort of intangible genuine quality that does add something crucial to these movies. He's surrounded by various different scenery chewing arch characters, and he provides a necessary balance of normalcy even in the most ridiculous situations. He's just a regular, likeable dude, and that's actually not an easy thing to maintain amongst vampires and mad scientists and the rest. The werewolf scenes in this film still hold up today, because they're just so drat atmospheric. All of the little parts add to the experience as well, although I've always felt Lugosi could've been given more to do before his early exit. This first Wolfman story is actually a very effective tragedy, only I suppose made into a little bit of a joke retroactively by the various resurrections that Talbot would experience in the next several films. Of course, as always, I can't help but laugh my rear end off every time I see these two guys standing next to each other as supposedly father and son:   (it's technically possible, Rains is 17 years older than Chaney, but come on) Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Sep 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:Yeah it's a gorgeous movie, and the blu-ray looks stunning. Some of it is a little goofy though, like why is it that when Bela turns into a werewolf, he is an actual wolf, but when Larry turns, he becomes only half wolf? Why does a werewolf strangle his victims instead of biting or scratching them? (I realize they couldn't show someone getting mauled by a wolf, but it still strikes me as funny) Also The Wolfman's tiny little baby steps because he's wearing like high heels or whatever they had to do to make the feet look like a wolf's.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:Reading this thread is so frustrating. Like Choco I have decided to stay strict to October. Y’all cheatin’ Just let go of you rules maaan, they're holding you back. Seriously though, I exercise self-control for 10.5 months a year, I'm taking these 6 weeks whether it's "cheating" or not.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I haven’t even picked 31 films yet See that's your problem right there, you're thinking small. 31 is for beginners.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I start in September because I'm AWOL the last week of October. Yea jokes aside, that's why it's done. Most people's social lives get pretty hectic as Halloween gets closer so these two weeks give people a chance to get a bit of a head start. So yea, cheating I guess, but for a good cause!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
FancyMike posted:My favorite part was the way that main zombie out of the tank moved. PSA: his name is Juicy Zombie Don't listen to anyone else who may come in after this post and try to push Tar Man, it's Juicy Zombie. Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:while this is true, it's also worth noting that 95% of horror fans have no idea what the hell a Juicy Zombie is and call him Tar Man, so both names are worth knowing just so you can avoid confusion It's an educational opportunity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Little Monsters is scary as hell so I definitely think it counts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
 House of Frankenstein(1944) Picked this up last year in the Universal Dracula blu ray set, which I highly recommend for anyone who only has the basic Universal Monsters set and wants to fill in some of the gaps. The Dracula set has both "House" films, Son of Dracula, Dracula's Daughter, and Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein. So I consider it pretty essential. Anyway, this is only my second time having seen House of Frankenstein, and I enjoyed it even more on rewatch. It plays almost like an anthology, as each monster gets their little introduction and turn in the spotlight. I also didn't really notice any drop-off in production values here, sets still look great and overall it's just a very nice looking film. As for characters, one of the best things about House of Frankenstein is the decision to cast Karloff in the main role as Dr. Niemann. I actually enjoy Glenn Strange's performance as the monster, but he really doesn't have a whole lot to do and I'm sure Karloff wasn't interested in donning the makeup again for such a thankless role. Instead he gets to chew scenery and make ridiculous evil faces throughout the movie, which spices it up in a way that really helps keep things consistently entertaining. His presence is sorely missed in House of Dracula. This is also our introduction to the Larry Talbot with a death-wish character, who becomes more or less the main hero of these movies. Chaney is, as per usual, the most human character in the film and you can't help but root for him.  House of Dracula(1945) Watching this back to back with House of Frankenstein, I appreciated how willing they were to disregard the events of the previous film when necessary. As a result, House of Dracula feels a bit like a remake, but also is very much a direct sequel. We find Karloff and the Monster exactly where we last saw them, decomposing at the bottom of a mud pit. Both Talbot and Dracula approach a renowned physician in search of a cure for their conditions, of course one of them may be a bit more honest in their motives than the other. I really love John Carradine in these movies, he's the one who jumped out at me above the others on this viewing. Physically, I think he's close to a perfect Dracula. Thin, yet still powerful looking, and with a face that's very literally shaped like a vampire's fang. He looks like he could jab you with his chin and suck your blood that way. He also makes fantastic faces:   For a late-night movie I continued on with Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which I had never seen before. I'll write that up later today. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) 7. House of Frankenstein(1944) 8. House of Dracula(1945)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
 Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein I wasn't expecting to like this, but ended up enjoying it a lot because as goofy as it is, the people involved in making the movie obviously still had plenty of love for the monsters. I don't know a lot about Abbott and Costello, but I was surprised to read that at the time they made this film, their relationship had deteriorated and their future as a comedy team wasn't totally clear. Apparently Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein sparked a major resurgence in their careers that led to a whole run of projects that may not have been made otherwise. Probably the biggest draw here for me was to be able to see Lugosi in his iconic role once again. It was great fun to watch him play around with the character and see Abbott and Costello play off of him. The two also have some pretty great interactions with The Wolfman, I particularly liked the scene where Costello is a hair away from being mauled by the Wolfman but he's totally clueless to it and the Wolfman can't stop stepping on rakes as he tries to get to him. Simple but hilarious gags, it just works. I'd recommend watching this movie the way I have, which is to watch a bunch of the classic original monster movies first, then come around to this one and enjoy all of those same monsters in a new context. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) 7. House of Frankenstein(1944) 8. House of Dracula(1945) 9. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein(1948)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Creature from Black Lake (1976) I've always loved the poster for this movie but it's one of those where you know the movie can never live up to it. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
So far your reactions are spot-on, at least in my opinion. Child's Play 2 is one of the best horror sequels of all time, and Child's Play 3 is a major step back from that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Would anybody be interested in a free blu ray copy of Christine? I'd have given it to Fran to use as a prize but I decided against that because it's a weird situation where I took the UHD disc I just bought and put it into an older blu ray steelbook(look nicer on my shelf). So you'd be getting a UHD case with a regular blu ray inside, kinda lame but hey it's free! I have access to mailing supplies at my job and I'm very willing to pay a few bucks to get Christine into someone else's hands, its so drat underrated. I guess the only caveat is that you have to watch it for the challenge and be able to PM me your address. First person to post a reply gets first dibs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Gimme it. Done, I'll wait for the PM and put it in the mail hopefully tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
 The Boogieman Will Get You(1942) This was a nice find, I had it sitting around on one of those Mill Creek DVD sets. They're mostly terrible but usually within each set there is a gem or two, and the image quality of this film was actually way above what I typically expect for Mill Creek. Those that enjoyed Tales of Terror on Lurdiak's Scream Stream will remember how great Peter Lorre can be with the right comedy partner, and as it turns out Karloff really has some very solid comedy chops. There are some goofy gags here, but also a lot of more straightforward lines that you'd find in a typical horror movie except they take on a comedic tone due to Lorre's frenetic energy and Karloff's deadpan delivery. Now, how exactly the Boogieman factors into this story I have no idea, even after having seen the movie! The story involves Karloff's mad scientist character as he bumbles his way into a groundbreaking scientific discovery. Of course, to make an omelette you have to break some eggs.... This was a fun way to close out my little run of 40's horror, but I'll be honest, it's not my favorite decade so I'm happy to move on into the 50's and 60's. Although I'm doing one final run through each decade at the end of October and I'm saving Cat People for that slot. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) 7. House of Frankenstein(1944) 8. House of Dracula(1945) 9. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein(1948) 10. The Boogeyman Will Get You(1942)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
You can actually go back to the beginning of the current horror thread and read opinions about My Bloody Valentine because the thread has been around that long, and coincidentally began right around the time of the movie's release.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
I just hit the 50's in my run through the decades so I'm definitely planning on checking out Caltiki: The Immortal Monster. It's on Amazon Prime, just as a reminder. M_Sinistrari posted:26- Quatermass Xperiment 1955 Make sure you watch Quatermass and the Pit, it's even better. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Sep 21, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:I also didn’t like The Mummy because he wasn’t “dressed” like a mummy except at the beginning. To be fair, the Hammer version is superior and part of the reason is that Lee's Mummy is more of a legit monster and he spends a lot more time doing Mummy type things. Karloff is great as Bey but there are plenty of movies to watch if you want Karloff staring menacingly at the camera. Lee's Mummy is more unique as a movie monster. That scene where he's ripping through and kicking in the window is unlike anything you can find in other Mummy films, they typically don't have intense physicality like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:I'd just like to point out that M_Sinistrari has watched 29 horror movies in the last 7 days. If he keeps this pace up he'll hit 194 movies by November 1. *rechecking math* poo poo yep that's right. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
TheKingslayer posted:Pretty sure today will be 47 Meters Down. I'd advise against that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:Man I started that poo poo one night last week and did not even make it to the sharks. I was incredibly annoyed the whole time, it felt like I was watching Laguna Beach or something. If you'd made it to the end you'd be even more pissed off.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Hey, Fran, what about people like me who don't start til the 1st? Is there an expiration on your challenges? I'm pretty sure he said in the first challenge post that they expire November 1st the same as the overall challenge. Beginning of a new page, lets make it a movie write-up in that case:  The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms(1953) It was definitely the right decision to allow these kind of movies into the challenge, because it would really be tough to represent the 50s without a few of them. It was a time when nuclear testing was all the origin needed to establish a monster and then just let it loose. That's what The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms is all about; we get some nuclear testing footage complete with dry documentary-style voiceover, and then it's straight into the monster action. You get a Harryhausen monster within 5 minutes of starting this movie, which is pretty great. Of course, overall the monster is used sparingly, but those scenes are distributed evenly enough that it's always entertaining. The lead actor is a bit of a drag, but the rest of the cast is solid and it has a pretty epic finale with the monster rampaging through New York and ending up surrounded by a flaming Coney Island roller coaster. There are more iconic Harryhausen monsters out there, but this is just a very solid monster flick all around and a pretty good place to start if you're new to his work. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) 7. House of Frankenstein(1944) 8. House of Dracula(1945) 9. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein(1948) 10. The Boogeyman Will Get You(1942) 11. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms(1953) Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Sep 21, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
 Gojira(1954) I watch every monster/kaiju/creature feature I can, so every few years when I come back to this one it always surprises me a little with how dark and nightmarish it is. They really never did duplicate it, I suppose Shin Godzilla has a few scenes that are close, but it's just not the same. And sure, it has it's moments of goofiness too but the overall experience is a very somber one, even today with the dated effects. Spatulator bro pointed out how much The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms inspired this film, and it was interesting to watch it with that in mind. There's absolutely some similar plot beats and at least one set piece obviously directly inspired by Beast. So it was really fun to notice all that. But also the differences, like how different the suit plays vs. the Harryhausen stop-motion effects.  Creature From the Black Lagoon This movie really feels luxurious because of the wider aspect ratio, it feels a lot more like a modern blockbuster than any previous Universal monster film. The only thing maybe holding it back is that there aren't really any great performances, but it's mostly a showcase for the Creature and great underwater cinematography. And it succeeds there completely, a lot of the underwater stuff still holds up today because of how the actor(Ricou Browning) was able to move convincingly and fluidly in the monster suit.  Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) 7. House of Frankenstein(1944) 8. House of Dracula(1945) 9. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein(1948) 10. The Boogeyman Will Get You(1942) 11. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms(1953) 12.Gojira(1954) 13. Creature From the Black Lagoon(1954) Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Sep 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
 The Night of the Hunter(1955) Today I suppose this wouldn't be considered a horror movie, but it's without a doubt one of the scariest movies of the 50's. Mitchum is great as both sides of the character he plays, and the movie never shies away from showing you the heinous crimes he's committing. He's just a scary dude. It's also visually stunning on every level, probably most famous for the lighting:   Charles Laughton was obviously an under-appreciated talent in his time. The Night of the Hunter is like if the Coen brothers had made Blood Simple and then nothing ever again. Just a very sad missed opportunity in the history of movies. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) 7. House of Frankenstein(1944) 8. House of Dracula(1945) 9. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein(1948) 10. The Boogeyman Will Get You(1942) 11. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms(1953) 12.Gojira(1954) 13. Creature From the Black Lagoon(1954) 14. The Night of the Hunter(1955)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
I see I'm not the only one who was in a Hammer mood this weekend... The Curse of Frankenstein(1957) Well I couldn't leave the 50's behind without at least one Hammer flick(Horror of Dracula gets a coveted Halloween week slot), and The Curse of Frankenstein is the beginning to one of the all-time great horror series. Cushing is more subdued here than he would become in the later sequels, but he's still smarmy as hell and all of the Hammer trappings are present in full force right out of the gate. The addition of color to these stories is great, that goes without saying, but you hear a lot more about the bright red blood than anything else. Personally though, the important piece for me is what the color does for the sets. This will always be the greatest mad scientist lab in film history in my mind, it's the one I immediately think of and reference whenever Frankenstein is discussed.  (can't help but think of David's lab from Alien:Covenant when I see this shot) If there's any nit-picking I can think of, it's that this is my least favorite of the original three Christopher Lee performances as the Hammer monsters. He just has less to do than the other two, mostly growling and lumbering, not a whole lot of subtlety compared to Dracula and not as much raw physicality as The Mummy. And certainly it doesn't touch Karloff's emotional performance from the original Universal version. But overall as a total package I prefer this film to Frankenstein(1931) because of the look and Cushing's presence. Total: 1. Frankenstein(1931) 2. The Old Dark House(1932) 3. The Bride of Frankenstein(1935) 4. The Mummy(1932) 5. The Invisible Man(1933) 6. The Wolfman(1941) 7. House of Frankenstein(1944) 8. House of Dracula(1945) 9. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein(1948) 10. The Boogeyman Will Get You(1942) 11. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms(1953) 12.Gojira(1954) 13. Creature From the Black Lagoon(1954) 14. The Night of the Hunter(1955) 15. The Curse of Frankenstein(1957)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2018 14:42
|
|