Dracula (1931)

Dracula (1931)

Well they can't all be winners. Following up the great Frankenstein with Boris Karloff,, I took in Bela Lugosi's turn as Dracula.

All I can say is that the music is nice. I never really pictured Dracula as an opera before (despite it being a ballet) but the only real merit to this film was the score. One character I enjoyed that never really struck me as being that interesting before was Renfield. Usually played to the point of ridiculous, Dwight Frye's Renfield was interesting and complex. Which is more than I can say about Bela Lugosi's effort at Dracula. There is a reason Christopher Lee's adaptation is considered more of THE Dracula on which to meet or beat.

On the whole the flick is pretty boring. The rest of the characters are forgettable, and the only other remotely interesting thing was how Edward Van Sloan's role as Van Helsing looked remarkably like Anthony Hopkins.


In other news, Halloween is always a big thing where I live now, and this year, one house had Frankenstein projected on their living room window. Very cool.

Good: Renfield, and the music.

Bad: Everything else.

Final Thoughts: Yawwwwn!

Add to the thought: Only if it needs to be preserved as a classic, or comes as a two pack with Frankenstein.

Frankenstein (1931)

Frankenstein (1931)

Ah, classic cinema. In preparation for Halloween I have several horror movies still awaiting viewing, including 3 classics that I admit I have never seen. Frankenstein, Dracula and The Wolf Man.

First up, Frankenstein. Ah such an interesting movie. Far more interesting than I ever suspected to be honest. I can see why it has stood the test of time. There are essentially only 3 interesting characters in the film. The monster, The Doctor, and Fritz (who I imagine the majority of the public out there presume was always called Igor).

There are other characters but Colin Clive's turn as the Doctor, and Boris Karloff's as the Monster made this movie the gem in cinematic history it has proven to be. Everyone knows the tale, a brilliant but eccentric scientist plays god and creates a monster. Fritz is the hunchback and all-around bastard to the monster. Things go awry, monster escapes and well... go watch it if you don't know how it ends.

The parts that really stood out were when once the Monster escapes, he meets the young girl by the lake. Wow. Just wow. We have all seen the iconic scene or at least know the references when witnessed in other movies, shows, and what not, but seeing the original film version, powerful stuff. It was tragic and the viewer is absolutely forced to empathize with the monster. We question whether it is his latent predisposition to murder given that he is comprised of the parts of murderers, or is it merely the childlike innocence he seems to exhibit as an entirely new creature only a few days old?

I must also give props to this film for it's cinematic style and design. Obviously inspired by earlier works like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, the design of Frankenstein's lab is all distorted angles, deep lines, and impossible architecture.

The good: Karloff, Clive, and the design stand out the most. Fritz is arguably the catalyst that could have prevented the Monster from being a monster. The girl at the lake. And the final scene while quick, is cinematic gold. Also the scene with the father going down the streets through the German festival, again... just wow.

The bad: the rest of the cast is mostly forgettable. I don't believe any real relationship existed between Elizabeth and the Doctor. And the film feels like it tells it's story very quickly. Which is fine, but I felt I wished we spent more time with the Monster and his foray into the world, for good or for bad.

Final Verdict: Obviously in this day and age, not everyone will have the patience for a classic film that is from an entirely different era of mannerisms, horror, and life. Many people will be turned off by the mere fact it is in black and white. Which is a shame and makes it that much more important for film lover's to try their best to keep these classics from fading away into obscurity. Kids may know the references in modern film and culture, but without knowing the roots of film, how can you truly appreciate it?

Add to the vault: Not a repeat viewing in the same vein as Dawn of the Dead remake (which I can watch most anytime), but if I ever saw them on sale I would definitely buy them and keep them in my repertoire much akin to a treasured book in the library you only dust off and re-read every decade or so.

The Monster Squad

Well, it's full on into Halloween now that Thanksgiving is over. I wish I could devote my time to do a movie review a day ala the folks over at Ain't It Cool News for their old and obscure horror movies, but with French and life and such, I am not left with as much time. But I will barrage you with 3 back to back films. Starting with the Monster Squad!!

The Monster Squad (1987)

Ah, childhood. In 1987 I was no more than 6 years old, and yet I have strong memories of this classic film. Nary a film geek over the age of 30 would not be able to utter such classic lines as "Wolfman's got NARDS!" or "See ya later, Band-Aid Breath!". But does the film hold up to the test of time and prove to be as enjoyable as it once was?

Let me say a cautious, yes! My fears are that this film has not aged well, and despite some classic character actors which undoubtedly would have many people saying "Hey I know that guy." no one in the film has ever really gone on to anything famous. Without that star power this film exists solely on the fanaticism of the hardcore devotees who hearken back to a bygone era with the nostalgia. Does it appeal to today's youth? Not hardly in my honest opinion. Unlike movies like Legend or Labyrinth which have a definite whimsical value that can foster the imagination of even today's technology infused youth, this movie would only appear sad, pathetic and hokey.

Not to say that it is, mind you, just that if I remove myself from my obvious fandom with some objectivity, I can tell this film is destined to be forgotten once the fans are no longer able to keep breathing life into it.



 For those who lived under a rock and never saw this film, or are too young to appreciate it's splendor, here is the synopsis:



Way back when, Van Helsing found a way to banish Dracula via an ancient amulet to limbo, where he'd no longer be able to do the world any harm. Stuff goes wrong, Van Helsing gets sucked into the vortex instead and because of some ancient 100 year stipulation we cut to present day where it is only days before the same opportunity to banish Dracula is to occur.


Why the amulet is in 1987 middle America I forget but Dracula arrives (with Frankenstein's monster in tow and the wolfman) and stuff happens. Okay, Dracs also recruits a mummy from the nearby museum, and the creature from what I suspect is just a regular lagoon.


Luckily, for the human race, a hapless bunch of misfit kids, who have an improbable chance of ever hanging out together in a club at the same time, band together, get the amulet, find a virgin and battle the forces of evil.

So is it a good film? Well yes and no. Watching it I was overwhelmed with nostalgia like those aforementioned fans, and I found myself sitting bundled up late at night, covered in a blanket with a big bowl of popcorn, wide-eyed and all of 6 years old all over again. It did take me back to a simpler time, when magic, monsters and all things mythical held monopoly on my life. That is the true value of the film.

And yet the adult in me, with a sad smile watched a relic of a movie showing all the wear and tear of an antique. The plot was rushed, the characters were caricatures and the film on a whole felt like it was unsure of it's target audience. As much as I love it, I can see why it bombed at the box office and was destined to be just a cult classic. The movie did have several things going for it though. The creature and make up effects were astounding, and the movie did not pander to a child audience. A refreshing change of pace compared to the world of today that has such watered down patronizing tripe with talking gerbils and farting dogs, this film showed kids talking and behaving like kids. The part that made me weep though as I watched this on a late night cable channel (in HD mind you) was the little movie warning that said because of the language and horror themes shown that the following film is intended for adult viewing audiences. There is language, there is sexual references, and there is horrific themes, but my gawd, that's how kids are. Pretending kids aren't kids and that they live in some little protective bubble is only lying to yourself. At least back in the day before the internet kids had to discover all the bad words, and suggestive topics, kids now can just google much much worse.

For shame, people.

Some other interesting observations, the Frankenstein monster is a definite homage to Bub the zombie in George Romero's Day of the Dead, which is a great thing to see in a kids monster flick. The creature effects, as I said, were fantastic, and it was great to see that a film wasn't afraid to show scary things to kids. Hell, it's like the director knew that kids' imaginations can make much scarier monsters, so why not have them be real instead of cute and cuddly non-monsters.

Final verdict: The film is definitely aged and flawed, and yet despite that I can't help but love it and hold it near and dear to my heart. A definite must-watch for anyone who likes Halloween, and any true film geek. The rest of the world may pass it up, but that isn't to say you shouldn't.

Add to the vault? Definitely. If I don't who will?