|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 4, 2017 9:30:01 GMT
October Horror Challenge - Day Four: Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and The Mummy (1932)
Two new or old horror classics which I saw last night. First out was Bride of Frankenstein, which I ended up thinking was better and much more fun to watch than the original from 1931. Sure, as with Dracula (1931) it was at times damn hard not to crack a smile when seeing how much of Bride of Frankenstein that would influence or be copied with hilarious outcome in far later films such as Young Frankenstein (1974), The Toxic Avenger (1984), Transylania 6-5000 (1985) and of course Re-Animator (1985). I love those movies, so it was a great experience to finally see the "original" for the first time. And I was not disappointed. Here we had everything going that I wanted from a Frankenstein movie. Crazy doctors, monsters on rampage, gothic/scenery and beautiful locations/atmosphere, great music, impressive special effects, funny scenes, dramatic yet also room for some sad moments too, and all in all, this one might just be the best of the Universal Classic Monster films that I have seen, at least for now. 7/10Film number two of the evening turned out to be a bit of a letdown, I expected too much and The Mummy was (for me that is) a very slow-paced, borefest which I almsot fell a sleep watching (twice), even with a runtime of less than 70 minutes, I had trouble staying awake and be interested of what went on. So, while Boris Karloff and some of the same actors from Dracula and Frankenstein movies show up, it was to be the weakest of the first 5 horror releases from Universal pictures and one I might never watch again. 5/10
"Twenty-seven more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty-seven more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 4, 2017 9:46:56 GMT
"Breeders" was pretty ok. If a bit short. I read it was remade. Might try to track it down one day. I haven't seen "Humanoids from the deep" but have heard of it. (I believe it's also been remade as well.) Did not know that Breeders was re-made, but after having a look at the trailer it seems like it a trying to cash in on films such as the Alien franchise or other late 90s sci-fi horror titles such as Species (1995) or Mimic (1997), but if I find a cheap copy, I might just give it a go. I almost did the mistake of paying far too much for a german uncut DVD of the 90s version of Humanoids from the Deep (thinking it was the 1980 version), and I am glad I saved my money, as just a few weeks after, Roger Corman finally along with the help of Shout! Factory decided to give the original an uncut special edition but I kind of what to see the remake also, as I have heard it was not that bad.
|
|
|
Post by forca84 on Oct 4, 2017 21:49:58 GMT
I'm on a DVD embargo for awhile. I have too many and get yelled at for even thinking of getting more. I'll put them on my huge wishlist.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Oct 5, 2017 0:18:55 GMT
Cult of Chucky....awesome. The past two chucky films have been very solid.
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 5, 2017 13:51:55 GMT
Oh, great. I just managed to edit my own review of House of Dracula (1945) and Frankenstein (1931), only to end up deleting it and replacing it with todays review. Well, I have forgot most of what I wrote of that review, so I will leave it just like it is. I
|
|
|
Post by mszanadu on Oct 5, 2017 14:43:51 GMT
Oh, great. I just managed to edit my own review of House of Dracula (1945) and Frankenstein (1931), only to end up deleting it and replacing it with todays review. Well, I have forgot most of what I wrote of that review, so I will leave it just like it is. I Not to worry stefancrosscoe it happens to all of us here and even to this known character too . Sesame Street - Everyone Makes Mistakes I know your next review will be just as quality as the last one was too .
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 6, 2017 12:54:39 GMT
Thanks mszanadu.
October Horror Challenge - Day Five: The Invisible Man (1933)
I only saw one film last night, I felt I had time but not enough interest to get on with two or three in a row, as I was getting sleepy and I feel I have to be in the right mood to watch more than one a day, and so The Invisible Man (1933) was last nights entertainment. Not sure if this one is ok to include in the horror Challenge, but my DVD cover said it was a horror movie, on the internet is sci-fi/adventure/comedy/crime and so on and so on ,but no horror. Anyway, there was a lot of mudering and rather surprisingly dark scenes going on, and the main character was such a sadistic and evil lunatic, he was just as much a monster as Dracula or any of the other Universal Pictures classic movie monsters, so, well I am adding it to my list anyhow. This film was clearly a much darker film than the other Invisible Man adventures I have seen, which is only one and that was the mediocre (at best) attempt of a adventure/sci-fi/comedy starring Chevy Chase, called Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992) which was directed by John Carpenter and came with some solid special effects and a good cast, but somehow it just all seemed so very random in most parts, where Chase most of the time just doing his usual acting and the same goes for Daryl Hannah, where as the only one who felt like he was in the right movie was maybe Sam Neill. Anyway, in that one the main character was "likeable" for most of the time, sleazy and a bit of a douche but for most of the time he was not evil or come off as some megalomaniac about to go on a rampage. In the 1933 version we start out from the very beginning by seeing the result of an experience gone all too wrong, where Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) is desperate to find a permanent solution for his "medical problems" and ends up staying at some local rest-home. It does not take long time before his eccentric behaviour becomes a problem with the local folks who are maybe a bit too curious and Dr. Griffin ends up giving them a nasty lesson where he kills people and bring a new kind of terror out to the public masses, which ends up causing quite the stir around the countryside. Later on the invisible man ends up taking people hostage and blackmails them into becoming part of his evil masterplan of total domination and it is clealy that the side-effects have done something with Dr. Griffin and he have some people who seem to care about his health, such as a young lovely lady, however he is a nasty, unlikeable figure that it is very hard to cheer for him at all, and this is maybe my only problem with the film. Still, the special effects, locations, actors are all doing a great job, and the special effects still looks very good, considering the films age, but I do wish there would be included some more scenes with Dr. Griffin and his bride to be, Flora (Gloria Stuart). 6/10 "Twenty-six more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty-six more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 6, 2017 13:06:44 GMT
Not to worry stefancrosscoe it happens to all of us here and even to this known character too . Sesame Street - Everyone Makes Mistakes I know your next review will be just as quality as the last one was too . Yeah, these things do happen, or at least to me, time to time. Very frustrating/annoying when it does, but it is not the end of the world. I think that I will have a time-out seeing these old horror classics during the weekend, as I have many other films (in other genres) all lined up and ready to be seen, and will hopefully continue my Universal Classic Monster Adventures again on sunday.
|
|
|
Post by mszanadu on Oct 6, 2017 18:26:28 GMT
Not to worry stefancrosscoe it happens to all of us here and even to this known character too . Sesame Street - Everyone Makes Mistakes I know your next review will be just as quality as the last one was too . Yeah, these things do happen, or at least to me, time to time. Very frustrating/annoying when it does, but it is not the end of the world. I think that I will have a time-out seeing these old horror classics during the weekend, as I have many other films (in other genres) all lined up and ready to be seen, and will hopefully continue my Universal Classic Monster Adventures again on sunday. You're not alone here stefancrosscoe a lot of these " crazy computer interferences " happen to me all the time too . I hope you are still enjoying the Halloween film Challenge too .
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Oct 7, 2017 5:18:08 GMT
October Horror Challenge - Day Four: Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and The Mummy (1932)
Two new or old horror classics which I saw last night. First out was Bride of Frankenstein, which I ended up thinking was better and much more fun to watch than the original from 1931. Sure, as with Dracula (1931) it was at times damn hard not to crack a smile when seeing how much of Bride of Frankenstein that would influence or be copied with hilarious outcome in far later films such as Young Frankenstein (1974), The Toxic Avenger (1984), Transylania 6-5000 (1985) and of course Re-Animator (1985). I love those movies, so it was a great experience to finally see the "original" for the first time. And I was not disappointed. Here we had everything going that I wanted from a Frankenstein movie. Crazy doctors, monsters on rampage, gothic/scenery and beautiful locations/atmosphere, great music, impressive special effects, funny scenes, dramatic yet also room for some sad moments too, and all in all, this one might just be the best of the Universal Classic Monster films that I have seen, at least for now. 7/10Film number two of the evening turned out to be a bit of a letdown, I expected too much and The Mummy was (for me that is) a very slow-paced, borefest which I almsot fell a sleep watching (twice), even with a runtime of less than 70 minutes, I had trouble staying awake and be interested of what went on. So, while Boris Karloff and some of the same actors from Dracula and Frankenstein movies show up, it was to be the weakest of the first 5 horror releases from Universal pictures and one I might never watch again. 5/10
"Twenty-seven more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty-seven more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."
Have you watched Hammer's take on "The Mummy"? In some regards I do prefer it over the Universal film. Boris Karloff is what kept me watching. I have been curious about the Universal sequels, whereas the Hammer sequels have been mainly disappointments.
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Oct 7, 2017 5:29:55 GMT
Thanks mszanadu.
October Horror Challenge - Day Five: The Invisible Man (1933)
I only saw one film last night, I felt I had time but not enough interest to get on with two or three in a row, as I was getting sleepy and I feel I have to be in the right mood to watch more than one a day, and so The Invisible Man (1933) was last nights entertainment. Not sure if this one is ok to include in the horror Challenge, but my DVD cover said it was a horror movie, on the internet is sci-fi/adventure/comedy/crime and so on and so on ,but no horror. Anyway, there was a lot of mudering and rather surprisingly dark scenes going on, and the main character was such a sadistic and evil lunatic, he was just as much a monster as Dracula or any of the other Universal Pictures classic movie monsters, so, well I am adding it to my list anyhow. This film was clearly a much darker film than the other Invisible Man adventures I have seen, which is only one and that was the mediocre (at best) attempt of a adventure/sci-fi/comedy starring Chevy Chase, called Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992) which was directed by John Carpenter and came with some solid special effects and a good cast, but somehow it just all seemed so very random in most parts, where Chase most of the time just doing his usual acting and the same goes for Daryl Hannah, where as the only one who felt like he was in the right movie was maybe Sam Neill. Anyway, in that one the main character was "likeable" for most of the time, sleazy and a bit of a douche but for most of the time he was not evil or come off as some megalomaniac about to go on a rampage. In the 1933 version we start out from the very beginning by seeing the result of an experience gone all too wrong, where Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) is desperate to find a permanent solution for his "medical problems" and ends up staying at some local rest-home. It does not take long time before his eccentric behaviour becomes a problem with the local folks who are maybe a bit too curious and Dr. Griffin ends up giving them a nasty lesson where he kills people and bring a new kind of terror out to the public masses, which ends up causing quite the stir around the countryside. Later on the invisible man ends up taking people hostage and blackmails them into becoming part of his evil masterplan of total domination and it is clealy that the side-effects have done something with Dr. Griffin and he have some people who seem to care about his health, such as a young lovely lady, however he is a nasty, unlikeable figure that it is very hard to cheer for him at all, and this is maybe my only problem with the film. Still, the special effects, locations, actors are all doing a great job, and the special effects still looks very good, considering the films age, but I do wish there would be included some more scenes with Dr. Griffin and his bride to be, Flora (Gloria Stuart). 6/10 "Twenty-six more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty-six more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."Hands down, my favourite (just ahead of "Creature from the Black Lagoon") of the Universal monster films. Claude Rains is excellent as the title character, even if his only seen for less than a minute. A perfect blend of eccentricity, humour and thrills laced with a dark streak. The trick photography is well-done too.
|
|
|
Post by mszanadu on Oct 8, 2017 1:36:03 GMT
I'm watching right now on The Svengoolie Show on MeTV . Duel (1971 film) IMPO - Even in this day and age it's still a very tense journey of a film indeed .
|
|
|
Post by mszanadu on Oct 8, 2017 4:06:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 8, 2017 11:10:15 GMT
Have you watched Hammer's take on "The Mummy"? In some regards I do prefer it over the Universal film. Boris Karloff is what kept me watching. I have been curious about the Universal sequels, whereas the Hammer sequels have been mainly disappointments. No, I have not seen that one. I hoped that it (along with many others) would feature in the Hammer Horror Box which I think brought along with it almost 20 movies, however many of their best films was not to be seen, instead there was some poor and very forgettable duds thrown in. Boris did a fine job in the original, however the pace and plot was damn slow at times and it eneded up being not even close of what I had hoped, specially after getting such a chilling opening scene. Hands down, my favourite (just ahead of "Creature from the Black Lagoon") of the Universal monster films. Claude Rains is excellent as the title character, even if his only seen for less than a minute. A perfect blend of eccentricity, humour and thrills laced with a dark streak. The trick photography is well-done too. I am looking forward to seeing Creature from the Black Lagoon, but first out is the Wolf Man films, which I have never seen before either. Agree that Claude did a very good job, as we only see him for, well less than a minute of time, but as I had only seen one other Invisible Man movie (yeah, the one with Chevy Chase) I was not expecting such a nasty and down right cruel figure, so it might need a second watch later on, but it was impressive to see how it made use of special effects and dark/black comedy.
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 9, 2017 12:25:47 GMT
October Horror Challenge - Day Eight: The Wolf Man (1943) and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)
I decided to take a short break between friday night and until sunday, as I had a few other movies that I wanted to see, and that were not horror related, and so I sadly missed the "perfect" opportunity to watch these two werewolf movies when the full moon was rising between friday and saturday (I think), but still it is beginning to really reach that great autumn feeling with colder nights along with fresh almost mountain like air, and the moon is like a big large cheese on the blue-black skies, and to walk in the forest at night, then coming home and to watch a good ol' horror movie, that is always something that I get a kick out of and this time I was rewarded by having two very good and enjoyable movies in one evening. I bought The Wolf Man Collection back in 2004 or 2005, and I am ashamed of saying this, but I have never seen any of those 4 movies which was included in that box-set. The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meet the Wolfman (1943), Werewolf of London (1935) and She-Wolf of London (1946) are those that came along in the package. Anyway, it was about time to finally see these movies, and so I began with the first one, The Wolf Man which turned out to be my favorite (as of now) of the Universal Monster Legacy Collection, and one that I thought was a much better film than the disappointing re-make (2009) version. First off, what a great cast that was to included in this movie, Bela Lugosi, Claude Rains, Evelyn Ankers, Patrick Knowles, Maria Ouspenskaya and of course Lon Chaney Jr., and I was almost expecting Boris Karloff to appear also. From the very beginning I sat there with a huge smile on my face and was having a great time, finally! a monster movie that lived up to my "expectations", and this one might just be a new favorite horror movie. The pace is fantastic, with some truly great acting, likeable cast, music and the scenery/movie sets are all important in brining on the horror-mystic feel and while it was not a very "violent" movie, the tragic story of Lawrence Talbot coming back home after so many years away of his family and hometown, only to end up having his own local people going after him, because of an accident. And I am glad the film focused mostly on Larry, his father (Claude Rains) and his new found love interest with the beautiful Gwen Conliffe (Evelyn Ankers), and not tried to put in a bunch of random scare scenes, as it felt more like a mystery-crime film with some elements of horror here and there, and it was really a fine and well made movie, with Lon Chaney delivering a classic role both as Lawerence Talbot but also the werwolf. Claude Rains it was nice to see more of, as I think one only saw less than a minute of him (well his face that is) in The Invisible Man (1933), and here he was older and more fragile/human than his evil part in the film I mentioned above. If there is one thing that I have to say that was a little "problem" is that this movie was so much fun to watch, that I was almost "disappointed" at how fast went and then it was all over. But again, like with other of the Universal Monster titles, if there had been included more scenes, it might have "ruined" some of that great pace and, well I was very impressed and while the werwolf effects might look a bit "dated", I take them anyday over the cheap looking CGI that is used in too many of today's horror films. All in all, The Wolf Man stands as of now, as my favorite of the films that I have seen in the October Horror Challenge, a real classic movie and one of the finest werewolf films I have seen. 8/10I am glad I continued the nigth with another Wolfman movie, and next up was Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), a film that I have only "seen" or more fitting heard through one of my favorite Robert De Niro films, Mad Dog and Glory (1993) where Bobby D and Uma Thurman are on some kind of a awkard/nervous date and they are watching TV and, well in the background you can clearly hear: "FRANK! FRANK! TURN IT OFF! YOU'RE ONLY MAKING HIM STRONGER!" Which is from, well the Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, which I guess was a sequel and featured some of the same actors from The Wolf Man, such as Lon Chaney, Bela Lugosi, Patrick Knowles and Maria Ouspenskay and I have to say, again I was very impressed and loved the ridiculous and over-the-top story where two grave-robbers are chewing off more than they can handle, when they decide to open up the coffin where poor Larry Talbot has been "sleeping" for over 4 years, and just as the moon light hits his body, the robbers suddenly find themselves in a bad situation. Anyway, this time Larry is really depressed, he want nothing more than to die and his journey takes him first to a hospital where a kind and understanding doctor Frank Mannering (Patrick Knowles) takes care of him, but as Talbot tries to explain, he has certain "problems" of his own, and something which nobody seems to be able of curing permanently. As an last minute, desperate attempt of finding something to keep his hopes alive, he ends up seeking out the old gypsy women, Maleva (Maria Ouspenskay) for some advice, and from there on, we are suddenly back in Vasaria, the hometown of Dr. Frankenstein. And lets just say that the good ol Doc is not exactly Mr. Popular among the local villagers, who seem to loathe everything Frankenstein ever did. To make matters worse, when finally Larry arrives, he is told that Frankenstein is dead along with all his groundbreaking work on reanimating the dead along with his own creation, the monster. However, some small hope is found when Talbot finds out that Dr. Frankenstein did in fact have a daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey). All in all, I really liked this film, and was surprised to learn how poorly the critics thought of it. Yes, it is over-the-top, goofy but still lots of fun and while not as well made or dramatic as The Wolf Man or other of the Universal Monster movies, I have to say, I found it to be charming, very entertaining and I could also see where most of the influence on another favorite horror-comedy of mine Transylanvia 6-5000 (1985) came from, as many of the lines and characters/scenes was almost identical, and they even had the wine festival, the hilarious local angry village people "THE MOOONSTER!!!!" or "My father was great scientist!" and that was of course another great surprise too. I guess some of the critic comes towards that the movie features two classic monsters and they do have a go at each other right at the end, not a great fight but I thought what happened before, was more interesting than just have Frankenstein and The Wolf Man engaging in a fist fight, but back then I guess it was all about milking the cash cow as much as they could. Anyway, I had a great time watching these two film, back-to-back and I hope that there might some other upcoming gems awaiting me, within the next days as I will continue to watch more of the Universal Classic Horror releases. 7/10"Twenty-three more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty-three more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 10, 2017 12:38:39 GMT
First off, are anybody else having a trouble writing when using preview" not BBCode? Everytime I hit a button, the page is flying down to the bottom of the same page, every time. I cannot write normally it seems, and I do not like using BBCode as that is a bit of a mess. Very, very annoying and just one of many glitches or whatever it is called that seems to be happening on the IMDB2. forum as of lately, that and when I type in words, it seems to almost freeze for 5-10 seconds and then I have spend 5-10 minutes after posting a reply or creating a new thread as there are so many typos happening because of it. This happens only to me on this site, and I was wondering if anybody else are experiencing this problem or lately. Update: Oh, great. Now everything is working fine. October Horror Challenge - Day Nine: Werewolf of London (1935) and She-Wolf of London (1946)
Well, beside that litte "outburst", I saw two new horror movies again last night, and I guess the good times couldnt last forever as I ended up watching the weakest Universal Picture Monster films, or at least as of the first 11 of the October Horror Challenge. First out was Werewolf of London which was not exactly an impressive film, and it could easily have been called Werewolf of everywhere else on planet earth, as the "London" scenes are mostly inside house/buildings and that alone was a letdown, as I was expecting the monster to go on a rampage through the streets of London, instead it was just the same bullshit as Jason "takes" Manhatten, but at least he did for 20 seconds or so. The good or positive things about this werewolf film was that the special effects/make-up looked more menacing and "scarier" than the ones that was used in the Lon Chaney movies. This time, the werwolf actually looked evil. Anyway, the plot is pretty dull. Some british scientist is looking for some rare flower in the mountains of Nepal or something like that, and are attacket by a beastlike figure. Back home in "London" Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull) and his wife Lisa Glendon (Valerie Hobson) are having a bit of tough time in their marriage, as he seems to have changed, personality wise and is no longer the "happy" chap he used to be. At the same time a mysterious stranger only known as Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) appears and asks Wilfred about the flowers he discovered, and it seems the two men have something in common. To lighten up the awkard situation, an old flame of Lisa, suddenly appears and still seems to have the hots for her. On top of that, a dangerous wolf like creature is to be seen on the streets late at night, attacking unlucky victims and rips them to shreds. The acting is pretty lame compared to the Wolfman movies I saw last night, and the characters are not very likeable, in fact the main lead I cared nothing about. The rest was just forgettable. As I mentioned the make-up of the werewolf was actually pretty cool, and more "frightening" than the ones used in the more famous werewolf films that came after. However this wolf reminded me more of an amateur version of the Elephant Man when he walked around the streets of London at night, and it looked more goofy than scary. A mediocre attempt of making a monster movie, and one that I will never watch again. 5/10She-Wolf of London is another poor filler that just happened to come along with two great and far more enjoyable werewolf movies, and this one from 1946 seems to be more of a mystery film than horror and again, the acting and characters are just not very interesting at all, but some of the locations and scenery is actually better than Werewolf of London. It only last for about an hour, but it was slow-moving and felt like it had a runtime of 100-110 minutes or so, and was like the other London werewolf movie, an unecessary filler that I will never watch again. 4/10"Twenty-two more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty-two more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 11, 2017 15:47:14 GMT
October Horror Challenge - Day Ten: Phantom of the Opera (1943)
Again, not sure if this one counts as a horror movie, but on my DVD version of it, is says horror and since it was released as a part of the Universal Classic Monster Legacy Collection in 2004, I hope it is ok to include it, and well, people do get killed here, in fact several, so it is not exactly an comedy. Phantom of the Opera, is another one I have seen before through different and more updated versions. My first experience of this legendary adventure was through my mum and one of her cd albums called The Very Best of Andrew Lloyd Webber (1994) and while I never become a big opera fan, one track stood out and that was Sarah Brightman and Steve Harley - The Phantom of the Opera which I became almost obsessed about, it was extremely catchy and whenever I heard it, I had all these images in my head of how that play would look like. I never did become a Opera fan, but I did watch three Phantom of the Opera films, first out was Dario Argento and his poorly 1998 horror-adventure which I remember very little of, beside that it featured his daughter and some rather nasty death scenes, including rats. The second one, and worst was Joel Schumacher and his big budget 2004 version, which I had trouble sitting through, just not my kind of fun. The last and final one was Robert Englund back in 1989, and I have not seen it since 2011, but again, I remember not very much of it, and might give that one a second go in the future, as I remember it had a the right look and scenery, but the story/characters did sit well with me. Anyway, back to topic. Phantom of the Opera (1943) was to be a very nice surprise, and one that seemed to be a bit "different" than most of the other Universal Monster films I have seen lately, as it came in colors (or at least my DVD version did) and the runtime was 20 minutes longer than the usual 70 minutes "rule". First off, I am not a big fan of singing and dancing in movies, so I was a bit "nervous" thinking that it was gonna be like that for the next 90 minutes, but to my big surprise the song numbers was, well not bad, I mean they were very well done (I am no expert) but they did not to put me off or "hurt" the pace/story in any way, in fact it helped on with the films atmosphere and tone, and that is someting the other versions maybe did "wrong" at least to my ears. The story deals with ambitions, desire, tragic love, and manages to be adventurous, sad, funny but also romantic without relying on too much of one thing, and of course added with some terrific and memorable performances by Nelson Eddy, Edgar Barrier, Sussana Foster and then of course Claude Rains as the Phantom. What impressed me, maybe the most with this film, was the scenery/movie sets, this might just be the version that (for me) captures what I have always seen in my head, as a kid, hearing that Sarah Brightman and Steve Harley hit from the 80s. Specially the sewer scenes at the end was fantastic, and the designs and costumes along with the make-up for the Phantom, again great. The only reason why I did not hand out another 8/10 is that Claude did such a good and likeable yet sad part as the mysterious and tragic Phantom, that I wished he had more screen time, but still, another very good surprise and next up I have The Creature from the Black Lagoon, so hopefully I am back on track with more great horror classics waiting for me. 7/10"Twenty-one more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty-one more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Oct 12, 2017 1:42:19 GMT
Track Of The Moon Beast (1976) After a meteor collides with the moon, it creates a meteorite shower on earth. A chunk of this meteor becomes embedded in a man's brain, causing him to turn into a lizard-like monster every time there's a full moon. According to IMDb trivia, Track Of The Moon Beast was filmed in 1972 and sat on the shelf for four years because it couldn't find a distributor, then ended up going straight to television. The Wikipedia page says it was released theatrically in June 1976 (which probably means it played in some seedy theater on 42nd Street in New York for a day or two). Whatever the case, this movie deserved to be obscure. Looks like somebody's bad 8MM home movies. Idiotic story, cardboard acting, and worst of all poor make-up effects. Unless you are a fan of really bad movies, avoid this turkey at all costs!
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 12, 2017 13:23:02 GMT
October Horror Challenge - Day Eleven: Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
Now for the last (or at least for a while) of the Universal Monster Legacy Collection which was released on DVD back in 2004. Creature from the Black Lagoon I have never seen before, but I did read a fantastic comic novel back in the early 90s as a kid, when it had a guest-appearance in the monthly The Phantom comics by Lee Falk, and it was really scary to read and the pictures was very well drawn and the monster or creature was terrifying as hell. I mean, he crushed peoples head in with his bare hands, and there's a lot tension and suspense all the way through. So, I was positively surprised to see how much of the original film that was kept in the comic version, however that might also be a reason to why I was a little "disappointed" in this film, as I had so much memories of the comic, that it would be very hard to get the same out of this movie. It starts up with a team of scientist who discover something "new" and before you know it, they travel back to the United States to gather around a bigger team to travel deep into the Amazon jungle in search for the rest of their latest finding. However, the only thing they do come up with is a fight for their lives when somebody already lives in the infamous Black Lagoon, and he is not exactly to fond of humans, well except maybe for the stunning Julie Adams that is. I really enjoyed the first 25-30 minutes of it, a great and adventurous horror/monster movie, but somehow I lost a bit of "interest" when reaching 40-45 minute of time, and I kept coming back to my childhood days when reading that scary comic, and the film just did not meet up with my nostalgic memories, which of course is not is fault, but I really wanted to like this, but the last 20-25 minutes I thought were disappointing but still a good movie. The monster or creature costume was impressive, the underwater scenes too, and of course Julie Adams was, well I can understand why the Creature wanted a piece of her, but somewhere along the way I felt it lost some of the more suspenseful/chilling tone that it had in the beginning and ended up almost as an action-adventure. 6/10"Twenty more days 'til Halloween/ Halloween/ Halloween/ Twenty more days 'til Halloween/ Silver Shamrock."
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 13, 2017 15:28:23 GMT
Unless you are a fan of really bad movies, avoid this turkey at all costs! Strangely somehow, that along with the poster and title only made me want to see it even more.
Thanks for the great review Dramatic Look Gopher, I might just go on an look for a copy of it, but maybe I'd rather should save my money as see if I can find it on Youtube instead.
|
|