 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur, I'm pretty sure the answer to your composer query exists, but at the moment off the top of my head I'm afraid I can't remember their names or where I saw them.
Based mostly on that MUMMY scene, Bramwell Fletcher is one of my favorite under-used actors. And I have a reel to reel audiotape somewhere of a tab version of his one-man-show he did for CBS TV's Camera Three program, in which he read a big chunk of one of my favorite books, Don Marquis' ARCHY AND MEHITABEL. (Another reason why he's a favorite.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was disappointed in VARRICK esp. after hearing how great it .
Minor Siegel unlike the first two above
bruce
El bruco
Varrick is all about Joe don baker. And to a lesser degree andy robinson.
Yeah, that's the problem, dummy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dummy?! Nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been watching Fritz Lang's MINISTRY OF FEAR (1944) which curiously I've not seen before. Interesting Nazi spy film which starts promisingly - very atmospheric and mysterious, although toward the end it lapses into the routine. Good directional touches by Lang and a fine performance by Ray Milland. I get the impression that the film may have been heavily cut post production, given events which are not seen but spoken about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dummy?! Nice.
Sorry.
I meant to say dead man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"i allow few men to talk to me in that tone..."
"Wheres Varrick? Wheres the money? "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 6, 2015 - 3:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
After having seen the Wolfman and the Mummy, it's on to Frankenstein. 
The 1931 version of Frankenstein is also very iconic, what impressed me most about this one were the beautiful sets and the creature itself. The 'creation of life' scene is classic and the buildup to it very entertaining; The Fritz 'dwarf' and Frankenstein make a great team and there was plenty of good drama throughout with some comical touches. What was unintentionally funny about this one were the riots, with angry mobs with torches going after the monster (and almost setting fire to the backdrop curtain). 
The sequel "Bride of Frankenstein" begins interestingly from the perspective of the story's writer Mary Shelley, as she imagines how her story would continue. And it does pick up where the first one ends with a slightly different cast. I found this one to be more of a mixed bag, with standout scenes (the blind man, giving life to the bride via kites) but also a lot of farcical moments (the tiny people in jars). Still entertaining and making lots of use of superimposition, I enjoyed but not as much as the first one. What also sets it aside from the first is the musical score by Waxman, which adds more to the whimsical nature of the movie with the creature's theme very effective.
I have "Son of Frankenstein", "Ghost of Frankenstein" lined up for this weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Francis - glad you seem to be getting into those old Universal films... for the first time? I gather so from your comments. A lot of the older people around here grew up with them, so it's really interesting to hear positive, or at least "untarnished" comments from someone younger who is coming into them for the first time. Or am I reading you wrongly?
Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what you think about the ones you have lined up. I'll just say that I love them all - for very different reasons - and hope that we can have a chat here about the ongoing series.
It's probably a good idea to try to follow them chronologically. They don't quite follow a logical order once the monsters start meeting each other, but there is an attempt at continuity which you won't get if you watch them completely out of order. Oh, don't you have SON OF FRANKENSTEIN? Forgive me if you mentioned that one.
EDITADO POR SATÉLITE A TRAVÉS DEL APARATO ESPÍA SECRETO::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::///////////
Doh! Forgive me! You mentioned it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 6, 2015 - 4:55 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
Francis - glad you seem to be getting into those old Universal films... for the first time? I gather so from your comments. A lot of the older people around here grew up with them, so it's really interesting to hear positive, or at least "untarnished" comments from someone younger who is coming into them for the first time. Or am I reading you wrongly?
You are correct in the assumption that I am a newbie when it comes to classic horror; OK, I've seem titles like the original Blob, The Thing from another world, Nosferatu, ... but I recently acquired the Universal Classic Monsters set and am using that as a start off point. It's amazing how well preserved the movies are I've seen so far. I was expecting more damage to the prints, but aside from the occasional missing frame they look stunning.
And yes, I'm trying to watch them chronologically and for some of the characters will even venture into hammer territory as well.
BTW, is the "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein" movie worth watching?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Francis, I'd say that ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN is most definitely worth watching. I'm no fan of the duo, but for horror movie aficionados it has a lot going for it. The monster bits are played straight and are every bit as atmospheric as the best of the previous entries.
I don't suppose I'm spoiling things for you by saying that after SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, the series is generally considered to have gone rapidly downhill. Well, I know what the experts mean, but I think they are ALL splendid entertainment - even the last two "serious" ones (HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and HOUSE OF DRACULA), which most people consider garbage. I think I actually enjoy them more than BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (in my opinion one of the most overrated films of all time) and even THE WOLF MAN (which has a kind of numbing "big budget gloss" to it, as if trying to appeal to not only monster fans, but also to their spinster aunts - though it's nowhere near as insufferable as PHANTOM OF THE OPERA).
Forgive me, I felt a rabbit coming on. I'll stifle it for now and let it loose later. Watch those films, Francis! Looking forward to hearing your views on them, unfettered by nostalgia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 1, 2015 - 3:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
Continuing the frankenstein movies
Son of Frankenstein 1939
This one is quite lengthy compared to the previous two. I liked the opening with Baron Frankenstein being welcomed by the now weary villagers and despite their warning, Frankenstein junior still teams up with crazy Ygor to revive the monster. I thought the first half of the picture building up to the monster was done ok, but once the monster and Ygor go at it, it becomes tedious. This one does have a nice demise scene for the monster. I would rate it marginally better than Bride, but not as good as the original and every time Son of Frankenstein references the original doctor Frankenstein, I am reminded how much more passionate that actor was in his quest for creation. In this one the whole resurrection scene feels obligatory, I mean the monster's brain must be fried by now from all the lightning.
Ghost of Frankenstein 1942
Finally a nice departure -somewhat- of familiar Frankenstein terrain as the monster and Igor leave town to head for the countryside, where they find yet another Frankenstein son. The monster this time is played by a different actor and it kinda takes away from the enjoyment. Which is a pity as there's actually a fair amount of kills in this one and Ygor has become on par with the monster, quite literally near the end. Again the monster is electrocuted, the villagers riot and the place burns down but. The title "ghost of frankenstein" refers to one scene where the son is visited by the original Frankenstein's ghost. That felt a bit unnecessary but overall this part in the bolt saga was very entertaining and great score by Salter.
If I would have to rate them so far:
Frankenstein > Ghost > Son > Bride
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continue with those posts, Francis. As I mentioned before, it's refreshing to hear younger people's takes on the classic Universal monster series, untainted by childhood collections of film books telling us which ones are great and which ones rubbish.
It's so great to see how you rate the films - BRIDE is behind SON... and even GHOST!!!. It's almost a "child's-eye" view - and I don't mean that in a patronising or condescending way.
Looking forward to your comments on the next one - whatever that is (it depends on what schedule you're following - where do you slip in THE WOLF MAN?... it gets a bit chronologically chaotic when he "meets" Frankenstein).
editado-automaticamente-por-tecnología-ajena. añadido...y analizado... vía libre -
Ah! I remember you already saw THE WOLF MAN, Francis. After you get through the Franks and Dracs, do watch (if you want) THE BLACK CAT, and tell me it's rubbish. By the way, is the Spanish version of DRACULA on your list? I've got my own views on that, but I want you to see it and tell me your opinion. I read a film book book first so that I knew what to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 3, 2015 - 1:48 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
riotengine
(Member)
|
“It’s not about anything”
“Yeah, it’s about four hundred grand.”
Watched the new Kino-Lorber blu-ray of the 1972 Bill Cosby & Robert Culp private eye film, Hickey and Boggs, directed by Culp and written by Walter Hill. It has a very interesting cast, with Rosalind Cash, Vincent Gardenia, and baby-faced up-and-comers, Michael Moriarity and James Woods in small roles. Also featured is famed stunt driver Bill Hickman (Bullitt, The French Connection) as one of the main baddies. I saw it many years ago on VHS, but I appreciated it much more now. It's a great, violent 70s piece of private eye deconstruction.
Al Hickey and Frank Boggs are down-and-out private investigators hired to find a woman involved with a man connected to a $400,000. bank heist, and are competing with two other groups anxious to find her. Hickey and Boggs are so low-rent, they make Jim Rockford look like Rockford nemesis, Lance White; They are worn-down men scraping by, barely able to pay their bills, driving rattling clunkers for cars. I loved the almost existential question Hickey asks at one point, questioning why they keep doing the job, "we might as well be process servers. It's not about anything." It's a hard-knock job that has long lost its romanticism, if it was ever there in the first place. But what else would these guys do?
Hill writes some great hard-boiled dialogue and Culp does a great job with the direction, framing some nice compositions and staging some effective gunfights. Culp was very underrated and talented as a writer and director. Sam Peckinpah was one of his contemporaries. It's too bad Culp didn't direct more features based on his sole feature film credit, but I understand it didn't do well. Fans expecting an I Spy reunion got a darker, bleaker picture than I'm sure they were expecting. But the chemistry is still there with much verbal and visual shorthand from two actors who can do so much more with less.
The film has been considered obscure and very hard to see over the years until MGM made it available as a made-on-demand DVD. Kino-Lorber stepped up and released onto this new
blu-ray, which looks and sounds really good, but it's a bare-bones release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my fave bit in that greg was whenever robert culp parked his car he casually popped a brown paper bag over the parking meter that said Out of order on it and walked off!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
