Search

Search only in certain items:

Scream 3 (2000)
Scream 3 (2000)
2000 | Horror
A very inferior sequel
It's such a shame that Scream 3 loses the magic that Scream 2 had in abundance.

There's no wit, no humour and the film within a film concept is tired and very poor. All of the new characters are under developed meaning you care so little when they get bumped off one by one. Patrick Dempsey's character is so creepy and slimy in parts that it's laughable and builds no tension or intrigue whatsoever. And even the returning characters have lost their edge, repeating the same old squabbles and experiences as in the first two films. Ghostface too loses his edge here, there's no shocking deaths and the voice changer that can mimic other voices is ridiculous and farfetched. The ending too isn't particularly clever or interesting. The only things I really liked about this film was the brief return of Randy and the cameos from Silent Jay & Bob and Carrie Fisher.

I remember really looking forward to seeing this when it first came out, but it is such a disappointment. It isn't helped by the fact that I spend the entire film wondering what the hell is going on with Courtney Fox's fringe...
  
The Bat (1959)
The Bat (1959)
1959 | Horror, Mystery
8
6.5 (2 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Vincent Price (0 more)
The Bite
The Bat- is the fourth film adaptation of the story, which began as a 1908 novel The Circular Staircase by Mary Roberts Rinehart, which she later adapted (with Avery Hopwood) into the 1920 play The Bat. The first film version of the play was the 1926 American silent film The Bat. The film version was adapted by playwright Crane Wilbur, who also directed.

This one has Vincent Price in it, which is a huge plus in my books. He is such a excellent, fantasic and phenomenal actor. He is one of my favorites. He is also one of my favorite horror actors.

The plot: A killer called "the Bat" has claimed many lives in the small town inhabited by novelist Cornelia van Gorder (Agnes Moorehead) and her maid, Lizzie (Lenita Lane). As Cornelia implores Dr. Malcolm Wells (Vincent Price) to help her ailing maid, $1 million in the town's bank goes missing. With greed and fear reaching new heights, police Lt. Andy Anderson (Gavin Gordon) goes to Cornelia's house to investigate additional murders committed by the Bat.

Its a creepy, scary and classic movie.
  
Dracula (English) (1931)
Dracula (English) (1931)
1931 | Horror
6
7.8 (24 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Where it all began...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.

Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.

Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.

But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.

The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.

Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.

But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.

This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.