Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unfriended (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Deeply Unnerving
When was the last time you watched a genuinely scary horror film? For me, Sinister, The Conjuring and You’re Next are three of the most terrifying movies to grace the silver screen in the last few years.
However, for every Sinister, there’s a One Missed Call. Bland, forgettable films litter the genre and we’re still waiting for a 90s-esque resurgence to kick-in. Here, Universal Pictures starts its summer movie campaign with Unfriended, but will it have you watching through your fingers?
Unfriended takes place in real-time on the laptop of a high-school student named Blaire (Shelley Hennig). Blaire, along with her boyfriend (Moses Jacob Storm) and a group of other conventional American teenagers gather together on Skype to have a chat.
However, a sinister account belonging to their deceased friend appears to join in the conversation on the anniversary of her suicide. The ensuing horror not only tests the limits of their friendship, but also their strength as human beings.
Levan Gabriadze directs the film brilliantly and in only using social media and webcam chat services, manages to create a horror movie that is genuinely unique and also impossible to predict, playing on our continuous use of modern technology as a plot device.
The result of this static camera work and point of view shooting is a hideously claustrophobic atmosphere that makes you feel like you’re also a part of the group’s terror – though take your glasses along if you have trouble reading from afar like I do.
Casting reasonably unknown actors in the roles was also a master stroke by the production team. In doing so, they have created a film that feels much more real, and in turn a lot more scary, with the characters coming across as just normal kids caught up in something truly awful.
Of course, the lack of feature film experience is evident in the whole of the cast. Some of the acting is decidedly dodgy and
to fully immerse yourself in what’s going on requires a slight suspension of disbelief in these sequences.
What Unfriended does have in its favour however is a plot featuring different tones. As it begins, it appears to be a typical teen-slasher movie like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer – but the clever editing and story that picks up pace from around 20 minutes in throws you off the scent of what is really at work here.
Unfortunately, this intriguing premise isn’t explored to its full extent and with a length just shy of 85 minutes there just isn’t enough time to flesh out the characters.
Much like 2013’s The Purge, Unfriended has a story that’s different to every other mass-market horror flick out there, but it feels like the creators chickened out a little before the end and hastily added in unnecessary violence to make it feel a little more conventional which is a real shame.
Overall, Unfriended is a genuinely scary, if slightly too brief horror film that manages to play on our fears of the unknown and what technology can really do if it gets into the wrong hands. If there was to be a sequel, and a look to the past tells me there may well be, let’s hope it’s more like The Purge: Anarchy than Piranha 3DD.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/03/deeply-unnerving-unfriended-review/
However, for every Sinister, there’s a One Missed Call. Bland, forgettable films litter the genre and we’re still waiting for a 90s-esque resurgence to kick-in. Here, Universal Pictures starts its summer movie campaign with Unfriended, but will it have you watching through your fingers?
Unfriended takes place in real-time on the laptop of a high-school student named Blaire (Shelley Hennig). Blaire, along with her boyfriend (Moses Jacob Storm) and a group of other conventional American teenagers gather together on Skype to have a chat.
However, a sinister account belonging to their deceased friend appears to join in the conversation on the anniversary of her suicide. The ensuing horror not only tests the limits of their friendship, but also their strength as human beings.
Levan Gabriadze directs the film brilliantly and in only using social media and webcam chat services, manages to create a horror movie that is genuinely unique and also impossible to predict, playing on our continuous use of modern technology as a plot device.
The result of this static camera work and point of view shooting is a hideously claustrophobic atmosphere that makes you feel like you’re also a part of the group’s terror – though take your glasses along if you have trouble reading from afar like I do.
Casting reasonably unknown actors in the roles was also a master stroke by the production team. In doing so, they have created a film that feels much more real, and in turn a lot more scary, with the characters coming across as just normal kids caught up in something truly awful.
Of course, the lack of feature film experience is evident in the whole of the cast. Some of the acting is decidedly dodgy and
to fully immerse yourself in what’s going on requires a slight suspension of disbelief in these sequences.
What Unfriended does have in its favour however is a plot featuring different tones. As it begins, it appears to be a typical teen-slasher movie like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer – but the clever editing and story that picks up pace from around 20 minutes in throws you off the scent of what is really at work here.
Unfortunately, this intriguing premise isn’t explored to its full extent and with a length just shy of 85 minutes there just isn’t enough time to flesh out the characters.
Much like 2013’s The Purge, Unfriended has a story that’s different to every other mass-market horror flick out there, but it feels like the creators chickened out a little before the end and hastily added in unnecessary violence to make it feel a little more conventional which is a real shame.
Overall, Unfriended is a genuinely scary, if slightly too brief horror film that manages to play on our fears of the unknown and what technology can really do if it gets into the wrong hands. If there was to be a sequel, and a look to the past tells me there may well be, let’s hope it’s more like The Purge: Anarchy than Piranha 3DD.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/03/deeply-unnerving-unfriended-review/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Jul 6, 2020
Damn Good Horror Film - 9/10
Us is a 2019 horror movie written, directed, and co-produced by Jordan Peele. It was also produced by Jason Blum, Ian Cooper, and Sean McKittrick; through Monkeypaw Productions and distributed by Universal. It stars Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Shahadi Wright Joseph, and Evan Alex.
In 1986, on vacation with her parents in Santa Cruz, one night Adelaide Thomas (Madison Curry) wanders off while at the boardwalk on the beach. Only a young girl at the time she enters a scary looking funhouse where she gets lost in the hall of mirrors. Panicking, afraid and looking for the exit, she encounters a doppelganger of herself, leaving her traumatized and unable to speak when she is reunited with her parents. Now an adult, Adelaide (Lupita Nyong'o) reluctantly heads with her family: husband Gabe Wilson (Winston Duke), daughter Zora Wilson (Shahadi Wright Joseph), and son Jason Wilson (Evan Alex) to their beach house in Santa Cruz. Adelaide is very apprehensive about the trip, remembering the traumatic incident from her youth, and becomes very discontent. Even during the day while meeting up with friends at the beach, she becomes very erratic for a moment when she cannot find her son who walked a way to use the restroom. She becomes increasingly concerned something bad is going to happen. Later that evening, back at the beach house, she confides in her husband the details of her childhood trauma, which he laughs off until four masked people storm the house forcing them to fight for their survival.
I cannot say how much I enjoyed this movie. It was an awesome horror movie. Jordan Peele knocked it out of the park with this film. It was masterfully done. I like how you can see a lot of the influences from other films yet it was still very original. This movie had me at the edge of my seat gripping the armrests of my chair with a lot of its scarier scenes. Yet it was still funny in a lot of parts. I thought the acting was great especially for so many actors playing duo roles, even the children. The cinematography was very good too with a lot of visuals that will stay with you and hidden meanings to things you will probably only notice or realize on your 2nd or 3rd viewing. I personally can't wait to watch it again. Another critic summed it up better than I ever could "originality in concept, physiological torment+twists, old-world suspense building, and one of the best scorings in modern Horror history"-(Cinema Lovers Club Gmail). I really loved the soundtrack and music in this movie. I give it a 9/10.
In 1986, on vacation with her parents in Santa Cruz, one night Adelaide Thomas (Madison Curry) wanders off while at the boardwalk on the beach. Only a young girl at the time she enters a scary looking funhouse where she gets lost in the hall of mirrors. Panicking, afraid and looking for the exit, she encounters a doppelganger of herself, leaving her traumatized and unable to speak when she is reunited with her parents. Now an adult, Adelaide (Lupita Nyong'o) reluctantly heads with her family: husband Gabe Wilson (Winston Duke), daughter Zora Wilson (Shahadi Wright Joseph), and son Jason Wilson (Evan Alex) to their beach house in Santa Cruz. Adelaide is very apprehensive about the trip, remembering the traumatic incident from her youth, and becomes very discontent. Even during the day while meeting up with friends at the beach, she becomes very erratic for a moment when she cannot find her son who walked a way to use the restroom. She becomes increasingly concerned something bad is going to happen. Later that evening, back at the beach house, she confides in her husband the details of her childhood trauma, which he laughs off until four masked people storm the house forcing them to fight for their survival.
I cannot say how much I enjoyed this movie. It was an awesome horror movie. Jordan Peele knocked it out of the park with this film. It was masterfully done. I like how you can see a lot of the influences from other films yet it was still very original. This movie had me at the edge of my seat gripping the armrests of my chair with a lot of its scarier scenes. Yet it was still funny in a lot of parts. I thought the acting was great especially for so many actors playing duo roles, even the children. The cinematography was very good too with a lot of visuals that will stay with you and hidden meanings to things you will probably only notice or realize on your 2nd or 3rd viewing. I personally can't wait to watch it again. Another critic summed it up better than I ever could "originality in concept, physiological torment+twists, old-world suspense building, and one of the best scorings in modern Horror history"-(Cinema Lovers Club Gmail). I really loved the soundtrack and music in this movie. I give it a 9/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Darkman (1990) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
In The Shadows
Darkman- is a dark twisted superhero movie directed by horror icon Sam Raimi. Its a excellent film as well.
The plot: When thugs employed by a crime boss lead a vicious assault on Dr. Peyton Wilder (Liam Neeson), leaving him literally and psychologically scarred, an emergency procedure allows him to survive. Upon his recovery, Wilder can find solace only by returning to his scientific work developing synthetic skin, and seeking revenge against the crime boss. He assumes a phantom avenger persona called Darkman, who, with malleable facial qualities, is able to infiltrate and sow terror in the criminal community.
Unable to secure the rights to either The Shadow or Batman, Raimi decided to create his own superhero and struck a deal with Universal Studios to make his first Hollywood studio film.
Initially, Raimi's longtime friend and collaborator Bruce Campbell was set to play Darkman, but the studio balked at the idea because they did not think Campbell could carry the role. Gary Oldman and Bill Paxton were also considered.
Sam had wanted to work with Frances McDormand but the studio resisted this notion and almost cast Julia Roberts before Pretty Woman made her a star. At one point, they wanted Demi Moore for the role. The director even tested Bridget Fonda but felt that she was too young for Neeson.
Its a excellent film.
The plot: When thugs employed by a crime boss lead a vicious assault on Dr. Peyton Wilder (Liam Neeson), leaving him literally and psychologically scarred, an emergency procedure allows him to survive. Upon his recovery, Wilder can find solace only by returning to his scientific work developing synthetic skin, and seeking revenge against the crime boss. He assumes a phantom avenger persona called Darkman, who, with malleable facial qualities, is able to infiltrate and sow terror in the criminal community.
Unable to secure the rights to either The Shadow or Batman, Raimi decided to create his own superhero and struck a deal with Universal Studios to make his first Hollywood studio film.
Initially, Raimi's longtime friend and collaborator Bruce Campbell was set to play Darkman, but the studio balked at the idea because they did not think Campbell could carry the role. Gary Oldman and Bill Paxton were also considered.
Sam had wanted to work with Frances McDormand but the studio resisted this notion and almost cast Julia Roberts before Pretty Woman made her a star. At one point, they wanted Demi Moore for the role. The director even tested Bridget Fonda but felt that she was too young for Neeson.
Its a excellent film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
During the golden age of cinematic horror, Lon Chaney terrified audiences with his portrayal of the Wolfman which launched the character as a cultural mainstay.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is a prequel to probably one of the best horror films ever made, a true classic and a very good addition to the story. It tells what happened in the events leading up to the original film. The last shot of this film links to the first shot of the original.
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
At first I was worried about this film for two reasons. First, as the film was set on a Norwegian camp how much reading would I have to do whilst trying to follow the story? Second, the original film is amazing a true classic of the horror genre. Would this film do justice to the story and would the use of modern effects change the feel of the story? My fears were soon put to rest. Fortunately it appears that the universal language for scientists working in the Antarctic is English! There are a few subtitles throughout the film but not that many. Now a big thank you to the producers of this film. It is clear that they are true fans of the original and this is evident in the title. They couldn't come up with a title better than "The Thing". They could have gone with The Thing: Begins but nothing sounded as good. This film was made by fans of the original and they have ensured that it links into every reference made in the original to the Norwegian base, even down to an axe in the wall seen in the first film, showing how it got there in this one. The cast is made up of very good actors, none of them are particularly well known to everyone. I recognised a few faces, but this is good as you have no idea who will survive as there no major stars.
Story wise, if you have seen the original you know what to expect but the film makers know this and throw a few curve-balls in. The famous "blood test" of the original almost happens here but cleverly it gets change for something else also unexpected. The creatures origins are left alone and rightly so as there is no way of knowing them. It is just a creature trying to survive by killing everyone in its way. Do we really need to know more than that? The effects are also very good, but this is what you would expect from modern effects. Where the original films effects were ground breaking, the ones here are what you can see in most Hollywood creature films. The difference here is the attention to making the creature effects look like the original. Again the makers of the film have done a great job in making the two films fit together both story wise and visually. I wish all sequels/prequels would have enough respect for the audience like this one has.
My nemesis(a film critic on UK radio) struck again with this film. They rated this film a "good strong 3 stars" asked why not 4 stars they stated that Happy Feet Two was released at the same time and this was a 4 star film and they enjoyed it more. What???! How can you compare a horror with a cartoon? Shouldn't you rate them as individual films in different genres?
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) in Movies
Oct 15, 2020
Lon Chaney Jr. (1 more)
Bela Lugosi
Huge Disappointment
Contains spoilers, click to show
Frankenstien Meets The Wolf Man- was a huge disappointment but ill get to that later. First lets talk about the film.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
Walking Death Call: Shooter Island Full
Games
App
The end is near! Horde of terrifying walking dead broke free from their eternal oblivion and now...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Dracula (English) (1931) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
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.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lights Out (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Growing up, we all had a fear of the dark. Years later, many of us still carry this phobia. It prevents us from going into certain parts of our homes or places we are familiar with unless we have the assistance of light in some form. The darkness symbolizes and encapsulates the unknown. What is it that is hiding in the darkness? Why is it that we cannot trust it? Is there really something lurking in the shadows or is it all in our minds?
In Lights Out audiences bear witness to this fear and are confronted with how this fear becomes a reality for one family. Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) is trying to make a life of her own after becoming estranged from her family. When her brother begins to experience the same problems at home that had plagued her as a child, she is brought back into the center of chaos. All of the fears return and she must save her family from a dark spirit that has attached itself to her mother before it consumes them all.
The film itself offers the ability for audiences to explore some of their earliest fears which had them leaving a light on or plugging in a night light in their rooms in order to feel safe. The film is inventive in its approach and storytelling, but I felt as though there was more to be offered with respect to the villain and relationships between the characters. Greater depth about their backstories would have allowed audiences to feel more invested in the characters and even more interested in the outcome.
For those that are looking forward to a movie that will have them jumping out of their seats, this film delivers. Many of those moments are not as predictable in many other films of the horror genre, nor does it rely on gore in order to shock audiences. Through the direction of David Sandberg, the tension is allowed to build and help carry the story to its culmination. I am looking forward to more adaptations of universal fears and phobias on screen. Lights Out does not disappoint in being a fright-filled popcorn movie.
In Lights Out audiences bear witness to this fear and are confronted with how this fear becomes a reality for one family. Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) is trying to make a life of her own after becoming estranged from her family. When her brother begins to experience the same problems at home that had plagued her as a child, she is brought back into the center of chaos. All of the fears return and she must save her family from a dark spirit that has attached itself to her mother before it consumes them all.
The film itself offers the ability for audiences to explore some of their earliest fears which had them leaving a light on or plugging in a night light in their rooms in order to feel safe. The film is inventive in its approach and storytelling, but I felt as though there was more to be offered with respect to the villain and relationships between the characters. Greater depth about their backstories would have allowed audiences to feel more invested in the characters and even more interested in the outcome.
For those that are looking forward to a movie that will have them jumping out of their seats, this film delivers. Many of those moments are not as predictable in many other films of the horror genre, nor does it rely on gore in order to shock audiences. Through the direction of David Sandberg, the tension is allowed to build and help carry the story to its culmination. I am looking forward to more adaptations of universal fears and phobias on screen. Lights Out does not disappoint in being a fright-filled popcorn movie.
