Too bad, I wanted a free coffin lmao!

The Skull
 

mention of skulls reminds me of the movie The Skull, starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. It's pretty good. I seem to remember that famous monsters of filmland was interviewing the director and he told them that the last half hour of the movie was basically created in the editing room, that every shot in the last half hour was originally meant to be somewhere else in the movie.

GREAT MOVIE!::cool::::cool::::cool::::big grin::::big grin::::big grin::::love::

BLACK SABBATH (1963). Great Bava anthology with the ending of "A Drop of Water" scaring the bejesus out of me at ten. "The Telephone" was OK, but as I've gotten older, can see the beginnings of Giallo and "The Wurdulak" is fantastic! One of my favorite Karloff performances the whole concept is quite scary, also with the little boy pre-dating Danny Glick by about 15 years. ****

EMBRYO (1976). Rock Hudson tries to go DR Frankenstein and things come FUBAR pretty quickly. Not bad with a good performance by Barbara Carrera, although my copy was pretty dark.., **1/2

Night of the Living Dead, 1968. 10/10

https://i1.wp.com/31.media.tumblr.co...74%2C368&ssl=1

Yes, "A Drop of Water" is epic! Very scary and looks great. The Telephone is ok... I liked the concept, and it looks good, nice shots, but really underachieves story-wise. Wurdulak was actually very forgettable to me.

BEND OF THE RIVER (1952). Pretty good Anthony Mann directed Western with Jimmy Stewart, Arthur Kennedy, Julie Adams, Lori Nelson (Both ladies would be stalked by the Gillman in CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and REVENGE OF THE CREATURE a few years down the road) and Frances Xavier-Aunt B on THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW! ***1/2

looks good! What's that a horror film? Jimmy gets axed around the river bend? ::big grin::

My Darling Clementine (1946)
8/10

John Fords Gunfight at the OK Corral film. Henry Fonda is Wyatt Earp, joined by Victor Mature as the deeply troubled and deadly Doc Holliday. It's quite intriguing and entertaining, especially the first third of the film. It's a lot of fun to see Henry Fonda is his acting zone.

I felt the second half of the film was a bit loose, and started to drift, where we actually lose focus on the main characters, we see more of them but we don't get answers about them -- such as we never really know why Doc Holiday went off-the-rails... and then we start to wonder when we're getting back to the story of the Clanton family facing justice for their crimes. I also thought the ending was a little anticlimactic, where the shootout isn't very exciting nor interesting.

But there are plenty of nice unexpected moments such as Alan Mowbray as the traveling thespian reciting the best (or only) reciting of "To Be or Not To Be" (outside of seeing Hamlet).

The best movie George A. Romero ever made. ::cool::

I often wonder how he went from this to that Mad Max with zombies known as Land of the Dead... ::confused::

That first zombie scene is interesting in just how smart the zombie is. He's pretty quick moving, but more importantly smart -- he tries to open the door to the car, and then he goes and finds a brick and tries to bash the car window open!

The folks later in the film, and the zombie films to follow, are lucky the zombies weren't as smart as the first classic zombie in film history.

That's what I love about Romero's zombies! They're not completely mindless like in other zombie movies because they are intelligent enough to pick up tools like the zombie breaking Barbara's car window with the brick, Helen's zombie daughter stabbing her to death with a garden shovel, the zombie using a tire iron to break into a truck, and of course Bub being able to figure out how to fire a handgun. The fact that they were capable of learning is what made them scarier.

And not just that but seeing some zombies go about their old routines like they did when still alive was pretty eerie. Like the old lady zombie in the Night of the Living Dead remake cuddling a babydoll like she's holding her own child or the zombie in Dawn of the Dead who was picking up coins in a fountain. The best example was seeing Bub do things like shave, read a book, and talk on the phone and even doing things like salute or use a handgun because he was in the military when he was still human.

Wuthering Heights (1939)
9/10

Gothic tale of a boy adopted by a landed gentry English family. His great love is his step sister, but would she choose love with a landless penniless peasant, or choose a gentrified husband to retain the wealth and privilege of the aristocratic life? Must he leave her and gain a fortune before he can come back to her? Would she wait for a fortune that may never come? Could he love a woman that required him to wealthy?

Whoah, I didn't know what to expect from the film, it wasn't what I thought it was. It's a famous film that had simply fell through my fingers... not to mention I had confused this film with another film.

This film is very poetic, in most every way, particularly the dialogue which certainly comes from the book, and it's very fine poetic prose indeed. The film is filled with wisdom that comes through very human anguish and foolishness, the kind us mere humans seem incapable of rising above. The film doesn't hold any punches. The story seems a bit exaggerated, as stories making important points in less than 2 hours often do, but it's painfully spot on.

the Chaneys
 

I haven't had much chance to see many movies with Chaney Sr., aside from Phantom of the Opera. The scene in the original (1925) where the girl rips the mask off the Phantom's face is certainly superior to any later remake.
Have you seen Spider Baby? I've heard that Lon Chaney, Jr. was drunk during much of the movie, but his performance is still wonderfuls.

Brief description of the novel Wuthering Heights
 

Just a couple of manic-depressives.

memories of Black Sabbath
 

Black Sabbath, besides being the only movie where Karloff played a vampire, was the movie that made me realize that I have an erotic fixation on vampires.

What does this have to do with vintage horror movies?

You can post this as a new thread post in this forum, or in the General forum, or as a post in the Random Thoughts thread in the General forum.

I saw a Chaney Sr documentary that showed a ton of his performances, but no, I haven't seen any of his films, that I recall.

Chaney Jr's best acting ability is to elicit sympathy from audiences, which is gold. Otherwise, I don't think he's a particularly good actor. His best work was in At High Noon. I thought he was pretty usual in Spider Baby, kind of like a tired Larry Talbot.

Hammer's version of The Mummy, made in 1959.

where are the good movies?
 

I went through the whole list of vampire movies in Comcast Cable's "Halloween Moviethon", and didn't see one worth watching again. Bummer.

What about the sexy Dracula from 1979 staring Rick Springfield? ::big grin::

RASPUTIN AND THE EMPRESS (1932). Saw this on TMC. Kind of racy bio pic of the Romanovs and their eventual fall. All three Barrymores (John, Ethel, Lionel) are in here and LB is great as the title character. ***

I didn't even know this film existed. Sounds cool. Who plays Resputin? Lon Chaney Jr?

https://www.classic-monsters.com/wp-...ey-Jr_main.jpg

My guess is LB is Lionel Barrymore

I think LB is Lionel Barrymore too. But maybe LB plays the Empress. ::stick out tongue::

You could probably watch THE DEVIL DOLL (1936) to see Lionel Barrymore play an Empress or at least be in drag::big grin::!!

He Was pretty good as Rasputin-saw this on TMC and not sure if on DVD::confused::

LB is beautiful!!!!

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BKG7MK/the...002-BKG7MK.jpg

MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935). Some recent discussion on the board and decided to give it another look. SO MANY good things about this-James Wong Howes cinematography is outstanding and some genuinely creepy scenes involving Bela and Carol Borland-are just train wrecked by a ridiculous story, horrid acting (Lionel Barrymore REALLY gets old quick and the "Love interest" couple are beyond annoying), unfunny comic relief , studio interference/cutting and of course, one of the WORST endings ever. *

Taking a peek at the trailer, the cinematography does look great. Considering the talent, it's really too bad they didn't make a sharper script, ditch the outlandish comic relief. I think the root of the story could be a cool modern film.

DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE (1931). For me, the definitive version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novella with impressive camera work for the time and damn good transformation scenes with Hyde looking positively beastial towards the end. A lot of stilted dialogue...all the "Darling!", "Sir" and "How I love You!" bits will have You fidgeting, but stick with it . This was Pre-Code, so it's quite violent and incredibly heavy on the sex stuff; Jekyll is almost panting in his desire to get married and as soon as he becomes Hyde, he goes immediately to find the streetwalker who so captivated Jekyll. Frederic March won an Oscar as the titular character, but for Me the highlight of the film is Miriam, Hopkins. What I've read about her strikes me as a demanding, scene stealing diva, but she is sensational and heartbreaking as Ivy, the Good Time girl whose life quickly becomes a nightmare. ****

Well said, FD! I agree, I think Jekyll/Hyde 31 is very impressive, especially the camera work and camera tricks. It has more interesting and effective motion than some modern day films. The direction/camera pace is fast out of the gun, and becomes seamless, and well integrated into the story. The camera work must have blown some minds in 1931.

And being pre-code the dialogue seems very modern. No holds barred in what he's talking about and how he says it.

I think it is the best Jekyll/Hyde film to date. Still none of the films capture the short story well enough, which is too bad, because it has the best concepts, no need to change anything.

FryeDwight? If anything, what did you think the potion and change was a symbol(s) for?

Freaks: I enjoyed it, though it felt a bit slow sometimes, even for a kind of short film.

It also seemed to me that the story still holds relevancy today. The idea that the freaks, in a way, actually look more welcoming and tolerant than the "norms" can still resonate in an age where bullying is being heavily debated.

I finally own Night of the Living Dead, Carnival of Souls, and Nosferatu on Bluray. ::cool::

My copy of NotLD seems to be very poor quality though it has so much static on the screen. Maybe one day I should replace it with a better copy? This version is from Mill Creek and I think they're one of those companies that always publish public domain films in really poor quality.

Not sure what you mean by static, besides the obvious TV white speckle static.
You getting sound static too? Either don't sound normal. The DVD copy I have is SD, but there's no static.

You could send it back, get a refund, try another source.

I mean the little white fuzzy things that tend to appear in old black and white movies that are not polished quality.

I don't think I can send it back because I have had it a long time and I no longer have the Walmart receipt. But maybe I can just accept it as is? The poor quality might even feel a little retro.

Besides I have seen all these movies in worse quality when I used to download them for free from archive org ::big grin::

Oh, the specks on old films, like lint and hair. ::big grin:: Ya, I wouldn't worry about that. It is kind of homie. Electronic static would be out of place.

I guess in the most vulgar parlance I can think of was He had a major desire to get laid, hence all the panting to get married. And while Muriel is out of town , he goes to see Ivy, but "undercover" as it were, to not have damage to his Victorian image/reputation.

Seriously, he wanted to separate the two selves of human psyche and have the best of both worlds without anyone knowing. In the excellent Greg Mark commentary (Greg is my favorite for these, good writer and cool guy), he compares Hyde at first as a young puppy or kitten, more mischievous than anything else-He also looks a LOT like Jimmy McNulty from THE WIRE in his first change. As time goes on, Hyde's baser instincts come out and he truly becomes a Monster.

I think you're right, in a way, on both accounts, that is in your first paragraph, you may be saying the potion is the vehicle for him to get laid in secret and 'not damage his Victorian image/reputation'. And in your second paragraph you're noting the film's, may I say, ridiculous theory about the good of separating the good man and the animal man -- which is not in the novel, and something I didn't like about the film.

You didn't mention what you thought the potion represented. In the short story (only about 170pgs), I think it's alluded to even more than in this or other films. I kind of think it's a bit obvious. I think it's alcohol. For many throughout history it's the potion that causes inhibition, and for some allows, or causes, people to lose contact with their higher brain function, empathy, morality, love and self control. Of course it's also a symbol for whatever else acts to do the same thing... a theory, a practice and societal system. But he does drink it, doesn't he? ::big grin::

Here's a quote from the film about the why he made the potion (which is not in the short story).

So, in the bold, is where it's ridiculous, that is, it doesn't really make any sense within itself. Liberate evil to fulfill itself so it troubles us no more? I'm guessing he means do it, the animal impulses, to get it out of your system? Yeah, like that ever worked. ::big grin:: Both the book and film do point to the same thing, in that, even so with the alcoholic, the more this activity is done, the more it entrenches itself into the person/brain/psyche/soul, not the other way around. It, 'evil', or unchecked selfishness, and insanity, emerges even without the potion, and can't be reversed even with the antidote, so to speak.

Of course I recommend reading the short story, as it's only 170 pages. Love to hear what you think.

House of Dracula (1945)
6/10

"Count Dracula (John Carradine) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr) seek cures for their afflictions; a hunchbacked woman, a mad scientist (Onslow Stevens) and Frankenstein's Monster have their own troubles."

It's an interesting story, with some interesting scenes, especially the trippy piano scene. Still, the story and characters are shallow, the dialogue and some acting is rather campy, it's not scary or exciting, little to no build of suspense.


Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1943)
6/10

"Two hapless freight handlers find themselves encountering Dracula (Lugosi) , the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr)."

I liked this better when I was a kid. If you find Costello's regular screen routine funny, than you'll like this. You'll know after the first scene with him. If not, you're in for a long show, cause this is Costello doing his thing over and over again. Other than that, there's not much there; because although the Universal Monster Characters are playing it straight, as they should, it's not convincing, especially Dracula is not at all the character he was in Dracula (1931) he's more of caricature. They get chased around, near misses, some secret passages and gags.

During the scene where Abbott & Costello bring Drac and Frank into the museum, I was really bored to tears. Just didn't find it was funny.

Rosemary's Baby, 1968


https://66.media.tumblr.com/f1d240bd...y8l9o1_500.gif