The House of Frankenstein -review by Lawrence S. Talbot

Screen Shot 2014-02-21 at 10.58.56 PM 3 stabs

I love this silly movie. While this was made during a low point in the Universal monster series and is often seen as an extremely watered down, tired version of the classic horror characters, I’ve always been fond of it. It’s very wacky and not even the least bit scary, even by 1940’s standards, but it’s a lot of fun. It expands upon the “Monster rally” formula that was set up with the previous film, Frankenstein meets the wolf man (1943) and becomes the one that really seems to have it all, for better or worse. Universal’s three most famous monsters-Dracula, Wolf man, Frankenstein monster, return in this one. They are joined by original Frankenstein monster actor, Boris Karloff as a mad scientist, A hunchback played by J Carrol Naish, and even a gorgeous Gypsy girl played by Helena Verdugo.

house of frankenstein

The film plays as something of a series of misadventures, with the scientist, Dr Nieman (Karloff) and his Hunchback friend, Daniel (Naish) escaping from prison and hijacking a traveling chamber of horrors. They revive the three monsters along the way, in order to get revenge on the Judges that put them in prison.

John Carradine plays Count Dracula very well and with his top hat and Pencil thin mustache, he more closely resembles the Dracula in the Stoker novel than had been attempted before. He’s charming and Suave and while he never quite captures the creepiness of Lugosi;s take on the character, he’s still quite splendid. Sadly, Dracula is quickly dispatched by the first half of the film, before he even has the chance to interact with the other two monsters.

Screen Shot 2014-02-21 at 10.59.23 PM

Glen Strange is serviceable as the more hulking and monstrous Frankenstein creature. While he doesn’t have the pathos of Karloff’s monster (as a result of the brain surgery performed on him 2 movies back), it’s neat to see Karloff literally standing face to face with the role that he made famous. It’s a funny commentary on Karloff’s career and of the role that he would never completely escape from. While you can’t deny the classic beauty of the original Frankenstein monster makeup, Strange had a broader face and is really cool looking in as the creature in his own right.

Screen Shot 2014-02-21 at 10.59.36 PM
Chaney continues his tried and true shtick as the tormented Larry Talbot but unfortunately spends little screen time as his lycanthropic counterpart. The addition of a gypsy girl is nice because it not only recalls Esmeralda in The Hunchback of Note Dame, with Daniel acting as a lovestruck Quasimodo type, but also references the previous Wolf man movies. The film recalls a lot of the wolf man lore from before, while adding new ones. For instance, this is the first film that mentions that a werewolf can only be killed with a silver bullet fired by someone who loves him. While the moon had been shown in the previous film, this is also the movie that really cements the idea of Werewolves changing as a result of it. The classic wolf man poem is even quoted once again and is further expanded upon.

Screen Shot 2014-02-21 at 10.59.49 PM

This movie attempts to juggle its monsters around in order the make everyone happy and for the most part, it manages to work. The first half is Dracula’s movie, while the second belongs to the Wolf man, with the mad doctor and hunchback being the glue that holds it all together. Despite the title, The Frankenstein monster doesn’t get much to do here. In the film’s defense, the character had already had four movies to himself and one costarring role with the Wolf man, and having been virtually watered down to the role of mindless brute at this point, his destructive revival at the climax is satisfying enough.

Screen Shot 2014-02-21 at 11.00.02 PM

While the classic monster movies had been reduced to clichéd kiddy fare at this point in the series, this really is the sum of its parts. The combination of Karloff, Carradine, Chaney, all of the monster characters, the gypsy girl, appearances by Universal favorites, Lional Atwill and George Zucco- all peppered with a beautiful score by genre veteran, Hans J. Salter, it really is the ultimate Monster Rally. Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein may be a better movie all around, but This is the one that really has it all.

-Lawrence S. Talbot

Lawrence Tolbert ron nelson

Horror Express -review Lawrence S. Talbot

horror express4 stabs

This is one that’s really slipped through the cracks over the years and there isn’t much of an excuse for it, because it’s in the public domain and readily available for free on the internet or on a variety of cheap, public domain collections that you can find in any number of Wal-Mart bargain bins. However, it’s also for that reason that it’s a real diamond in the rough.

Christopher Lee plays Archaeologist, Professor Alexander Saxton, who discovered a prehistoric ape-man , which may be the famous missing link, frozen in ice. Proud of his discovery, Saxton puts his precious cargo onto a train and plans are made for the exhibition of the groundbreaking discovery. Aboard the train, Saxton meets his professional rival, Doctor Wells, played by the great, Peter Cushing. The frozen creature soon revives and begins killing people aboard the train. When the monster is shot dead, everyone believes the nightmare to be over. However, the victims of the creature soon display eerie blood red eyes and turn homicidal. Saxton and Wells must combine forces in order to get to the root of the creature’s origins and stop the killings.

christopher lee

The film is a take on the the classic Agatha Christie novel, Murder on the Orient Express and replaces the traditional killer with a creature of possible demonic origins. The always wonderful Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee star in this underrated monster movie and give the already spooky offerings a sense of class. The creature’s origins are really interesting and surprisingly seem to draw from John W Campbell’ story, Who Goes there?, which was also the basis for the 1951 science fiction classic, the Thing from another world and its John Carpenter remake from 1982.

horror express

The real horror comes from the fact that the characters are isolated on a train, while the creature could really be anyone onboard. The creepy, whistling musical score by John Cacavas is very chilling and you will probably find yourself whistling it after watching the film. Though it’s a Spanish production, it feels like it belongs right alongside one of the British Hammer or Amicus classics that were being produced at around the same time. I really whole heartedy recommend it and since it’s so readily available, what do you have to lose?

horror express

-Lawrence S. Talbot

Lawrence Tolbert ron nelson

Dracula: A Retrospective by Lawrence S. Talbot

dracula white 4 stabs

As I begin writing this, it’s Valentine’s day. Not only is this a day for love or consuming mass amounts of candy that will inevitably make you sick the next day, it also marks the 83rd anniversary of the release of Dracula, the immortal classic starring Bela Lugosi. This landmark film ushered in the Golden age of Horror films and is a cherished classic to this day; one that should be a quintessential part of every horror fan’s collection. Time may not have been as kind to Dracula as it has been to Frankenstein. It’s flawed, even for its time, but its an iconic film that contains some of horror cinemas greatest moments and sparked the career of the great Bela Lugosi.

Starting in 1921 with the Hungarian film, Dracula’s Death, the Bram Stoker novel had been adapted for the screen several times. The most famous being F.W Murnau’s Nosferatu in 1922. Most versions took extreme liberties with the source, with Murnau’s film surprisingly remaining the most loyal to it. However, all prints of these films were burned after Stoker’s widow sued for copyright infringement and only Nosferatu remains ( A tragedy and a true lesson on the importance of film preservation). After negotiations with Florence Stoker, Dracula was adapted as a play by Irish playwright and actor, Hamilton Deane. It was this version that would become the template for most of the Dracula adaptations to come. The play would eventually be moved to Broadway in 1927, where it received an over-hall, being re-casted and rewritten by John L. Balderston, who would go on to pen the 31′ film, along with many of Universal’s important monster movies of the 30’s. It was in this version of the play that the role of Dracula was given to the man who would become most associated with the character, Bela Lugosi.

dracula

Béla Ferenc Dezső Blaskó was born on October 20th, 1882 in Lugos, Hungary. He later changed his name to Lugosi in honor of his birthplace. The youngest of four children, Lugosi dropped out of school and began acting at the age of 12. He served as an infantryman, eventually rising to Captain in the Austro- Hungarian Army during World War I. He would obtain a Wound Medal after receiving an injury that would have serious repercussions later in his life, including a dependency on pain killers that would  nearly destroy him. As part of the actor’s union during the Hungarian Revolution, Lugosi was forced to flee the country in 1919. He would continue acting in Berlin before eventually settling in the united states. Lugosi formed a stock company with fellow Hungarian actors and in 1922 would act in his first Broadway play, The Red Poppy. In 1927, he finally landed the role of Count Dracula in the revised version of Deane’s play and would portray the Count 261 times on the stage.

dracula

Universal founder, Carl Laemmle Sr. wasn’t fond of horror films and all of the ones produced during the silent era were very carefully chosen, always leaving out supernatural elements, instead settling on human monsters as the antagonists. Gothic horror and the supernatural were strictly a staple of European films. However, once Laemmle’s son began producing films at Universal, things began to change. Producer Carl Laemmle Jr. conceived of a Dracula adaptation as a big, lavish production in the vein of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which would star Universal’s reigning horror star, Lon Chaney. Sadly, this was not to be, as Chaney passed away following a battle with throat cancer and the great depression caused studios to scale back considerably. Due to budget constants, the decision was made to base the film on the more limited Hamilton Deane play rather than slaving to the Stoker novel.

dracula

When Chaney was still attached to the film, the role of director was given to Tod Browning, who had previously collaborated with the man of a thousand faces on several Silent classics, including West of Zanzibar, The Unholy three, the unknown, and the lost vampire film, London after Midnight. Both Edward Van Sloan and eventually, Bela Lugosi were pulled in from the stage play to star as Van Helsing and the Count. Browning was reluctant to replace his friend, Chaney with Lugosi and spent much of the filming in a rather aloof state.  While Dracula would have the distinction of being the first Horror film with sound, coming off of the silent era under the direction of a less involved director would make for a slightly troubled production and occasionally inept final product. German cinematographer, Karl Freund, frequent collaborator with famed director Fritz Lang on such films as Metropolis (1927) was rumored to have actually directed much of the film, with Browning being very low key on the set. The acting and stage direction owes more to the silent era and being based on the play, many of the special effects sequences are conveniently off camera. Dracula simply doesn’t fully take advantage of its cinematic possibilities.

review dracula

Admittedly, there is a certain ineptness to Dracula, but while it’s flawed, there are some marvelous and spooky sequences as well.. Bela Lugosi brings so much to the role and perfectly captures the essence of the Count. Being from Hungary and not quite mastering the English language, Lugosi gives the character an authentic foreign and alien quality, making Dracula the strange outsider that he should be, while also giving him the  charm and enigmatic quality that is most appropriate for the character. Another highlight is Dwight Frye as the lunatic Renfield, who steals every scene that he is in with his manic nature and unforgettable laugh. Rounding out the cast is Edward Van Sloan as Professor Abraham Van Helsing, who gives authority and grounding to the film’s supernatural qualities and creates a balance between the otherworldly Dracula and maniacal and tragic Renfield, and the more pedestrian characters like Harker, Seward, and Mina. The castle sets in the opening of the film are wonderfully constructed. With its dark shadows, long steps, cluttered spider webs, and state of disrepair, it’s the perfect gothic horror set. It’s an astonishingly gloomy film and while most of the London sets are somewhat pedestrian, there are also some very dreamlike forests, complete with a gorgeous layer of fog- an atmospheric and much cherished staple of black and white horror films. Odd choices like Armadillos and Opossums, who aren’t even native to Transylvania, instead of rats, end up being chilling and unsettling additions to the gothic castle. The first 20 minutes of Dracula are the most memorable and serve as some of the most atmospheric scenes, not only in Universal monster films, but in all of horror cinema. That’s not to discount the power of later scenes scattered throughout, such as the horror aboard the Vesta on its way to London during a storm, the woman in white, Dracula leading Mina through the forest, the climax of the film, or any scene featuring the crazed Renfield. Karl Freund’s lighting perfectly highlight’s both Lugosi’s and Frye’s Eyes, making them really stand out for dramatic effect. This lighting manages to make Dwight Frye look even more bug eyed and frightening than he would have been otherwise. The same can be said about Lugosi’s hypnotic stare, which is better achieved through this effect.

van hailsing with dracula
Unfortunately, like a stage production, some of acting is a bit stilted and there is virtually no camera movement, making much of the film rather static. Without the benefit of a musical score, much of the movie plods along at an uneven pace. In some scenes, it could have benefited from it, though I will admit that the quietness does add a level of creepiness in some of the more pivotal scenes. However, other films of the period work just fine without music so it’s more of a problem with the static camera, staging, and editing than it is with the long bits without sound. David Manners and Helen Chandler are a bit dull as the leads, Jonathan Harker and Mina Seward. While Chandler at least has the excuse of being under Dracula’s spell for much of the second half, Manners is just completely over the top and annoyingly wooden. There is a certain amount of sleepiness that comes along with both of their performances that keeps their characters from ever being completely compelling or altogether likable. Compare them to characters in one of James Whale’s horror films or even one of Browning’s more hands on productions and you’ll find a very glaring difference. Many of the London sets are also a bit bland, especially in comparison to the horrific gothic castle from the opening. The biggest problem with Dracula’s pacing is that it reaches its most visually interesting scenes in the very beginning and only occasionally captures that level of atmosphere again. Dracula is still a very bizarre and unconventional horror film, but I feel that some of it really could have been pushed a tad bit further. Under the helm of an enthusiastic James Whale, Universal’s next horror film, Frankenstein would completely steer away from Dracula’s mistakes and is much more even. At the end of the day though, Dracula is still a wonderful, classic film. It has its flaws, but both Lugosi and Dwight Frye are completely captivating. There are shades of brilliance that still manage to come through in this troubled production. More than just paving the way for the coming Universal classic monster films, John L Balderston would use it as a virtual stepping stone when writing The Mummy (1932), which really plays as a more refined and perfected version of Dracula in a lot of ways. All the more funny that that film was also the directorial debut of Dracula’s cinematographer, Karl Freund.

Bela

Dracula was a massive success for Universal and would become the first in a wave of films that turned them into the reigning house of horrors through the 1930’s, which consisted of such classics as Frankenstein, The Old Dark house, The mummy, The Invisible man, The black cat, The Raven, Werewolf of London, The Bride of Frankenstein, and Dracula’s daughter, before the genre went on a virtual hiatus in 1936 (coming back in 1939 with Son of Frankenstein, starting the second wave of Universal horror). Tod Browning would go to MGM, where he would direct his masterpiece, Freaks in 1932, along with Lugosi in another Dracula type role in Mark of the Vampire (1935), and the underrated The Devil Doll (1936), before fading into obscurity. It made a star out of Bela Lugosi, who would tragically face many downs for the remainder of his career with an addiction to Demerol and Methadone and a dive into Poverty Row trash films after his relationship with Universal Studios, MGM, and Columbia waned. Ironically, Lugosi’s last starring role for a major studio would be a return to the role of Dracula for the second time on film in Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein (1948). After that, he would eventually plunge into exploitation films with Edward D Wood Jr before his death on August 16th, 1956. He was buried in his Dracula cape, going to the grave as the immortal character that the public most remembered him for. Along with his portrayal of the count, he lives on in the hearts of horror fans everywhere and his popularity and recognition today far eclipses even his A- list contemporaries.

dracula with the woman

In closing, while Dracula isn’t a perfect film, it’s still a great example of classic horror cinema. It’s an important piece of work that I highly recommend to anyone who considers themselves a true horror fan. While I don’t think it’s the cinematic achievement that Frankenstein or its sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein are, it’s still one that I cherish very much. Dracula and especially the actor, Bela Lugosi are very dear to me. In fact, while I type this, the theatrically poster hangs above me on the wall, with Lugosi’s commanding presence looming over me. Some of my earliest childhood memories are of those creepy moments in his films, where I would huddle by the television in the dark, transfixed by the glowing, otherworldly black and white images that reflected upon my seven year old face. Watching these old films is like peering into a window to the past, seeing a dream or fantasy filtered through the celluloid of a bygone age.  There are few cold, foggy nights where I don’t look up at the night sky and find myself reminded of Lugosi’s charm or  hear a noise coming from the dark without recalling Edward Van Sloan’s words from Dracula’s original ending – ““When you go home tonight, and the lights have been turned out, and you are afraid to look behind the curtains, and you dread to see a face appear at the window. why, just pull yourself together and remember that, after all. there are such things..!”

Goodnight.

castle dracula

-Lawrence S. Talbot

Lawrence Tolbert ron nelson

The Wolf Man (1941) -review by the Director.

The Wolf Man (1941)

the wolf man review 1941 3 stabs

During the continuing era of scientific enlightenment the curse of the werewolf becomes an unbelievable reality. Relatively naive Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) comes to England to learn and take over his aging father’s (Claude Rains) inheritance and business. Lawrence’s brother has murdered in a hunting accident, which also serves the plot as to why John wants his son to move in with him.

The Curse:

Lawrence, a stereotypical man of the 1940, comes to an old European town, home of his father’s mansion. He begins the tale with spying on the town through his father’s telescope. Instead of looking to the stars the horny man notices the beautiful and also an incongruous stereotypical 1940s American woman Gwen Conliffer (Evelyn Ankers). what is a woman like her doing in Europe, running an antique shoppe.
Lawrence asks Gwen out on a date and she denies him several times. He is woefully persistent in his courting. it’s uncomfortable, he is boarding on stalker behavior. Gwen sells Lawrence a can with a silver wolf handle. They discuss the werewolf lure which they both believe is a silly myth. Gwen who we latter find out is engaged finally agrees to a walk with Lawrence. Lawrence is sort of disappointed when Gwen brings along her friend Jenny for their walk.

The two women and Lawrence visit a Gypsy caravan. The women want to have their palms read. Maleva, the fortune teller, sees the sign of the pentagram in Jenny’s palm. Both women are freaked out. Jenny goes off running. Bela (Bela Lugosi) a Gypsy man turns into a werewolf. He chase Jenny down and mortally wounds her. Lawrence uses his silver cane to beat the living shit out of the wolf. As the Wolf dies he turns back into his mortal form.
Lawrence is confused. The police get invoked thinking Lawrence is a murderer. The problem is, Jenny was clearly attacked and killed by some kind of animal and Lawrence assues them he killed a wolf not a man. In the fight, Lawrence is wounded. His wound quickly heals and he begins to experience strange feelings. Soon as the wolf bane blooms and the full moon rises he will shape shift into the Wolf Man. The rest of the details I shall leave to the viewer.

wolf man and jenny

Acting:

Lon Chaney Jr. is particularly good in his role. He captures the innocent fish out of water nature of his character. He is well mannered and kind. A gentleman before his sanity begins to break down ultimately giving way to the wolf man curse. His father John played by Claude Rains plays the enlightened skeptic, business man, and loving father quite well. He is confident in his stance until the mythical curse is no longer a myth by necessity. Werewolves are real.

wolf man 1941

I of course, as I mentioned in the Mummy (1959) review, found the 1940s era acting too notable and dated. I wished the characters had acted more timeless, but that is how people acted in the 40s so I shouldn’t be so xenophobic of the decades. I’m only warning you that the movie will have a distinct 1940s feel.

Gore:

Other than off screen beatings and a wound, nothing. Its all PG.

Sex:

Nothing, Lon Chaney Jr’s hairy legs if you are a homosexual man with a hairy leg fetish.

Directing:

George Wagner’s directing is suitable. The ubiquitous fog in the woods is done well, creating a creepy malevolent atmosphere.

One silly goof was when Lawrence transformed he was in his pajamas wearing a wife beater. When he lurks in the woods as the wolf man, both times he changes his outfit into a mechanics jumpsuit. Why the wolf man does this is never explained. The viewer just accepts it. I suppose movie goes in the 40s were not so continuity savvy as later movie watchers would become.

Full Orbit:

What is so fantastic about the Wolf Man is that until this point no one had ever made a werewolf movie (except for a less famous Universal movie Werewolf of London, six years the elder. Werewolf of London is more a Jekyll and Hyde movie as well, though it introduced the transmitting the curse via bite and hints at the moon). The mythos was there. But no one had created a popular Hollywood movie about it. Elements of the Wolf Man sub-genre created by Universal Studios, in it’s purest form, are still prevalent in today’s werewolf movies and books. I personally like the were wolf make up in this film and especially in the remake of the Wolf Man (2010). Even though the were wolves of American Werewolf in London and the Howling are very cool there is something about the very human looking were wolf of the Wolf Man movies that seems more like what a were wolf would look like instead of the wildly fantasy themed Minator looking were wolves in later werewolf sub-genre films like Dog Soliders and the Underworld film for example.

the wolf man make up

When the nostalgic mood is right, take a trip back and watch the original Universal Monster movies. These films were pioneers of the fantasy sub-genre of monster horror. They should hold a special place in a horror fan’s heart.

-The Director. (with additional input from reviewer Lawrence S. Talbot)

Professional,horror,reviewer

The Mummy (1959) -review by the Director

mummy_1959_poster_01 4 stabs

The gist:

Some zealous archaeologists are hacking into Egyptian ruins looking for the 4,000-year-old tomb of remarkably caucasian looking princess Ananka. Angry Mehemet Bay with his intimidating fez hat warns the explorers that all they will find is death by desecrating sacred graves.

the mummy 1959

The revenge:

Stephen Banning, who’s dream has always been to locate the tomb of Ananka, finds the priestess sepulcher. The tomb looks like a stereotypical Egyptian Hollywood set. It’s remarkably well preserved probably because it was just built with plywood and paint.

Stephen enterers the tomb and screams, he falls on Ananka’s coffin. His friend Mr. Whemple and son John (Peter Cushing) find the poor bastard in a sad state of lunacy. A condition he stays in for the next three years.

Mehemet is pissed. Being the self appointed ‘humble’ servant of Ananka’s god he curses the three explorers who found and moved Ananka’s coffin and body to the British Museum.

Here we get a back story. The High Priest Kharis (Christopher Lee) is performing prodigious burial rites. The back story of ancient Egypt is returned to several times as the mystery is exposed.

The-Mummy-1959-Kharis-13

Mehemet calls for the ancient guardian (who is a mummy) to kill the trespassers of Ananka’s sepulcher. Who is this Mummy? As the mystery unfolds we will find out. The Mummy journeys to England via Fed Ex. He gets to work quickly killing Stephen Banning and his fellow explorer friend Joesph Whemple. John Banning begins to investigate. He finds Mehemet in England. He uncovers a forbidden concupiscence between the long dead High priest Kharis and princess priestess Ananka. Will John Banning die at the hands of the Mummy? Who controls the mummy? How the hell can the Mummy be stopped?

mummy59

You will have to watch the movie.

On the good side I enjoyed the sets in England. I enjoyed how powerful the Mummy was. He violently bashed through iron grates and large locked doors. (Interestingly the doors to the mansion were supposed to be made to break away when the Mummy crashes through them. The doors were not, they are regular doors. Christopher Lee to his credit bashes through the doors and breaks his shoulder, he never breaks character despite his injury. Lee is a tough and devoted actor!) The Mummy could be shot many times, be stabbed with a large spear, and never loose his volition of vengeance. Christopher Lee is always the superlative actor and the camera loves him. I watched this film mainly because Christopher Lee was in it.

On the negative side the sets in Egypt were a sad sight. They should have looked far more dilapidated by thousands of years of decay. It was enough to be distracting. The movie, much like the classic wolfman couldn’t escape its 1950s dated feel. Not so much with the lead actors, but all the supporting cast looked straight out of the 50s including Anank’s doppelgänger Isobel (Yvonne Furneaux). She especially looked dated. I only found this negative because it takes away from the timelessness that the film could and should have aspired to.

Mummy, The (1959).2

Gore:

Gunshots, stabs, chokings, an off screen tongue removal, mass murder, all PG, 1950s violence.

PETER CUSHING THE MUMMY HAMMER FILMS PCASUK 6977

Sex:

A quick peek of Ananka’s naked side during her embalming. Just a cruel tease.

Directing:

Terence Fisher is a prodigious director. He is especially noted for his work on Hammer horror films. He didn’t seem to have much of a style other than he favors large encompassing shots. This allows you to watch wherever you want whether you are looking at a large room in a mansion or a crowded pub.

th-2

I loved the scenes with the murky pond. A fog rolled over the opaque bog. The Mummy slowly creeps out of it. His wrappings caked in filth. It looked fantastic.

hmummy2

The Wrap:

The Mummy is iconic classic horror. It is something all horror fans should see. It’s a trip down heritage lane. Is it worth running out to see it? No, I don’t think so. It’s a movie I’d recommend when you are in the right frame of mind for a classic film. There is something therapeutic about watching classic horror. One can unwind and soak in the nostalgia. If you are not in the right frame of mind, or you force yourself to watch it. I’m sure this exercise will backfire and you will get bored watching an old film that seems slow paced, dated, and tedious.
I would certainly recommend this so anyone obsessed with Christopher Lee. Though his role here is very character driven, he doesn’t have the ability to take many artistic liberties as high priest Kharis. not like when he plays a warlock, a wizard, a sith lord, a vampire, etc.

The-Mummy

In his other role during the Mummy he is great. What is his other role? You’ll have to see the movie.

-the Director

Professional,horror,reviewer

The Invisible Man (1933) reviewed by Rabid Fox

the-invisible-man-movie-poster-1933-10201414754 stabs

Invisible Man (1933) – Quickie Review

 

Overview: This is a Universal Classic based on the H.G. Wells novel of the same name. The story centers on Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist who’s experiments have led to his turning invisible. We learn that previous experiments have turned their test subjects mad and Dr. Griffin is no different. When his colleagues, police, and other villagers attempt to stop the mad doctor many of them meet an untimely demise.

After 80 (80!) years: 

Here’s what you might be thinking:

  • This is one step from silent films, it can’t possibly be good.
  • The acting is probably lame and the story can’t possible hold up to today’s horror films. 
  • The “special effects” must be hilarious!

Here’s why you’d be wrong:

  • First of all, Nosferatu is silent and still creepy as hell. Second, you might be very surprised by the body count in this film (I sure as hell was!).
  • The acting is a bit melodramatic but can probably be compared to soap opera or stage acting today; and Claude Rains owns the role of Dr. Griffin. He’s not even on screen for most of the movie but provides a great voice to the invisible character and definitely has a creepy “crazy person” cackle and provides a great template for the mad scientist role. Sorry Kevin Bacon, the ghost of Claude Rains would still kick your ass (and that would make an awesome movie!).
  • Dude. The special effects are surprisingly good for Invisible Man. When Griffin first unwraps part of his head bandage and we see through where his jaw would be, I was genuinely surprised. Then there’s a cool scene where he lights a cigarette and the floating lighter/cigarette and the puff of smoke from the invisible body are all really well done. A car drives off a cliff and explodes! Is that the first time that was done on screen? Anyway, these practical effects hold up better than some of the CG crap in today’s horror.

Conclusion:  This movie is awesome! It’s a pretty tightly written story that is well-executed with good effects and some good and hilarious deaths. The Universal Classics are like the cinematic grandparents of all modern horror and a must watch for anyone who want to call themselves horror aficionados. Oh and call your grandparents, it’ll make them happy.

          4 out of 5 Stabs 

gdm head knifegdm head knifegdm head knifegdm head knife

-Rabid Fox

1369086_10100219604003879_1418253311_n

Tarantula reviewed by Lawrence S. Talbot

Directed by Jack Arnold

Screen Shot 2013-10-05 at 2.09.30 PM3 stabs

As time goes by and more films are reviewed, it’s going to become increasingly more obvious that I have a total love affair with classic horror and science fiction films from the 30’s to the early 60’s. When I was a child my father exposed me to a lot of them and I became absolutely obsessed with monsters because of it. As a result, these classics inspire a warm, familiar feeling inside of me that none of the modern horrors ever could. I’m determined to share my knowledge of them and to keep the memory of these near-forgotten classics alive for future generations. A lot of them require a further suspension of disbelief and less jaded viewership, but I think that for the most part, they’re all the better for it. There is an unmistakable charm to these films that could never be duplicated.

Screen Shot 2013-10-05 at 2.10.40 PM

It may seem a little quaint today with all of the horrors that we endure on a day to day basis, but in the 1950’s the public was petrified of nuclear fallout and the threat of annihilation at the height of the cold war (For a bit of perspective, I highly recommend Joe Dante’s wonderful film, Matinee). Of course, various studios were very quick to exploit this fear and like all times of great turmoil, wondrous film monsters were born. The first monster movie to fully take advantage of this was 1953’s The Beast from 20,000 fathoms. The classic Ray Harryhausen film would feature an ancient dinosaur being reawakened by nuclear testing and wreaking havoc on its old stomping grounds in modern day New York City. The success of this film would inspire the original Godzilla the following year and create the entire landscape of Kaiju cinema over in Japan. The next year, Warner bros would produce the first giant insect film, the 1954 Classic, THEM, which featured a colony of gargantuan flesh eating ants. THEM! Is a surprisingly effective and occasionally haunting film and serves as a total high water mark for the genre. Like most trendsetters, it inspired a legion of imitators and in 1955, Universal Studios, known for its beloved legacy of producing some of the greatest monsters ever created, continued the big bug craze with Tarantula.

Screen Shot 2013-10-05 at 2.12.00 PM

We begin in the desert where a grotesque, mutated man stomps down the hillside, suddenly collapses, and dies. Dr. Matt Hastings (Played by the always awesome, John Agar, the hero of many of Universal’s iconic sci fi pictures) a young, handsome, doctor and all around 50’s action hero, is summoned to take a look at the body and finds himself completely dumfounded by the man’s features. An autopsy is suggested as it is theorized  that the creature may Dr. Eric Jacobs(Played by stuntman, Eddie parker, who was most famous for portraying Klaris the Mummy in Abbott and Costello meet the mummy), who Hastings knew.  Driven to find answers, Dr. Hastings drives into the desert to speak with Professor Deemer (Leo G Carroll) at his lab and finds that he is experimenting with gigantism in an attempt to solve the growing problem of world hunger. In his lab we see a menagerie of horrors, from giant rats and rabbits to the titular giant Tarantula.

Deemer informs Hastings that Jacobs had been impatient and decided to try the formula on himself, resulting in a terrible case of Acromegaly. What Deemer fails to inform Hastings of is that Jacobs had also injected his assistant, Paul Lund with the deformity-inducing formula.

Screen Shot 2013-10-05 at 2.13.00 PM

Deemer soon begins to show symptoms of the drug, becoming hideously deformed and bed ridden. Meanwhile,   Human and animal bones are found scattered throughout the desert and it is soon discovered that the giant Tarantula, being well fed, has grown to town stomping proportions. Can the military (including a cameo from a young Clint Eastwood) stop this eight legged horror? Will Professor Deemer get a facelift?

Coming directly off of his success of his immortal classic, Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) and its highly underrated Sequel, Revenge of the creature (1955), Jack Arnold does a fine job directing Tarantula. The cinematography and set design further expands upon his desert background work on  It came from Outer space(1953) as  further  advantage is taken of the desert landscape. The Joshua tree scattered desert would become a staple of monster movies for years to come and would eventually become almost exclusive to the lowest of budget affairs, including Ray Kellogg’s delightfully kitschy The Giant Gila Monster (1959).

Screen Shot 2013-10-05 at 2.14.16 PM

What truly separates Tarantula from other colossal arthropod films is that it’s one of the few that doesn’t deal with nuclear radiation in any form. Instead, the beast is unleashed by completely different means and another fear is exploited, that of the ever growing concern of world hunger. Also of interest is the inclusion of several human monsters, victims of the same serum that created our giant Arachnid friend.

Screen Shot 2013-10-05 at 2.15.40 PM

The makeup by Bud Westmore’s unit might come off as a bit silly to today’s jaded viewers, but at the time it was top of the line. The giant spider effects are serviceable and while not believable, have a certain charm to them. Some of them were achieved with puppets, which I absolutely adore, but the majority was done with a live spider and rear screen projection and overlapping. The majority of this is handled competently and never reaches the embarrassing levels of a Burt I Gordon production; Gordon being know for films such as the Beginning of the end, which featured live grasshoppers being filmed crawling on a picture of a building to achieve an effect.  While certainly dated, Tarantula is a few notches better than Gordon’s work, as well as many of its other contemporaries (films such as The monster from green Hell, earth vs. the spider, the giant claw).

What may keep Tarantula from being as great as some of the other classic science fiction films of the time is that it could be possibly be accused of lacking depth.  Many of the characterizations are a bit thin and you won’t find any of the haunting atmosphere of the quintessential atomic age horror, THEM. Nor will you find the political and social commentary of films like the Day the Earth stood Still (1951) or Gojira (1954). Also, without a leading lady like Creature from the black lagoon’s Julie Adams in her iconic white one piece, it could be seen as lacking the sexiness of some of the more well known B-movies of the time as well. However, anyone looking for such depth in a movie such as this is entirely missing the point. Tarantula is about having fun and enjoying the innocent thrill of watching a giant spider. At the end of the day, Tarantula is still a studio picture and its budget and direction keeps it from ever feeling completely laughable, especially when compared to some of the more hilarious flicks of the time(See It Conquered the World for example). It serves as one of the finer examples of the “giant bug” genre and is sure to please anyone who is a fan;  It’s never boring and more than delivers on its premise. I’d recommend seeing THEM! First as it’s truly a classic, but Tarantula is a good second feature to follow it up with. It lacks the suspense, mystery, and sense of dread of that famous ant picture and may be a bit closer to the typical Universal b-monster movie but what’s so wrong about that?  When it’s all said and done, that’s why we see films with titles like Tarantula and the Deadly Mantis. I would recommend checking out Jack Arnold’s other science fiction films of the period as well: Creature from the black lagoon, Revenge of the creature, Monster on the campus, It came from outer space,  and especially The Incredible shrinking man, which is one of the best and most profound science fiction films of the 50’s or another era.

   -Lawrence S. Talbot 

73788_1503364300232_3329185_n