Reason for the Season- Venture Bros Rewatch Season 2

     Alright, on to Season 2 for our Venture Brothers rewatch

    This is really when the show starts to pick up steam. You have first a great opening episode in "Powerless in the Face of Death", which satirizes the comic book tendency towards defaulting towards the status quo in the most hilariously dark way possible. It feels like a good season opener to reestablish the characters and the shocking ending of season 1. Then, a couple of weaker episodes, ... crap, haven't written in a few days. Christmas and all that. Anyway, yeah, the two next episodes weren't very memorable, and kind of still have that season 1 edginess to them. "Assassiniy 911" is one of those episodes that I didn't quite remember a lot of, at least the A plot... Actually, on second thought, the Hunter Gathers storyline stuck out. Some say it was dated for its trans politics. I didn't really feel that or at least didn't feel it was especially egregious. Maybe it was the later reversal that bothered people. Anyway, it wasn't a bad episode per se, but it wasn't memorable. Hate Floats was a little better, but again not memorable. Things really get into first gear with "Escape from the House of Mummies, Pt. II". This still stands out as one of the best episodes of the show for many fans. Certainly one of my favorite episodes. It combines the petty squabbles and disillusionment that is the show's bread and butter and combines it with a pretty insane adventure. I think this is a very good first episode to start off on if you don't want to do a full rewatch (though definitely check out some season 1 episodes for context). It's definitely when the series really becomes great. It cements its greatness with "Twenty Years to Midnight", which is also a favorite of mine, with its adventure and parody reaching some of the best in these early seasons. Those two episodes still hold up, and helped set the tone for how the show was going to go, so they're definitely the best of this season. "Love Bheits" is probably my least favorite not only of this season, but of the show. It really feels like filler, and it doesn't seem to have had any particular point to it, aside from just making strange references. After that, we get a trio of incredibly funny episodes (including the introduction of Dr. Orpheus' Defenders parody "The Order of the Triad", a welcome addition to the show, in "Fallen Arches", an extremely underrated episode in "Guess Who's Coming to State Dinner", and the insanely wild and funny "I Know Why the Caged Bird Kills"). Then, much as the first episode was a real knock-out, the season finale is incredible, endlessly rewatchable, and just is exciting. It fits with season 2 being when the show and its parody finally starts to get its streak of dark humor. I think season 2 shows why the show is so beloved. It has all of its best traits. Honestly, this is a really good place to start if you need a good intro. 

   Alright, that's it for this month's rewatch. I'm still debating whether to do my annual list, because it's been a rough year and I don't know how I would do it. Anyway, if you like this, donate to my Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc, and I'll see you soon with Season 3

Reason for the Season- Venture Bros Rewatch Season 1

Much to the shock and sadness of its many fans, the Venture Bros has been canceled by Adult Swim. Over the past year, it has basically become my all-time favorite show, with its blend of comic book parody, adventure genre homage, and obscure references very much in my own wheelhouse. I spent the first part of the year eagerly waiting for a Season 8, in the midst of this godawful pandemic. Well, there are hopes to revive it at HBO Max, but until its confirmed, why not at least go back through the seasons and see how the series changed and evolved to become something truly special. A beloved classic now of television. So, with that, lets begin our rewatch with, of course, how it began. 

  I frequently rewatch Venture Bros, but I don't really rewatch Season 1. Mostly, it's just because, in comparison to later seasons, it doesn't have the right elements yet. Sure, a lot of the best episodes and characters are built on these early episodes, but they don't have that same ... zing that later seasons often have. Honestly, most of my rewatches begin after "Escape from the House of Mummies, Part II" in season 2, where the show's parody actually starts to begin more decisive and its world building clearer. However, in rewatching the first season, I find a lot more episodes hold up better than I thought. The show's thesis statement of generational toxicity and the idea of the show being "between adventures" (as expressed by the creators in the show's art book) is very present in these early episodes. The episodes focus on the characters not going on adventures with jokey villains and gags, but is more of a Woody Allen-esque look into the character's particular quirks and personalities and how between adventures, they suffer from their own neurosies and often have failure in their personal lives. If you've seen the show, you already know that, but it's very clear in these early episodes, and it helps set up how the series will progress in its later seasons. Still, honestly, the first few episodes are rough. Especially the pilot, which doesn't have the best animation and it feels very "mid-2000's Adult Swim", which means a lot of weirdness and oddity in place of actual jokes. Luckily, it starts to pick up with "Careers in Science", which sets the format for many episodes of the show, dealing with the main characters as they each deal with their own crises, and how these characters handle (or don't handle) their own problems. Even still, the show really doesn't pick up until  "Eeney, Meeney, Miney... Magic!", when it really feels like the parody is spot on with the introduction of the ever loveable Dr. Orpheus, whose introduction is bombastic. The episode helps transition the show less from its original as yet another weird Adult Swim riff on an old Hanna-Barbara property into something a lot more interesting. An examination of the comic book world, through the lens of Gen-X disillusionment in the vein of Dan Clowes. That, "Tag Sale, You're It", "Past Tense", and "Ice Station Impossible" are the few episodes I do rewatch from this season. "Tag Sale, You're It" is not only the best episode of this season, but of the whole show even now, because it really shows the satire of it at its best. It shows the sheer ridiculousness of the whole "hero/villain" conflict is as portrayed in comic books and genre fiction and also really cements the idea of failure and self-propellment in this world. The Monarch has the best line when he realizes he doesn't want to wreck Dr. Venture's lab: "What can I do that life already hasn't", which sums up the theme of the show in a nutshell. "Past Tense" is second best, merely because it is very funny and it shows the writers had bigger plans. Worst episode..... None of them are bad, per se, but the first few are rough and forgettable. Maybe .... "The Incredible Mr. Brisby", because it feels superfluous in the continuity, but even that has some good moments. It's weird to say, but the pilot is likely the worst episode, just because it feels like the initial concept with nothing on it. Like I said, another Adult Swim animated show deconstructing an old Hanna-Barbara property.  It feels very different from what it would become, while still retaining the same structure and some of the same themes. Anyway, rewatching it, Season 1 is actually a little better than I remember it. I might start adding these episodes to my rewatch list. Oh yeah, and the season 1 ending was really when this show sold me on itself. No spoilers, but you don't see it coming, and its resolution really helps the show develop. 

Which we'll get back to next time. If you like my writing, you can support me on Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc. Just a one-time donation should be sufficient. I'm trying to gradually move my writing towards getting money, and I'm hoping the Ko-Fi is a good start. Please check it out, and I'll see you next month for Season 2.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Bit

       Alright, so not a lot of history behind this, which, again, good news for me. Director Brad Michael Elmore, after directing two horror films, decided to make a film with a transgender protagonist played by a transgender lead, combining it with an idea of "Jem and the Holograms" meets the Lost Boys. Elmore felt that a lower budget horror movie could be a good avenue to introduce a trans lead such as this. Said lead, Nicole Maines, got famous for fighting for her right to go to the bathroom of her gender identity. She had a lot of input into the role. The film was released to relatively postive reviews in 2019 at the LGBTQ+ themed Inside Out in Toronto. 

     So, the film begins with the ending of another film. In this case, introducing one of the main foci of the film, an intersectional lesbian vampire group led by Duke (Diana Hopper), consisting of Izzy (Zolee Griggs), Frog (Char Diaz) and Roya (Friday Chamberlain) , who confront one of their own (Julia Voth), after she makes a man a vampire, verboten in their clique. Meanwhile, Laurel (Nicole Maines) is a young trans woman from Oregon who moves in with his brother Mark (James Paxton), and she soon crosses pathes with this gang. Hijinks ensue. 

      Well, the main thing I enjoyed about the film was the representation. Not just the trans representation (though that obviously appeals to me as a trans woman), but the representation of race, sexuality and gender was especially fantastic. It was very much a film that doesn't necessarily ignore these issues, but also doesn't obsess over them. The characters are their identities, but they're also fleshed out and sympathetic. I liked that the film didn't make a big deal out of Laurel's gender identity, but it's obviously still affects her and her outlook. I liked that it also examines power dynamics in a very nuanced way, showing that Duke's misandrist perspective, while understandable, can just as easily be turned against her (which it is.)

     Not much bad about this film. I felt parts could've been explored more deeper, like Laurel's journey as a trans woman, the backstory of the rest of the gang, and more of the characters interacting and having their misadventures. Not to say there isn't any of that, but a little more could've been explored. Then again, the fact that my main criticism is that a movie doesn't have enough, it's probably a good thing.

   So, yeah, really loved this movie. Already inclined towards it as a trans horror fan, but it definitely exceeded expectations.Definitely recommend to horror fans, trans people, both and even neither. It's definitely been a highlight of the year.

   So close to finishing this on time. Well, I suppose election weekend is hard to avoid. Anyway, regardless of how this election turns out, as always I want to thank everyone for reading these, and hopefully, we get to the next October alive. Please check out my rewatch of the recently departed Venture Bros. coming up this month.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Darkman

      Director Sam Raimi had a pretty good 1980's. From his smash hit Evil Dead in 1981, and its sequel in 1987, he would become something of a rising star, along with his good friends Joel and Ethan Coen (themselves rising on the opposite end of the indie circuit with films like Blood Simple and Raising Arizona). A longtime comic book fan, he sought out the rights to Batman and, later, the Shadow, but failed to get them. So, in the grand comic tradition, he decided to make his own character to tell essentially their story. He also took inspiration from the Universal Monsters, especially the idea of a tragic, freak hero and a doomed love story. He would turn in a 40 page treatment called "The Darkman", which he submitted to Universal. Universal accepted the script, and Raimi, his brother Ivan and some other writers hashed out the script. Originally, Raimi wanted his friend, Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell to star as the titular character, but Universal wasn't keen on it. Eventually, the role went to Northern Irish actor Liam Neeson, at the time a minor actor notable for his role in John Boorman's Excalibur. Francis McDormand, the wife of Joel Coen, was cast as the romantic lead. Danny Elfman, who had just come off Tim Burton's Batman, also did the score for this film. The film went through a difficult production, with Raimi finding some friction with cast and crew. The film would be a relative success critically and financially, spawning three sequels, two comics, and several novels. Of course, both Neeson and McDormand would be Oscar winners in later films, and Raimi would go on to direct some actual comic book films in the Spider-Man trilogy and, just recently, the Dr. Strange sequel.

     Dr. Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is a scientist working on a new synthetic skin to help burn victims. His girlfriend Julie Hastings (Francis McDormand) is an attorney investigating a real estate developer Strack Industries, led by Louis Strack (Colin Friels). She confronts him with evidence that they're bribing the local zoning commission. In vengeance (and to get rid of incriminating evidence), Strack's ally Robert Durant (Larry Drake) breaks into Westlake's lab, killed Westlake's assisstant Yakitito (Nelson Mashita), and torture Westlake. After burning his hands and putting his face in acid, Westlake is left to die, but manages to barely escape, leaving Hastings to think he's dead. He ends up a John Doe, given a radical new treatment that makes him impervious to pain. He breaks out, and as with any good superhero story, decides to take vengeance on those who wronged him. 

     I'll admit, I never really cared for Tim Burton's Batman. It was well-shot, and the production design looks good, but the story is really haphazard and it gets kind of silly, especially towards the end. I honestly think this was a better execution of the general idea behind that film. Raimi manages to evoke the panels and settings of a comic (especially a Marvel comic book with the idea of a freak as a hero) onto film, including psychedelic features and really creative action scenes. It's always entertaining to watch. Of course, Liam Neeson and Francis McDormand are great actors, and they bring a lot of pathos to these characters and their interaction. I like that Raimi makes this a full-on tragedy, taking the best part of the Universal Monsters (the idea of the monsters as tragic heroes) and applying it to a superhero story, making this a very dark, dramatic film about injury and loss. With, you know, comic book villains and fight scenes. 

     Two main problems I can think of. Parts of this film are very slow, and they tend to stretch longer than they need to. This is a problem with the climax of the film. I also felt the film had too much information. Maybe it was just more anxiety focus, but I had trouble following parts of the film because the events tended to get to complicated with the zoning conspiracy and the details about the mask. 

    This is definitely worth a watch, if only to see two Oscar winners in a very early role, and an acclaimed director doing a prototype of his more successful work. Plus, it's just a really fun, really entertaining film that works as a drama. I highly recommend it to superhero fans, and for those who, like me, didn't really care for Tim Burton's Batman.

    Alright, November 1st, and I've finally caught up to my own schedule. This year.... Well, we close out on an excellent film that came out last year, Bit. Thanks for reading, and happy Halloween. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Red Dragon

         This was the third film in the trilogy of films with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, and the final time he would play the character. Dino De Laurentiis, who had the rights to the Lecter character, had given the rights to the name for free to Silence of the Lambs, because of the financial failure of Manhunter, but would return to produce the last film in the series, Hannibal and this one, effectively a remake of Manhunter. Brett... (oh, Jesus) Brett Ratner, fresh off Rush Hour 2 directed this (this time, not an insipid comedy). Edward Norton, who would use his salary to make The 25th Hour, was the new Will Graham. It was receive mixed reception and box office success, though not enough to apparently sustain interest in a prequel.

          Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) attends an orchestra performance, and later entertains some of the board (while getting rid of a flutist he disliked). FBI agent Will Graham (Ed Norton) comes over to discuss a serial killer called "The Chesapeake Ripper," who appears to be a cannibal, and who Graham has been consulting Lecter with. Of course, Graham puts two and two together, and Lecter and Graham do battle, before Lecter is subdued. However, Graham can't handle the encounter, and retires. A few years later, another serial killer, "The Tooth Fairy" (Ralph Fiennes) is on the loose. Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) recruits Graham back, and when they stall, Graham decides to look at the one source he has, aka Hannibal.

        Perhaps the most distinct and interesting part of this film is Ralph Fiennes. He manages to bring the character of Francis Dolarhyde to life better than Manhunter, with a more interesting performance, and a more menacing presence on screen. It's well worth watching the film for him and the way he portrays the character. It also fully emphasizes the connection to the Red Dragon painting to its fullest extent. Anthony Hopkins continues to do well as Hannibal, especially in the few scenes he has, managing to be menacing, but charming, as the character should.

     Ed Norton's terrible dyed hair is perhaps a symbol for the entire film in general. It appears to be closer to the book, but that's ultimately to its detriment. Manhunter mostly stuck to the important bits, and just cut all the unnecessary parts. Not only are the additions the worst part, they make the film a lot less interesting. A lot more is explained (again, to its detriment), and the film is just stretched. Ratner directs this in such a generic way, with all the marking of studio film. None of the tense moments of Manhunter. It's also just completely forgettable. Nothing stands out, especially with the generic directing and writing. 

    So, yeah, you want a really good adaptation of this book, watch Manhunter. I didn't hate the film, but it wasn't really one that worked, especially with a better adaptation around. Maybe if you want to compare the two, or just want to complete Hopkins performance as Lecter, it might be worth watching, but otherwise, definite skip. 

    So, finally caught to the schedule. To finish off at the right film, our penultimate film is a very different sort of horror film in Darkman.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Silence of the Lambs

    The Silence of the Lambs, Harris' 1988 sequel to Red Dragon, was originally optioned by actor Gene Hackman and Orion Pictures, with Hackman starring in the role of Jack Crawford. Hackman would exit the film eventually (uncomfortable in violent roles after starring in the Civil Rights drama Mississippi Burning), but Orion covered all costs, confident in the film and the developing script from Ted Tally. Eventually, Jonathan Demme (known at the time for quirky films like Melvin and Howard, Swimming to Cambodia, and Married to the Mob) was chosen as director. Demme cast Anthony Hopkins as Lecter based on his performance in David Lynch's The Elephant Man. Jodie Foster was interested in the role of FBI agent Clarice Starling, but Demme didn't consider her until he had exhausted other actresses. Ted Levine (a friend of William Petersen and Michael Mann, the star and director of Manhunter) was cast as the villain Buffalo Bill. Filmed in Pennsylvania, the cast would research the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit and actual serial killers to study their roles. Released in 1991, it is, of course, one of the most iconic films ever made, and was the first horror film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture (indeed, the third film to win the Oscars for Best Picture,  Best Director (Demme), Best Actor (Hopkins as Lecter), Best Actress (Foster as Starling), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Tally, adapting Harris). The film would become a perennial favorite, and would make Hannibal Lector a household name. 

      Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is a trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, who is called by Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) of the Behavioral Science Unit. He wants her to interview notorious cannibal serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), stuck in a Baltimore asylum run by arrogant Dr. Fredrick Chilton (Anthony Heald). Lecter could give insight into the whereabouts of Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), who has been kidnapping women and murdering them. Lecter gives some clues, which is useful as Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), the daughter of a prominent US senator, is kidnapped by Bill, upping the stakes.

         The film is very well shot. That's the first thing that stood out to me when I watched this many years ago. It's well shot, a lot of interesting angles, an especially interesting climax with complete darkness and night vision goggles. It helps build the tense atmosphere of the film, while providing both the investigation and the scares with intense action. Anthony Hopkins is iconic as Hannibal. Again, not necessarily sure if his performance is better than Brian Cox's, but it's definitely the definitive version. A lot of his quirks and coldness shine through, and Hopkins makes the character work despite him not being in the film. Foster does well as the main character, carrying the film with her chemistry with Hopkins and her Southern accent is fine. The film is easier to follow and less confusing than Manhunter. 

      The biggest thing hanging over my head watching this was the transphobia. As a newly out trans person myself, I did look at this film in a new light, especially an excellent documentary on Netflix you should watch called Disclosure, about transgender representation in film. Even as a questioning person, I figured that the film does explain that Bill wasn't actually trans, but merely thought themselves trans (itself a faulty concept in retrospect), so the film had an out in that . Rewatching the film, I'm less convinced of that. The character has all the signifiers stereotypically attributed to trans or other LGBTQ people, and whether or not they were actually  trans, the portrayal does resemble the stigma of us being mentally ill, especially the idea of a serial killer making a suit. So, that aspect is probably the most uncomfortable part of watching this in the modern day, especially as it may have contributed to the aforementioned stigma. Also, after a rather deliberate first two acts, the film just rushes to an end. Clarice doesn't even find out Buffalo Bill's identity, and she stumbles on them by accident. 

    It's definitely a well-crafted, well-directed film with good cinematography and good acting all around. The main specter on this film is Buffalo Bill and the transphobia, so I wouldn't quite know if to recommend this film. Maybe check the facts, and see if you, as an individual would be comfortable seeing this film. 

    I suppose it's an impromptu trilogy now, because for my next review, I'm doing the second adaptation of Red Dragon.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Manhunter

     Thomas Harris' first novel Black Sunday (a thriller partially inspired by the Munich Massacre in 1972) was a moderate success in 1975, helped by a 1977 film adaptation by John Frankenheimer. This of course, spurred him to write a second novel. He drew inspiration from his past: In 1963, as a Waco reporter, he had visited a Mexican prison to interview an American citizen, Dykes Askew Simmons  imprisoned for the murders of three people. He ended up interacting with a man named "Salazar", who saved Simmons after a guard shot him. Salazar unnerved Harris, especially with his fixation on Simmons' disfigured face and his crimes. Salazar, or as revealed later, Dr. Alfredo Ballí Treviño, was a former surgeon who was accused of killing and mutilating his close friend, and killing several hitchhikers (he was eventually released in 1981, and lived quietly until his death in 2009). Harris also took influence from the then-newly formed Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI, which had been interviewing imprisoned serial killers and creating profiles based on them to catch other serial killers (the recently departed Netflix series Mindhunter explored the origins of that unit). Eventually, he brought it together to tell the story of an FBI agent named Will Graham who tries to hunt a vicious serial killer named "The Tooth Fairy" by consulting another serial killer, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, one he put behind bars. Red Dragon , released in 1981, was a critical and financial success, which drew the attention of Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis, known for films like Death Wish, Flash Gordon, and Blue Velvet.  De Laurentiis bought the rights, but after the flop of the Michael Cimino film Year of the Dragon, decided to change the name (for some reason) to Manhunter. Di Laurentiis originally wanted Blue Velvet director David Lynch to direct the film, which the latter declined. Eventually (apparently based on the similarity between his surname and the new title. No, I'm not kidding), Michael Mann, fresh off films like Thief and shows like Miami Vice, was given the director's chair. William Petersen, star of Mann's Thief and a good friend of the director, was given the Graham role. For the role of the Tooth Fairy,Tom Noonan, a stage and TV actor with a large physique, was given the role. Finally, in the role of Lecter (or Lektor in the script), Mann cast Scottish actor Brian Cox, who had impressed Mann in the play Rats in the Skull. Filmed somewhat guerrilla style, the film would have the actors trying to get into character a bit too much, struggling to leave them afterwards. The film was a dud on release in 1986, both financially and critically, but Mann's subtle directing and Petersen's performance allowed the film to gradually gain a cult following. Notably, its portrayal of a contemporary FBI investigation would inspire later work like The X-Files and CSI. The biggest influence from this film, of course, is Hannibal Lecter, who Harris would feature again in his next book,  The Silence of the Lambs.

      A serial killer named the Tooth Fairy (Tom Noonan), because of his bite marks on his victims, has been terrorizing families in Atlanta. Desperate, FBI agent Jack Crawford (Dennis Farina) approaches former agent Will Graham (William Petersen) with the case. Graham is reluctant, because a prior case had a traumatic effect on him, but he ultimately accepts. However, when the case stumps even him, he decides to take a drastic measure. He visits the killer whose crimes haunted him: the cannibal psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lektor (Brian Cox). The erudite Lektor shows his skill at evaluating the Tooth Fairy, and the Tooth Fairy takes notice. 

     This film is absolutely gorgeous. The way it's lighted, the way it's shot, the angles, the production design. It just looks so good, and it just keeps you intrigued just by the way it conveys its story. It's easily the best and most distinctive part of the film. The acting is always sublime, especially William Petersen, Dennis Farina, and in his brief role, Brian Cox. Cox plays a more informal, less unhinged Hannibal than Anthony Hopkins. His version seems more like an actual serial killer, in that he behaves more naturally and emotionally, and less in Hopkins' dark, emotionless monotone. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but they are very distinct performances of the same character. And Cox's works in the context which the story has to serve him. Finally, the action is sublime, as per usual from Michael Mann, who makes every moment seem interesting and intense.

   This may or may not be an actual flaw but this film is very information intensive. You have to pay attention to a lot to get an idea of what is happening. Usually, it's at least clear what is happening in which scene and how they relate to the story, but, especially for someone whose attention has been shot as of late, it made the film a bit hard to follow. I had to go back a few times just to figure out certain plot points. There's also some digressions and characters that ultimately felt unnecessary, but those don't distract too much. 

   I recommend this film as a decent crime thriller, though again, there's a lot you have to keep track of. For those familiar with the Anthony Hopkins version, it's a good alternative interpretation of the Hannibal Lecter character. For myself, I might finally check out the third adaptation of this book, Hannibal , finally. I've heard really good things. 

   So, I suppose I'd be remiss in not reviewing the next Hannibal Lecter film, Silence of the Lambs. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Body Bags

      Lucky me, not much history around for this. This was originally going to be a horror anthology TV series on Showtime, their attempt at aping the success of HBO's Tales from the Crypt. However, after filming three segments, they decided to just make this a standalone television film. John Carpenter had just come off the Chevy Chase comedy (yes, really) Memoirs of an Invisible Man, and Tobe Hopper had done several flops since directing the Stephen Spielberg produced Poltergeist. To continue the EC Comics host tradition, Carpenter himself is the host of the film's wraparound segments.  It was aired on Showtime on August 8th, 1993, to relatively positive critical reception.

     As an anthology film, there are three segments to this film, each introduced by a delightfully morbid coroner (John Carpenter). Segment one, "The Gas Station", features a gas station near Haddonfield, Illinois (why yes, John Carpenter did direct this one!), where Anne (Alex Datcher) is going to work for the night shift, replacing Bill (Robert Carradine). However, she is frightened by reports of a lunatic who escaped the local asylum. And she's keeping an eye out for all patrons. The second segment, "Hair" (not the musical), deals with Richard Corbets (Stacey Keach) a middle aged dude scared of losing his hair. He soon learns of a treatment from a television ad (always a great source), promoted by Dr. Lock (ha!)(David Warner). He soon gets a full head of hair, but maybe it works too well. The final segment "Eye" has baseball player Brent Matthews (Mark Hamill) losing his eye in a car accident, dooming his career. He soon learns of an experimental treatment where he gets an eye transplant. From a dead person. A very bad dead person.

     First and foremost, Carpenter as the host is a lot of fun. He just has a lot of energy, and he delivers his sardonic, dark humor with a lot of glee and fun. It gives the film a lot of irreverence, which makes it stand out. I kind of want to see a whole series just to see Carpenter doing this bit so more. It's just a lot of fun seeing him and the segments are very funny. The segments themselves are all pretty good. The first one is a good short riff on Halloween with a twist. It reminds me a lot of the better moments of that film. The setting and paranoia also works. The second seems like it wouldn't really work, but in Carpenter's hands, it's a good comedy short, in the vein of a comedy Twilight Zone episode. The third one, directed by Tobe Hopper, is a pretty good short horror film (and it's always great to see or hear Mark Hamill in anything.) An interesting thing: a lot of cameos. Wes Craven and Sam Raimi appear in the first segment, Debbie Harry of Blondie in the second, and Roger Corman in the third. That's a lot of fun.

    I think the biggest complaint I have is that these feel too cinematic. Like, for stuff written to be essentially segments of an EC comic book based show, the length and scale feel too much like these should be their own separate films, and thus, paradoxically, they feel a bit too short to be satisfactory. Compared to something like Creepshow, which was theatrically released, and whose segments felt appropriate. Here, the production values feel too good, and thus it feels a bit disonent as a TV movie. I suppose if "it feels too good" is a criticism, then the film isn't that bad. 

   This was a delightfully morbid time. A lot of fun action and gore, John Carpenter hamming it up as a horror host, and just well-written segments. I highly recommend this as a good anthology film if you ever want one. It's definitely an underrated classic if there ever was one. 

    Alright, tomorrow, we look at Hannibal Lecter. No, not Silence of the Lambs. Rather his first film appearance. Manhunter.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Last House on the Left

    A billion years ago, back in 2018, I did a summer retrospective on Friday the 13th films, and I briefly discussed Sean S. Cunningham, who was a director and producer on the series. To recap, in the late 60's, he was a Broadway producer and manager who decided to go into independent film. With film censorship loosening at the time thanks to the advent of the MPAA rating system in 1968, many had started to go into hitherto taboo territory. Among the avenues for this were "white coaters", which were films that used a medical education cover (i.e. a guy in a white coat at the beginning explaining how the film you're about to watch is educational) to basically make porn. Cunningham would make his first "white coater" with The Art of Marriage in 1970. Impressed by this success was 31-year old Wes Craven, a former schoolteacher turned film editor. Craven and Cunningham would work together on another white coater, Together, as a result of a deal with Hallmark (not that one) Releasing and notorious genre distributor American International Pictures. That film was a success, and Hallmark/AIP offered the pair a chance to make a bigger horror film. Craven decided to draw upon Igmar Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring to write an incredibly dark script called Night of Vengeance, commenting on what Craven thought was how many films had glamorized or played down the impact of violence. After shooting began, however, the script was significantly toned down. Despite this, the filming proved upsetting enough for star Sandra Peabody to leave set temporarily, before they coaxed her back. Filmed "guerrilla style" in Cunningham's words, in New York and Connecticut, the film starred mostly D-List or first time actors. It would have significant problems with the MPAA. Craven constantly cut down the film, only for the dreaded "X" rating to come back. Finally, he just took a R rating stamp from a friend, and put it on the film. Craven assumed that the film would not be widely seen, much like many others he had edited under pseudonyms. However, the film would go on to have a wide release, and become extremely controversial due to its violence and dark themes. Many theaters would refuse to play the film, and critics (including future slasher opponent and guy who hung out at the Playboy Mansion apparently, Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel) lambasted the film and its violence. All of this is to say, it was a gigantic success, and would be considered a classic in retrospective. It would also (to his lifelong consternation) put Craven on the map as a horror director of note (in part because the film was so traumatic, they didn't want him to do anything else).

     On her seventeenth birthday, Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody) is attending a concert with friend Phyllis Stone (Lucy Grantham), despite her parents (Eleanor Shaw and Richard Towers) concerns about her friend. As they drive, they hear a report that four prisoners (Krug Stillo (David Hess), his son Junior (Marc Sheffler), Weasel (Fred Lincoln), and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)) who have escaped. They are eventually tricked into going into their apartment, and I probably should stop it there. 

    This is a very fascinating commentary on the culture of late 60's and early 70's. Specifically, the culture war, without explicitly noting the whole "hippies/squares" conflict. The villains are coded as hippies, even though they don't necessarily have the signifiers typically given to them. At the same time, the "square" parents, while sympathetic, ultimately devolve to their level of violence once the depravity of their crimes is fully understood. Perhaps a bit "both sides", but it's a nice time capsule of that particular period. Onto a bit more tangible stuff, I definitely see Craven purposely ramping the violence to make a point. The violence in this film is extensive and brutal, but it's never framed as cool or fantastic. In fact, this film is honestly hard to watch because the violence (especially the sexual violence) is very heavy handed, and it's really uncomfortable to watch. It's a good commentary on being desensitized to violence, especially in the wake of the Vietnam War being broadcast nationwide. It's definitely a very intense viewing experience, especially with some scenes I couldn't stomach. 

     For stuff that didn't work, mostly the tone was all over the place. A lot of stern, extremely serious moments were followed by very weirdly light-hearted moments of comedy with the criminals. It's more than a little jarring, and after the bruality, I wasn't really sure what to make of these moments. Were they a satire? A light relief? Whatever they were, it didn't really work out for me, but these moments are few and far between.

     This was a difficult viewing experience. I had to stop the film a few times because of how intense it got, especially towards the middle. If you could stomach some really disgusting stuff, this does have some very interesting commentary on the times it was made in, and feels like a fresh look at how we view violence as a society. It is a hard film to sit through though, and I wouldn't be surprised if people just decided it wasn't something for them. 

    Alright, now onto another director who got their start in the 70's (two in fact) is Body Bags.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- God Told Me To.

    I've talked a bit before about Larry Cohen. A TV writer in the 60's, he would rise to feature film prominence through Blaxploitation films like Black Caesar and Hell in Harlem, before aping the Exorcist in It's Alive in 1974. He originally got the idea for this film from considering the vengeful God of the Old Testament, with a healthy dose of Chariots of the Gods. Originally, Robert Forster was cast as the lead, but because of personal conflicts with Cohen, he was fired and replaced by Tony Lo Blacno. Legendary composer Bernard Herrmann (who had scored It's Alive), was to initially score the film, but after viewing a rough cut, he died (not because the film was bad, to be clear). Ultimately, the Hermann like score was done by Frank Cordell, and the film is dedicated to Herrmann's memory. The film was released to negative reviews, but would come to be seen as a cult classic in later years. It's also notable as the first film appearance of a young Andy Kaufman, a year before Taxi

       A mysterious force is compelling people to commit mass murder in New York City. A shooter on a water tower. Someone during the Police parade on St. Patrick's Day. A mass stabbing. A family killing. Detective Peter Nichols (Tony Lo Blanco) is on the case, and he learns that all the participants only said "God Told Me To", when asked for their motives. His investigation would take him into... strange territories. 

    Starting from the very first scene, this film really sets its intensity atmosphere very high. A very disturbing mass shooting is depicted, followed by a series of other crimes. It only rachets up from there, culminating in a bizarre alien plot and a lot of naked people bathed in light. The score helps this immensely, giving the scenes a sense of scale and reverence that gives the campier features of the film an air of seriousness. Tony Lo Blanco is a sympathetic protagonist whose journeys show how he himself, while not motivated by the voices, can be driven to acts that he can't quite comprehend. The alien cult is handled well. There are a ton of naked people and genitals to enhance the weirdness. Andy Kaufman is also there, briefly, if you're interested. 

    The film feels sometimes, like a television episode. Very stock filming, very cheap, very procedural like. It definitely feels like what happens when a lot of TV writers eventually go into film, but can't quite shake off the TV-ness of the production. It's a great episode of an anthology series, but I have trouble seeing it as a feature film, except for the nudity and violence. It's also a bit confusing and I had trouble following parts of it, especially towards the end. 

     I enjoyed the film, but I'm not necessarily enamored of it. Perhaps other viewings, when my mind isn't as addled by anxiety, should eventually turn me more into a fan. For now, it's a good Halloween viewing, and a good example of religious and science fiction horror, and I recommend it as a good obscure pick for Halloween night. 

     Alright, tomorrow, we get into the mix with Wes Craven's first film, Last House on the Left.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Mummy (2017)

 On to the first proper review for this year.... and oh, God, I have to actually go into the history of this, aren't I? I'll make it quick. I find corporate bullshit like this far less interesting to write about. 

   So, as many of you know, Boris Karloff's The Mummy spawned a reboot in 1999, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. It was an action adventure film rather than a straight forward horror film, but it was successful enough to spawn two sequels and a number of spin-offs. However, as it gradually lost steam, Universal decided that a reboot was necessary, cancelling a fourth film with Fraser. They announced the reboot in 2012, and following the example of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it was decided that it would be the centerpiece of a new "Cinematic Universe". After cycling through writers and directors, eventually, hack screenwriter Alex Kurtzmann (whose credits read like a cinematic rap sheet) was tapped to lead the "Dark Universe" and eventually to direct the new Mummy. However, he would be one of many screenwriters, including frequent partner and fellow hack Robert Orci and (of all people) David Koepp, writer of Jurassic Park, Spider-Man,... Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,.... Mortdecai.... Anyway, Tom Cruise was cast, and by most accounts, took over production, controlled every part of it, and basically made himself the bigger star over the titular mummy (played by Algerian French actress Sofia Boutella, cast after her star turning role in Kingsman.) The film was a gigantic flop, and brought the end to the nascent "Dark Universe". The next film, a remake of The Invisible Man, was unconnected to the Dark Universe, perhaps for the better. 

    So, in this film about ancient Egypt, we start in England. During the 13th Century. During a funeral for a crusader. Then to modern day London where Dr. Jekyll (Russell Crowe, and yes, it means exactly what you think it means) digs up the corpse. What has to do with the rest of the film, I'm not sure, but then we get the story of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), her bloodlust on her way to power, her deal with the God of "Death" Set (Set was actually the god of deserts, Osiris was the god of death. How do you screw up such a basic piece of research?) and how she was mummified alive and transported to Iraq. There, her tomb is uncovered by Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson, whose presence is extremely distracting), a pair of ... I'm actually not entirely sure, deserters? special ops?... anyway, they report it to their commanding officer (Courtney B. Vance) and by extension, archeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis). They excauvate the ruins, and unleash the titular mummy, who decides to... again, not clear on this, but apparently it motivates her to unleash supernatural wackiness upon the world. 

   Good stuff, good stuff.... Sofia Boutella is always a compelling presence, and for the limited role she's given here, she does the very best she can (you want a good performance, watch the first Kingsman or Atomic Blonde for that). Tom Cruise is... Tom Cruise, for good or ill. Russell Crowe is mildly entertaining, since he's just decided to go hammy with the role. 

    This was very badly written, for the first really glaringly awful thing. The plot changes at least three times over the course of the film, and even then, it's really hard to tell what's going on. Why any of this is happening, what any of it signifies, and why should the audience care. I was baffled throughout this film, wondering what the hell was going on. The motivations of the titular Mummy are the biggest flaw, in that she doesn't have any. Her original plan was laid out and foiled in the opening, so her resurrection makes little sense, and she has no reason to do anything. Why does she conjure this supernatural menace? What's her endgoal? The ending is terrible, too, especially its non-climax and bizarre resolution that doesn't explain anything. I suppose it was meant to set up the "Dark Universe", but it was poorly done. As was the SHIELD counterpart Prodigium, which was deeply uninteresting and puts the film's pacing to a stonecold halt. As an intro to the "Dark Universe", it's really bad, and makes you actively avoid any future installments if they're this blatantly commericial. It also has terrible special effects combined with terrible cinematography. The result is a blur of action just vomited onto the screen, especially the action scenes, which are incomprehensible. 

    This was bad. Really, really bad. Bad in a distinctly uninteresting, completely predictable kind of way. There's no ironic enjoyment or unintentional fun. It's really dull and boring when it doesn't actively insult your intelligence. Frankly, you're better off watching the recent Invisible Man remake over this, since that worked on a individual level. This should probably be only seen as an example of how not to make a cinematic universe. (well, this and the DCEU.)

    Onto stuff I actually have interest in, we return to Larry Cohen next time with Because God Told Me To.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror/Masterpiece of Horror: Psycho

    This summer has been rough for everyone on Earth. It was definitely rough for me. I unfortunately didn't plan out this series very well, admittedly, and the anxiety just got very overwhelming (Seasonal depression has also reared its head). However, I do feel like finishing off the Universal Monsters. However, this went into October. As I laid in bed, suddenly, an idea came: Why not do a transitionary phase here. 

    Okay, like I said last time, this film is a lot more of a stretch to be on here, namely in that it technically originally wasn't even a Universal film. Let's go back a bit though. In 1957, a Wisconsin handyman named Ed Gein was arrested for the murders of two women living nearby. A search of his place revealed that items made from various parts of the human body, including skin lamps and shrunken heads. At the time, this was unknown to horror writer Robert Bloch, despite living only 57 miles away. A correspondent and friend of HP Lovecraft, Bloch started out in that style and genre before the advent of the atomic age caused him to switch instead to psychological horror. He wrote a story about a man isolated from civilization in a motel who has an overbearing mother and kills multiple women. When he heard about Gein, he was disturbed to learn the parallels. Nevertheless, the book would be a big commerical success, and it would reach acclaimed director Alfred Hitchcock, fresh off hit North by Northwest through his assistant. Hitchcock, very impressed, chose this project over several others, including an adaptation of Casino Royale, and even bought up all the copies he could of the novel to prevent the twist from being revealed. However, Hitchcock saw resistance from tradition backer Paramount, so he shot the film on a low budget, using the crew from his television show in the Universal Studios lot (part of the reason I decided to include it here), and shooting the film in black and white. Joseph Stefano (later the co-creator of the 60's Sci-fi anthology series The Outer Limits) wrote the screenplay. Starring in the film were Vera Miles (who had appeared in several Hitchcock productions beforehand), John Gavin  (who starred in the critical success Spartacus that same year), Janet Leigh (who had starred opposite Charlton Heston in Orson Welles' A Touch of Evil) and as the unsuspecting killer Norman Bates, relatively unknown supporting actor Anthony Perkins was cast on account of his boyish charm. Hitchcock regular Bernard Hermann would do the iconic score. Entire books and even films have been made about the production of this movie, so not too much more detail here, but the film was fairly controversial upon its release in 1960, as the Production Code was dying due to an influx of racy European films. It was also extremely successful, with audiences shocked by the big twist of the film. It has gone on to become one of the most iconic films of all time, and is something of the prototype for modern horror as we know. Also, despite Paramount releasing the films, the rights were ultimately sold to Universal, so it does count. 

     Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a secretary in a real estate company in Phoenix, Arizona finds herself in hot water when she steals some money from a client, to pay for a home for her and boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). She flees to California, and eventually, comes across a motel run by the mysterious Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who has a close relationship to his mother.... (You know what, you probably already know how the rest goes, so, yeah.)

      It's hard to really discuss this film, because it is  monumental in the history of film. Everyone knows the central twist, everyone knows the plot, the music cues, the shower scene. Given this film has been studied, dissected, and parodied so many times since 1960, does it still hold up as its own film? Yeah, it definitely does. It helps that it constantly keeps you on your toes, changing its focus multiple times to throw you off. First a standard Hitchcockian thriller, than a proto-slasher, then a murder mystery. The film does a good job of hiding all the necessary elements, especially with its now iconic twist. (NORMAN BATES WAS DRESSING AS HIS MOTHER WHEN HE COMMITS THE MURDERS, in case you don't know). Anthony Perkins shy, delightfully charming, but ultimately psychaotic presence also helps to cement the character as a new kind of monster, less supernatural, but no less menacing. He is easily the most interesting part of the score. And the things to praise about this film have been noted. Hermann's score, Russell's cinematography. 

     The film does spend a lot more time than I thought was needed on the investigative part. Maybe it is the fact that the twist is very well known now, but the audience might've been able to piece together part of the twist towards the middle of the third act. Also, the subplot about the private investigator could've been cut, but does serve an important plot driver, so eh. 

     Even though you probably know how the film goes, I still recommend seeing it, if only to see the various techniques used both narratively and cinematically. It is still a fascinating film, and it is still very scary when it needs to be. I very highly recommend it as a piece of horror history, and just film history. 

    I was going to end this with an overall look at the Universal Monsters, but I'm really tired and just want to end this, so I'll make it brief here. Needless to say, they have had an incredible influence not only on the horror genre on film, but on the general culture. Most people, even if they've never actually seen any of these films, have a good understanding of them. And despite the presence of more contemporary monsters in films like this and Targets, they still have a presence in the culture, whether through the various Hammer remakes in the 50's and 60's, or the severely botched Mummy remake from 2017. 

  Speaking of..... Tune in tomorrow for a review of that.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror: Creature from the Black Lagoon

    The story of this film begins with, of all things, Citizen Kane. William Alland, a good friend of Orson Welles, played the role of the reporter investigating Kane in the film, making him the point of view character. At a party celebrating that film, he met Mexican cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, who had worked with filmmakers like Howard Hawks and John Huston. Figueroa told the story of a fishman in the Amazon who would come to villages once a year, steal women, and vanish. The idea stuck with Alland as he became a major producer of science fiction films in the 50's, including It Came from Outer Space, with a script from Harry Essex (based on a story treatment by Ray Bradbury) and directed by actor-turned-director Jack Arnold. Alland eventually wrote down the idea, which was expanded into a treatment and later script by Maurice Zimm, Essex and Arthur Ross. The story mostly took its cues from Beauty and the Beast as well as King Kong. The creature's legendary costume was designed by Milicent Patrick, who had been one of the first female animators at Disney before coming to Universal as part of their special effects and make-up department. Unfortunately, her assistant Bud Westmore became jealous, and overshadowed her contributions to the Gil-Man design, obscuring her role for decades. Released in 1954, it is something of a staple for the science fiction horror genre. Guillermo del Toro released his riff on the film with The Shape of Water in 2017, earning the Academy Award in the process. 

      After an intro describing evolution, basically, the film opens with the discovery of a strange fossil in the Amazon. A large claw fossil to be exact. (They could resurrect it at Pewter City if they wanted.) The discoverer, Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) soon brings in marine biologist Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson), and persuades his boss, Mark Williams (Richard Denning) to tag along. Sure enough, a real fish creature is swimming around nearby, and takes a particular liking to David's girlfriend Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams), who is tagging along. 

      The "Gill-Man" has an excellent, very monstrous look to it, thanks to Patrick's design. It helps sell the creature as a real creature and not just a guy in a costume (which it still does appear to be). Ben Chapman also does very well conveying the physicality of the creature as a fish who learned how to walk upright, basically. The sets, especially the caves and parts of the jungle is very well done, and I did like that they did attempt (however tenuous) to tie this to the idea of evolution. I did like that they took the main emotional core of King Kong (the "Beauty and the Beast" aspect) and spun it around in a different setting

      Like many of these films, after a good first act and a great third act, it has a really slow second act. It just sort of builds a lot of tension and we don't see a lot of Gill-Man. I drifted during this part. Luckily, as I said, it manages to pick up during the third act and does its iconic scene , which still holds up. 

     The biggest film that hangs over this one is The Shape of Water. Del Toro discusssed how that film was inspired by his sympathy towards the monster in this film. Honestly, I do see it. The creature is ultimately sympathetic, like Frankenstein, but is besieged by colonial forces beyond its control. There's a certain tragedy to its death at the very end. For that alone, I recommend this film. That, and it's still a pretty fun film. 

     Alright, after three months and many cancellations, we're finally at the end of this with an unorthodox choice (and not technically originally a Universal film, but bare with me): Psycho.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Wolfman

    (So,  my anxiety got particularly bad since writing the last one, I was unable to write the planned entries I had intended, or see the films. It's been hard and its almost October. Thus, I've decided to just skip to the last three major films in this franchise to finish off. I may get to the sequels and spin-offs in later entries. With that...)

    This film was based on the experiences of its screenwriter Curt Siodmak. A minor writer and filmmaker in Germany, he was forced to flee when the Nazis came to power due to his Jewish heritage. He channeled the shock of this sudden chaos into a story about a relatively normal man who becomes a werewolf. Siodmak invented many werewolf myths for the film, including the poem cited in the film and was the first to depict a relatively uncommon myth about the werewolf being affected by a silver bullet. Directing the film was actor-turned-director George Waggner. The role of the werewolf (with make-up once again by Jack P. Pierce, reusing the unused make-up from Werewolf of London) was considered for stars Bela Lugosi (who ultimately appears in the film as "Bela", which must've been hard for him to remember) and Boris Karloff before going to Lon Chaney, Jr. Born Creighton Chaney, he was the son of Lon Chaney, Universal's silent era star, who, both directly and indirectly helped pave the way for the Universal Monsters. Chaney resented the name change, forced on him by Universal, commenting that he was proud of the name "Lon Chaney", but not "Lon Chaney, Jr." Chaney would have difficulties in the production of this film, corraling with lead actress Evelyn Ankers and suffering through a long make-up sequence. However, with the major success of the film (one of the biggest films of 1941), Chaney would go on to portray the character six more times, the only actor to portray the same character in all his appearances.

    Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) returns to his father John's (Claude Rains)  estate after the death of his brother. Talbot, an engineer, soon becomes acquainted with Gwen (Evelyn Ankers), owner of an antiques shop. Gwen tells Talbot of a very interesting poem about the werewolf: "Even a man who is pure in heart, and says his prayers by night; May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright". Sure enough, when Larry, Gwen, and Gwen's friend Jenny (Fay Helm) go for a forest jaunt, they find an old Gypsy woman (Maria Ouspenskaya) and her son Bela (Bela... Lugosi), and are attacked by a strange wolf creature. Larry is bitten attempting to save Jenny (who is killed). When the police investigate, the gypsy woman suddenly claims that the Wolf was in fact Bela, and that Larry might have... urges. 

     The make-up in the film is better than the last film. Definitely looks like a human-wolf hybrid, and there is a certain menace to the character. Lon Chaney, Jr. doesn't necessarily do well when he has to be Larry Talbot, but when he's the wolfman, his physicality and viciousness help sell that particular character. The mysticism and tension in the film helps keep the film at least somewhat interesting throughout. Overall, the kills are better done, especially with the ambiguity of it. 

    As said before, Lon Chaney, Jr. doesn't really do well when in human form. He has this forced normal affectation to him that's a bit distracting and he looks like an extra and not the lead of the film. Perhaps his other appearances fix this, but he struggles in this role. The second act tends to drag and despite being 70 minutes, it does feel very long. 

     I enjoyed this more than London. Definitely worth a watch for the tensions and the origins of many current werewolf myths and legends, and just for the fun of seeing effectively a Code-era slasher film (so, no blood). It's not my favorite, but it was definitely a lot of fun. 

    So, yeah, I'm just going to skip forward into the last technical Universal Monster with Creature from the Black Lagoon.  

(Cororna)- Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Werewolf of London

    Werewolves were a major part of European folklore dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks. Myths around lycanthropy vary across regions, but the prevalence of wolves in Europe prior to mass hunting (and possibly medical conditions like porphyria and hypertrichosis) lead to myths of humans becoming wolves becoming a common motif. The specifics were refined from other incidents (such as the 18th century cryptid Beast of Gévaudan, killed by a silver bullet). With the colonization of the Americas by both the Norse and later the rest of Europe, lycanthropy would even spread to some native American cultures, with the most notable being the skin-walker of Navajo myth, who were witches who could change shape into various animals, including wolves. The first werewolf film, The Werewolf from 1913, (now lost) was about a Navajo skin-walker. There was no literary books on werewolves until 1933, when Guy Endore's The Werewolf of Paris explored a man inflicted with lycanthropy as he stumbles through the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune. This film is, in fact, not an adaptation of that book. It's instead an original story by Robert Harris, going through several screenwriters. Not much on the inspiration or impetus for the film, though some sources cite this as a response to Paramount's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Many of the modern werewolf myths (biting to spread lycanthropy and turning under a full moon), come from this film. Jack Pierece's initial make-up was rejected when star Henry Hull noted that the characters should be able to recognize the protagonist as the werewolf. It has had a mixed reception, both then and now. 

    Botanist Dr. Wildfried Glendon (Henry Hull) is in Tibet (where they apparently speak a lot of Cantonese), searching for a rare mariphasa flower He has a brief encounter with Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland, in yellowface)  When he sees the flowers, a mysterious creature bites him. Glendon takes the plant back to merry old England, where he lives and cultivates the plant in the home he shares with wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). Yogami warns that the plant is a potential cure if you're bitten by a werewolf. Glendon is incredulous, until he starts becoming more violent. 

    The make-up is very well done, with a very intimidating look to it. It feels like a real animalistic creature is on screen. Henry Hull does well in his performance, giving the creature some degree of menace and terror. I liked the shadows. The climax and transformation sequences are very well done. 

    Yeah, the fact that the Van Helsing role is played by an actor in yellowface is very distracting. The fact that it's Warner Oland, who also did Fu Manchu makes it equally uncomfortable. It's easily the biggest part of the film that has dated it significantly. Also not helping is the story just sort of grands until the climax of the film. Not a lot happens during it, and it's a bit dull. 

     As a historical document, it's probably worth watching as effectively the originator of the modern werewolf movie. As a film, it's mostly just okay. I feel it may be notable as just a trial run for the first very big werewolf film, which we will cover soon enough. 

    Well, hopefully I can expediate the end of this, so tune in next time for an overview of some of the other Universal monster movies released during the 1930's.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Bride of Frankenstein

    The 1931 Frankenstein film was very different from Mary Shelley's novel, removing, among other changes, a subplot where the monster forces Dr. Frankenstein to make him a mate, which the latter complies with, until he doesn't. This would form the basis for the sequel to the film, which was conceived during the previews of the first film. Indeed, the ending was changed to have Dr. Frankenstein live specifically so that he could return for a sequel. Initially, however, James Whale didn't want to do a sequel, having had a falling out with Boris Karloff during the production of the film The Old Dark House and feeling that he had done all he could with the concept. Ultimately, he agreed to make the film in exchange for Universal backing his project One More River. Whale was dissatisfied by the scripts offered, including a treatment by Robert Florey, and gave the script to John L. Balderston. Balderston was the one who centered the film on the subplot, making it about the "Bride of Frankenstein" and even wrote a prologue with Mary Shelley herself. Whale, still dissatisfied, pushed the script to William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson, who polished the final script. Karloff and Colin Clive returned, with Valerie Hobson replacing Mae Clarke in the role of Elizabeth Frankenstein. Whale's old friend Ernest Thesiger plays the villain Dr. Pretorius. In the titular role of the Bride was Elsa Lancaster. Born to a bohemian artistic family in London, Lancaster studied dance in Paris under Isadora Duncan, before returning to England and starting a number of venues to pursue theatre and cabaret. Eventually, she started appearing in small scale productions in Britain with her husband Charles Laughton, eventually accompanying him to Hollywood. Laughton managed to carve out a niche for himself, including in The Old Dark House. She had returned to London when Whale offered her the role. She based her signature hiss on swans in Regent's Park, London. Jack P. Pierce and Kenneth Strickfadden return in their roles, with Pierce's original make-up modified slightly to allow the monster to speak (an element Karloff was vehemently against).  Pierce also designed the Bride with Whale, basing it off the Egyptian queen Nefertiti. A very young Billy Barty was prominently featured before his scenes were cut. Released on April 20th, 1935, the film would garner critical acclaim, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest sequels ever made. 

    The film begins with a prologue featuring Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon), Percy Shelley (Douglas Walton), and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Elsa Lancaster) stuck in Byron's villa in Switzerland during a thunderstorm in 1815. Byron and Shelley praise Mary's tale of Frankenstein, and ask that she continue with the story. She agrees, and begins the story: shortly after the events of the first film, Frankenstein (Boris Karloff) emerges from the wreckage of the windmill burned in the original and begins to wander. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) recovers back in the village with his bride Elizabeth (Valerie Dobson) by his side. They're approached by Frankenstein's old teacher Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), who really wants Frankenstein to help him with his own life creation experiments. Eventually, as Frankenstein tries to survive paranoid villagers (including befriending a hermit (OP Heggie)), Pretorius' begins his grandiose scheme: To create a bride. For the Monster. 

    Again, the highlight of the film is Karloff's performance. There's a lot more instances of his physicality and his innocence, conveyed well by Karloff's own movement. For all his opposition to the monster talking, he manages to do the voice well, making that aspect of the character as iconic as it is. Elsa Lancaster does well in her brief appearances as both Mary Shelley and the Bride. Her performance at the end is really good, especially at showing the fear that the creation has at the world around her. Her hissing is very precise, and she makes an impression even though she only appears in the last ten minutes. Dr. Pretorius is very fun in his giddiness, the way Claude Rains was in Invisible Man. I like that the film continues to show the monster as sympathetic, continually despised and misunderstood despite only making mistakes. It really makes the film tragic, as the monster is rejected by all aspects of society, including his creator, the villagers, and even the bride crafted specifically for him. There's been speculation of a queer subtext, given the director and some of the actors and the camp factor of the film. Personally, I think if there is such a subtext, it's in the Creature being besieged by a society that mistrusts and hates him, finding solace only in the relationship he forges with the Blind Hermit. 

    The opening is a little slow, and a bit confusing, especially when Dr. Pretorius arrives and shows the homunculi he created. While the make-up in this film is iconic, I kind of prefer the ones from the original. It looked a lot more natural and this makes Karloff's face look bloated. It doesn't feel right. 

     As with the first one, this is something of a quintessential American horror movie or even quintessential American film. Beyond the horror genre, this has been homaged or referenced so many times, that it's hard to not to at least know of its existence. Even Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein utilizes the imagery and menace that this film had pioneered. In that sense, it's almost required viewing for that reason. Helps that it is really, really good in its own right. 

    I feared this would happen. Yes, unfortunately, I have to take this into September. Like everyone else, it's just been a hard year for me, and writing these tends to be a more intensive form because of the research. Hopefully, I will be able to finish by mid-September. Anyway, next time, we will look at Werewolf of London. 

Summer of Terror-The Universal Monsters: The Invsible Man

     HG Wells' The Invisible Man was inspired in part by references to invisible men in a WS Gilbert poem and Plato's Republic. It, along with War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, would be seen as one of the classics from Wells. The film version began production as early as 1931, but ran into a number of production problems. The film had multiple treatments with wildly different takes on the story, including one set on Mars. RC Sheriff (who wrote Journey's End, which director James Whale had produced on stage in 1928) eventually found the original novel in a secondhand bookstore, and wrote the script around that. Even that had issues, as the script was helped by then-famed science fiction writer Phillip Wylie (later known for proto-superhero work Gladiator and When Worlds Collide, who integrated elements of his novel The Murderer Invisible into the script) and future Oscar winner Preston Sturges, who were then taken off the project. Director Cyril Gardner was replaced by the reliable James Whale. Originally, Boris Karloff and Colin Clive were considered for the role of the Invisible Man. However, Whale had a small falling out with Karloff and Clive declined, so the role went to a newcomer to film named Claude Rains. Rains, a British World War I veteran, had been a rising star on the London stage (thanks, in part, to him modifying his Cockney accent into a trans-Atlantic accent) , and had been an instructor in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, where John Gieglud and Laurence Olivier were his students. He had appeared in a silent film in 1920, but largely remained a theater actor and came to Broadway in 1928. In 1931, he was offered a screen test for an RKO picture called A Bill of Divorcement. While the screen test failed, James Whale happened to overhear it, and impressed by Rains' voice, hired him as the Invisible Man. Even still, production remained troubled, with a fire breaking out at one point, shutting down production. The Invisible Man effect was well-regarded in its time. Wires on set were used to display the invisible man running around, but the actual effect when Rains took off his mask was achieved through a special velvet black suit Rains wore against a velvet black background, which was combined with a location shot through a matte. Released in 1933, the film was Universal's biggest success after Frankenstein , and would launch Claude Rains into an incredibly illustrious film career. Wells himself would have mixed feelings on the film, commenting that while he enjoyed it, he didn't like that the scientist had gone insane from the process.

    A bandaged man (Claude Rains) walks into a hotel and asks for a room. It's revealed that this bandaged stranger is in fact, Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist working for Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers, aka "Clarence" from It's a Wonderful Life), and engaged to Cranley's daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). They, and Dr. Kemp (Willaim Harrigan) have concerns for Griffin, especially when they come across a dangerous formula in his collection. Sure enough, when the innskeeper (Forrester Harvey) tries to kick him out, Griffin dispatches him, and grandly reveals that he has gained the ability to become invisible. 

    So, the special effects hold up really well. The invisibility effect is extremely well-done in close up, and I was shocked when I read up on how it was done (hence why I noted it in the intro.) It also helps that the other invisibility effects are also well-done, making the character feel present even if you can't see him. Claude Rains does well in his de facto film debut, delivering the grand villainous monologues with energy and gusto that makes him very appealing to watch. Helps that he also has legitimate malice and menace to him that makes him a very real threat. I also liked that the film had some good intentional humor that was legitimately funny, but also felt more like fun than the relatively dour films prior to it. It also has a conclusion that feels like an actual conclusion, rather than feeling like something was cut out.

    Some parts, like the opening and some of the middle, were a bit confusing and hard to follow. I only learned from looking at the synopsis what a discovery in the middle of the film actually meant, and some of the extensive middle part felt confusing. Also, the way he's dispatched at the end was a bit anti-climatic, especially with his grandiose gesturing throughout the film.

    Pretty entertaining film overall, and an interesting companion piece to the very recent remake (if you managed to see it in theaters before... everything.) I'd say I prefer the new one a little more, but this is definitely worth a watch, if only for the insane monologues Claude Rains delivers and the incredible special effects. 

    Next up, the very  first sequel in the Universal Monsters franchise with The Bride of Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Mummy

           Mummification in ancient Egyptian culture is believed to started in the years prior to the rule of the pharaoahs, and became an integral part of their funeral practices , as detailed in the funerary texts collectively called the "Egyptian Book of the Dead." It was believed that proper mummification (with the preservation of skin and removal of organs) would allow the ka or lifeforce of a person to travel to the afterlife. The Egyptians would have different funeral practices for different classes, with the pharoahs having the most elaborate and ornate. Egyptian mummies would become something of a craze during the early 19th Century, after Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, with mummies becoming something of a collector's item, and the luxuries of the tombs plundered for European consumption, shown at parties, cut up, and examined by the curious. As a result, mummies and the idea of their resurrection would become a fictional theme. Writers like Edgar Allan Poe, H. Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle and even Louise May Alcott would explore the idea in a more romantic or satirical way. The allure of the mummy faded as the tombs were excavated and the appeal wore off. That is until 1922, when British archaeologist Howard Carter uncovered the untouched tomb of minor pharaoh Tutankhamun, still with its riches, which revived the Ancient Egypt craze. Among those inspired by the find (and the subsequent overhyped "curse" associated with it) was Universal producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. who wanted to make a mummy the next monster to scare audiences. With that in mind, he sent Richard Schayer to find a good mummy book to make into a film. When he couldn't find one, he and cartoonist Nina Wilcox Putnam instead wrote a treatment based on 18th century Italian occultist  Alessandro Cagliostro.  Impressed, Laemmle had John L. Balderston write a script. Balderston had a fascination with Egypt, and had in fact covered the story of Tutankhamun's tomb as a journalist, so he modified the script, renaming the lead Imohotep (after an historical architect and cult figure) and setting the action in Egypt. Karl Freund, the de facto director of Dracula, directed this as his first American feature, and Boris Karloff, now a superstar thanks to Frankenstein, assumed the lead of Imhotep. Jack P. Pierce once again does Karloff's make-up as the resurrected mummy (though the iconic make-up only appears in the opening), and Karloff found it extremely difficult to deal with. Freund and romantic lead Zita Johann didn't get along during the feature. Much like the other films prior, the film was cut up, especially a long historical segment.  Released on December 22nd, 1932, The Mummy would become another critical and financial hit, prompting more sequel. 

      In 1921, British archaeologists Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) , Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan), and Ralph Norton  (Bramwell Fletcher) uncover the tomb of Imhotep (Boris Karloff) in an Egyptian dig. They note some irregularities with the mummy, indicating he was buried alive. Sure enough, Norton is late one night to find Imhotep very alive in his bandages, scarring him. 10 years later, Whemple's son Frank (David Manners) and Professor Pearson (Leonard Mudie) met a mysterious man named Ardeth Bey in Egypt, who gives them mysterious instructions about the tomb of Princess Anck-su-namun....

    First, the best thing about this film is still Boris Karloff. Unlike the very emotionally charged Frankenstein, he manages to exude quiet menace and presence in the film. The way he walks, speaks, and acts manages to be terrifying with every step. His performance is definitely the strongest, and he really sells the villain. The set design (especially the recreation of ancient Egyptian tombs) is very well done, and Jack P. Pierce's make-up is exquisite.

     The story is a little thin. Seemingly starting as just the fact that this maleviolent ancient Egyptian is back, the film just sort of becomes about said Egyptian trying to resurrect his long lost love. It's not even the focus, it's just the lack of attention given to it. Again, this film isn't very long, but the way the relatively thin story is stretched out makes it feel longer. Not helped is very clear edits, and cuts, which makes the pacing even more disjointed. This also makes the film more than a little dull at times. 

    Overall, much weaker than the previous films. Still, Karloff's performance and the great effects are enough to give this a relatively high recommendation. Probably not one I'd revisit though (except for the sequels most likely. 

    Next up, a film which had a pretty good remake this year, The Invisible Man.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Frankenstein

     Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus needs no introduction. Not its origins in the electric experiments conducted by Luigi Galvani, showing that electricity can induce movement in dead limbs, nor the real Castle Frankenstein, where alchemist  Johann Conrad Dippel did experiments on human bodies. Not how Shelley conceived it while stuck in a Swiss cabin with future husband Percy and poet Lord Byron. Nor its place as the first work of modern science fiction and horror. I suppose let's begin with adaptations. Frankenstein started being adapted into plays during Shelley's lifetime, with 1823's Presumption; or, the Fate of Frankenstein being the first, followed by The Man and the Monster! in 1826 and Frankenstein; Or The Model Man in 1849. In 1887, a musical adaptation, Frankenstein, or The Vampire's Victim was made. As film came into prominence, film adaptations also followed. In 1910, J. Searle Dawley wrote and directed the first, a short adaptation for Thomas Edison and his film studio. Life without Soul in 1915 and Italian adaptation The Monster of Frankenstein  (both lost) followed. The story of this film begins in 1924, with another stage adaptation by British playwright Peggy Webling, commissioned by Hamilton Deane, who made the stage adaptation of Dracula made into the 1931 film. Notably, the monster (unnamed in the Shelley novel) was named Frankenstein after its creator. With Dracula's towering success, Universal purchased the rights to John L. Balderston's (who also produced the successful Broadway version of Deane's Dracula) unproduced Broadway version of Webling's play. (Ultimately, said version never made it to stage). Bela Lugosi originally wanted to be Victor Frankenstein, but was relegated to being the monster. In the original version with director Robert Florey at the helm, Lugosi's monster would be simple killing machine, a charaterization Lugosi resented and eventually led to his and Florey's ouster. In their place was  James Whale  a successful British stage director, who had recently made the transition to film as director and an unknown minor character actor named Boris Karloff as the monster. Boris Karloff, despite the name, was not in fact another Eastern European refugee. In fact, he was an Englishman, born William Henry Pratt, from a diplomatic family (his maternal great aunt was Anna Leonowens, most famous for being the subject of The King and I). Pratt would change his name to Boris Karloff when he became an actor to avoid embarrassing his family (Accounts vary on where he got the name). After years in Canadian and American acting troupes, he would eventually make his way to Hollywood, where his relatively darker skin complexion (owing to some Indian ancestry) would cast him in minor ethnic roles throughout the silent era. Whale purportedly cast Karloff because of his intimidating size. The supporting cast was rounded out: Colin Clive (who had appeared in Whale's production of the play as Journey's End and it's 1930 adaptation) as Henry (not Victor) Frankenstein, Mae Clarke (who appeared opposite James Cagney in The Public Enemy earlier that year) as Henry's love interest Elizabeth Lavenza, and Dracula's Edward van Sloan and Dwight Frye as Dr. Frankenstein's mentor Dr. Waldman and his hunchback assistant Fritz respectively. Set designer Kenneth Strickfaden would design the iconic set describing the creature's creation (including a Tesla coil from none other than Nikola Tesla himself), which was used in later films. The iconic make-up of the creature was done by Jack P. Pierce, and was so evocative that Universal trademarked it (which it still holds) and has been associated with the character since. Released on November 21st, 1931, Frankenstein would be a commercial and critical success, and is now regarded as an iconic piece of American cinema. 

    In some nondescript place in Central Europe in some nondescript time, Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) dig up recently buried corpses for a project to create a living being from the parts of dead bodies, but needs a brain. He sends Fritz to steal a healthy brain from his teacher Dr. Waldman (Edward van Sloan), but Fritz screws up and brings a criminal brain meant for comparison. Henry's fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and friend Victor Mortiz (John Boles), along with Dr. Waldman, find Henry about to perform his act: using lightning to bring his Creature (Boris Karloff) to life...

    The best thing about the film definitely is Karloff as the creature. The performance is incredible. He manages to have unique mannerisms, the way he moves his arms, his expressions, his grunts, the way he moves, all helps create a very convincing portrayal of the monster as very sympathetic and misunderstood. He can be intimidating, but the film shows very well how the monster is constantly besieged and misunderstood by people. Karloff's performance as the Monster really makes the film work in the way it intend, and is really the main thing that is most memorable, especially the iconic scene  with the little girl. Not to say the rest of the film is very well done. Strickfaden's sets are very meticulous, with a German impressionist look to the architecture and a very haunting look to the electrical equipment in Dr. Frankenstein's office. The cinematography is also very well done, with some very well done long shots and overviews which increase the drama of each scene. I liked that the film took full advantage of its relatively short running time and  told the story it intended to tell well, and with very few interruptions. 

     That said, there were some scenes towards the end celebrating Frankenstein and Elizabeth's wedding, that felt a bit like padding. Or was the studio trying to do big celebration scenes like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It ultimately felt superfluous except to establish the crowd which later hunts down Frankenstein. The short length probably makes this worse. And like Dracula, the film just sort of stops rather than have a proper conclusion, though this at least feels like the film should've ended at this point. 

     One might call this the quitessential American horror film. Every horror film that followed either followed at least parts of the precedents it set or rejected it. Even early New Horror film Targets relied on the intimidating power of Boris Karloff's performance. So, I think it's worth a watch on that ground. It's also really quite good and affecting in its own right, with the stand out being Karloff's performance and the large scope of the story. So, it's definitely worth a watch. 

    Next comes the first original property with The Mummy. 

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Dracula (Spanish)

     Not too much history on this one. In the early days of sound, many were skeptical of audience expectations and the limitations of the technology, especially when it came to dubbing in other languages. Thus, many films had a completely separate version filmed in another language (usually Spanish,  French, German, and Swedish), with different native speaking actors, but which usually had the same sets and wardrobes than their English counterparts. Aside from that,the films were actually given a little more license and laxer restriction by the main studios to just improvise with their material. Given Latin America was a large market for American movies, Spanish language versions became the main examples of this. Such was the case here. The Spanish version of Dracula was filmed on the sets at night after Tod Browning concluded filming during the daytime. The director, George Melford, didn't speak or understand Spanish, so his co-director Enrique Tovar Ávalos was the main interpreter. The film was done on a lower budget, but the production ran much smoother than its English counterpart, completing a few days before the latter. The Spanish version is more than 30 minutes longer, mainly because Melford didn't cut as much of the film, and censorship wouldn't be a big issue in the countries it was released in. The film is also more explicit in terms of violence and sexuality because of that. However, much like other productions of this nature (which eventually lead to the discontinuing of the practice), the actors were from different parts of the world. For instance, Dracula was played by Spanish actor Carlos Villarías, while Eva (Mina) was played by Mexican Lupita Tovar (notably a centenarian who lived to 106 and the star of one of Mexico's first sound films.) The result was a mismatch of differing accents and dialects. Of the actors, only Villarias was allowed to see rushes of concurrent English version, so that his performance could emulate Lugosi's. The film was unknown and incomplete until the 1990's, where it had resurgence on home video.
    No real need for a synopsis here, since it's the same story.
    The longer length of this film definitely improves a lot of it. A lot of the scenes feel a lot more complete, there is a lot more development given to the characters and to the titular character, who does feel like more of a menace disrupting the lives of these people. The more explicit nature of the film helps increase the horror of it,  with more explicit and definite biting and death scenes (especially at the end.) It's much more of a satisfying watch. Spanish actor Pablo Álvarez Rubio does a much more intimidating and interesting Renfield than Dwight Frye. Big question: is Carlos Villarías better than Bela Lugosi? Well.... he's certainly different to some extent. Villarías is a lot more emotional and feral than Lugosi, having adverse, stronger reactions and emotions. That doesn't necessarily make the performance better, but it does provide an interesting contrast between the two. Lugosi plays Dracula with more finasse and menace, while Villarías has a lot more energy and viciousness to his performance. They're different, but one isn't really better than the other.
     While the extended length is generally a good thing, part of the film does drag a little, since it feels a lot slower in the middle. It's not too grating, but it definitely has a lot slower pace. Maybe to build the horror, but it was hard to keep interest until the climax and ending happened. Also, like the English version, the Spanish version just ends. It doesn't really have a satisfying ending, just kind of stops before the conclusion can come through.
      I wouldn't say this was better than the English version, but it definitely feels a lot more of a complete film. A lot less editing, and a lot more focus on developing the characters and story. It's definitely an interesting watch, especially if you see the Bela Lugosi version first to compare and contrast.
     Next up, we're looking at one of the most iconic films ever made: Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- Universal Monsters: Dracula

     Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, based on folklore of Eastern European vampires and the infamy of Vlad Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler, aka Vlad Dracula or "Son of the Dragon") was already adapted into a German film in 1922: FW Murnau's Nosferatu . However, that adaptation was unauthorized and Stoker's widow Florence sued to have all copies destroyed (which was a failure). The origins of this film lie instead in a 1924 English stage play adaptation by Irish playwright Hamilton Deane that was approved by the Stoker estate. This stage play would be revised by John L. Balderston for Broadway in 1927, starring Bela Lugosi in the title role. Lugosi, a one-time bit player in the Hungarian National Theatre, had appeared in German silent films after his exile from Hungary in 1919 (for organizing an actor's union following the failed 1919 communist revolution), before immigrating to the United States in 1920, and became a stage actor. This would be Lugosi's first major English speaking role. Carl Laemmle, Jr., a producer under his father at Universal, saw Stoker's novel as a potential historical tragic epic in the vein of Hunchback and Phantom and bought the rights to Stoker's novel as well as the stageplay. The writers used the stage play as the basis, with some inspiration from Nosferatu. Laemmle was reluctant to cast Lugosi, despite his good reviews in the play, looking instead to actors like Paul Muni, before Lugosi lobbied heavily to reprise his role. Also reprising his role from the play was Edward van Sloan as Van Helsing, the effective hero of the story. Directing the film was Tod Browning, a former Vaudville actor who directed several Lon Chaney movies during the silent era (including the vampire picture London After Midnight, which would've been covered, had the film not been lost). Browning initially envisioned the titular character as largely unseen figure played by a relative unknown, but the studio overrode it. By most accounts, Browning delegated much of the directing cinematographer Karl Freund (who was most notable for his cinematography on Fritz Lang's Metropolis), effectively making the latter co-director. The film was shot on the Universal lot with the sets being reused for a Spanish language version being made at the same time. While there were fears that a straight forward supernatural horror movie may not do well, it was an resounding success, though for a 1936 reissue, some scenes, including an epilogue by Van Helsing were cut, and subsequently lost. The film would be considered a seminal film in the development of the Universal monsters and the horror genre in general.

     Renfield (Dwight Frye) is an English Solicitor on business in Transylvania in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He is visiting the castle of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), but is warned of his proclivity for vampirism by some of the residents. Sure enough, Dracula brainwashes and enslaves Renfield to take him in a coffin back to England. There, Dracula steadily begins a killing spree, while getting the attention of Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (David Manners), and her friend Lucy (Frances Dade). While Dracula terrorizes them, Mina's father Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston) and Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), investigate Renfield's vampirism, which brings them into conflict with the count.

    The definite highlight of this film is Bela Lugosi. He exudes a quiet menace to him, being dignified as an Eastern European count but also being incredibly creepy and threatening when need be. He doesn't talk much during the film, so a lot of his performance is conveyed through his motion, especially as he attacks or threatens people around him. It is a stellar performance. Surprisingly, given how it's saturated in pop culture, Lugosi's accent isn't all that thick in the film. It sounds almost English, with some slight indications Dwight Frye's Renfield (taking the role Harker had in the book) is also a joy to watch, showing the opposite with his psychaotic mannerisms and insane ramblings. The film had exquisite set design, and especially good use of shadows and lighting, tying of course to the other two films covered before. It truly enhances the terror of it, especially the lack of a soundtrack (which was apparently more of a cost saving measure, but makes a lot of the film's main set pieces work well).

    The film is surprisingly short, at only 71 minutes. I can tell a lot was probably cut because of censorship, particularly during the Hays Code era. There are some scenes that abruptly end or cut in the middle. The ending is the biggest example, where the aforementioned epilogue is not there and the film just ends on the characters climbing a set of stairs. While this sometimes enhances the horror, it also makes parts of this film confusing. Another, smaller complaint is that the effects haven't aged well. Especially the bats and the clear use of the fog machine.

    This was surprisingly effective, even today. It's not "scary" in a traditional sense, but the way the film uses subtle acting and editing to convey its scares was definitely an influence on modern day horror movies. It's an interesting historical film, and definitely should be sought out for that, and just as an entertaining, well-made film in its own right.

    Apologies for the lateness of this. I had a breakdown a few days ago, and couldn't muster the energy to do much writing. As such, this Summer of Terror will be a lot more erratic and spread out. I might not finish until September, but we'll see. Anyway, next time, after someone suggested it, we'll take a look at the briefly mentioned Spanish language version also produced by Universal.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Silent Era

      From 1921 to 1960, the Universal Monsters terrified and enthralled audiences across America with their grotesque, but sympathetic creatures, all of whom represented something about mankind that spoke to them. While they have mostly entered the pop culture lexicon as fixtures stripped of their original horror elements and reduced to kitsch items, their legacy can still be felt in horror to this very day. And with a new decade ahead of us, I figured there was no better franchise to start off a new decade than what is considered the first true horror franchise. If you haven't really noticed, I do actually burn out a lot when I do these, and I have a lot of trouble with this, given there is a large number of films outside the classic monsters, and the nebulous definition of a "Universal Monster" film. So, I'm going to do this a bit differently. The big films with the big creatures get full reviews. However, smaller films get smaller mini-reviews that are compiled together. They won't have a full in-depth look, but just a brief examination. This is especially true of these first two features, both of which are silent. Silent movies aren't exactly my area of expertise, so instead of doing my usual schtick, I'll just list stuff I enjoyed about the film.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    Of course, based on Victor Hugo's 1831 novel of the same name, it follows the story of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the titular hunchback who rings the bells of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, during the reign of Louis XI (Tully Marshall) in the 14th Century. Quasimodo ventures out to a large festival being held, with his master Jehan (Brandon Hurst), Jehan's brother, clergyman Dom Claudio (Nigel De Brulier, analogous to Claude Frollo from the book), and dancer Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) in attendence. He is celebrated, only for people to turn on him upon learning of his deformity. Only Esmeralda shows sympathy, causing a chain of events involving Esmeralda, Jehan, and Phoebus (Norman Kerry)
     Popular legend attributes the creation of this film to producer Irving Thalberg (later a seminal figure at Universal's rival MGM and whose life was later fictionalized by F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Last Tycoon),but the film by most accounts, was the idea of Lon Chaney, having then established his reputation as a versatile character actor and who lobbied heavily for the role of Quasimodo. He later chose the director Wallace Woolsery (who had worked with Chaney on some productions at Goldwyn), after his first choice, Erich von Stronheim, was fired by Thalberg. Thalberg did originate the idea to make the film more of a large scale dramatic epic instead of a straight forward horror movie. Because of censorship prohibiting mocking religious figures, the villain of Claude Frollo (a Catholic priest) in the book was instead given a brother, who would take up the role.
    What really works about this film is the large scale of it. The massive sets, the extras, the sheer sizeof it can be overwhelming. Yet, despite this large scale epic scope of the thing, it does manage to have some intimate moments, especially with Quasimodo. Speaking of, Lon Chaney does pretty well as the Hunchback. He imparts his performance with a lot of physicality and emotion, giving an audience enough to sympathize with him, especially at the end. Finally, it uses its sets very well, especially with dark scenes set in the corridors of the Cathedral.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

     The Paris Opera House suddenly finds itself in the thrall of the mysterious "Phantom" (Lon Chaney), who has taken an interest in a young understudy named Christine (Mary Philbin). While the new owners and Charlotta (Virginia Pearson) laugh off the threat, the Phantom soon makes his presence known, which guides Christine at first, but slowly, the Phantom makes plans to kidnap her, and the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry) must navigate the strange architecture of the Paris Opera House to stop him.
     Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel was based around various myths and legends centering around the Opera House (including the use of a real skeleton in an 1841 production.) Leroux met Carl Laemmle, the head of Universal, in 1921 during a visit by the latter to France. Leroux gave Laemmle the book, and Laemmle envisioned it as a vehicle for Lon Chaney. Chaney made up his own make-up for the film. The film's turntable set would continue to be used for another 90 years after the completion of the film. The film's gigantic success would be the impetus for the Universal monsters.
   I remember being terrified of the Phantom's make-up as a kid. Never actually saw the film until years later, but the make-up just scared me. It (meant to apparently invoke a skull) is still effective, especially when the Phantom is unmasked towards the middle of the film. Again, Lon Chaney is the star here, and even more so, he is the main reason to watch, with his physicality and his ability to balance menace with some humor. The set of the Paris Opera House also looks incredible, even today, and it also has a massive scope.

----

Well, that begins this Summer of Terror. Apologies for the lateness of this. As with all of us, the pandemic hasn't been exactly great for me, and it's been a struggle to muster the energy to do this. Not helping is the fact I tend to burnout on these, and I had a pretty bad case of burnout yesterday. If some entries are late or come a few days after the last one, that's probably why. Apologies in advance if this ends up inconsistent as a result. Nevertheless, I feel like starting off this new decade with something different, and what better than the first horror franchise, one that was influential for years to come. Join me tomorrow for Dracula.

And as always, if you enjoy this or other works, I have a Ko-Fi page to donate to, if you're interested: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc