Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Fortunately she had a good, long run at 15 1/2 years.
out of out of out of 
I'll beat a hundred for sure this weekend.) first to the sci-fi friendly and, in retrospect, more appropriate THE MIND SNATCHERS and eventually to the horror-oriented (and, consequently, wholly misleading) THE DEMON WITHIN! .
/
|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
I'll second this. Good luck James.
|
|
Originally Posted by SteveGon
Radioman: sorry to hear about the loss of your dog - I lost mine about six months ago and still miss the little shit.
Fortunately she had a good, long run at 15 1/2 years. |
1/21/2
). I can't believe I've gone my whole life without seeing this movie. I think I can blame that on watching the sequel 1st as a child. Anyway, great flick, and probably the most accessible Cronenberg film. Oddly I can remember Rodger Ebert's orginal review ("Jeff Goldblum looks like a melted peanut-butter cup") despite not seeing the movie. An IMDB poster said it best "The final FLY reveal is most likely science-fictions best 'money shot' ever filmed". Suprisingly high budget sequel. Taken from a more teenage action/sci-fi angle than horror.Lewis version
/ |
Originally Posted by EricSchulz
#17: The Black Cat: Poe should sue. With the exception of a black cat that makes a VERY brief appearance or two, it has NOTHING to do with Edgar Allen Poe's story. I wanted to like this, but the story was confusing and pretty darn boring. A few atmospheric moments, but not enough to save the film for me. 1/5
#18: The Mummy's Tomb: If you weren't sure, it IS a sequel to The Mummy's Hand. If you still don't believe me, almost the entire first twelve minutes of this sixty minute movie are scenes recapping the previous story! With only 48 minutes left to fill, you would think that the gaping holes of logic would have been avoided. Why can't ANYONE keep up with a 3,000 year old mummy that drags its bad foot? Why do the townsfolk throw burning torches at the mummy AND his unconscious victim? Why does every stick of furniture and curtain in the Banning home light up like they were soaked in kerosene but the mummy, wrapped in dried out old bandages, walk through fire like he's flame-retardant? Ah, the fun of Universal grade-Z movies! 2/5 #19: The Raven: At least this one had a Poe connection! More of a revenge/"old dark house" thriller than anything else, It's a pleasant enough diversion for 60+ minutes. 2/5 |
|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
I think March is one of the greatest actors in the history of cinema but I'd also say that I think this is the worst performance from him that I've seen. Even though it's his worst performance there's still some greatness that sneaks in at certain spots. In pretty much all other times March comes off way too over the top, which leads to more laughs than scares. There are several sequences in the film where March's performance makes me laugh at laugh as if I were watching a comedy. This unevenness makes for a rather strange film that never works fully. I think Hopkins is the real standout here as she gives a wonderful performance as the tortured woman who caught Hyde's eye. The transformation sequences still look good but I think they made Jekyll a tad bit too ugly. |
) use a hearse as their method of transportation! Incidentally, the way such great locations as Franco had at his disposal are squandered makes this that much more of a missed opportunity – not that the visuals are helped by the dismal print utilized for this transfer (featuring washed-out colors and the wrong aspect ratio to boot)! By the way, a sure sign of the film’s rushed production is its recycled score – comprising the instantly recognizable main theme from MARQUIS DE SADE’S JUSTINE (1968) and, possibly, even cues from COUNT DRACULA (1969)!); Alberto Dalbes also returns as Dr. Seward where, again, he’s the hero; ditto Fernando Bilbao as Frankenstein’s monster (given a curious silver make-up here); Luis Barboo is on hand as well but, now, he plays Cagliostro’s henchman rather than Frankenstein’s (the latter role is taken all too briefly at the very start by Franco himself); Daniel J. White also gets more screen-time than in the previous film (where he was just an extra) as a Police Inspector.. There’s a good performance by the attractive, statuesque leading lady – while “guest star” Sian Philips appears as the ageing last descendant of the Hungarian killer to which the title refers; future James Bond, Pierce Brosnan, also features in a smallish role as one of the lustful victims! Unfortunately, I experienced a few audio/video problems during playback of this particular episode – where the audio was slightly – if continually – out-of-synch and the image even skipped at one point; bafflingly, then, no glitches came up when I tried the disc on my another DVD player model!|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Fredric March won an Oscar for his performance in this talkie version of the classic story. I'll say this at the start but I think March is one of the greatest actors in the history of cinema but I'd also say that I think this is the worst performance from him that I've seen. Even though it's his worst performance there's still some greatness that sneaks in at certain spots. I think March is very good coming off as a very threatening character when he is mentally abusing the Miriam Hopkins character. In pretty much all other times March comes off way too over the top, which leads to more laughs than scares. There are several sequences in the film where March's performance makes me laugh at laugh as if I were watching a comedy. This unevenness makes for a rather strange film that never works fully. I think Hopkins is the real standout here as she gives a wonderful performance as the tortured woman who caught Hyde's eye. The transformation sequences still look good but I think they made Jekyll a tad bit too ugly. Even with all the faults this remains an interesting film but I still prefer the 1913 and 1920 Barrymore versions. |
. But had anyone else dared to say the same things about it, I'll have had his guts for breakfast
!! - but also one of the greatest films ever made, period. Fredric March was stylistically a theatrical actor so his performances were fairly ripe as a rule - witness his marvelously moving turn in INHERIT THE WIND (1960). Mamoulian, then, is a neglected master stylist of a film-maker who, unfortunately, did not work often enough; even so, he not only never made a bad film, but made 4 acknowledged classics into the bargain and was a technical innovator to boot.|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
Joe and Mario:
I've never seen DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE get a four star review from any critic, newspaper, magazine, book or anything else so I'm not sure how strong its reputation really is. In fact, I can't recall a single version of Jekyll and Hyde to get great reviews and I'm going to guess this is why there isn't one definitive version of the story. Some prefer Barrymore, some March, some Tracy, some Palance and so on. Since none of these versions are considered four-star great movies and since none of them really stand a huge difference apart from one another, I don't see my thoughts overly bashing or overly praising. There are moments of greatness but as I write that I can't help but laugh my ass off during certain moments due to March going way out of control. It could be theatrical acting or a silent like film acting but one scene is when Hyde first meets the blonde in the nightclub. March tripping the waiter and then going after the owner with the bottle doesn't show him acting as a madman. It shows him acting like a gorilla, which might be the point since he certainly looks like one. With his looks, this too is over done IMO and causes me to have second thoughts that Hyde could go around as easy as he does. An ugly lunatic would cause a lynch mob just as much as Frankenstein's monster. As for my rating with all these negative thoughts on the film: Well, that's pretty simple since I also gave PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE four-stars while calling it one of the worst films ever made. If I was going to be Mr. Movie Critic then I'd probably give this film two and a half stars. On a camp/being able to laugh at level then I'd bump it up to a three. I don't see this as a strong, three-star classic film but a highly flawed film that causes me to laugh. Instead of taking the grade down for laughing I actually gave it an extra half star for being able to keep me entertained by laughing. It's funny but outside the Tracy version, I've given every version I've seen a three star rating but I feel the story has never been perfected on the screen. Can it? I guess it could but I don't see it happening anytime soon. |
rating. In fact, it was so instilled in me that this was the definitive film version that, several years later, I was literally stunned to see Leonard Maltin give the John Barrymore, Fredric March and Spencer Tracy editions the very same rating for all three!! As for Barrymore's, it's too bad that the Kino DVD is missing some footage which has kept me from adding it to my collection so far.
! And pop in Lionsgate's disc of Renoir's THE DOCTOR'S HORRIBLE EXPERIMENT (1959) in the interim...!) rating from him! Besides, I'm curious to know how he'd rate the Hammer version - Terence Fisher's THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL (1960) - which I was very disappointed by myself.
