***Official 23rd Annual HTF October Scary Movie Challenge 2022*** (1 Viewer)

[sleroi]

84. Pitch Black - 4k Disc - Stranded on a barren planet during an eclipse, a group of strangers faces a swarm of killer alien bugs as well as an intergalactic serial killer amongst their ranks. This is a stylish action/suspense film with nice visual flair. I have to knock it a bit though because one character is pretending to be something they're not, but it is so obvious from the get go. Other than that, it's a cool little flick.

85. The Mummy - Blu-ray disc - Another classic Universal horror. Karloff is magnificent and creepy as the titular creature. It's funny what was considered racy back then as this is pre-code and Zita Johann, though not very busty, still manages to practically fall out of every costume she wears and shows quite a bit of thigh as the princess, and also talks about allowing a strange man to make love to her - oh my. I don't care for the sequels, but love this one.

86. Abbot and Costello meet the mummy - Blu-ray disc - This has plenty of funny moments, and the multiple mummy gag is great. This is typical A&C fare, very enjoyable.

87. X the Man With X-Ray Eyes - S (Prime) - Written and directed by Roger Corman in 1963, this film starts out promising. The opening shot is a close up of a detached, bloody eyeball. The first act is essentially the same plot as the Invisible Man. A doctor conducts experiments on himself and becomes homicidal and insane. But after the murder, the film becomes a slog as the doctor, who now has X-ray vision, is hiding from authorities by becoming a carnival con man, partnering with a young Don Rickles. Rickles hurls a couple of insults as a barker, but is wasted here. X then must escape again and eventually winds up in a revival tent where he heeds their biblical advice for a (not really all that) shocking final frame.

 

[BobO'Link]

October 26h

100. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
101. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
102. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and faces horrible consequences when he lets his dark side run wild with a potion that transforms him into the murderous and animalistic Mr. Hyde.

Three versions of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson 1886 novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I like each for different reasons and consider each of them a classic of the genre.

The one that works least well for me is the silent from Barrymore, partly because it's silent and coupled with the fact that I'd seen several other versions first which somewhat negates the surprise and suspense you'd feel on a first time viewing. I want to hear Barrymore's voice as Hyde - to hear the menace that goes with the face. The latest Kino BR release is well done with a score that suits the story though the video needs lots of restoration work to remove the numerous scratches, dirt, and damage. In spite of that, it's the best I've seen this film look. The transformation sequences are very good for the era and Barrymore is suitably menacing as Hyde with a makeup job that pretty much defines the character's look and influences later productions, especially the 1931 with Hyde's somewhat pointed head. That rather grotesque look is also needed to help make the film more horrific since there's no sound to help in that regard. It's a well done production with some excellent sets. It's also the shortest version of the three.

The 1931 version with Fredric March is my favorite - by a slim margin. March is very good in the dual role and practically unrecognizable as Hyde with his Hyde displaying a surprising intelligence. He's highly intelligent, menacing, and frightening. The Pre-Code bits seem rather tame today but still maintain a high level of suggestiveness. The opening tracking shot really gets you into the feel of the story as well as into Jekyll's head with its first-person approach. The transformation effects are superb and still impress. The entire cast is very good, only infrequently showing some of the more stilted acting styles of the era, partly due to dialog. The *one* very little thing that bothers me most with this film is the first-person shots of Jekyll in the mirror do not take into account that clothing would be reversed - the simple thing of a button flap being on the wrong side gives away the effect.

The 1941 version is the one I saw first and that became my 2nd favorite after seeing the 1931 version. Spencer Tracy plays completely against type and does a very good job as both Jekyll and Hyde. His Hyde, like March's, has intelligence though his look, generally, isn't as grotesque as what was done in the 1931 film, though it *does* increase as the film moves towards its conclusion. The more he transforms the more grotesque he becomes as Hyde is seemingly taking control, though does know fully what's going on.

Some of the things that, for me, make the 1941 version a bit lesser is the lengthy open which attributes insanity to the dualism Jekyll investigates, the various and overly long "dream sequences" when Jekyll transforms to Hyde, the simple cross-fade style transformation effects (with an exception to that at the end), some casting choices, and that huge chunks are practically shot-for-shot the same as the 1931 version right down to sets that look almost the same. I like Ingrid Bergman, yet feel she was miscast here, as was Lana Turner. I've read they were cast in the other's role but switched roles themselves because they were tired of being typecast. They should not have switched. At almost 2 hours, it's also a bit too long and absolutely drags at times. Overall, it's a good production and without the 1931 version could have been the definitive sound version one.

This was the first time I've watched all three productions back-to-back. It somewhat hurt but also showed the similarities quite well. The many similarities between the 1931 and 1941 were what stood out most with the 1941 version seemingly using many, many scenes practically word for word and on sets that looked almost identical to the 1931. I've never read the story so don't know if the dialog was lifted word-for-word from it or if the screenwriters did this intentionally. After all, the 1931 version *was* pulled from distribution, reportedly with all copies destroyed, and kept locked away for decades. After this viewing I have to believe it was done, as much as anything, to avoid such comparisons. It was a very enjoyable trilogy, though not one I'm likely to repeat very often simply due to the incredible amount of similarity between the three films, especially the 1931 and 1941 versions.

I'd hoped to work in Hammer Productions' Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde as it's a much different take on the subject but couldn't stay awake long enough.

 

[John Stell]

Rating out of 4

080) 10/26/2022 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

The best version of the famous story of brilliant doctor who separates the good and evil within himself, eventually unable to control the beast he's unleashed. Outstanding, Oscar-winning performance by Fredric March as the title characters; flamboyant, mesmerizing direction from Rouben Mamoulian; and ultra-alluring turn by Miriam Hopkins as Ivy are the main strengths of this effort versus others. The new Blu-ray from Warner Archives is a must.

081) 10/26/2022 Count Yorga, Vampire (1970) 1/2

Perhaps the first successful attempt to bring the classic vampire into modern times, this low-budget effort succeeds largely thanks to Robert Quarry's outstanding turn as the title bloodsucker. Shortly after moving into a California mansion, Yorga gets a girlfriend, kills her, holds a séance with his victim's daughter and her pals, and then goes after them. Writer/director Bob Kelljan knows how to stage a scary scene, and makes the most of his limited resources. But it's Quarry's no-nonsense interpretation of Yorga that makes this so memorable.

082) 10/26/2022 The Return of Count Yorga (1971)

For a film that must have been rushed into production due the success of its predecessor, this is an impressive sequel. Apparently restored to life by the evil powers of the Santa Ana winds, Count Yorga returns, along with many brides, to terrorize the occupants of a nearby orphanage. Quarry is, again, terrific, and director Kelljan stages some impressive moments of terror. He also repeats some of his beats from Yorga's first entry, leading to a finale that feels like a remake of the earlier film. Still, this is a solid sequel that contributed to character actor Quarry enjoying a brief run as a horror heavy (Dr. Phibes Rises Again, Deathmaster, Sugar Hill, Madhouse).

 

[EricSchulz]

1. The Munsters
2. Feast
3. The Rental
4. Mystery of the Wax Museum
5. Texas Chain Saw Massacre
6. Halloween Ends
7. Brides of Dracula
8. The Lodge
9. The Man Who Laughs

10. X
Definitely a mixed bag. It follows a group of porn actors to a remote location to film a movie. HUGE props to everyone involved who made this look and feel like something out of the 70’s. It’s an interesting take on the “group stranded out in the middle of nowhere“ trope. There are some pretty decent gore scenes and despite the subject matter the sex and nudity is pretty tame. I’m not sure I enjoyed it enough to watch the prequel that was recently released Pearl. 2.5/5

 

[EricSchulz]

1. The Munsters
2. Feast
3. The Rental
4. Mystery of the Wax Museum
5. Texas Chain Saw Massacre
6. Halloween Ends
7. Brides of Dracula
8. The Lodge
9. The Man Who Laughs
10. X

11. We Need To Do Something
Interesting premise, bad execution. A family gets trapped in their bathroom during a tornado. After the storm they can’t get out because a tree was uprooted and prevents them from opening the door. Cellphones aren’t working. And everyone has a different problem to create the perfect dysfunctional family. Unfortunately, there are too many stories going on, including the daughter who’s involved with a witch/sorceress. I think there’s a decent story in here somewhere but they just don’t utilize it. 1/5

 

[Malcolm R]

Guillermo Del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities - S (Netflix)

82. EP1 Lot 36 - Tim Blake Nelson plays a bitter veteran, in debt to some bad dudes, who buys a storage unit at auction whose owner dabbled in the occult. Nelson held my interest throughout the 46 minute runtime, but it was kind of for nought. The last minute pulled a rope-a-dope and turns out this was simply a morality tale, be nice to others. They took 45 minutes to establish that Nelson isn't a nice guy, I figured that out in 30 seconds. .5

I'd mostly agree. I think I liked it slightly more than you, but the whole Emilia subplot seemed unnecessary. Remove her from the show and it doesn't lose anything, IMO. I also don't think they ever explained the "hopping" unless I missed it. They made a point of showing it a couple of times, but I don't recall any reason.

Also, when the guy popped Nick in the head with the hammer, the soundtrack made it sound like he'd bashed a hole through to the brain. But he seemed to have no ill effects to speak of, and later just dabs at a little scratch on his forehead with alcohol and a cotton ball. That was weird.

 

[dpippel]

OCTOBER 26:

* next to film title = new to me

51) The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) (4K UHD Disc) 4/5 stars - I still prefer the original Frankenstein over Bride, but it's a slim margin and this film is pretty much firing on all cylinders. Karloff is wonderful once again as the Monster ("You stay. We belong dead."), and Ernest Thesiger shines as the evil Dr. Pretorious. Elsa Lanchester's makeup as the Monster's mate is, of course, legendary and iconic. I also love picking out all the references in this movie that Young Frankenstein lampooned so well.

52) Nope* (2022) (iTunes 4K UHD Streaming) 2.5/5 stars - I'd successfully stayed away from spoilers about Nope, so I went into the movie not knowing much at all about the details. Jordan Peele can certainly shoot a film, that's for sure, but this one didn't work very well for me. There were huge chunks of plot that seemed to be there for no good reason, and the big reveal was a bit of a letdown, even if it was a nicely unique idea. I was also bothered by the lack of any kind of explanation, even the tiniest bit, about the phenomenon. If you're going to make a

Spoiler

giant monster

movie, there are rules, dammit! Pretty to look at with some good performances, I would rank this as the least of Peele's three feature film efforts so far.

 

[EricSchulz]

1. The Munsters
2. Feast
3. The Rental
4. Mystery of the Wax Museum
5. Texas Chain Saw Massacre
6. Halloween Ends
7. Brides of Dracula
8. The Lodge
9. The Man Who Laughs
10. X
11. We Need To Do Something

12. The Visit
I had hope for this one. Two young kids go to visit their estranged grandparents while Mom goes on a cruise with her new boyfriend. They have some trouble adapting to the country life at the farm but then strange things start happening. Each grandparent does bizarre stuff that worries them, but the other grandparent explains away whatever they’ve seen. Things keep getting more bizarre. Friends and neighbors check in to see where the elderly couple are up to when they miss some regular appointments. Being an M. Night Shyamalan pic there’s a twist. To be honest I didn’t see it coming. But then the movie just falls apart. And that’s a shame. 2.5/5

 

[Ruz-El]

I'm curious to hear what others think. I enjoy watching all these films and shows, but I'm watching more than I usually do I think so I can forget the stress and anxiety in my life right now. I might have been a little harsh. There were some good ideas and cool make-up and effects work. It just seemed wasted on such weak stories, but then again I haven't been sleeping well so maybe I was just cranky when I watched it.

That's one of the problems with this challenge: fatigue. There are more than a few films I slammed in the challenge that I ended up really liking with a re-watch. It's one of the reasons why I broke up running series. I get more out of the Friday the 13th type series if I watch one a day instead of running them all day. It's also why I'm not going to be finishing those Godzilla/Gojira and Folk Horror boxsets like I thought I would lol. I've run out of time!

 

[Ruz-El]

Late start but got in a few. I have errands to run today and tomorrow which is going to screw up my totals too. Blech.

100 10/26 Fear Street Part 3: 1666 (2021) 3/5 So it ends up that this series is a little more than not bad/not great in that it’s mostly good. This one I think was the best one. Once you got past the old English accents the young cast put on that seem to cover not just the entirety of the UK but parts of Australia it ends up being a pretty good witch hunt movie. Making it Queer-centric is a nice and timely touch and while I don’t think this works as a deep study or comment on our current times, it does make for a glossy one. That’s kind of the problem with this series. It’s fully YA. Despite some gore it never really feels MEAN, and that lack of meanness holds it back. In the end, this trilogy probably works best as a gateway to better horror classics if the teens it’s aimed at are interested in exploring.

101 10/26 The Sadness (2021) 4.5/5 I’ve been avoiding pandemic-set films for obvious reasons so that probably helped this one to hit me like a ton of bricks. At it’s heart its basically a 28 DAYS LATER remix about a flu virus that mutates to stimulate and infect the brains agro and sexual centers. Relentlessly grim and graphic, I absolutely loved it. It wields its politics like a sledgehammer - which will be a huge turn off for some - but I can’t think of a better allegory for our times. It’s bold, bravura filmmaking and of course could only come out of Asia. Let’s see hope we don’t look back on this one in 10 years like we do IDIOCRACY.

102 10/26 The Dreaming (1988) 3.5/5 A young woman starts experiencing colonial nightmares after her father disturbs an Aboriginal site in this one from the Folk Horror set. I quite liked this one. They do a really good job with the visions and confronting both the political and emotional aspects of colonialism in a way that fits a horror film like this. It does it with style and the uneasy feeling it has carries the film.

103 10/26 Night Creatures (1961) 3.5/5 Starts off with a bang and sets up a cracking weird horror before sliding into a rip roaring adventure. Which would usually be a complaint but there’s just so much to like about this telling of the Dr. Syn stories. I had forgotten I had seen this one, I think I was confusing this story with the Disney adaptations. At any rate, this one is a dead solid film. Peter Cushing is great at the Reverend, Oliver Reed would have stolen the film if not for Hammer Horror staff character actor Michael Ripper putting in a career best in one of his more featured roles for the studio. It may not be much of a horror genre film but it’s a hell of a good adventure yarn.

104 10/26 Kadaicha (1988) 3/5 This one kind of plays like an Australian remix of the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET films only instead of highschool kids being pursued by dream killer they are waking up from haunted nightmares with crystals in their beds that are a sign they are going to die. This one does a good job of localising the “building on an Indian burial ground” trope to the Aboriginal history of the continent and that’s the element that works best in the film. It runs out of steam a bit, it never really feels like it kicks off but aside from that it was an interesting entertainment.

 

[JasonRoer]

Caught another few over the past couple days:

65. Spider Baby (new)
Later Lon Chaney cult picture in which he sheds a tear or two with a backdrop of atmospheric, hallucinogenic black and white photography in which a caravan of oddball characters frolic and play and kill. 2.5 psycho sister killers out of 5

66. The Fog
Perfect campfire ghost story with the good ole' John Carpenter atmosphere. 4 mysterious journals hidden in Church walls out of 5

67. Double Door
Not at all what I was expecting. I thought there would be more horror elements. Still,a wonderful movie with a wicked villain. 3.5 pearl necklaces out of 5

68. Curse of the Demon (new)
This was just a whole lot of fun. Psychologist who doesn't believe in the supernatural may have to change his opinion on such matters 3 runes out of 5

 

[Michael Elliott]

October 26h

100. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
101. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
102. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)

Grapevine Video has a great 3-disc collection of Jekyll and Hyde films. I think the Barrymore version has sadly been forgotten over the years, which is too bad since it's very good. I also like the "other" 1920 version with Sheldon Lewis. It's over-the-top but I really liked the way it tried to highlight the violence of the character. Lewis did the role again in the 1930s in a short that just recently turned up.

 

[Michael Elliott]

The runtime is what is keeping me away. I just don't have the time for it with the insanity of my work right now. So it's going to have to wait until next year's challenge despite me wanting to give them money and wanting to see it.

I'm glad you got to see it and that you enjoyed it.

Side note - I'm sick of bloated films. Do what you have to do to tell the story and then cut another 5-10%, even if it's just a few frames from every cut and transition. I want no wasted screentime. Mind you, I'm not against long films. For example, I see the extended cuts of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy as the superior versions of the films (except certain moments in Return). It's just that most films these days run far too long in my opinion. It seems that Terrifier 2 is just another example.

Yeah I can't stand current "B" movies that feel they need to be 150-minutes long. I just don't understand how we've gotten to this point where the norm is 2 1/2 hours or 3 hours. It seems like a good 80-minute movie is rare these days. Siskel and Ebert once said that "No great movie is too long and no bad movie is too short" and that makes sense but sadly there aren't many great movies. Instead there are bland or bad movies that run on way too long.

I mentioned it earlier about time management. Yesterday is a great example of the time wasted to go to a theater. 25 minutes to get there. 30 minutes worth of commercials and trailers. Then we got 2 trailers from the company releasing TERRIFIER 2. Then we got a 138-minute movie and then there was a featurette after the film which we didn't stay for. Then the drive home.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Right after midnight, I watched the 1920 & 1931 versions of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" on Blu-ray. Shortly before going to bed this morning I started to watch the 1941 version on Blu-ray too, but felt tired so I went to bed. Anyhow, I just finished it up a few minutes ago. My film grades are below. I've seen all three film versions previously before today's viewings. However, I must say the WAC Blu-rays of the 1931 and 1941 versions were excellent video-wise and they looked breathtaking on my OLED. The 2013 Kino Blu-ray of the 1920 version can't measure up to those Warner titles video-wise. With that said, I always enjoyed watching all three performances of Barrymore, March and Tracy. Three of our greatest actors doing their thing with these dual roles. This was my first time watching all three movies in the same day. I don't think I'll do that again. However, doing so, you can see what each actor brought to Jekyll/Hyde as well as how the production values changed over time from 1920 to 1941.

See my summary for film grades!

65) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920) (Blu-ray) 3.5/5 Stars

66) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) (Blu-ray) 4.5/5 Stars

67) Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) (Blu-ray) 4/5 Stars

 

[TravisR]

Yeah I can't stand current "B" movies that feel they need to be 150-minutes long. I just don't understand how we've gotten to this point where the norm is 2 1/2 hours or 3 hours. It seems like a good 80-minute movie is rare these days. Siskel and Ebert once said that "No great movie is too long and no bad movie is too short" and that makes sense but sadly there aren't many great movies. Instead there are bland or bad movies that run on way too long.

I mentioned it earlier about time management. Yesterday is a great example of the time wasted to go to a theater. 25 minutes to get there. 30 minutes worth of commercials and trailers. Then we got 2 trailers from the company releasing TERRIFIER 2. Then we got a 138-minute movie and then there was a featurette after the film which we didn't stay for. Then the drive home.

All those insanely overlong and self-important Marvel movies have made audiences and some filmmakers think that every movie is now an epic and too long means that it's good. It's a movie about a clown killing people- it shouldn't have been longer than 85 minutes.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

OCTOBER 26:

52) Nope* (2022) (iTunes 4K UHD Streaming) 2.5/5 stars - I'd successfully stayed away from spoilers about Nope, so I went into the movie not knowing much at all about the details. Jordan Peele can certainly shoot a film, that's for sure, but this one didn't work very well for me. There were huge chunks of plot that seemed to be there for no good reason, and the big reveal was a bit of a letdown, even if it was a nicely unique idea. I was also bothered by the lack of any kind of explanation, even the tiniest bit, about the phenomenon. If you're going to make a

Spoiler

giant monster

movie, there are rules, dammit! Pretty to look at with some good performances, I would rank this as the least of Peele's three feature film efforts so far.

Oddly, Nope is currently my favorite of Peele's pictures. I kind of felt like he had written two different stories with neither one being enough for a single film and so he fused them together and made it one film about spectacle. It was a good film if a bit confusing because of all the stuff he stirs into the pot. I honestly think the film is not about what we get as the surface story but instead has to do with our current society and how it is addicted to and reacts to spectacle. It's not your average sci-fi film but really that is kind of what this guy does with all his pictures.

 

[Robert Crawford]

October 26h

100. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)
101. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
102. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
View attachment 160121 View attachment 160122 View attachment 160123
Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and faces horrible consequences when he lets his dark side run wild with a potion that transforms him into the murderous and animalistic Mr. Hyde.

Three versions of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson 1886 novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I like each for different reasons and consider each of them a classic of the genre.

The one that works least well for me is the silent from Barrymore, partly because it's silent and coupled with the fact that I'd seen several other versions first which somewhat negates the surprise and suspense you'd feel on a first time viewing. I want to hear Barrymore's voice as Hyde - to hear the menace that goes with the face. The latest Kino BR release is well done with a score that suits the story though the video needs lots of restoration work to remove the numerous scratches, dirt, and damage. In spite of that, it's the best I've seen this film look. The transformation sequences are very good for the era and Barrymore is suitably menacing as Hyde with a makeup job that pretty much defines the character's look and influences later productions, especially the 1931 with Hyde's somewhat pointed head. That rather grotesque look is also needed to help make the film more horrific since there's no sound to help in that regard. It's a well done production with some excellent sets. It's also the shortest version of the three.

The 1931 version with Fredric March is my favorite - by a slim margin. March is very good in the dual role and practically unrecognizable as Hyde with his Hyde displaying a surprising intelligence. He's highly intelligent, menacing, and frightening. The Pre-Code bits seem rather tame today but still maintain a high level of suggestiveness. The opening tracking shot really gets you into the feel of the story as well as into Jekyll's head with its first-person approach. The transformation effects are superb and still impress. The entire cast is very good, only infrequently showing some of the more stilted acting styles of the era, partly due to dialog. The *one* very little thing that bothers me most with this film is the first-person shots of Jekyll in the mirror do not take into account that clothing would be reversed - the simple thing of a button flap being on the wrong side gives away the effect.

The 1941 version is the one I saw first and that became my 2nd favorite after seeing the 1931 version. Spencer Tracy plays completely against type and does a very good job as both Jekyll and Hyde. His Hyde, like March's, has intelligence though his look, generally, isn't as grotesque as what was done in the 1931 film, though it *does* increase as the film moves towards its conclusion. The more he transforms the more grotesque he becomes as Hyde is seemingly taking control, though does know fully what's going on.

Some of the things that, for me, make the 1941 version a bit lesser is the lengthy open which attributes insanity to the dualism Jekyll investigates, the various and overly long "dream sequences" when Jekyll transforms to Hyde, the simple cross-fade style transformation effects (with an exception to that at the end), some casting choices, and that huge chunks are practically shot-for-shot the same as the 1931 version right down to sets that look almost the same. I like Ingrid Bergman, yet feel she was miscast here, as was Lana Turner. I've read they were cast in the other's role but switched roles themselves because they were tired of being typecast. They should not have switched. At almost 2 hours, it's also a bit too long and absolutely drags at times. Overall, it's a good production and without the 1931 version could have been the definitive sound version one.

This was the first time I've watched all three productions back-to-back. It somewhat hurt but also showed the similarities quite well. The many similarities between the 1931 and 1941 were what stood out most with the 1941 version seemingly using many, many scenes practically word for word and on sets that looked almost identical to the 1931. I've never read the story so don't know if the dialog was lifted word-for-word from it or if the screenwriters did this intentionally. After all, the 1931 version *was* pulled from distribution, reportedly with all copies destroyed, and kept locked away for decades. After this viewing I have to believe it was done, as much as anything, to avoid such comparisons. It was a very enjoyable trilogy, though not one I'm likely to repeat very often simply due to the incredible amount of similarity between the three films, especially the 1931 and 1941 versions.

I'd hoped to work in Hammer Productions' Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde as it's a much different take on the subject but couldn't stay awake long enough.

I agree with you that the 1941 version is too long which is why I didn't finish it this morning. Another thing, I always enjoyed the performances of the 1931 female leads more than Bergman and Turner in the 1941 version.

 

[Malcolm R]

All those insanely overlong and self-important Marvel movies have made audiences and some filmmakers think that every movie is now an epic and too long means that it's good. It's a movie about a clown killing people- it shouldn't have been longer than 85 minutes.

I was amazed people were willing to sit in theaters for a nearly 3-hour Batman film earlier this year. I have the disc, but still haven't been able to bring myself to watch it as the running time is just ridiculous. I make decisions about movies all the time based on running time. I checked out a couple of horror discs at Big Lots last week then put them down when they were in excess of 2 hours. If I'm choosing a movie on streaming, anything more than about 100 minutes gets bypassed unless it's a known film that I really want to see. But I'm not willing to start watching a random film that's extra long.

I'm afraid this will just get worse as movies are aimed at a streaming audience. The makers don't have to worry about theatrical time schedules and maximizing ticket sales at the box office, so won't be encouraged to make shorter, tighter films. And those streaming companies paying for original content don't really care about running times. As far as they're concerned, and if they're paying all that money, the longer a film can be with more content, the better.

 

[TravisR]

I was amazed people were willing to sit in theaters for a nearly 3-hour Batman film earlier this year.

I saw that on HBO and it's not bad but it feels endless. The movie also seems to come to a natural ending at about the two hour mark which made the last 50 minutes even tougher to get through.

 

[HawksFord]

18.
The House With a Clock in Its Walls (2018) — This will be our last movie for October. Finishing up the Night Stalker series will have to wait until November as we’ll be away for a bit. We were in the mood for something light, and this fit the bill. It’s a bit formulaic but a fun movie based on a John Bellairs novel. Set in the mid-50s, an orphaned boy goes to live with his eccentric uncle (Jack Black) who lives next door the almost as eccentric Cate Blanchett. The movie is aimed at kids but we’ve watched it several times now and always enjoy it.