Category Archives: Universal Horror

Movie reviews: The Stephen Sommers era

19 Monday Jun 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

BACK IN 1999, Universal looked to resurrect The Mummy franchise with a fresh, new approach.

The last time the bandaged fiend had graced the screens for the picture company, was in 1955 accompanied by comedy icons Abbott and Costello.

Apparently the original premise for this remake had British horror/filmmaker Clive Barker at the helm with the offering of a much darker route that was sexually charged and filled with mysticism.

One can only wonder at the concept of Imhotep taking on the Hell Priest, Pinhead.

As it was, Universal decided on a different approach when hiring Stephen Sommers and for the next 10 years, a second wave of Mummy movies was formed.

THE MUMMY (1999)

Prior to stepping on board to write and direct the feature, Sommers had four movies under his belt with Catch Me If You Can, The Adventures of Huck Finn, The Jungle Book, and Deep Rising.

So enough charge to take the lead in a bold, new direction, one that was in complete contrast to Barker’s vision, dialing down the horror and injecting more action, special fx, and comedy.

The result saw an Indiana Jones style romp through Egypt, as the rogue-ish Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser), (who accidentally discovers the city of the dead, where the High Priest, Imhotep rests) teams up with the bookish Evelyn Carnahan (Rachel Weisz) and her bumbling buffoon of a brother, aptly played by John Hannah.

The trio head back to the city, despite being warned by an Egyptian warrior, Ardeth Bey not to intervene, to discover the Book of the Living.

As they discover the statue of Anubis, deep within the tomb, they also encounter the remains of Imhotep.

Meanwhile, their counterparts, a group of Americans led by the cowardly Beni discover the Book of the Dead among some jars, which carry the preserved organs o Anch-su-Namun, mistress of Pharaoh Seti I, and lover to the afore-mentioned Imhotep.

When Evelyn reads a page from the Book of the Dead, she unwittingly awakens the High Priest, who casts the 10 plagues back to Egypt.

One by one, the Americans are dispatched with great fashion, heightening the scare partially through darkened alleys, and all-out assault on the victims.

It is down to our trio of archaeologists to put an end to Imhotep’s reign of terror and entomb him once more.

It may be nearly twenty years on since it’s release now, but I think that it’s fair to say that The Mummy still stands the test of time, partly due to the great mix of comedy and action on display, plus the chemistry between Fraser and Weisz on screen is enjoyable to watch.

Credit should also be cast towards Arnold Vosloo, who portrays Imhotep with enough menace to make it the fear placed on our protagonists seem genuine and his performance has come close in signature to his predecessor Boris Karloff some 67 years prior.

The Mummy proved to be a perfect mix to entertain and generated a generous draw at the box office, which could only mean one thing. A sequel would be a certainty.

THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001)

The inevitably would occur a couple of years later and would see the return of O’Connell, Evelyn, (now married), Jonathan, Ardeth Bey and as the title suggests, the return of Imhotep.

The original players would come back to resurrect their roles and to ignite that much-loved chemistry once more for the silver screen.

Joining them in this movie is Alex O’Connell, the son of Rick and Evie, and the instigator of Imhotep’s rise from the grave.

With Alex’s life on the line, our intrepid heroes must try to save him within seven days, thus providing a tension of sorts to the mix.

Added to this is the unerring threat of Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson as The Scorpion King, who vowed to give Anubis his soul for the power to defeat his enemies. Here is a hint of an inevitable showdown with two foes on the horizon.

Along the way, Evelyn is captured by the reincarnated Anck-su-namun, who is eventually released but not without discovering that she lived a previous life as the Princess Neferiti. Go figure – let’s just crowbar that subplot in there.

There’s more drama in the mix as Alex is kidnapped too, then Evelyn is killed, only to be resurrected when Jonathon and Alex recite from the Book of the Dead.

The final showdown sees our heroes triumph over evil, of course, and riding off into the sunset, but the paying audience couldn’t help but feel slightly cheated by the special fx overriding care towards the character and plot, and because of this, some of the magic wasn’t carried across from its predecessor.

That didn’t deter our filmmakers from a third installment though, but first…

A VAN HELSING HIATUS – VAN HELSING (2004)

The last attempt that Universal took to amalgamate their Monsters universe would arrive in 2004, and would once again see Sommers at the helm to deliver the success received at box office with his previous two outings.

However, any harsh criticism that The Mummy Returns received seemed to have fallen on deaf ears as the same mistakes were repeated and furthermore, delved deeper still in the dire and diabolical.

Sommers goes hell-bent to deliver a CGI in fuelled overload with little or no care factor for the characters involved.

The result is that despite the desire to thrust the ”Monsters’ front and centre in an adrenaline, action-packed thrill-ride, there is no audience connection to said creatures and the desired impact leaves us wanting.

The usual ticks are there, with the distraught Frankenstein’s at the loss of his father who not only carries more compassion than the entire cast combined, but also the key to life – one that the melodramatic Dracula (and all-out bad-guy in this movie) played by Richard Roxburgh.

In fact the whole movie screams at high volume and extreme velocity that there’s no time to stop and think, but this is perhaps the director’s ruse all along – a vein attempt to hide that there is no substance or heart to the film at all.

As much as they try to inject some humour into the mix, with David Wenham’s friar, Carl, it’s not enough to elevate Van Helsing.

It’s saving grace if we can call it that comes in the form of the film’s leads, Kate Beckinsale as Anna Velarious (hot off the back of Underworld) delivering attitude aplenty, and Hugh Jackman as the titular character, dialling his Wolverine shtick up to 10.

Ultimately though, Van Helsing was a doomed experiment that falls short of Universal expectations and with it, the audience satisfaction.

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR (2008)

The final effort during this era would come to an end in 2008, which says a lot about how the movie was received.

However, there was a lot going for the final act in the trilogy that shouldn’t be so easily scoffed at.

But let’s look at these pros and cons with a little bit of further dissection.

Firstly, out of the picture goes Stephen Sommers, which may actually be a good thing when you scrutinise his last couple of efforts.

Sommers has since gone on to what exactly? Directing the start of another franchise with GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra before disappearing into Egyptian dust.

In his place steps Rob Cohen, who had overseen action fare with Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, Daylight, The Fast and the Furious, and XXX.

Also out was Rachel Weisz, for supposedly ‘citing problems with the script’ and to look after her newborn son.

This already sparked debate, as part of the appeal of the original movies was the chemistry between the leads.

The role of Evelyn O’Connell went to Maria Bello, who as fine an actress she is, couldn’t capture Weisz’ magic on-screen.

The script-writers do go some way to replicate this obvious change in dynamic by having Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser who does return) and Evie bored with the lack of adventure in their lives, but the damage is already done.

The leads are left to claw their way out of an impossible sandstorm of dialogue to try find that gem or sparkle between them.

The last of the returnees is John Hannah as Jonathon, but despite he’s spot on comic ability struggles to haul the deadweight of a script to life.

The injection of youth to the fore rests solely on the shoulders of a now grown up Alex O’Connell played by Luke Ford an actor schooled on the Meisner technique (a form of Method acting) in which you can’t fault him on his approach to authenticate his character, but once again the humour is missing which you could look to the script for its fault here.

Ford is believable enough, and is able to pull off the action-based moves with ease, but his character simply isn’t engaging enough.

The strengths though do reside with the Eastern contingency of the movie.

The choice to move away from Egypt and set up in China was bold, but the right one.

The franchise could have been in danger of stagnating, and this choice allowed for fresh new life to enter the fold.

Likewise the performances from Jet Li as Emperor Han aka The Dragon Emperor helped to lift the action from page to screen

As does Michelle Yeoh as Zi Yuan who performs with such gravitas that she puts the other actors to shame, such is the strength of her delivery.

It’s hard though to look beyond the faults though.

Despite the cast and crews best efforts, the audience is left with feeling like they’ve just witnessed the story as a square peg being rammed into a round hole.

A shame, as the ideas were there, but with too many of the original players falling by the wayside, the whole notion of recreating the magic.

Despite talks of a fourth instalment and Luke Ford attached to another 3 movies in the cabin, the truth was written in the sand with the poor box office return.
– Paul Farrell

Movie review: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

04 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I remember first time that I watched this film guided by the critical praise that had been heaped upon it and feeling somewhat bewildered by this.

I couldn’t get beyond Doctor Pretorius’ invention of the little people, which the FX were incredibly convincing for it’s time, but I just found that it threw me out of the picture because it defied logic and reasoning.

The science behind the novel and indeed it’s predecessor were ground in reality, but this felt like it had crossed a line and into the world of fantasy.

Some people out there might suggest that this is a good thing, but despite Bride of Frankenstein being described as James Whale’s masterpiece, I struggled.

Fast forward to today, when I sat down to review the movie once more, I still stinted at Pretorius’ revelation, but pushed this aside to discover a new-found appreciation for the film.

The opening in particular was a refreshing nod to the inspiration, and creator behind the novel, Mary Shelley.

It recounts of the now infamous discussions between Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron.

In this instance she recounts how the original story was only the tip of the iceberg and ventured to tell the tale of more monsters lurking within.

It is here that the story picks up where Frankenstein left off, with the supposed demise of the monster within the burning windmill and Dr Frankenstein (Colin Clive resurrecting his role) being rescued from the rubble.

When lo and behold the monster resurfaces and swiftly dispatches a local and his wife along the way.

Our maniacal Doctor Frankenstein has softened, seeing the error of his ways and is hell bent to put an end to his studies, but is lured back into the laboratory by a fellow scientist, the afore-mentioned Pretorius.

Pretorius seeps into a place of darkness, as he journeys into a mad new “world of Gods and Monsters” in order to see through his experiments.

The strength of the movie though doesn’t come from our protagonists but instead by our antagonist, The Monster, who is once more played by Boris Karloff.

This is his movie and his chance to shine, and shine he does as the script allows him to show more of the human, loving, and misrepresented character.

One of the most powerful scenes comes about when The Monster is stumbling around in the woods and happens to come across a blind man.

This man befriends The Monster and is not swayed by judging him by his appearance.

The friendship is a strong one, as they share in the delights of music and smoking, but this world of companionship would soon come crashing down as some passing hunters discover The Monster and he is forced to flee once more.

The subject of companionship is a strong one in this movie, and drives the plot line forward.

Pretorious seeks the companionship of a fellow scientist as he seeks to carry out his experiments; Frankenstein ultimately is willing to end this in favour of the love he has for his wife; and of course The Monster seeks friendship and when he stumbles upon Pretorius, his offer is all too great and he is willing to follow the mad man.

The cruelty would come at full force though, when The Bride (played by Elsa Lanchester, who also doubled up as Mary Shelley in the film’s prologue scene) is ‘awakened’ but finds the sight of The Monster too horrible to comprehend.

All hell breaks loose and the walls come tumbling down, crushing all but Frankenstein and his wife, who manage to escape just in time.

The film is beautifully shot with some of the framework simply stunning, and along the way has heralded some of the most iconic images to fall in the Universal Monsters universe.

Karloff hits the heart with perfect pain and angst, and his harrowing demise (albeit a rushed conclusion) is the only fitting way for his life to find closure…

Forced into a world that wouldn’t accept him and then just as swiftly dispatched from it, with a cold and abrupt end.

It is worthy successor to the original movie and probably one of the finer sequels to ever have been made.

  • Saul Muerte

Movie review: The Black Cat (1934)

30 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

PART OF ME so wanted to connect with this movie due to its strong placement in film history, pairing horror icons Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff together for the first time.

They would do so again a further 8 times throughout their career.

Both Lugosi and Karloff would find fame through their roles in Dracula and Frankenstein respectively and each had a further outing of their own, with moderate success, so it was inevitable that these two powerhouses of their day would cross paths before too long.

It pains me to say that I really struggled with with watching this movie.

Loosely based on the short novel of the same name by Edgar Allen Poe, The Black Cat had all the hallmarks of a classic horror story.

Our central protagonists Peter and Joan find themselves as unwitting pawns in a game between psychiatrist Hjalmar Poelzig (Lugosi) and architect Dr. Vitus Werdegast (Karloff), both whom flirt with their own sanity throughout the proceedings, although Poelzig is marginally on the ‘right’ side of the tipping point.

He does at one point though try to plead for Peter and Joan’s freedom having been ensnared in Werdergasts abode, by playing a game of chess.

Werdergast certainly takes home the crazy awards though with his collection of dead women that he keeps in glass cases.

The history between these frenemies runs deep, turning all the more bitter when Poelzig is imprisoned during the war, during which time Werdergast settles down with Poelzig’s wife, who is now dead and has become a feature in one of the exhibits.

It’s something of a convoluted mess, with the drama wrenched up to the max that it feels strained and forced.

Both Karloff and Lugosi pull off all the stops as they race to the ultimate showdown between the two for the film’s climax, but by this point I’d gone past caring and simply wanted the movie to find it’s end note.

In fact, were it not for the performances from both its leads, The Black Cat wouldn’t have received the kind of recognition that fell its way upon its release.

This coupled with the music score keeps the audience barely onside and despite this being Universal’s biggest box office hit of the year, The Black Cat ends up looking more like a drowned cat than screeching for the high notes of hysteria and horror that it was clearly aiming for.

Ultimately, something of a disappointment.

  • Paul Farrell

 

Retrospective: The Invisible Man (1933)

27 Saturday May 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

EDITED: 03/06/20

As part of some of the recent articles I’ve written, I’ve been casting myself back through the Universal Horror vault and scrutinizing the films of yester-year. When the production house hit their stride off the back of successes with Dracula and Frankenstein, they began to march out similar stories, some stronger than others.

1933’s The Invisible Man happens to be one of the better movies of that era. Based on the novel by notorious science fiction writer, H.G. Wells, who happens to have hailed from my neck of the woods in Bromley, Kent, England, so top bloke then. J

In this adaptation, Universal went all out to make the special FX convincing and frightening enough that it was considered groundbreaking for its time and still stands strong today.

Whilst watching the movie, the use of this effect is certainly the centerpiece and Universal weren’t shy in using it, and threw the audience into the action, fairly early on, with a slight build up of character development before hand.

FX aside, it is Rains who steals the show with his performance as Dr Jack Griffin aka The Invisible Man in what was his debut in an American feature.

Despite the fact that we only ever see his face in the films conclusion, Rains manages to portray the maniacal menace of the doctor, (who curiously the story of his unfortunate transition is never seen) with absolute believability.

Rains would go on to feature in several Universal features including The Wolf Man and Phantom of the Opera.

But for me, he will forever be cemented as Capt. Louis Renault in Casablanca.

There is an amiable support cast too that lends weight to the strength of this film including Gloria Stuart (The Old Dark House, and the older Rose in James Cameron’s Titanic), Henry Travers (It’s A Wonderful Life), and Una O’Connor (Bride of Frankenstein).

All of whom are helmed together by the fabulous director James Whale, who also directed Universal’s last successful film, Frankenstein, proving that this was no mere fluke and would go on to achieve further success with Bride of Frankenstein.

Such was the success of this feature that it would spawn several sequels, including one that would star Vincent Price.

It as often been emanated but never in my humble opinion repeated. The less said about John Carpenter’s The Memoirs of an Invisible Man and The Hollow Man, the better.

– Saul Muerte

Movie review: The Mummy (1932)

07 Friday Apr 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

AS IF TO extend his acting prowess, Boris Karloff strides back onto the screen to establish himself as far more than the man of many monsters.

He had already made a name for himself as The Monster in Frankenstein, and Morgan in The Old Dark House, and true he would don the bandages to perform another iconic monster, but in The Mummy, he is able to deliver not one, but two characters in Imhotep and Ardath Bey.

The story of Imhotep has been used time and time again, but arguably no one has conveyed the heartache and desperation than Karloff’s performance back in 1932.

It is with Ardeth Bey though, that Karloff really shines and show off his acting muscles.

With each scene Karloff oozes cunning and devilry whilst weaving his way through every moment with the right amount of gravitas, capturing his sinister and evil plans throughout.

Universal may not have realised the true potential that Karloff could deliver up until this moment, and from here-on in, his career in Hollywood was well and truly established.

You only need to check out his filmography to see just how much he brought to the horror movie genre.

The Mummy isn’t simply a one-man show though, Karloff id ably supported by Zita Johann who plays Helen Grosvenor, the reincarnated Ankh-es-en-amon; and David Manners, and Arthur Byron as the father and son Whemples.

As does Edward Van Sloan playing the voice of wisdom in Doctor Muller, and once more provides the knowledge needed to vanquish their foes in a similar fashion to his Van Helsing (Dracula) and  Doctor Waldman (Frankenstein).

Stepping into the Director’s chair this time around would be Karl Freund, a man born in a region that is now part of the Czech. Republic.

The Mummy was and probably will be the sole film that Freund would be known for as a director, but as a cinematographer, he provided some stunning visuals with movies such as, The Golem, Metropolis, Dracula, and Key Largo, to name but a few.

He also picked up an Academy Award for Best Cinematography with The Good Earth.

Ultimately though, The Mummy is a solid enough film and would help solidify the winning formula that had reaped such success for Universal in their golden era with plenty more successes along the way.

  • Paul Farrell

Movie review: The Old Dark House (1932)

31 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Just as Bela Lugosi followed up on his role of Dracula with Murders in the Rue Morgue, Boris Karloff would have his turn in front of the camera after scaring audiences as The Monster in Frankenstein.

Once more he would team up with James Whale, who would be on hand for directorial duties, and his craft is well toned in this cross between light-hearted drama and haunted house horror.

It certainly takes its time to get the wheels moving as it sets up the multiple of characters that descend upon the strange house and its odd occupants to shelter from a passing storm.

There’s the argumentative couple who we first meet and the dialogue feels stilted and all due respect, as thought they are lifting the lines off the page instead of embodying it.

It’s only when Melvyn Douglas arises from the back of the car with his upbeat banter that you start to think, ‘thank fuck for that’, even if it does come across as a little overbearing.

When they arrive at the house, they are greeted by the mute butler ably played by Karloff, who it turns out, does not make a happy drunk.

Boy, we’ve all met one of them, haven’t we?

Alongside Karloff, we also meet a couple of the Femm family, the neurotic Horace and his sister, Rebecca, who is not only partially deaf, but a bit of a grumpy cow.

There is something deliberately off beat about this movie and because of this, the audience play into the hands of the director, who leads through our uneasiness, which can’t seem to shift, despite the presence of the charismatic performance of Charles Laughton in his first Hollywood film, and a romantic interest thrown in for good measure.

Gladys even remarks on how there is something odd about the house and is reluctant to go back inside.

Of course she does, and in doing so, the audience is greeted by more oddities and peculiarities.

Karloff’s Morgan has hit the bottle by this point and has gone on the rampage.

The arguing couple are no longer doing so and appear to show genuine care for each other.

In this state of enlightenment, they meet the patriarch of the Femm household, a bed-ridden Sir Roderick, who despite being billed as John Dudgeon was actually played by Elspeth Dudgeon, because apparently Whale couldn’t find a man who looked old enough to play the 102 year old.

The problem is that it clearly looks like a woman with a few tufts of hair to form the guise of a beard.

Is that supposed to make her look more “manly”?

The result is that it took me further out of the movie than I already was.

What does pull you back in though, is the introduction of another brother, who has been locked in a room upstairs, and for good reason, for he’s clearly insane and is played with clear mania and glee by Brember Wills.

Said brother, Saul is also a pyromaniac and when his appears on the screen, the level of menace and sinister is heightened because of it, a testament to Wills’ performance.

There are some ingredients in here to make the movie a worthwhile viewing and yet, some say that William Castle’s version that came about in 1963 is arguably a better adaptation.

What is strange though is that in a Top 100 horror movie list as conducted by Time Out magazine and selected by authors, directors, actors and critics of the genre, The Old Dark House reached No. 71, a fact that I find hard to believe when there have been so many glorious movies in the horror realm that trump this film.

But it’s our diversity in taste that keeps us united and divided in our love of horror.

It keeps us debating and talking, to challenge each other and find common ground.

And some cases, change our opinions or go back to review those films again.

  • Paul Farrell

Movie review: Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932)

24 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

THE TERM ‘loosely based on the novel’ can’t be stressed enough, for Universal’s adaptation of the Edgar Allan Poe novel.

The raw ingredients are in there with a character called Dupin, the “hero” of the piece, who pieces together a suspicious murder; confusion over the language of the Killer that is overheard by witnesses, and a murderous ape.

Yep – that’s right.

A killer ape.

In the films version however Dupin is not a detective, but a medical student and the love interest for a potential victim, Camille.

And whilst, the killer ape component remains, the ape is more of a puppet to Bela Lugosi’s Dr Mirakle.

This would be Lugosi’s performance following Dracula, but is sadly lacking the air or mystery and menace that he delivered for said piece and instead we are treated with something that is borderline creepy.

Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just not packed with any punch that would ordinarily set one on edge.

This is the first time that Universal would visit Poe’s work in the Gothic era and one can’t help but feel that this movie was an attempt to sandwich this story and infuse it with the recipe that made Dracula and Frankenstein such big hits.

And therein lies the problem.

We’re left with a crowbarred romance and a lot of preamble at the beginning of the film, which leads nowhere and instead of developing character, makes you feel less inclined to support them at the end.

You almost feel sorry for the chimp that has been caged and defies his masters orders to go on a killing rampage.

If it were not for the occasional glimmer of sinister and evil conveyed by Lugosi, Murders on Rue Morgue would be quickly forgotten, but as such it it is integral to the journey that Universal would undertake to produce such horror gems as The Mummy, Bride of Frankenstein, and The Invisible Man.

– Paul Farrell

Movie review: Frankenstein (1931)

17 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

The moment the character of Doctor Waldman delivers the opening monologue as a word of warning about what the audience is about to see, a classic novel becomes an iconic film.

Said character is played by Edward Von Sloan who returns after his performance of Van Helsing in Dracula.

Also returning to the Gothic Horror scene for Universal, Dwight Frye who played the maniacal Renfield. Here Frye turns a trick as the hunchback (and aide to Dr Frankenstein) Fritz.

But the film owes testament to Colin Clive’s performance of Frankenstein, and Boris Karloff’s awesome transformation as the Monster, a performance that required hours in the make up chair to deliver the signature look for the creature.

Karloff’s name would be forever cemented in film history despite only being credited as “?” in the  titles.

And let’s not forget the directorial duties of James Whale, who’s vision in this movie not only established his rightful place as a master of his craft, but would forever identify him with this time and place in film history.

The story of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley has become so identified with Gothic Literature that it arguably holds the title of being the finest example of that genre.

It was one of the earliest stories used for film back in 1910 with the Edison Manufacturing Company’s short feature and has seen numerous adaptations ever since.

By 1931, Universal Studios had found a successful run in the Gothic genre, particularly after Dracula and were looking to repeat that winning formula.

With the release of Frankenstein, they found that success and a golden era in horror was born.

I hold my hand up and have to declare that I do have a soft spot for these movies that I do identified with the time, but for me they feel ageless as I am easily transported into the setting and delve into the world that has been created, which is a testament to the storytellers and the performances of the cast.

Colin Clive deliberately hams up the role of Dr. Frankenstein, which hangs marginally on the right side of believable as a man driven to the brink of insanity.

Even to this day the scene in which he brings the Monster to life and cries, “It’s alive, It’s alive! Now I know what it’s like to be God!”, has been used or replicated time and time again, most notably in 1985’s Weird Science.

Most of the tragedy in this tale comes from the Monster, who is forced to live in the darkness, fearful of light and fire, and strives to find his place in the world.

With that in mind, praise can not be held highly enough for Karloff, who is still able to deliver heartfelt tenderness under the layers of make up and between the grunts and gruffs.

None more so in the harrowing scene (that has played a significant part in many a thesis written around the movie) when the monster encounters the village girl and is led to believe that all beautiful things should float.

Even to its epic conclusion, when Frankenstein is forced to confront his creation in the now iconic windmill setting as it’s engulfed in flames, taking the Monster with it.

It’s a must watch for true lovers of the the Horror genre as it not only bore witness to one of cinemas greatest horror creations but also gave birth to the Horror film genre as we know it today.

Yes there were horror films before this movie, but In Frankenstein, Universal had created a legend that  impacted audiences to a greater level and would pave the way for more stories of blood and gore that would delight the senses and chill the bone.

  • Saul Muerte

LINKS:
Frankenstein movies on Hammer Horror Productions

Movie review: Dracula Untold (2014)

06 Monday Mar 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

OUR FINAL entry into the Dracula reboot section looking back at Universal Horror movies is the most recent.

In this instance, the idea was to go back and tell an origin story (Will they ever learn?) behind Cinema’s most infamous villain.

Unofficially, this film is part of the ‘new Universal Horror’ franchise, but not necessarily part of the merged universe at this stage.

Universal Pictures definitely want to go all out with the release of The Mummy starting Tom Cruise, which is set to land mid-way through the year.

And whether or not Dracula makes another appearance down the track Dracula Untold marks a turning point for the film production company that allows them to bring ‘their’ monsters to a new generation.

When the movie was first being tauted, Alex Proyas had been listed to direct with the title, Dracula: Year Zero, which I can only have been a cross between Batman Begins and The Crow.

That would have been an interesting premise.

As it stands though, the title changed and directorial duties fell to Gary Shore.

Yeah, we’ve never heard of him either, but he does share the birthplace of Dublin with the creator of Dracula, Bram Stoker, and he has since gone on to direct a short segment as part of the feature, Holidays.

Essentially we see Vlad, protect his lands from the Turkish Empire, only to need to defend his people once more when he refuses to give up his son and 1,000 other boys to said Empire.

It’s a moment that furies the Sultan, played by Dominic Cooper, who looks like he’s loving the opportunity to play the villain of the piece.

So, Vlad has to turn to a chance encounter, Charles Dance living in a mountain, who is evil incarnate and as we know it the true darkness, a vampire that would turn Vlad into the infamous Count Dracula that we know and love today.

If Vlad can resist the need to feed, he will return as normal within 3 days, but as we all know that won’t happen or the legend will never begin.

Tragedy will strike and it will involve his family, the only things that tie Vlad to this world.

The film is unequivocally carried by Luke Evans as Dracula with his charismatic charms and devotion to his family.

Plus he’s ripped as fuck, which helps.

There are some support roles that would suggest the casting agent spooled through the Game of thrones cast, with the likes of Charles Dance, Paul Kaye, and Art Parkinson all playing significant roles, but all of them can’t help to disguise the lack in plot and storyline, and the absence of depth in the characters.

It feels like a paint by numbers piece, but instead of paint, the filmmakers are using state of the art CGI for their palette.

It’s all style, no substance and one can only wonder what the movie would look like if Luke Evans weren’t there to push the momentum forward.

And with an open ending, Universal definitely had great plans for this franchise.

But with a poor critical reaction to the release, it doesn’t bode well, unless The Mummy can unravel all the criticism that came about and bring Dracula back from the dead.

I guess we’ll find out in June.

  • Paul Farrell

LINKS:
Dracula Movies on Hammer Horror Productions

 

Movie review: Dracula (1979)

04 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by in Universal Horror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

IT WOULD BE forty-eight years before Universal would look to reboot the Dracula franchise for the silver screen. 

A lot had changed in the world since then and because of that we’re presented with a much more sexually charged Dracula.

A far cry from Bela Lugosi’s representation.

I’d never seen this version before writing this review and upon watching this version, I saw so many images that were reflected twenty years on with Bram Stoker’s Dracula directed by Francis Ford Coppola, including Gary Oldman’s hair.

But this was 1979 and Coppola’s version was not yet on his radar. 

He was knee deep in Apocalypse Now terrain at the time.

In this instance, directorial duties fell to British-American John Badham (Saturday Night Fever, Blue Thunder, WarGames, Short Circuit).

His leading man would be Frank Langella, (Skeletor folks!!) who seems to carry such sinister presence on screen, whether he is portraying Nixon, Boris Balkan, or in this case, Dracula himself.

There’s actually a lot like in this version of the Dracula story.

With the Tagline “A Love Story”, the focus on romance suited Langella’s dashing stature alongside Kate Nelligan as Lucy, (not Mina in a decision where these roles would be switched from the novel).

The film would dive straight into the action too, jumping straight on board the ship Demeter, as it crashes of the coast of Whitby.

There is a lot of focus on Dracula’s transformative states, be it wolf or bat, to great effect for its time.

There are great support roles too with Trevor Eve’s stoic Jonathan Harker, Lawrence Olivier’s restrained performance of Van Helsing, and the always brilliant, Donald Pleasence as Dr Seward.

Yes it does take liberties with some of the choices narratively speaking but it’s an enjoyable movie all the same that comes highly recommended from the Surgeons team.

  • Paul Farrell

LINKS:
Dracula Movies on Hammer Horror Productions