So...I finally got around to watching the supposed masterpiece of Wuxia cinema, "A Touch of Zen" which is said to have inspired all the following icons from CTHD to House of Flying Daggers.
Well, that was certainly disappointing. First of all, the film is easily an hour too long - that entire third act was completely pointless and should have been trimmed. The heroes weren't particularly likeable and the three sidekicks were so interchangeable that I legit didn't notice that one of them died until the end of the movie. Ironically the villains were a lot more entertaining and fun to watch.
I do respect the movie for it's place in history. But damn did my hype deflate like a pinprick to a balloon.
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
Went back to the well that is the "Universal's Essential Horror Collection" and am going to try and finish it off before the year ends.
The Wolf-Man (1941)
Man, once you know that the writer was heavily influenced by his escape from Nazi Germany it's hard not to see all the symbolism in this film - a parasitic curse that turns otherwise good people into manslaying monsters who see a star on their next victims. It's kinda hilarious how much of the werewolf "canon" came from this movie because of that.
Anyways, it was a very good movie. Had quite a lot of stars in it too - Lon Chaney Jr, Claude Rains, Warren William and even Bela Lugosi in a cameo role. Though nobody attempted a Welsh accent despite the setting which to be fair was probably a small mercy.
I am kinda sad that they scrapped the idea to make the film a psychological thriller whereby you don't know if the "wolf-man" transformation is all in Talbot's head or not until the very end, because the higher-ups said at the last second "you can't have a monster movie without a monster front and centre". Certainly explains why there are so many psychological references left in the film trying to explain away Talbot's nightmares of being a wolf.
Lastly I saw a bunch of people complain about a "plothole" whereby Bela the Gypsy turns into a regular wolf at night but Talbot becomes a Wolf-Man instead. To that I say pay more attention. All of the "wolf-man" scenes are portrayed from the perspective of Talbot's deranged mind and no one ever calls him that in-universe including the ones who see him transformed, instead he's only ever referred to as "a/the wolf".
Someday I must watch "Werewolf of London". Sadly it's not in this collection. T_T
The Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)
Jumping right to the chronological end of the collection next for this film, though unlike Phantom of the Opera it's not filmed in colour despite coming out afterwards.
I enjoyed this one a lot too, though it did drag on a little bit and could have been trimmed down by about ten minutes, the lack of variety for sets certainly didn't help. Definitely felt the least "horror" of the collection so-far though I can't quite put my finger on why...probably that the "monster" is just an undiscovered creature and doesn't require anything particularly special to beat him. The environmental message was a little unsubtle but it didn't really detract from the film I found.
I really must applaud the production. The costume for the Gill-Man is amazing, especially Olympic swimmer Ricou Browning's underwater acting and swimming. All the underwater scenes in general were amazingly shot.
I must laugh at Del Toro wanting to remake the film but after being denied ended up making The Shape of Water instead.
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
The Wolfman is *so* good! I'd rate it as the second-best werewolf movie ever, only losing out - and not by much - to American Werewolf in London.
I think Black Lagoon felt the least like a horror movie because the creature is pretty much just a wild animal - dangerous, but not horrific. It's kind of like Jaws in that regard, but Jaws makes up for it (even if unintentionally) by hiding the shark for most of the movie and letting the tension ramp up through the story.
Dammit, I should've done this one first as I could've made an "it's alive!" joke after returning to this collection for reviews after so many months. Regardless, two more down, one to go.
Frankenstein (1931)
It's been a long time since I've read the original novel but I was surprised by how In Name Only the plot was. Apparently the writer based it on a stage adaptation rather than the original novel so I won't go off too hard on it. That said the swapping of Victor and Henry's names for no apparent reason did bug me.
To start us off, we open with a content warning courtesy of actor Edward Van Sloan breaking the fourth wall. It's interesting that they felt the need to do that, I know that the "now I know what it feels like to be God!" line was censored for years because of Christian ire. Anyways, I did like that in the opening credits did not say who plays the Monster until the Closing Credits because "A Good Cast Deserves Repeating". Just goes to show how different films were made (almost) a century ago.
Speaking of cast, it was interesting to see Dwight Frye as "Fritz" who became the basis of the Igor archetype for gothic fiction, a role he sorta reprises in the sequel despite dying in this film. Boris Karloff was likewise excellent in his star-making role as the Monster. I would have been curious to see the version that Bela Lugosi was supposed to play, but considering that original director Florey's script was deemed unsalvageable by his replacement Whale, it was probably for the best that Lugosi abandoned the role.
There's definitely a conflict of "Nature vs Nurture" between this film and the novel since the Monster turned evil in the novel because of how society treated him whereas in the film he's doomed from the start by having a criminal brain stolen by mistake. That said, I did enjoy the Monster more as him being more child-like and most of his kills being reactionary panic as opposed to the novel's more vindictive Monster that plotted to destroy Frankenstein's life.
Overall, I did enjoy the movie a lot despite the considerable changes from the source material.
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Bizarrely the movie starts out with Lord Byron and the Shelly's (who weren't in the previous film) and discuss the novel Shelly wrote and how she plans a sequel. Even flashbacks from the first film occur which becomes hilariously awkward since several characters are recast immediately afterwards. Taking those two things into account creates this weird cognitive dissonance whereby it feels like an alternate universe instead of a true sequel. That said, I did enjoy the callback to the original film by leaving the Bride's actor as "?" which creates a shock when Elsa Lanchester reveals herself as the Bride in a surprise twist... I guess you could call that a self-insert?
The troubled production really hurt this movie in parts. The killing spree the movie starts with including the random old couple and the little girl was apparently from cut scenes whereby Karl murders people for body parts as per orders and frames them as the monster's doing but since it was cut it comes across as unnecessary padding that never goes anywhere. There's other stuff like a timeline discrepancy with the Baron being dead for sometime despite the epilogue of the first film showing differently due to scenes being cut and whatnot.
It was interesting how they had to construe the plot out of scraps that weren't adapted from the novel in the prior film. The idea of creating a "mate" for the Monster and the blind old man who teaches the Monster to speak. It all comes together just well enough I found to work as a sequel. I was greatly surprised at the lack of screentime (and lines) for The Bride despite the fact that the movie is named after her. Nevertheless, Lanchester gave a great performance with her wild eyes and swan noises alone.
I know I've been mostly complaining about this one but I did enjoy it.
If you can't guess what film I left for last was then let's just say that I never drink...wine whenever I watch it.
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
Welp, it's been a long journey but I'm finally at the last film in the Collection which is actually the first chronologically but I felt like leaving it until the end..
Dracula (1931)
Unlike the rest of this Collection, I have seen this film once before a long time ago. Much like Frankenstein made later that year, Dracula was actually based on a Broadway stage adaption starring Lugosi who had to lobby hard to reprise his role since the director wanted Lon Chaney at first. Again like Frankenstein, because of it's recursive creation the story is greatly different from the original novel but not to the same "In Name Only" extent that Frankenstein was.
It's fascinating to learn about the production of this film and how there was a Spanish version filmed at the same time, on the same sets even. I hear that Drácula is considered to be the superior film of the two thanks to learning from the troubled production of the English version (literally by watching them film then afterwards doing their own). If anything it's amazing that the English version came out as well as it did considering the Great Depression as well as the director's failing battle with alcoholism cursed it. I certainly am curious to see if I can ever get a hold of the Spanish version to see how they compare.
Speaking of production, it's interesting to see how Universal Studios tended to have a sort of posse in regards to actors once you step back and look at things from a wider perspective. Whilst Lugosi walked away from the production of Frankenstein he initially signed on for (though he did cameo in The Wolf-Man), Van Sloan and Frye stuck around for it. Boris Karloff starred in three movies (Frankenstein, Bride and The Mummy) whilst Claude Rains starred as the villains of both Invisible Man and Phantom of the Opera with a major supporting role in The Wolf-Man.
When it comes to the characters, I'm torn apart by this film. On the one hand I love the idea of giving Renfield a more proactive part as I always found him to be one of the more fascinating characters but it sadly came at the hands of making Harker into a minor character. Even worse, both Arthur and Quincey were completely cut out though Lucy still made it in...but she disappears soon after becoming a vampire which creates a problematic loose end. I certainly did love both Lugosi and Van Sloan in their roles and the few scenes they had together were epic.
In spite of all its flaws, I still think this is a wonderful little film that deserves its place in history.
Huh, I feel kinda empty now that it's all over. Wonder what I should watch next...
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
Welp, it's been a long journey but I'm finally at the last film in the Collection which is actually the first chronologically but I felt like leaving it until the end..
Dracula (1931)
Unlike the rest of this Collection, I have seen this film once before a long time ago. Much like Frankenstein made later that year, Dracula was actually based on a Broadway stage adaption starring Lugosi who had to lobby hard to reprise his role since the director wanted Lon Chaney at first. Again like Frankenstein, because of it's recursive creation the story is greatly different from the original novel but not to the same "In Name Only" extent that Frankenstein was.
It's fascinating to learn about the production of this film and how there was a Spanish version filmed at the same time, on the same sets even. I hear that Drácula is considered to be the superior film of the two thanks to learning from the troubled production of the English version (literally by watching them film then afterwards doing their own). If anything it's amazing that the English version came out as well as it did considering the Great Depression as well as the director's failing battle with alcoholism cursed it. I certainly am curious to see if I can ever get a hold of the Spanish version to see how they compare.
Speaking of production, it's interesting to see how Universal Studios tended to have a sort of posse in regards to actors once you step back and look at things from a wider perspective. Whilst Lugosi walked away from the production of Frankenstein he initially signed on for (though he did cameo in The Wolf-Man), Van Sloan and Frye stuck around for it. Boris Karloff starred in three movies (Frankenstein, Bride and The Mummy) whilst Claude Rains starred as the villains of both Invisible Man and Phantom of the Opera with a major supporting role in The Wolf-Man.
When it comes to the characters, I'm torn apart by this film. On the one hand I love the idea of giving Renfield a more proactive part as I always found him to be one of the more fascinating characters but it sadly came at the hands of making Harker into a minor character. Even worse, both Arthur and Quincey were completely cut out though Lucy still made it in...but she disappears soon after becoming a vampire which creates a problematic loose end. I certainly did love both Lugosi and Van Sloan in their roles and the few scenes they had together were epic.
In spite of all its flaws, I still think this is a wonderful little film that deserves its place in history.
Huh, I feel kinda empty now that it's all over. Wonder what I should watch next...
As a jazz fan I enjoyed it mostly but my friend I saw it with, a hard drama/music nerd, really hated it. Said it was the dark and gritty reboot version of the Hollywood Musical.
Binged All Of Gundam In 4 Years, 1 Week and All I Got Was This Stupid Mask
FF XIV: Walked to the End
Started Legend of the Galactic Heroes (14/07/23), pray for me.
I do wonder if it would have the notoriety it does today if that mess up at the Oscars hadn't occurred.
It's kind of sad when the most well known thing about you're film was something that had nothing to do with it's content. Like how everyone knows Crash as "that movie that definitely shouldn't have won best picture", or Plan 9 for killing Bela Legosi.
Binged All Of Gundam In 4 Years, 1 Week and All I Got Was This Stupid Mask
FF XIV: Walked to the End
Started Legend of the Galactic Heroes (14/07/23), pray for me.
So I'm talking about when it was announced as best picture, because the presenter was given the wrong envelope and was winging it. Everyone got up celebrating on stage and they had to have someone come out and tell them all to sit down because the other guy, Moonlight, won.
Binged All Of Gundam In 4 Years, 1 Week and All I Got Was This Stupid Mask
FF XIV: Walked to the End
Started Legend of the Galactic Heroes (14/07/23), pray for me.
I do wonder if it would have the notoriety it does today if that mess up at the Oscars hadn't occurred.
It's kind of sad when the most well known thing about you're film was something that had nothing to do with it's content. Like how everyone knows Crash as "that movie that definitely shouldn't have won best picture", or Plan 9 for killing Bela Legosi.
Really? I don't think the Oscars thing is that relevant.
It was really popular anyway, at least around here most people had seen it already.
Really? I don't think the Oscars thing is that relevant.
It was really popular anyway, at least around here most people had seen it already.
I'm not calling it unpopular even,it actually made a bunch of money in theatres, just that it seemed like it was really "there and gone", and the most enduring thing was that Oscars mix-up. Even years later when I hear it mentioned my first recollections are 1) that Oscars, 2) my buddy ranting afterwards, 3) that date in the Jazz club at the start.
Binged All Of Gundam In 4 Years, 1 Week and All I Got Was This Stupid Mask
FF XIV: Walked to the End
Started Legend of the Galactic Heroes (14/07/23), pray for me.
After the massive disappointment that was "A Touch of Zen", I needed a fix so I put on "Once Upon A Time in China 2" which I was always hesitant to watch as the original film is one of my all time favourites and I was worried that the sequels wouldn't live up to the hype.
While it was inevitable that it wouldn't be as good, it was still a perfectly entertaining movie nonetheless. Jet Li returns as the ever lovable doctor slash martial artist - Wong Fei-Hung who despite defeating the British Imperials last movie finds himself in a twist of fate defending the British Consulate in Canton from a variety of evil forces.
Whilst I did enjoy the film, it was notable that having four major factions involved in the plot meant that each was fighting for screen time and none quite got the amount each deserved. As always the fight choreography was excellent, especially the fights against the two villains Priest Gao and General Nap-Ian (played by Donnie Yen no less in his first major role). I also enjoyed Jackie Chan coming out of nowhere to sing the theme song during the closing credits.
So yeah, not quite as strong but still good. Hopefully the last in the trilogy doesn't drop the ball hard or anything as that would be sad.
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
Darren Shan vampires being unable to use guns and bows triggers me more than it should. More than Twilight sparkles, certainly. My vampire archers in the Elder Scrolls games and vampire gunners in Vampire the Masquerade laugh in marksman.
Last edited by LegalLoliLover; January 23rd, 2021 at 07:40 PM.
I don't know why people make a big deal about so-called "unkillable" slashers? If they survive a beheading, then we can talk about their immortality. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220506/faq "How does Michael Myers return after having his head chopped off in 'Halloween H20'? It is briefly explained that Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) killed the wrong person (a paramedic) on Halloween night by chopping off his head, thinking it was Michael Myers." WTF? Take the mask off before doing so, then.
Welp, finally got around to watching "Blade Runner: 2049" as well as the three prequel shorts that came on the disc - "Blackout", "Nexus Dawn" and "Nowhere to Run".
Overall, I enjoyed the experience quite a lot. It feels a fair bit different from the original, but done in an organic way where the setting itself has also evolved in the thirty years that have passed in-universe. The story itself was engaging with some interesting twists and turns along the way. I really grew to like the new cast and its a shame we didn't get to see more of some of them - especially Wallace. As an aside, I do appreciate that new director Villeneuve didn't feel the need to address the subject of Deckard's questioned humanity.
I really do love this world and am curious to see the anime they're supposedly making, "Black Lotus" I think it was called.
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Skull
