House of Dracula (1945)

Dracula (John Carradine) needs help. He hates the life of the undead superhero, so he seeks out the good Doctor Edelmann. Surely he can solve the problem. Drac gets all mysterious what with him needing to only come only at night. Under the microscope, Dr. Edelmann discovers that Drac's blood contains a large number of midi-chlorians ...

Also seeking free help is Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr), hating his proto-wolverine existence. Doc concludes Chaney's head ... that is, Talbot's head ... isn't soft enough. Meanwhile, Drac starts making moves on Doc's lovely-ish assistant, wolfie jumps a cliff trying to end his life, and they then stumble upon Frankenstein's Monster sitting in the muck. And it's about then that I realized that this series has finally run it's course.

The problem of crowding the film with monsters is two-fold. First, you lose focus on a central story. Are we following Drac's plight or Wolfie's? Secondly, screen time for each is drastically cut. Frank's Monster is barely in it and Drac makes an earlier than expected exit. Maybe it would have worked better if you made the monsters the direct protagonists rather than spiral the story around the doctor and his assistants. Still, make the climax a duel between wolfie and Drac, and lose the Monster instead of using him as a Deus ex machina of sorts. Better movies don't have you re-writing them in your head while watching.

Code standards has that monsters must die at the end of the film. As such, there has to be a vaguely plausible explanation why the actors were getting work again. We completely forgo this in Wolfie and Drac's case. Lionel Atwill, at death's door, makes one last appearance. As a cop, once again. And no Universal Horror can be considered complete without a hunchback assistant. Here is the only unexpected twist the film offers: the hunchback is a hot chick. Seriously. And the mad scientist character is ... well, I'll hold off on that.

Here we rest the original run of the Universal Horror series. Typical in acting and production quality of the series. My biggest mistake was grouping the movies by central character. I should have watched them in sequence instead. If I watch them again, that's what I will do. So, how come they never invited the Mummy to the party? I'll finish them off next October. AMRU 3.

Son of Dracula (1943)

The mysterious Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr) is invited to visit the plantation Dark Oaks in the American south. Debutante Katherine Caldwell met him in Budapest and discovered they both share an interest in the morbid. Kat likey the count, but Kat's best Bo Frank no likey him.

Turns out Alucard is actually some relative of the notorious Count Dracula (perhaps his son ...) and has come to America because he has sucked the life out of everyone back home. Looks like it's up to Doctor Harry, doing his best van/von Helsing impersonation, to set things straight.

Well, Count and Kat marry causing Frank to go slightly insane. When he is arrested (for her murder, no less) she visits him in jail to let him in on the plan. I'm not letting you in on the plan. You gotta watch.

By 1943 the original run of Universal horror movies was coming to a close. Creighton, late to the party, was becoming Universal's man for the job. And in the role of "Dracula" he looked the part. That of a brutal European count, that is. He looked nothing like Bela, but because he wasn't playing the same character, that didn't matter. Creighton played all the Universal monsters at one point, as was arguably the worst.

Anyhow, here finally we see the drac to bat transformation only hinted at earlier (Daughter never even bothered to transform). Looks a little cartoonie, but that can't be helped.

A refreshing change of scenery (swamps and plantations), an interesting love triangle, a satisfying ending, and some twists along the way made this a welcome addition to the collection. It even survives Chaney's terrible acting. That man reads dialog like he's playing whack-a-mole. AMRU 3.5.

So, what do you think? Should I bother watching the 1974 Ringo Starr vehicle?

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

 Dracula is dead, thank goodness. Unfortunately, Von Helsing is held in connection to his murder. No, wait ... Von Helsing? Seriously people? Had to tinker with the name, didn't you! Anyhow, Von enlists the help of his good friend Dr. Garth (party on!) to get him out of this fix. But lucky for Von, Drac's body goes missing. Apparently someone needed it for a campfire.

That someone was the Contessa Marya Zeleska, better known as Dracula's Daughter (and, FYI, also a vampire). Seems she wants to rid herself of the family curse, which is to be an undead superhero. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. So, she enlists the help of Dr. Garth.

Well, Garth's solution, without knowing the problem, is to presented herself with her desire and challenge her willpower to resist. That thing she desires? Scantily clad hot chicks. Well, whatdoyaknow ... Before anyone starts huffing for a Vampire Lovers type scene, remember, this isn't even pre-code.

Certainly a different feel for a Universal Horror, almost reminiscent of the later Val Lewton films. And it's for that very reason I like it. The Contessa is kinda hot in a very Devil Girl from Mars sort of way. And the lesbian subtext definitely caught my attention. And if you think I'm reading too much into it, watch the documentary The Celluloid Closet (or read the book - both are on Amazon). This wasn't incidental contact.

The atmosphere was a departure from the gothic tradition, there was a weird love triangle (maybe love rectangle) thing going on, and the acting was solid enough. Complain if you will at the admittedly poor attempt at comedy, but Dracula's Daughter won me over. AMRU 3.5.

Drácula (1931)

Drac is Back, and this time he's ... Hispanac?

After filming of the Bela Legosi classic concluded for the day, another team would arrive to make a Spanish language version of the same movie. Same sets, same script, same actors marks, everything. Just different actors and crew. This is an interesting solution to a problem the studios faced. Back in the halcyon days of silent cinema, they could rewrite a dozen or so title cards and ship their movie around the world. Now, with the dubbing process years away from "perfection", they realized that the great technological innovation called sound made their films much harder to export. Their solution was to shoot it twice.

Same script and same sets, but here's the thing. Different director, cameraman, and editor. They looked at the direction notes and said "we can do better than that", and did. And at almost 30 minutes longer, contained a whole lot more of the story (longer here, is better). One cannot help but to compare the two films, and Tod Browning's piece doesn't always place second, but as a whole, this is a much better film.

The most noticeable difference between the two is the titular character. While Bela might not have been the great actor Karloff and Price were, his rendition of Dracula is iconic for a reason. And Carlos Villarias, who played the Spanish speaking Dracula was terrible Terrible TerRibLe TeRRIBLE TERRIBLE! Having your monster be something of a disappointment is a serious obstacle to overcome, but at least audiences didn't yet have Bela to compare it to.

While I am huge fan of Dwight Frye's rendition of Renfield, Pablo Rubio was almost as good. I still take Frye's performance, but Rubio was no weak point. From there the acting gets better. When Helen Chandler's Mina was under the influence of Dracula, she indicated this by widening her eyes and acting a little strange. Lupita Tovar's Eva's demeanor, however, changed from virginal to something more aggressive in a sheer top. A much more pronounced transformation.

Oh, and like I marvelled that Carla Laemmle who had a brief speaking role turned 104, Tovar turned 103 last summer. But I leave you with a question: is Dracula a dead man who rose from the grave or is he a living man who unnaturally extended his life by drinking blood. Most versions imply the former but this version appears to assert the latter. I'd have to watch them again paying attention to that point. AMRU 3.5.

"Buenos dias, Senor Renfield."

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Amateur vampire sleuths Harker (Nobody) and Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) look to end the reign of the evil count.

You know the basic premise. Here, we mix up the characters (Harker is betrothed to Lucy and Mina is married to Arthur) change the details (Transylvania? Never heard of it), lose Renfield, and film it in color. Now Drac has fangs and there is blood to spurt. No ta-tas like in later Hammer films, but it's a start.

Despite the campy feel, I liked this complete reinterpretation of the story. So many of these films are unofficial remakes anyhow, it's nice when it's done well. Fairly well, anyhow. And because it was such a departure from the classic story, you tend to throw the book comparison conversation out the window from the get-go. Christopher Lee makes for a better than average count, starting off as the dashing and mysterious type before showing himself to be the fiend he is.

Hmmm ... what more to say .... The title was changed from simply Dracula in America for the best reason I've seen so far: Bela's classic was still bouncing around theaters and they wanted to avoid confusion. I accept that. Arthur is played by Michael Gough, whom dedicated readers may remember from Horrors of the Black Museum but actually from Batman. Gosh, that's about it. AMRU 3.5.

Dracula (1931)

Rich guy moves to town and starts biting all the chicks. Boyfriends get jealous, nail stake through his heart. Body count two. Three if you count the Count.

I was a Dracula fan back in the day. Werewolves were cool too, but Dracula resonated with me. I saw this film for the first time as an adult, maybe eight years ago. The UHF channels back in the day never showed the big movies. It was always Crab People and Rodan stuff. When I saw it I was more than a little underwhelmed. This was my reaction again. No soundtrack to speak of (they thought it would confuse the audience), clumsy editing, overdone dramatic pauses, mediocre acting, and more liberties with the original story than anything short of Forrest Gump.

In a scene, the camera focuses on the casket, moves to a window showing the full moon, the comes back to see Bela straightening up. Oh, he must have come out of the casket. Really people? Maybe Todd Browning wasn't really all that good. Freaks, for all it's shock value, was a clumsy mess.

Ok, enough with the disappointment, here's what I found interesting. Lon Chaney was slated for the title role but died. Oh, what could have been! There was a Spanish language version filmed on the same set at night. I must get a hold of a subtitled copy.

Dracula never displays fangs nor are bite marks ever seen. He never says "Good Evening!" or "I vont to bite your neck", but that should come as no surprise. Bela would appear as Dracula one more time in an Abbot and Costello movie. Bette Davis was considered for Mina but was not considered pretty enough. They were right. The movie is based on a stage play, not the book. That play starred Bela in the lead role. They did not film where Dracula attacks Renfield, because that would be so totally gay. Totally. The movie that made 48 year old Lugosi a star came out on Valentines day, two years after the massacre. Carla Laemmele, niece of studio head Carl and cousin of producer Carl Jr, appeared briefly in the movie. She turns 104 next month.

This is an unbelievably iconic film. It is so strange to realize how ... pedestrian much of it is. The classic lines still resonate: "Children of the night ...", and the creepy, gothic atmosphere frequently worked, but it could have been so much better. It came out just before Frankenstein and set the standard, then was quickly surpassed.

Before I finish, lets say a word about Dwight Frye, who played Renfield. His comic but creepy portrayal was the highlight of the film. Every version since would be a tribute to him and a somewhat failed attempt to out over-the-top his performance. He also played Fritz in Frankenstein. And Karl in Bride Of. And maybe in a crowd scene in Son Of. He was in a pile of movies before dropping dead at age 44. I used to be 44. Nothing sadder than a Christian Scientist with a heart condition.

Required viewing for classic horror fans. For all it's faults, still creepy and iconic. And delightfully short. AMRU 3.

"Rats. Rats. Rats! Thousands! Millions of them! All red blood! All these will I give you if you will obey me."

Black Sabbath (1963)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Nosferatu (1922)

or A Symphony of Horror.

Young real estate agent Hutter visits the strange Count Orlok to sell him a house. The local villagers are frightened of the Count and try to convince him not to go. Once inside Orlok's castle, he discovers that he is a vampire. Hutter escapes and makes his way back to Germany to confront the monster.

Several years ago when I received a DVD collection of horror classics, I was excited to see two titles: Metropolis, which amazed, and Nosferatu, which disappointed. The public domain copies of both are of such low quality I caution anyone from watching them. Interestingly, the "fully" restored versions had a reverse effect on me. I believe I liked Nosferatu better.

Back story on the film: the filmmakers wanted to do a version of Dracula and were all set to start when they were denied the rights to the story. So, they renamed all of the characters, changed some story elements, and made a "different" vampire story. Actually, a Nosferatu movie, a similar word that might mean undead. Or not. Well, Bram Stoker's widow sued their asses and the settlement was to destroy all copies of this film. Luckily for us, it survived.

Nosferatu is described as a classic example of German Expressionism. Not wishing this to become an artistic discussion, just think of Munch's "The Scream" in movie form. What Nosferatu offers us, despite a still poor quality media and some silly, over the top silent film acting, is a truly creepy monster and setting. Orlok is not the seductively stylish character of Bela's incarnation. He is a monster in every sense of the word. In fact, director Murnau described actor Max Schreck as "Strikingly ugly".

The "special effects" may not resonate with a CGI generation, but they worked well in the day. But it was the regular effects that steal the show. The vampire's shadow on the wall is iconic, and sets the mood appropriately.

Now, I was going to save this movie for when I did the survey of vampire movies like what I did with Frankenstein, but that film study book I read used it as an example film to tie together everything they discussed.

Nosferatu offers us a lot, visually and through story. It actually strays from the book significantly in the second half and offers a cool twist on the ending. It is required viewing for any horror fan. AMRU 4. See the restored version. Why does netflix claim it was made in 1929?

One last note: when doing werewolf movies, I discovered that IMdb has werewolf is one of it's plot keywords. A werewolf is mentioned, but it doesn't play a significant role in the film.

The Vampire's Ghost (1945)

Strange things are afoot in an African village. People are dying and the natives suspect a vampire. Thank god whitey is there be the voice of reason. Hunky Roy decides to enlist of good friend Webb Fallon (John Abbott) to investigate. Webb runs a casino a short walk away, apparently in the Caribbean.

Webb agrees to help and meets Roy's hottie girlfriend Julie (Peggy Stewart). Every now and again subtle hints that Webb is in fact the vampire are slammed repeatedly over our heads. Spoiler alert: he is.

Anyhow, vampy Webb wants to steal hottie Julie because that's what vampires do, hunky Roy tries to reason with him, bad stuff happens, and with the help of Father Gilchrist, hunky Roy saves the day.

Not much to say about this Republic quickie. Decent acting, decent pacing, somewhat interesting story. Nothing too original. Set in Africa yet few black faces are seen on screen, and none were major characters. Typical of the day. At least they get credit for figuring out who the baddie is first, even if that doesn't save their lives. AMRU 3.

Vampyr (1932)

Hmmmm ...

Still not sure what to make of this one. An early 30's horror movie. That should be right in my wheel house. You'd think I wouldn't have to turn it off half way because it was putting me to sleep, but that's what happened. I finished it up the following night.

This is the story of Allan Gray, a young man obsessed with the occult, who happens on an Inn where he finds evidence of a Vampyr! First, in the middle of the night, some old dude saunters into his room and leaves a package with a note that it should be opened in the event of his death. Then he follows around shadows while they go and .... I don't know what they are doing. Eventually the old dude is shot by a shadow, a young woman becomes sick, and lots of surreal scenes are shot using primitive camera techniques.

This is not an easy movie to watch. Although it's not a silent film, it might as well have been. Most of the story is revealed in title cards using a hard to read gothic font and there is almost no dialog. Characters are introduced without explanation and the story line is convoluted at best.

Still, the movie has some merit. Very stylish and atmospheric, it scores high points for originality. The disembodied shadows running around was an interesting technique and the use of double exposures and backwards film may have been avant garde back then. But the pacing was tedious and the action non-existent. Thankfully it was only 72 minutes.

The movie could stand a second viewing, if for no other reason than to figure out what the hell was going on. I can't imagine seeing it again, unless I happen upon a fully restored showing at a film festival. The Netflix streaming copy is in need of some TLC. AMRU 3.

Before I end, take a look at the wikipedia entry for the movie. A lot went on with the making that I found interesting. Very low budget using non-actors, it was filmed for three languages and constantly re-edited. The cast stayed at the inn it was filmed in, which proved very uncomfortable. Oh, and the director ended up in a mental hospital. So it goes.

The Vampire Lovers (1970)

How sexy horror is done right. Well, mostly. Ingrid Pitt is a vampire that somehow gets entreated into the home of rich people with hot daughters. She gains the trust of said daughter, then proceeds to get it on, Vampire style. Mostly that means bite her and make everybody wonder what is making their precious daughter so sick. Peter Cushing plays dad #1.

I'm sure I've seen others, but since blogging this is the first Hammer film. Lush but cheesy sets and costumes, clumsy dialog, sexy sub-plot. I watch worse. Controversial when it came out because of the lesbian subtext (she bites girls on their boob!), it is barley soft core by today's standards.

Here are a few things I want to make fun of: Ingrid Pitt (Marcilla/Carmilla/Mircalla), while hot, was way older than the 19 years her gravestone had her out. Vampirism takes a bit out of you, I suppose. The title presumes that two vampires are in love. Actually one vampire is trying to seduce the daughters, but their real motive is blood. Am I being picky? Am I? Yes, Fred, you are being picky.

I enjoyed it, but have to say if fell flat in the horror department. It read more like a costume drama with bad dialog. Still, I give it an AMRU 3.

Dead Men Walk (1943)

The Evil Elwyn Clayton is dead, murdered by his twin brother, the good doctor Lloyd Clayton. But evil doesn't stay dead long. Elwyn rises, with help from his faithful servant Zolarr, as a Vampire! Dr. Clayton's niece Gayle, played by the hot Mary Carlisle, is in danger. She is to be married to the wooden Dr. Bently, but o'll dad has plans to make her his vampire servant.

After Dr. Clayton realizes his Evil brother is a vampire, he knows he must find the body during the daytime and burn it. He does everything he can, including searching the entire town for the body. No, wait. Everything EXCEPT actually search for the body. Instead he just rubs his chin. Until the end, that is, when he searches for it AT NIGHT! Way to go, Doctor Action.

This film has a lot going for it. George Zucco as both Claytons, the hot Mary Carlisle in the last movie of her career, and even Dwight Frye (Dracula's Renfield) as Zolarr. Less than seven months after this film came out, Dwight would be dead, another happy customer of the Christian Science Healthcare Plan. One wonders if health concerns explain his muted performance. Fern Emmett, looking like a simple minded and good intentioned Elmira Gulch, was a crazy townswoman who knew Elwyn had risen. Three and a half years later, she too would be dead.

The story was fair, the script ok, the setting good. Why was the movie so ... flat? First might be the quality of this public domain film. The contrast seemed a little weak. A good filmmaker can do wonders with black and white, shadows and highlights. See The Day The Earth Stood Still. This movie didn't have any of that. A black screen is good for dark, brooding dialog, but no good for fight scenes. I also think it could have been edited a little better.

What it was truly missing was a proper score. A good score goes a long way to build suspense and creepiness. The score was a total dud.

I fell asleep during parts of Dead Men Walk, so I watched it again online, skipping the parts I saw. I wanted to like this movie, but I never felt involved with the characters. George Zucco was great, but his vampire fell flat. Put a proper soundtrack on this film and clean it up, and you'd have a real good movie. I wanted to give it a 3, but as it is now, the best I can do is a 2.5.

Watch it here.