[profh0011]

My latest Blu-Ray:

THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960)

I first saw this on TV. Then, in the early 70s, I saw it again on a BIG screen! A decade later, I recorded a copy off a local UHF station, which was in TERRIBLE shape. (I'll probably be watching that tape "one more time" just to see exactly how awful it is by comparison.

So how nice to finally get a "good" copy after putting up with the other one for 4 DECADES. According to Blu-Ray.com: ""The Brides of Dracula" was previously issued on Blu-ray via Universal Studios in 2016. Shout Factory brings the title back to the market with an AVC encoded image (your choice of 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 aspect ratios) presentation sourced from a "New 2K Scan From The Interpositive.""

There's also 2 slightly-different theatrical trailers, an HOUR-LONG documentary about the career of Terence Fisher (narrated by the editor of "The Little Shop Of Horrors" magazine), a couple of other documentaries (which I haven't seen yet), a radio promo, an images gallery, and optional English subtitles.

The film, visually, is STUNNING. The sound, ditto (though the sound on the trailers is AWFUL, probably standing out all the more because for once, the visuals on the trailers is quite nice).

After watching the entire Hammer series yearly for about a decade, this is probably the longest stretch I've had in a long time without watching these at all. I've been planning to go after these for some time, and it seemed to me that, despite having a CHEAP tv and player, I owed it to myself, looking at the future, to get horror films on Blu-Ray.

As with so many Hammers, this film has scenes that pay tribute to earlier ones (shades of current "007" films). The opening scene of the speeding coachman, the passenger asking them to slow down, the arrival at the small village and the tavern, seems straight out of the 1931 "DRACULA" (or Mel Brooks' "DRACULA DEAD AND LOVING IT", for that matter), which is funny when you consider such a scene was nowhere to be found in the 1958 "DRACULA".

At the other end, the whole sequence at the windmill seems like a greatly-expanded tribute to the climax of the 1931 "FRANKENSTEIN"! I found myself laughing at the thought of the scene where Van Helsing picks up Marianne on the road, imagining how the story might have gone if he'd introduced himself by saying, "I'm a doctor, my name's Frankenstein". 😁

It's been noted there was a lot of tampering and re-writing of the screenplay before-the-fact, with scenes that explain things being CUT OUT. For decades, I thought the guy who hitched a ride on the back of the coach was the priest that Van Helsing met on his arrival-- not an ENTIRELY-different character whose name we never learn. I can only guess that since he bribed the coachman to leave Marianne behind, he MUST have been working for the Countess! I guess that makes him this film's "Klove".

The dialogue in the tavern scenes is painful to listen to in spots. It's such a miracle when Peter Cushing arrives on the scene, every line, every expression, every inflection seems so natural, so "right". He acts very much the detective in this film, questioning people to gather information, always wanting and needing to know MORE about what he's dealing with. It was nice how he tried for some time not to hurt Marianne's feelings only doing so when it became absolutely necessary. (I strongly suspect they wound up getting married after this story, which would be a good explanation why we didn't see Van Helsing for several movies-- heh.)

I took note when he said, "SOME are capable of turning into bats." In light of his comments in the 1958 film, when he also said they're only just beginning to learn all there is to know about vampires, clearly, he's expanded his views. This only raises the question, if SOME vampires can turn into bats (and obviously Baron Meinster is one of them), WHY is it we never see COUNT DRACULA doing so in the Hammer Films? (Then again, the "Little Shop" editor did refer to Dracula as the world's most incompetent vampire-- considering HOW MANY different ways he's killed at the end of all those sequels.)

Now... this Scream Factory Blu-Ray is, so far, the 3RD one I've gotten with a DEFECT. When you pop it in, you get the following message:

"BD-ROM Date (USB) is not ready! Playback is currently active, but Error may occur."

Sure enough, as with the others this pops up on, when you're playing the disc, if you hit "stop", it goes to the beginning and you have to start over.

Has anyone here gotten this specific disc where this HASN'T turned up? At the moment, it seems the be the fault of the disc manufacturer, NOT the player.

I like taking breaks (intermissions) a LOT, so it's a damned good thing these things have "scenes" (or "chapters"), but even so, you still have to wait about TWO MINUTES before the menu comes up, and there's no way to skip past the intro.

So far, I've only run across this crap with SCREAM FACTORY... and DISNEY.

[profh0011]

Well, I didn't wait this time. I've been plugging in my VCR on weekends lately, and decided to plow thru my decades-old copy of "BRIDES" and get it out of the way. Turns out it was Philly's channel 57 (really a cable channel out of Georgia, I think), so it was in MUCH-better shape than my Philly channel 48 copy of "HORROR..." had been. That one was missing 15 MINUTES! This one, only 30 SECONDS. That's a hell of a difference.

Apart from being a TERRIBLY-fuzzy, faded film print, the SOUND was completely missing from 2 scenes-- the opening credits & the bit where Marianne tosses the Baron the key. (They call this, "technical difficulties"-- HEEHEEHEE.) Also, I noticed there seemed to be 2 short CUTS. One, which someone online actually mentioned had been "restored" to the film in recent years, when Van Helsing stakes the Baroness, you see a couple seconds of blood (missing here). The other, oddly enough, after he cauterizes the bite wound and pours holy water on it. The couple seconds where the wound completely FADES AWAY was missing here. Isn't that odd?

Mostly, today I took notes of how so often in sequels, they like to do variations on scenes from the earlier movies. Here, Marianne has dinner up at the castle (as Jonathan Harker did in the novel and Renfield did in the stage play and films based on it). "Aren't you eating anything?" "I have very little appetite." You can't help but think, "I never drink... WINE."
After seeing what's going on at the castle (but not being smart enough to understand any of it), Marianne ESCAPES the castle... as Harker did in the novel and a few other film versions.

When Van Helsing goes to the castle to investigate, it starts out like the scene where he did the same in "HORROR..." But it's the Baroness he finds has been turned into a vampire this time. When her son ATTACKS, it suddenly feels like we've jumped to the END of "HORROR...", as they fight across a large dining room table. The Baron tosses a candlestick, Van Helsing slides a cross across the table. When the Baron upturns the table, I'm suddenly reminded of when "Morgan" (Boris Karloff) did this in "THE OLD DARK HOUSE" !! Then the Barons RUNS for it, but unlike in "HORROR...", he's running OUT of the castle, not into it, and when he gets to the carriage, he makes his getaway. Lee's Dracula did the same without a lot less fuss in the earlier film.

The girls' school somehow feels a lot more like Seward's sanitarium as a setting for the middle of the story than Arthur Holmwood's house did in in "HORROR..." Funny enough, when Miles Malleson's Dr. Tobler turns up, he reminds me a lot of Nigel Bruce's "Dr. Watson"-- and Cushing's Van Helsing is a MUCH-nicer character than Cushing's Sherlock Holmes was (at least, in the 1959 Hammer film). This is also a bit funny when I consider someone pointed out that Harvey Korman's "Dr. Seward" seemed very much a tribute to Nigel Bruce as well! Imagine if Miles Malleson had played Watson instead of Andre Morell or Thorley Walters.

Has it ever seemed odd to anybody that David Peel's Baron Meinster gets a LOT more screen time and dialogue than Christopher Lee's Count Dracula ever did?

When Freda Jackson's Greta talks about the "bad company" the young Baron used to keep, and you connect that with Van Helsing's references to "the cult of the undead", it keeps strengthening my feeling that "KISS OF THE VAMPIRE" must very much be the "3rd" film in this series, except since it has neither Dracula or Van Helsing, it's been overlooked for decades. That one's NEXT on my "Hammer" list.

Finally, when Peter Cushing DIVES into action without help from a stunt-man near the end, I found myself thinking, "They couldn't have done this with Edward Van Sloan!" (The last horror story I've written to date, I "cast" both Lee & Van Sloan as characters... though in my case, they were both on the same side.)

[profh0011]

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA  (1925 / 1990)

I just wrote a letter to Rick Wakeman...

Chaney's Phantom has been my favorite silent for decades. I recall when Giorgio Moroder did his 1984 restoration of "METROPOLIS", sitting in the theatre thinking, "If only someone could do with with the "PHANTOM". Then in the early 90s where I was spending an obscene amount of money on expensive import CDs (many of them yours), I found someone had! "PHANTOM POWER" remains among my top 4 out of at least 60 CDs I have of yours.

It somehow took me until about 2000 to get the videotape. At the time, I'd just gotten online, and Amazon had at least a dozen versions of the Chaney film, each with a different score. I'd previously had a dodgy tape that ran at the wrong speed. The "new" version was better-looking, had tints all the way thru, and only the sequence in Christine's chamber had serious damage. I've watched this film at least once a year, only wishing the outfit that issued it hadn't done it on the CHEAP. A 90-minute film should have been at the 2-hour speed (SP), not the 6-hour (SLP) speed.

Some years later, TCM ran a restored version, and it was clear the print was in much-better condition, but crazy enough, the gorgeous orchestral score almost put me to sleep.

I've been looking forward to getting this on DVD for some time. I'm thrilled to finally get it. BUT... I'm afraid I have 3 serious criticisms. First, the Lee intro should be at the start of the film, not as a separate special feature. Second, WHERE ARE THE TINTS? After 20 years, it's shocking to suddenly be watching this in B&W, no matter how clear most of it is. (Even the scene in Christine's chamber, clearly inserted from a much-lower-quality reduction print, is in FAR-better condition than the one on the previous videotape.)

Third... WHAT HAPPENED with the final reel? After the whole film being so clear, the chase & climax is SO DARK I can't see half of what's going on. The action scenes look like a projector was shaking, and when they get to the riverfront, you can't even make out most of the mob when he's holding them back. After 20 years of watching a low-quality videotape that looks BETTER than this, the climax here is a major disappointment.

I'm glad this is out... but if there's any way for it to happen, this version of the film NEEDS a major upgrade. There's a lot of outfits out there who might be interested in getting involved, including Kino Lorber and Flicker Alley.

I feel like, if I were able to get a video editing program for my computer, I might be able to create a better version MYSELF.

By the way, when I went looking for this, I found it from a seller in Florida on Ebay. Also listed were at least a dozen different people selling the videotape, CHEAP. I think it's criminal nobody is manufacturing videotape machines right now. Someone should have the sense to get back into it, making them as a "specialty market" item.

Finally, there's a website called "Silent Era.com" that does reviews of video releases, that has a page with at least a DOZEN different versions of the Chaney film on DVD & Blu-Ray, from 1997 to 2015, and from excellent to terribly-cheap. Yours is NOT listed, so I contacted them and suggested they add it to their page.






quick response:

Thanks for the feedback, but no, there are no plans to do anything further with this release.

Best regards,
Wayne
RWCC



Tsk!

[profh0011]

Just sent the following to Kino Lorber:

I just got the 2016 DVD of the 1990 Rick Wakeman version of Chaney's "PHANTOM". After enjoying the videotape for 20 years, I was disappointed that the new DVD had NO tints, the Christopher Lee intro was a special feature instead of at the beginning where it belongs, and, WORST, the final reel was inexplicably SO DARK you couldn't see the action. I wrote to Rick suggesting it needed an update, but was told there are "no plans". So I thought I'd contact some outfits who MIGHT be interested. This is my FAVORITE version of my FAVORITE silent, and it deserves better treatment.

[profh0011]

Tonight's movie:

"MARK OF THE VAMPIRE" (1935)

Allegedly, MGM was worried that this film might be the target of a lawsuit by Universal because it was too similar to "DRACULA". The fact that Tod Browning was director and Bela Lugosi was a vampire who dressed exactly like Dracula, and Lionel Barrymore is playing an all-too-obviously "Van Helsing" character may have been the reason. So instead, without anyone telling the cast until near the end of production, they actually wound up doing an uncredited remake of Browning's LOST film, "LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT". This included the twist ending, which allegedly, Bela Lugosi was DEEPLY offended by!

This was one of the later films I ever recorded off cable, from TCM, in fact, so my copy's pretty decent. (If I ignore the non-stop crackle from my current VCR.) I think my sensibilities concerning art keeps increasing, as I find myself more and more aware of what's "good" and "bad" about books, movies, and so on. In this case, we have a film that is VISUALLY every bit as good or better than the 1931 "DRACULA". However, the script, directing, acting and EDITING all seem to be appallingly bad! (NOT Jess Franco bad, for heaven's sake-- just seriously WAY below what one would ever expect from 1930's "MGM".)

Things do improve in the last 15 minutes-- the very part of the film that so many find "controversial", "annoying" or "a total let-down". It's the first 45 minutes that bugged me. Just about every scene seemed as if it was cut too short, they kept jumping from one scene to another to another... Then I read up on the film, and it seems the studio actually CUT somewhere between 15-20 MINUTES out of it after "disappointing" previews. GOOD GRIEF! I wonder if that explains it?

No one is quite sure what was removed... but it does appear a lot of it was comedy bits. There's already a lot of "comedy" bits in the film as it is, but in its current state, they seem out-of-place and off-kilter. Then there's Barrymore's exagerrated, over-the-top performance. Perhaps this worked better BEFORE the studio butchered the movie? Who can say?

A quick glance at Amazon showed the film is going for around $60.00-- which suggests it's currently OUT OF PRINT. Good thing my tape is one of the better ones in my collection.

Funny but true: this film has WAY better BATS than any Hammer Film ever did.

Here's some irony: BELA LUGOSI narrates the film's trailer, and has FAR MORE dialogue in it than he does in the movie. Also, I'd swear there's at least 2 clips from the film in it that are NOT in the finished film! Perhaps they were among the butcher cuts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyvOdKm0eDo

[profh0011]

NICE write-up on the film...

https://www.classic-monsters.com/mark-of-the-vampire-mgm-1935/

[profh0011]

Well, I just got my 4th Hammer Blu-Ray in!

"THE KISS OF THE VAMPIRE" (1963)

Despite watching Hammer Films since the late 60s, I had never seen "THE KISS OF THE VAMPIRE" until today!! I just got in the brand-new Shout Factory Blu-Ray, which has 3 different versions of the film (including the extremely-dodgy TV butcher job), plus a pile of extras, including a documentary about James Bernard.

I'd seen Clifford Evans in THE PRISONER episode "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling" (the mind-swapping story where Nigel Stock spend most of the story playing Number 6!), as well as "THE LONG SHIPS", 3 "AVENGERS" eps and a "SAINT". Plus, it turns out he was also the main villain in the 8th "SAINT" film, "THE SAINT MEETS THE TIGER" (1941) with Hugh Sinclair. (Not one of the better ones, but oh well.)

Ever since I started reading about this film some time ago, I've been looking forward to seeing it, as it was obvious to me it was meant to be the 3rd in Hammer's "Cult Of Vampirism" series, mentioned by Van Helsing in the 2 previous films. And only last night I listened to the audio commentary on "THE BRIDES OF DRACULA" disc, so that really warmed me up for this, as so much that was written but not used in that film wound up in this one instead. I've actually written stories about a character somewhat similar to Professor Zimmer, so seeing Evans in this was quite a kick for me. It only seems a shame they never did a follow-up with Zimmer & Van Helsing crossing paths.



Cool review here:
https://www.blackgate.com/2017/10/07/kiss-of-the-vampire-1963-hammer-october/

[profh0011]

Today's acquisition:

Universal CLASSIC MONSTERS 30-Film Collection / BLU-RAY (1931-1956 / 2017)

An ASTOUNDING item. Pretty much "all" of the series films in ONE PLACE. You can buy 7 separate items, but it's much more convenient-- and actually cheaper-- to get them all in one go this way.

Not only are all these films together in one place, ALL brilliantly restored, with TONS of "extras"-- audio commentaries, documentaries, trailers, image galleries... amusingly, the 1931 Spanish "DRACULA" with Carlos Villarias-- mysteriously NOT mentioned in any of the promotional text-- is included as an "extra", so, really, it's 31 FILMS, not 30!

As some reviewer mentioned at Amazon (I bought mine elsewhere), these have the same "authoring defect" as Shout Factory. HOWEVER... just to COMPLICATE matters-- someone came up with a system where you can apparently "bookmark" the films so when you stop, you can pick up from that exact point later. (But WHY make this overly-complicated? WHAT THE HELL was wrong with just being able to hit "STOP" and then come back later?) The ANIMATED menus in their way seem as complex as the one on that Disney disc I bought last year. Too many designers forget the "KISS" rule: "KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!"

(You can also buy a regular DVD version of this set. Might have saved a lot of confusion.)

If I knew of this box's existence last year, I would have gone after it before starting my current "1930s" marathon. As it is, I now have 4 films to go back and watch AGAIN, now on Blu-Ray, before moving on to what was the next film in my marathon... "Bride Of Frankenstein".

[profh0011]

Last night, after having watched this STUNNING restoration of "DRACULA" (the only criticism I can make is that several scenes, the corners of the screen were TOO DAMN DARK to see anything, it wasn't that way on my rental 25 years back), I watched the Spanish "DRACULA" for only the 2nd time ever.

Most people tear the 3 leads a new one, but, NO real complaints here.  Hey, NOBODY ELSE is Bela Lugosi... or Edward Van Sloan... or Dwight Frye.  The actors playing Juan and Eva are arguably better in this version.

There's also the varying camera-angles, which I do feel STRONGLY improve the film.  Not to mention, the doors that mysteriously open and close on their own in the castle are accompanied with LOUD creaking noises (TOTALLY freaking Renfield out!!).  They're not in the Lugosi version.  On the other hand, Martin's rifle shot if MUCH louder in the Lugosi film.

It's ALL the extra bits of dialogue that are really shocking.  Since the story goes BOTH films used the SAME screenplay... I must conclude that Tod Browning pulled a "Clint Eastwood" and just began tearing out whole pages of dialogue to get it over with faster.  But TOO MUCH important stuff got completely lost in the process!

Fans like me may have gotten used to the Lugosi film over the decades, but after seeing the Spanish film, the Lugosi film suddenly seems CHOPPY and butchered.  Even if it isn't.

Now, in the Spanish version, Dracula asks if Renfield "burnt" all their correspondence.  And he DOESN'T say, "I... dislike... MIRRORS.  Van Helsing will explain."  (That entire bit, in the Lugosi film, is spoken from OFF-CAMERA!)

Anyway... the important stuff that comes to mind... After consulting with Seward, Van Helsing says "I will come to England with you!"  That whole scene takes place in a DIFFERENT country!  When we find Mina has had a "dream", they say it happened when her father was away-- in SWITZERLAND.  When they first question Renfield, he tells them about his education and credentials as a lawyer.  This really sets up a lot of background on this guy who almost a cipher in the shorter film. 

Earlier, at the theatre, the hypnotized usher calls out Dr. Seward to tell him he's got a phone call.  Dracula interrupts him and says, "Excuse me, I couldn't help overhearing your name."  Incredibly, in the Lugosi version, she DOESN'T MENTION Seward's name!!  (I just watched it again TONIGHT!)  WTF?  Somebody should have SLAPPED Tod Browning for this.

There's a bit where John asks "What could have caused this?" and the house-keeper interrupts by announcing the arrival of a guest, "Count Dracula!"  This is NOT in the Spanish version-- but a variation of it WAS in the Mel Brooks version!

Later, one of the nurses is put under Dracula's spell, so that she will remove the wolfbane from Mina's room.  We see her do it, but we DON'T see her being mesmerized by Lugosi.

The Spanish version shows a down-hearted Van Helsing & John exiting the cemetery, having STAKED Lucy off-screen, before seeing Renfield running across Carfax Abbey's grounds.  There's NO indication in the Lugosi version why they're suddenly outdoors.  I've read years ago that in the screenplay, it was written that they went to Lucy's crypt and STAKED her-- a scene later seen in the Hammer version, the Brooks version, and several others.  WAS that ever filmed in 1931?

Legend has it the epilogue was removed for reissues, and became lost.  In the Lugosi version, Van Helsing says, "I will be along presently."  WITH NO EXPLANATION.  In the Spanish version, however, he says, "I will fulfill my promise to Mr. Renfield", and we see him walk back to Renfield's body.

CRAZY enough-- in one of the documentaries that accompanies the Blu-Ray (I forget which one), they actually had a WRETCHEDLY-bad segment of the missing epilogue!!  In it, Edward Van Sloan addresses the audience, trying to calm them down after what they just witnessed.  Then, the HILARIOUS punch line, is when he says, "As for all this, just remember..."  And then he says the LAST thing you'd expect:

"...THEY DO EXIST!!" 

😆

Criminal that this was CUT by the censors in the late 30s.

[profh0011]

Last night, I watched "DRACULA" again with the Steve Haberman audio commentary.  He wrote Mel Brooks' "DRACULA", so I have a lot of respect for work he's done, but despite his passing on a lot of interesting stories and info, he got REALLY obnoxious in his commentary by spending a FULL THIRD of the time incessantly BAD-MOUTHING the George Melford SPANISH film.

I think both films are good, but BOTH films are flawed, in different ways.  Haberman seemed pathological in his obsessive INSISTENCE that EVERY difference between the 2 films, Tod Browning made "the correct" choices while Melford DIDN'T.  Having watched both films last Friday, I must say, I feel this is outright BULLSHIT.

And since last Friday, I've done even more reading about the film online, and I ran across a rather DISTURBING story that... apparently... when the film was reissued in 1936 (or was it 1938?), the Production Code saw 12-15 MINUTES cut from the film!!! The Spanish version was NOT reissued, so apparently, it was NEVER cut to pieces.  But the Bela Lugosi film, which already looked "choppy" to me when watched back-to-back with its Spanish counterpart, I suddenly realized, may have been the victim of CENSORSHIP.  And while he mentioned the loud groans when Renfield and Dracula die getting removed from the soundtrack, Haberman SUSPICIOUSLY does not mention ANYTHING ELSE from the film being cut. 

I also watched the brief "restoration" documentary again.  Now, I've seen-- and ENJOYED-- several of these in the last year.  But this one, done by UNIVERSAL, where they talk about their 100th anniversary, is so overwhelmed with "style" and excessive editing and cutting from one speaker to another with quick CLIPS here and there, struck me as being incredibly ARROGANT, CONCEITED and FULL of itself.  Like, this wasn't, "Here's what we did", it was more, "HEY, LOOK AT WHAT WE DID HERE!!!!!"  And while they insist they didn't "add or subtract" anything, there's also one clip where they show before-and-after, mention "making the image lighter or darker", and clearly show a clip where the "after" is TOO DAMNED DARK to see what you're looking at.

I could put up with almost every instance of that in the film... EXCEPT the climax, where Dracula confronts Renfield on that DANGEROUS-looking curved stairway.  You can barely make out ANY visual detail AT ALL. 

The next time I watch the Lugosi film, I'm going to have to remember to CRANK the brightness ALL THE WAY UP.

I hope to GOD none of the remaining 29 FILMS I've yet to plow through have this problem.  (The Spanish "DRACULA" sure as HELL DIDN'T.)

I think I need to do some digging, find the contact info for Universal Pictures Home Entertainment, and GIVE THEM SOME HELL.

👿

[profh0011]

I just sent the following to Universal Pictures Home Entertainment via their website form:


I just got the 2018 "CLASSIC MONSTERS COMPLETE 30-FILM COLLECTION" on Blu-Ray. LLLLOVE these movies. LOOOVE the package design! LOOOVE all the special features.

However...

The disc authoring problem with certain BLU-RAYs-- including these-- where, if you hit "STOP", it instantly goes back to before the menu, preventing you from easily taking a break in the middle of a film, is INEXCUSABLE. It's clearly a corporate decision designed to somehow SAVE money & increase profits, which, to me, is totally at odds with the whole idea of a Blu-Ray set like this being a "major improvement". You need to address this, BIG-TIME.

It almost makes me wish I'd bought the regular DVD version instead.

Second... while the Bela Lugosi "DRACULA" is spotless in its restoration, there are MULTIPLE places in the film where the picture around the edges and even in general becomes TOO DARK TO SEE ANYTHING. It actually flutters darker and lighter in the middle of some scenes. This was most annoying during the climax where Dracula confronts Renfield on that dangerous-looking curved stairway, where you CAN'T MAKE OUT half the visual detail!!

This problem DOES NOT EXIST on my 25-year-old copy of a videotape rental, and DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Spanish version. I hope to GOD none of the other movies were SCREWED UP in this fashion. I've been buying a growing number of stunning, crystal-clear restorations of films from the early 30s from a variety of companies, and NOT ONE of them has had this problem. HOW could you screw up such a "classic" film this way?

As a minor point... considering this does include the Spanish "DRACULA"... it's really 31 FILMS... not "30".

[The Australian Panther]

where, if you hit "STOP", it instantly goes back to before the menu, preventing you from easily taking a break in the middle of a film, is INEXCUSABLE. It's clearly a corporate decision designed to somehow SAVE money & increase profits,

That would drive me crazy too.
But I don't see how that would increase profits.
But can't you just hit pause? Works for me, unless you are going away for hours.
I have many blue-ray movies burned to disc on my laptop,and I mostly watch them. When I then go back to disc, its noticeable that that a disc is physical, has to be spun with a physical motor and every time you restart the movie, there is a physical jerk. Disconcerting and there is probably some degree of wear and tear on the machine. Are Blue-rays spun faster than DVDs? Which may be why they are defaulted to stop.
Just a thought.       

[profh0011]

One of the reviews at Amazon (I go there for info, then buy elsewhere-- HEEHEE) specifically mentioned if you leave it on pause for more than maybe 2 minutes, it goes back to the beginning.

In the last few years, I've very much gotten in the habit of watching films in 2 parts, with maybe a 5-hour intermission in the middle.  (This way, I get to eat 2 meals with my movies.)

This Universal set has a bizarre "bookmarking" feature, allowing you to mark a film at ANY point, and pick up exactly from there.  But why should I have to learn some COMPLEX procedure, instead of just hitting "stop"?

It was suggested the disc authoring problem (EVERY Shout Factory Blu-Ray also has it) somehow cuts production costs.  I have ONE Disney film on Blu-Ray, and it's a LONG one.  The menus on that are so excessively-complex and time-consuming to sit thru.  Crazy thing... it came with a free regular DVD... so... I watched that instead.  Kinda defeats the purpose of a Blu-Ray, doesn't it?   



With these Universals, I'm more concerned that parts of "DRACULA" were TOO DAMNED DARK, and when I watched "FRANKENSTEIN" last night, I went into the "advanced settings" on my TV and CRANKED the brightness and contrast up before I even started.  (Sometimes I miss my old JVC TV.  The controls on that remote were so WONDERFULLY simple!)  I haven't seen this problem from any other manufacturer so far.

Honestly, that short "restoration" documentary they included, compared to every other such one I've seen so far, seemed really ARROGANT.  Maybe that's the difference between someone restoring ONE classic film... and doing 31 FILMS all at once.  Too "assembly line".

[profh0011]

I've just watched "FRANKENSTEIN" 4 times in 5 days! 3 times on the Blu-Ray, and once on my 25-year-old video copy of a rental. In this case, I'm glad to say, there's NOTHING wrong with the restoration. I had my TV brightness settings normal, and could see EVERYTHING. (Not like "Dracula")

I just finished watching the 2nd of the 2 audio commentaries, each of which deals with things a bit differently. Fascinating stuff, like how there were about 5 different stage versions, plus the script Robert Florey worked on, and how bits of each wound up in the finished film (some not quite coherently) while I noted some turned up in MUCH-LATER films.

For example, the chemical case in "CURSE" came from one of the plays, as did the part about the creature committing suicide by leaping off a cliff (used in both "FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN" and "FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY").

I also didn't realize that in some earlier version, "Victor Moritz" was Elizabeth's FORMER fiance, thrown over because of an arranged marriage with Henry. She wasn't really in love with Henry, but was planning to go thru with the marriage because of certain social commitments. Adds a whole different layer to the thing! When first previewed, the film ended with both the monster AND Henry DEAD at the windmill-- leaving the door open for Victor to marry the woman he really loved. But then the studio decided the film needed a "happier" ending. Oddly, that happy ending was REMOVED by the censors for the 1937 reissue, but restored decades later.

[profh0011]

Tonight, I re-watched "KISS OF EVIL" with the audio commentary. Fascinating stuff that commented n a VERY WIDE range of various Hammer Films! Among the details... it seems in the 80s there was this FIRE at Universal Studios, and many of the "TV" masters were completely destroyed. This included all the material shot for NBC-TV for this film. This explains why the TV butcher job was not remastered... it was submitted to Shout Factory by a fan, from a copy recorded off The Sci-Fi Channel (in fact, you can see their logo in the lower-right corner for the length of the film).

Another bit of insane trivia... in the final epilogue-- part of the "new" padding-- there's not 1 but 2 shots of the village, with a horse-drawn carriage driving thru it... which was reused from "THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN". So, as they said, Pater Cushing & Sandor Eles have a cameo, though it's virtually impossible to make out that it's them n the carriage.
They were discussing how for decades, in many cases, heavily-butchered TV versins of some films were all you could see. But NOW... many of those TV versions don't exist at all!

On the other hand, they did mention that BOTH drastically-different versions of the film "TWO-MINUTE WARNING" can be found on the same Shout Factory disc. Somehow, TV censors found the original theatrrical story SO OFFENSIVE, they reshot half the film, almost completely chaning the story... and that TV story, for decades, was the only version any one could see... even in video releases!

[Captain Audio]

They were discussing how for decades, in many cases, heavily-butchered TV versins of some films were all you could see. But NOW... many of those TV versions don't exist at all!

A lost made for TV movie I hope will one day be found is "The People Trap". A distopian sci fi film set in 2067 when the earth has a population of 20 Billion and a race is held with the winner getting the last free acre of ground in the USA.
The race is run across the worst irradiated and polluted parts of New York where cannibals and street gangs abound. Runners are killed for their shoes or the oxygen masks that help them survive the polluted air.

A very well made film for its time with many A list actors and special appearances by Pearl Baily and Phil Harris as a married couple who use their cabin cruiser to smuggle cigarettes into the city.

[profh0011]

MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1932)

Like a "Bond" film, they pretty much THREW AWAY the original story, but at least some of the visual are cool. While Dupin becomes a medical student with a girlfriend in this, his relationship with his roommate & fellow student reminded me of Holmes & Watson if they knew each other in college.

Naturally, Bela Lugosi steals the picture. While Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) may have been obsessed but sane, "Dr. Mirakle" is a RAVING-MAD LUNATIC scientist in this!

I noted tonight the scene where people are getting drunk at the carnival seemed to have stepped out of "The Cask Of Amontillado"!

[profh0011]

I was reading about this film last night, and when I watched it again TONIGHT (comparing my 25-year-old VHS copy from AMC) I really noticed what some people were talking about.  It seems the first sequence of the movie was SUPPOSED to be the 2 men killing each other at the waterfront, followed by Mirakle abducting the prostitute, tying her up in his lab, having her DIE on him, and his lamenting, "Will I never find what I'm looking for?"

All this was supposed to take place BEFORE Dupin, his friend Paul and their 2 girlfriends go to the carnival and see Mirakle and his ape "Erik". W--T--F-- was Universal thinking when they CHANGED they order of the scenes around???  It makes no sense for him to have found "Camille"-- followed her home-- but THEN kidnap the hooker.  Apparently Robert Florey was pissed and spent the next several years making movies regularly at a different studio.

[profh0011]

Insomnia struck again today, so at 4 in the morning, I decided to watch "HORROR OF DRACULA" again.  When I bought this Blu Ray last November, I hadn't seen the Hammer series for several years, and I suspect the main thing I noticed was how sharp the picture was, how intense the colors were, and the fact that for the first time ever I was seeing it in WIDESCREEN.

This morning, I saw EXACTLY what the problem was.  Yeah, the ENTIRE MOVIE is way too dark.  I actually spent the first 10 whole minutes of the film playing around with the settings of my TV, to NO AVAIL.  It's impossible to pick up more detail by making things brighter, all you get is more solid GRAY instead of solid BLACK all over the place.  WTF did they do to this film???

Suffice to say... this problem DOES NOT EXIST with either the "BRIDES OF DRACULA" or "KISS OF THE VAMPIRE" Blu Rays I've bought since.

The ONE thing I can attest that Warner did right... when you hit "STOP"... although the tiny word "resume" does NOT come up on your screen, when you hit "play", the damned movie PICKS UP RIGHT WHERE YOU LEFT OFF.  Even-- when you SHUT OFF the machine!  Turn it back on-- and it starts playing again, EXACTLY where you shut it off.  EVERY single disc out there should work this way.  EVERY buyer of discs should write to complain to companies whose discs DON'T do this.  (I already have, to 3 different companies.)

Does anyone else think it's INSANE that at least 3 different adaptations of this story have been SCREWED UP on disc???  I was already intensely annoyed about the Universal "DRACULA" (1931), then I see this Warner Archive "DRACULA" (1958), and while I don't have it yet, I've heard horror stories about what was done with the John Badham "DRACULA" (1979), which I've had a VERY-FUZZY video copy recorded from HBO for the last 40 years.  Apparently, that film, some IDIOT decided to drain out 75% of the color, trying to make it look like a B&W movie.  My HBO copy isn't like that.  I have read more recently that there's a new disc which has 2 different "mixes" of the film, the 2nd being the ORIGINAL, which I saw in theatres 3 TIMES.

What is WRONG with some of these people?  They seem so proud of their HIGH-TECH computer remastering equipment... then they DON'T seem to know how to USE them properly.  I've seen the same thing for decades with comic-book artists using Photoshop to do the coloring.  They don't know when to "stop".

[profh0011]

THE MUMMY
(Universal Pictures / 1932)

I often find it fascinating to discover influences, in various directions.  Such is the case here.  Repeatedly, reviewers mention there is "no literary antecedent" for this film.  The story is clearly inspired by the 1921 discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun, which was the first-ever such tomb found that had not been plundered.  On the other hand, they were not able to find the tomb of his wife, Nefertiri, and there were these incessant stories in the news about a supposed "curse", as various people connected with the expedition kept dying of bizarre causes.

AND YET... the "B Movie Buffs" site started the following:  "The film also came on the tail end and is perhaps the most well-known of early Hollywood?s fascination with Egyptian storylines; early cinema had already produced over forty films on such material."  They didn't bother to list any of the "over 40 films".  That might prove interesting to look into.

Further, another site mentioned that the film bore an uncanny resemblence in spots to the 1890 short story, "The Ring Of Thoth", by Arthut Conan Doyle!  This tells of a student of Egyptology who, while visiting the Louve in Paris, meets Sosra, a priest of Osiris who was born 3500 years ago in Egypt.  He had discovered a remedy against death, and wanted to share it with his fiancee Atma, but she died before he could give it to her.  I need to read this thing!

www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php/The_Ring_of_Thoth

2 different screenwriters worked on the film (separately).  Initially about an Italian sorcerer named Cogliostro, the 2nd writer, John L. Balderston, changed the setting to Egypt, and named The Mummy "Im-Ho-Tep", after the real-life architect who designed the pyramids. Balderston had worked on both "DRACULA" and "FRANKENSTEIN", and wound up incorporating elements from the Lugosi film.  Various scenes, characters and even a couple of the actors wound up doing variations of bits from the earlier movie.  This included David Manners as the wimpy love interest, and Edward Van Sloan as the elder expert on the occult.  The young man who goes stark raving mad at the beginning is a parallel for Renfield, while Professor Whemple is a counterpart of Dr. Seward, except in this story, he's the father of the young man, rather than the leading lady.

Zita Johann was a noted stage actress who had a very real belief in the occult and reincarnation, making her perfect casting as Helen Grosvenor.  Karl Freund, the German cameraman who shot "METROPOLIS" and "DRACULA", directed the picture, and is described as an unholy terror to work with.

Some have described "DRACULA" as a love story, but anyone who's read the novel knows this is nonsense!  The only romance in the novel is between Jonathan & Mina, and, Lucy and her 3 suitors (she winds up choosing Arthur, the rich titled lord-- of course).  Any later version of "DRACULA" that involved reincarnation and tried to turn the lord of vampires into a romantic part was borrowing from THIS movie, NOT Bram Stoker's novel!

Watching this weekend, I found it notable that "THE MUMMY" not only inspired a growing list of other Egyptian-themed films, but vampire movies as well.  Reincarnation is a huge part of "BLACULA" with William Marshall as African Prince Mamuwalde; the Dan Curtis and Francis Ford Coppopla "DRACULA"s both have Mina as the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife.

But further, I noticed some influence of this film in Hammer's 1958 "HORROR OF DRACULA"!  The first character to see the "monster" winds up dead in the first act.  Once Helen's memories of her past lives have been reawakened in her, Im-Ho-Tep tries to summon her to him.  Unable to locate where he's set up shop, Muller decides that the next time Im-Ho-Tep tries to call her, they let her go, and follow her, so they can find him, and destroy him-- a scene that strongly parallels one with Van Helsing & Arthur Holmwood (Peter Cushing & Michael Gough).  Finally, at the end, following a flash of light, we SEE Im-Ho-Tep TURN TO DUST before our eyes, an act that was repeated with Christopher Lee 26 years later.

I'm happy to say Universal's Blu-Ray is CRYSTAL-CLEAR, while the sound only has bits of hiss here and there.  I only wish it didn't have that disc authoring problem.  Re-watching one of my 2 videotapes from the 90s (a copy of a rental, I think), the picture's fuzzy, there's damage everywhere, the sound is hissy throughout, and my TV kept fluttering at various times.  Well, I'll never have to put up with that copy again.

[The Australian Panther]

They didn't bother to list any of the "over 40 films".  That might prove interesting to look into.

well one of them would have been Cecil B. DeMille's 'The Ten Commandments' 1923.   

[Captain Audio]

THE MUMMY
(Universal Pictures / 1932)

I often find it fascinating to discover influences, in various directions.  Such is the case here.  Repeatedly, reviewers mention there is "no literary antecedent" for this film.  The story is clearly inspired by the 1921 discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun, which was the first-ever such tomb found that had not been plundered.  On the other hand, they were not able to find the tomb of his wife, Nefertiri, and there were these incessant stories in the news about a supposed "curse", as various people connected with the expedition kept dying of bizarre causes.

AND YET... the "B Movie Buffs" site started the following:  "The film also came on the tail end and is perhaps the most well-known of early Hollywood?s fascination with Egyptian storylines; early cinema had already produced over forty films on such material."  They didn't bother to list any of the "over 40 films".  That might prove interesting to look into.

Further, another site mentioned that the film bore an uncanny resemblence in spots to the 1890 short story, "The Ring Of Thoth", by Arthut Conan Doyle!  This tells of a student of Egyptology who, while visiting the Louve in Paris, meets Sosra, a priest of Osiris who was born 3500 years ago in Egypt.  He had discovered a remedy against death, and wanted to share it with his fiancee Atma, but she died before he could give it to her.  I need to read this thing!

www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php/The_Ring_of_Thoth

I've read that in part the screen play, especially the visuals, for "the Mummy" was inspired by this short story
https://archive.org/details/Weird_Tales_v16n03_1930-09_sas/page/n69/mode/1up
"A Visitor from Egypt" by Frank Belknap Long.

Another source of inspiration was the Bram Stoker novel "the Jewel of Seven Stars".

[profh0011]

Isn't it amazing how people in Hollywood will so often completely avoid crediting certain sources of inspiriation?

Like George Lucas was happy to mention Akira Kurosawa, and Flash Gordon, and perhaps even legends of King Arthur, but years later strongly stressed Joseph Campbell (which I'm pretty sure had NOTHING to do with it), and yet never once mentioned Jack Kirby.

Doing my Poe comics blog project, I've found a growing number of comics which had original elements NOT in Poe's stories, which later wound up verbatim in Poe movies.  Someone involved in the films HAD to have seen some of those comics-books!

I finally got started writing again, and the story I'm working on, I'm hoping when it's finished, I'll include a whole LIST of "acknowledgements".

[profh0011]

I've just watched "THE MUMMY" (1932) again with the 2nd of the 2 audio commentaries. This one discussed at great length the techniques of Karl Freund, as well as the evolution of the screenplay, and the likelihood that Freund collaborated with the credited scriptwriter John L. Balderston, who had earlier worked on both "DRACULA" and "FRANKENSTEIN".

While inspired by the 1922 excavation of King Tut's tomb (famous in the papers for its alleged "curse"), and very likely also borrowing from Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Ring Of Thoth" (1890), it started life as an unused screenplay named "Cagliostro", which is described as a very "pulp magazine" thriller with lots of "psuedo-science".

Balderston's massive rewrite borrowed heavily from his own version of "Dracula", but, something I never was aware of before tonight, the entire narrative of the tragic love spread across time appears to be a downright BLATENT swipe & inversion of H.Rider Haggard's 1886-87 novel "SHE", filmed multiple times, including by RKO in 1935!!! Balderston was in fact working on a screenplay for that story for Universal at the SAME time he was working on "THE MUMMY", and in the long run, Universal decided not to film it, but instead, sold the screen rights-- and Balderston's work-- to RKO, who somehow FAILED to credit Balderston for the film!!

So many horror fans often confuse Hammer's "THE MUMMY" as a remake of Universal's 1932 classic, when instead it's really a distillation of at least 3 of their later films-- "THE MUMMY'S HAND", "THE MUMMY'S TOMB" and "THE MUMMY'S GHOST". The reincarnation sub-plot and the climax where the Mummy carries the girl right into the swamp came straight from "...GHOST".

But now I realize, Hammer did a film that parallels "THE MUMMY"-- and it's their version of "SHE"!!!

Now I have more to track down. As it turns out, RKO's "SHE" came out the same day as MGM's "MAD LOVE". Both are now on my "wanted" list. I'm especially interested since I also just learned that "SHE" was considered a "lost" film for decades!! Is this a great time to be buying old movies or what?

[crashryan]

There's a colorized version of the 1935 She floating around YouTube. According to IMDB, "The sets, costumes, etc., were all prepared for a color film. At the last minute RKO pulled producer Merian C. Cooper's budget, so he was forced to shoot the film in black and white. Friend Ray Harryhausen and Legend Films later colorized the film as a tribute to Cooper." Apparently the film survived because Buster Keaton had a copy of the original print "stored in his garage." Keaton gave it to a film historian for preservation.

I'm not keen on colorized b&w movies, but I must say this is a pretty good job. The movie itself has its moments though overall it's a bit dull. Helen Gahagan is nowhere near as bad as she was reputed to be. Neither is she particularly good. It's worth the watch anyway.