Print

[profh0011]

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS  (1956)

I keep trying to remember if I ever watched this again after I taped it way back in the 80's.  If not, this was only the 2nd time I've seen it. I kinda laughed to myself, at the beginning, saying, "From the director of DIRTY HARRY!"

Of course, then, the other image I have in my head is Kevin McCarthy as the villain in UHF.

[josemas]

I know very little about that period, but it sounds to me like the animation biz had some rotten personalities involved in it.

I think that's probably true about a lot of businesses, then and now.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

DRACULA  (1931)

It's amazing to me how some films, after you've seen them 20 times or more, can keep getting better!

[bowers]

U.S. tv is getting pretty dismal, with most of the series in repeats. PBS recently aired some good biographies on "American Experience" (Annie Oakley, Billy the Kid, and Jesse James) and "Nova" did a great episode on a possibly unknown DaVinci drawing. Watched two very good journalism/suspense series from BBC America- "State of Play" (Bill Nighy is great!) and "The Hour". Both are fast-paced and very well written. Joe's recent post about classic animation got me to break out my old VHS tapes and watch some with my granddaughters. "Hoppity Goes to Town" (The Fleischer's unsuccessful challenge to Disney) was  well received by the kiddies, as were the old Lantz and Warner classics. Cheers, Bowers

[profh0011]

Just finished THE GANGSTER CHRONICLES (a mere 13 episodes) for the first time since the early 80's. It's amazing how many actors were on this show that became better-known later on, especially Joe Penny (Ben "Bugsy" Siegel) and Markie Post (Chris Brennan).  Even Robert Davi (Vito Genovese), who at one point was warned, under threat to his life, to STAY OUT of the narcotics business, later starred as the drug lord "Sanchez" in LICENSE TO KILL.

I've got the Robert Stack UNTOUCHABLES lined up... but first, I'm thinking of watching THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT and THE COTTON CLUB.

[profh0011]

Just saw this for the 2nd time in almost 30 years. It's a time capsule, really takes you back to a period when the rules of movie-making had been tossed out the window, and the results were hit-and-miss.

I wish people would stop going on and on and on about Robert DeNiro... he got 5TH billing, for cryin' out loud. JERRY ORBACH (who's almost unrecognizable, he's so young!) got TOP billing and deserves it.

Strange but true... my best friend raved about Jimmy Breslin's book for years, and finally loaned me his copy to read. I read it, loved it. Then, sometime later, I saw the movie. My Dad always said, if you're ever gonna see a movie and read the book it was based on, see the movie FIRST-- otherwise, the movie will ALWAYS disappoint. He'd be right on this one. I'm NOT one of those fanatics who feels a movie "MUST!!!!" be accurate to a book it's based on... but a LITTLE more accuracy here might have helped.

Examples: the BEST, most MEMORABLE line in the book, is nowhere in the film. It's when Sally Palumbo gets up in the morning, and Big Momma sends him on his way to go to "work". Every day she hands him his gun and says the same thing... "NO MISS!!!" (Translation: If you SHOOT somebody, make sure you HIT 'em!)

Second, the most memorable set-piece in the book was the hit on Baccala at the Italian resturant. The one that went wrong. I was reminded, all over again, that this was changed... LORD KNOWS WHY!!! In the movie, they kidnap Water Buffalo, sic the lion on him, and he has a heart attack. In the book, after they fail to kill Baccala (I'm not sure, it's been so long, but I THINK they shot and missed!!), they run out of the resturant to escape. Water Buffalo runs out into the street, and they RUN HIM OVER with their car-- BY ACCIDENT!!! Later that night, they throw him off the Verrazano Narrows Bridge... where instead of hitting the water, he hits a tugboat. At least they kept the last part.



It cracked me up to realize Herve Villazhaise was dubbed for the entire film by PAUL FREES-- best known as the voice of Boris Badenov-- who also narrated the entirely of Roger Corman's THE ST. VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE.

[narfstar]

I agree that the movie always disappoints after the book, even a not great book. I read the 7% Solution and liked the book even though it was long and not that good. The movie disappointed. But I have found that I can't read a book after I have seen the movie. It may be just me but the effort of reading just is not there when I have an idea what is supposed to happen

[profh0011]

I almost never read novels these days anymore. But in the 70's & 80's, I used to read a lot of novels, as well as novelizations. Sometimes I'd read those before seeing the movies. Crazy, huh? In those cases, the movies STILL disappointed, either because the novelizations fleshed things out and added stuff that wasn't there, or they were based on scripts where the movie had been changed, or edited, sometimes leaving stuff out.

THE BIG SLEEP with Robert Mitchum was actually my introduction to Philip Marlowe, Raymond Chandler-- AND Robert Mitchum.  That film gets a lot of hate at the IMDB, but it's one of my favorites, to this day. Not long after seeing it, I read the novel.  WOW.  One of the few instances where the movie obviously followed the book, almost page-for-page (other than taking place in the wrong decade and the wrong country-- heh). There's one sequence early-on that's different... but if I'm not mistaken, it was a point of contention, where the book failed to explain an important plot point-- and the movie, DID.

ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was a crazy thing. The first time I saw it, ABC split into 2 parts over 2 consecutive Mondays. A week between halves!! By a wild coincidence, I was up to that book in my protracted reading of all the bond books.  I read the book IN BETWEEN the 2 halves of the movie.  Over the years and many times I've seen the movie, I slowly came to realize that, while the movie steered closer to the book than ANY other Bond film, ever-- it also had changes in almost every single scene. And for once... the movie was a HUGE improvement. How often does that happen?  They took a damn good book-- and made an even better movie out of it!


It crossed my mind this morning that, stylistically, THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SDHOOT STRAIGHT reminds me a bit of Woody Allen's BANANAS. Both were made around the same time, and both almost have a semi-documentary feel about them.  But BANANAS was a LOT funnier. It's too bad, because that Jimmy Breslin book really was a riot.

[profh0011]

If you watch the 1970 feature film HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS, you'll see exactly where so much of the 1979 DRACULA comes from. The entire plot structure, certain key scenes, even a couple of camera shot (the first time you see Dracula walking, it's a close-up of his boots). Both have the vampire arrive at the beginning, on the run at the end, and connive to get the boyfriend out of the way so he can have dinner with the guy's fiancee. Just watched the '79 film again tonight, and something I hadn't noticed before, both have the vampire hunter STAKED to death, so killing the vampire is left to the wimpy boyfriend! And then, BOTH have a completely un-called for "ambigious" bit at the very end, half-suggesting that maybe the vampire ISN'T dead and might return for a sequel. (Sheesh.)


By the way, having read the novel, I now feel Christopher Lee is the ONLY actor who really, really captured the personality of the guy in the book. He was a MONSTER!!

The 1977 BBC version is BY A WIDE MARGIN the most accurate to the book (if one really cares about such things) and on that score, totally puts the Coppola film to shame. It also has the very BEST Van Helsing in Frank Finlay. He's so close to the guy in the book-- except for his character being modified JUST a tiny bit, to make him a little nicer, and less culpable in the death of Lucy and NEAR-death of Mina. In the book, Dracula almost succeeds because Van Helsing is TOO SECRETIVE-- and then, SEXIST. Mina proves she's the smartest person in the story, and after she does so much, Van Helsing decided to leave her out of things, "for her own protection". And doing this leads DIRECTLY to her almost becoming a vampire. Makes me wonder if Bram Stoker didn't write it that way deliberately, to make a point of how stupid that kind of sexist attitude is.

The '77 version is let down by only 2 things-- the unfortunate cheap look of being shot on VIDEO (and the related video "effects"), and, it NOT having Christopher Lee. Louis Jourdan is WONDERFUL-- but he's almost too nice! it was a real missed opportunity, to finally "do the book" right, but NOT to get the actor who was practically born to play the part (and who loves the novel as much as he does). I can only imagine they wanted to distance themselves from the Hammer Films... or maybe the Jess Franco adaptation (which ALSO starred Lee).

[josemas]

The Lil Missus and I have three horror flicks we'll be watching soon which I haven't seen since the 1970s.

One is Jess Franco's Count Dracula (1970) which I remember having a great beginning and then going downhill from there.  It is the one Dracula movie though that I always thought had the most accurate looking Dracula as to Bram Stoker's description in the novel.

The other two are Dan Curtis' productions of Dracula (1974) and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) both of which starred Jack Palance.  My vague memory of both of these is that they were very good but it has been a long time since I've seen either.  Hope they hold up well.

Best

Joe

[profh0011]

I have the Dan Curtis DR. JEKYLL, it is a wonderful piece of work. That story, I've found, is yet another one where over multiple versions, EACH one is significantly different, yet each one manages to be fascinating in its own right.  For example, if memory servers, in the silent (with John Barrymore), Jekyll's future father-in-law dislikes the fact that Jekyll is so "pure", and so "not ready" to be a suitable husband for his daughter. The man actually encourages, virtually DRIVES Jekyll to debauch himself with as many women as possible, to get it out of his system, so he'll then be ready to settle down in marriage.  Outrageous, isn't it?  By comparison, the "classic" version with Frederic March, the future father-in-law is such a stuck-up stick-in-the-mud, even the slightest HINT of impropriety has him on the verge of cutting off his daughter's engagement.  (He seems to represent, onscreen, the forces that created The Hayes Office and The Production Code!)  Talk about opposite extremes!

Some of the later music used on DARK SHADOWS was actually written for and made its debut in the DR. JEKYLL film, first.



If the Louis Jourdan COUNT DRACULA feels like a "Reader's Digest" version of the novel, the Jess Franco COUNT DRACULA feels like a "Reader's Digest" version of what the BBC did 7 years later.  I personally enjoy BOTH versions, though the Franco film is seriously let down on the technical side (horrible camera-work, sound, editing, lighting, the works). I do have the score on CD, though (downloaded from someone's blog). It's rather monotonous, but somehow "works" for the film, and I like to jokingly call it the "EVIL" version of THE THIRD MAN score.

I'm frustrated that, somehow, I never did get a copy of the Dan Curtis DRACULA. I've seen it-- ONCE-- but not since the 70's!  Damn.

Every time I watch something Curtis directed himself, his skill and talent continues to rise in my eyes. If he were still alive and active as a director, he'd be on my short list of directors I'd love to have turn some of my own stories into movies. He really knew what he was doing.

[profh0011]

DOCTOR WHO:  TERROR OF THE AUTONS

[josemas]

I was just looking over the feature films I've watched the last couple of months. 

A rather eclectic bunch.

Unstoppable-2010-Denzel Washington suspense flick.
The Social Network-2010-excellent script about the founding of Facebook.
The Man Who Wouldn't Die-1942- Lloyd Nolan in another fun Michael Shayne mystery.
Paul-2011-sci-fi comedy.
Bag of Bones-2011-Pierce Brosnan in so-so adaptation of Stephen King book.
Winnie the Pooh-2011-very enjoyable Disney old school animation.
Taming of the West-1939-Wild Bill Elliott B-Western.
Dinty-1920-Wesley Barry and the other kids in the film steal the movie from the adult stars in this comedy-drama.
Invasion of the Star Creature-1962-ultra cheap-o drive-in sci-fi flick. The stuff I grew up watching on World Beyond.
House on Bare Mountain-1962- Bob Cresse does his best take on playing a ripoff of Jonathan Winters' old granny in this incredibly cheap (shot in three days) grind-house flick that has almost no plot and has at least one third of it's barely one hour running time consisting of gratuitous nudity.
Rango-2011-fun animated feature.
My Week with Marilyn-2011-great cast, great script!
Hoopla-1933-Clara Bow looks great in this pre-code story of carney workers.  Her last film.  A remake of the silent film The Barker.
Kung Fu Panda 2-2011-fine animated sequel.
Super 8-2011-J.J. Abrams/Steven Spielberg collaboration reminded me of my younger days shooting films on 8mm.
That Man Bolt-1973-Fred Willimason Blaxploitation classic.  I somehow mixed this one when I was doing a weekly Blaxploitation fest some years back so was glad to finally run it down.
Bedazzled-1967- showed the Lil Missus this excellent comedy variation of Faust starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore (and Raquel Welch as Lust -Va-va-voom)!!!
The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo-2011-I found this American remake to be better than the Swedish original.
Cross Country Cruise-1934-a fun pre-coder.  Something of a variation on It Happened One Night.
Frankenstein Meets the Space Mosnter-1964- another World Beyond sci-fi cheapie from my childhood returns.
Invasion of the Bee Girls-1973-this seemed to be always playing at one drive-in or another during my teen years but I never caught it until now.  Better late than never.
Calgary Stampede-1925-fine Hoot Gibson western shot partially on location in Canada.
Fright Night-2011- not bad but I still prefer the 1980's original.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs-2009-animated feature was better than I expected.
Hollywood Story-1951- Richard Conte in a rather obscure but interesting film that's main story concerns his research into a 1920s Hollywood mystery (loosely based on the William Desmond Taylor murder).
Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus-2009- lame low budget sci-fi effort from The Asylum.
The Artist-2011- my favorite film of 2011.  Nuff said.

and currently watching Beyond the Fringe-1964- once thought lost this film of the gala farewell performance of the famous stage performance was recovered a few years ago and shows Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Alan Bennett and Jonathan Miller bridging the comedy gap between the Goons and Monty Python.

Best

Joe

[paw broon]

Linda and I are enjoying Body of Proof, despite the occasional mawkishness.

[narfstar]

New British slang for me. What is mawkishness?

[profh0011]

Tonight:

SON OF DRACULA  (1943)

A minor masterpiece, which continues to grow on me more with each time I see it.

Some years back, it hit me this film really felt like the blueprint for the Barnabas Collins story on DARK SHADOWS.  You've got a big mansion ("Dark Oaks"), 2 sisters, 1 blonde and 1 brunette, the latter of whom is obsessed with "morbid" thoughts; there's this mysterious stranger from Europe who's not what he says, and who gets involved with the brunette; the jealous boyfriend, who investigates the "Count"; there's also the sheriff, the doctor, the lawyer, and, get this-- the expert on occult matters, a heavy-set guy with a foreign accent (curisously, the "Count" doesn't have a foreign accent, but the vampire-hunter DOES). There's the "guest house", the room in the basement where someone finds a coffin, and even mention of a "playroom" in the mansion.

The plot, the pacing, the writing, the acting, the special effects, all top-notch (probably the BEST use of effects in any Universal "Dracula" movie outside of the A&C comedy). The only thing that drags it down a bit, is the casting of Lon Chaney (Jr.), and to tell the truth, for most of the film, he's pretty damn good!  One of his better performances, I'd say. I just have trouble accepting him as THE "Count Dracula". Halfway thru, it was suggested he might be a "descendant", and frankly, that would make more sense to me.  Perhaps Universal thought so too, for the next time "Count Dracula" appeared, in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, mention was made of the sideshow coffin containing "the skeleton of the ORIGINAL Count Dracula!"  (After being cremated at the beginning of DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, there would be just the skeleton left. And that would sidestep how the guy got destroyed in America but wound up touring Europe. Of course, my own theory is that SOD takes place AFTER A&CMF-- partly because his "excuse" for being absent in the daytime is doing "scientific research", which sounds like a carry-over from HOUSE OF DRACULA and the A&C movie.)

Perhaps the most disturbing element of the story is that the brunette ("Kaye") deliberately lures Dracula, marries him, then plans to destroy him, so she and her true love can be undead immortals together. After she becomes a vampire, she's creepier than the Count!!!

[narfstar]

It has been a really long time since I watched the Universal Dracula and Frankenstein movies. You got me wanting to.

[narfstar]

Did anyone watch the River? I have not. I figure it was going to be great or horrible. Then I worry that if it is good it will have a terrible ending like Lost

[profh0011]

"It has been a really long time since I watched the Universal Dracula and Frankenstein movies. You got me wanting to."

Don't forget The Wolf Man, he's tied in so much with them.

And make sure you include WEREWOLF OF LONDON. I saw that once, in the 90's, as part of a marathon I did with my Dad of all those films. And what amazed me was to learnb that the "cure" for being a wereolf was IDENTICAL to the one used in HOUSE OF DRACULA-- so I put both films in the same continuity. Especially since it finally "explained" to me why Larry Talbot was still having his problem in the A&C movie.

[josemas]

Did anyone watch the River? I have not. I figure it was going to be great or horrible. Then I worry that if it is good it will have a terrible ending like Lost

I watched the first two episodes on Hulu the other day.  It was okay.  I was wondering if it is going to be miniseries or an ongoing series though.  I think I would get tired of it if it if kept on going with the current plot-line (the search for the missing husband/father) too long.

As to how it will end who can say?  Sometimes I think it's better to concentrate on enjoying the journey of the series/movie/book rather then to lay too much emphasis on the ending.

Best

Joe

[paw broon]

"New British slang for me. What is mawkishness?" narfstar
A bit scmaltzy, in this case.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mawkish

[narfstar]

thanks Paw I did not think it was a dictionary word figured it was just slang

[paw broon]

Nessun problema 'n' 'at, pal.  A wee bit Italian and some West of Scotland corrupt English there.  Lots of glottal stops here and you'd find me difficult to understand at times when talking fast with certain friends.  Mind, in Italian class, we occasionally have to explain some Scottish words because she can't get the accent and local words confuse her. Much worse for us, grappling with the Italian subjunctive. Great fun.

[profh0011]

The last week or so...

Doctor Who:
SPEARHEAD FROM SPACE
TERROR OF THE AUTONS
THE MIND OF EVIL
THE CLAWS OF AXOS
COLONY IN SPACE   (severaly edited)
THE DAEMONS
THE SEA DEVILS
THE TIME MONSTER

[profh0011]

THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL
THE NIGHT STALKER


Just noticed-- Elisha Cook Jr. is in BOTH of these!