I Just Watched...

[Lorna]

I DIDN'T mean to be harsh about THE MUMMY, it was one of my favorites when I was a kid and I certainly don't hate it, keep in mind also that I have seen it at least 30 times or more (seriously), so at this point, I might be really nitpicky.

it's just that, like DRACULA (which I also love even though it is lacking in many respects) there is SUCH POTENTIAL with THE MUMMY, and such A STRONG OPENING and camerawork and production values- the story (and acting- even from KARLOFF) just isn't on the HIGH level that they are, and it leaves some viewers with a perpetually unfulfilled feeling- wanting more and knowing that is but a dream to be always unfulfilled.

also also, the ENDING, where we just see a STILL PHOTO OF KARLOFF get aged and then there's a cut to MANNERS AND VAN SLOAN reacting as there is a TERRIFIC SOUND EFFECT of the MUMMY CRUMBLING- I JUST REALLY WISH THEY HAD LEARNED THEIR LESSON FROM 'DRACULA' AND GIVEN THE AUDIENCE A BIT MORE "BANG" AT THE FINALE.

(Honestly, I wonder if they could have constructed a DUMMY modeled on KARLOFF that was filled with dust and ash and sand to use at the destruction scene)

[Lorna]

on that note, I watched THE GHOUL (1933)- also a PRISTINE PRINT and also on YOUTUBE- this is a BRITISH HORROR MOVIE that featured KARLOFF and is A LOT like both THE MUMMY and THE OLD DARK HOUSE- only really surprisingly violent (despite a low-to-none body count) and some weird comic relief scenes that are DRY AS HELL, but had me laughing here and there, even if it was over how WEIRD the interractions are.

although KARLOFF's role is not large (maybe the same size as his part in THE OLD DARK HOUSE)- he DOMINATES his every scene and it's a bit as if he was getting some of the dust out of his hinges after having to be so restrained in movement in THE MUMMY AND FRANKENSTEIN.



ERNEST THESIGER is also in this as A KOOKY SCOTSMAN!!!!!

I have seen this movie a few times before, and even though it is truly unique, i always forget everything about it about two days later.

[Hibi]

I came across this article about David Manners. Very strange his star was removed. Has that ever happened before? I know some have been removed over the years at the Chinese, but they have limited space, while the Walk of Fame does not.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hollywoo ... _b_4254602

[txfilmfan]

I came across this article about David Manners. Very strange his star was removed. Has that ever happened before? I know some have been removed over the years at the Chinese, but they have limited space, while the Walk of Fame does not.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hollywoo ... _b_4254602

Odd, because the Hollywood Walk of Fame didn't even start until 1960, as an attempt to revive what was fast becoming a derelict neighborhood. Manners had been out of the Hollywood spotlight for a quarter century by then.

According to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which manages the scheme, stars cannot be removed. They may be vandalized, however, or stolen. I believe they attempt to replace these. I wonder if this is confusing some earlier "star" award with the current one started in the 1960s?

The star "honor" is a pay-for-play operation. Someone has to pay a fee to have one installed. It's currently $75K.

[Bronxgirl48]

I love the dialogue in THE MUMMY.

"Do you have to open graves to find girls to fall in love with?"

Karloff: "I regret I am too occupied to accept invitations"(the mummy is so polite)

"Good Heavens, what a terrible curse!"

"My love has lasted longer than the temples of our gods"

"I cannot speak before a boy. Come out, Sir Joseph, under the stars of Egypt"

and the ever popular "He--he went for a little walk!"

[HoldenIsHere]

I also have THIS COMPULSION where, even though I own them all on DVD- whenever any of the UNIVERSAL MONSTER FILMS become available on any format I have access to- I WILL WATCH.

I dunno WHY but DRACULA (31), FRANKENSTEIN (31), THE WOLF MAN, THE INVISIBLE MAN and THE MUMMY (1933) are all on youtube (like, officially sanctioned, not as bootlegs)- and in their PRISTINE RESTORATIONS (FRANKENSTEIN in particular GLOWS now) and I've watched them all for the kajillionth time each. i have youtube premium so i watches without commercials- no LUME LADY to interrupt one moment of MARIA OUSPENSKAYA'S SCREEN TIME.

LHF, do you (or does anyone for that matter) know why the story was changed in the 1931 movie DRACULA to have Renfield visit Count Dracula's castle at the beginning rather than Jonathan Harker (as happens in Bram Stoker's source novel)?

[Allhallowsday]

David Manners was an interesting person. He left Hollywood in the 30s and never looked back. He became an author in his later years and lived to be 97!

I disagree about The Mummy. I like it a lot.

One thing I know we all agree on is how stunningly beautiful it all is.

[kingrat]

A comparison of the 1960 (Sidney Lumet, TV) and 1973 (John Frankenheimer, AFT series of filmed plays for movies) versions of The Iceman Cometh. Both are highly recommended. The 1960, on YouTube, has starts and stops, but this isn't too distracting. I rather prefer the black & white to the 1973 dark brown version. Lumet uses more camera movement, a plus. Both do some trimming of the text, fine by me. 1973 eliminates the character of Ed Mosher, Harry Hope's brother-in-law.

Supporting cast: 1960 has the advantage. Harrison Dowd brings a delicate touch to Jimmy Tomorrow, quite moving as he explains why his wife was justified in having an affair because he would rather drink with his friends. Joan Copeland, not an actress I would ever think of casting as a tart, is wonderful, as is Julie Bovasso. If, like me, you've only known her marvelous performances in The Verdict and Moonstruck, you'll find it hard to believe that Bovasso was ever this slender. Tom Pedi, as Rocky the bartender, and Sorrell Booke, as Hugo the German anarchist, are in both, but Pedi has much more variety in 1960, although the deadpan approach in 1973 works, too, and Booke doesn't yell nearly as much in 1960 and also offers more variety of approach. Ronald Radd and Roland Winters even make the Boer War ex-combatants interesting. 1973 scores with Bradford Dillman as Willie Oban, the ex-Harvard man, a character who gets lost in 1960 but seems almost like a major role in 1973, thanks to Dillman.

Harry Hope, the saloon keeper: 1973's Fredric March is the clear winner. Farrell Pelly in 1960 rises to the occasion with his big scene, but March's movie star charisma counts for a lot.

Larry Slade, the ex-anarchist: Myron McCormick (1960) and Robert Ryan (1973) are both great. Ryan, literally a dying man, seems to bring a lifetime of experience to every look, every shot. I couldn't take my eyes off him. For Robert Ryan and Fredric March to end their careers with these great performances should make any classic film fan happy. However, Myron McCormick brings a somewhat lighter touch and greater variety of tone and expression, yet with the necessary depth of experience. Amazingly, McCormick was the original Luther Billis in Broadway's South Pacific, and was Andy Griffith's sergeant in No Time for Sergeants. And he's perfect as an alcoholic ex-anarchist?

Don Perritt, the young anarchist: This part is the hardest to play and make believable. The young Jeff Bridges (1973) does a good job, but the revelation is 1960's Robert Redford, a working actor who had not yet become a star. Redford may seem a little too middle-class in appearance, but Perritt has just come into some money. Redford digs more deeply into the character and finds a greater range of emotion. Could this be his finest work as an actor? Crafting his star persona, as he would do once given the chance, meant limiting some of his expressive possibilities.

Hickey, the great salesman, the Iceman himself: Really, you need to see both Jason Robards, Jr. (1960) and Lee Marvin (1973). Apparently the play failed because the original Hickey didn't have the measure of the role, and Robards in the first revival made it a success. Robards plays guilt and self-loathing like no one else. His approach to Hickey may have seemed like the only way. However, Lee Marvin has the charisma, the automatic alpha male authority, beyond what Robards can convey. In the crucial long confession scene Marvin uses some repetitious gestures; Robards, with the greater stage experience, is perhaps technically better, though with the occasional Method mannerism. Each does a fine job in his way with this long and difficult scene. The main difference is that Robards plays Hickey as being crazy, whereas Marvin clearly plays him as sane but then pretending to be crazy to allow his friends to drift back into their pipe dreams.

We are fortunate to have two versions this fine of one of the best American plays.

[Bronxgirl48]

ScreenPix has been airing the 1943 REVENGE OF THE ZOMBIES, such a delightful follow-up to 1941's comedy-horror low-budget classic KING OF THE ZOMBIES.

The zombie cry: "Ahhhhhhh-ooooooo!" (try it and see who or what comes forward)

Mantan Moreland reprises his original role but Madame Sul-te-wan is now Mammy Beulah, cackling as she stirs up good Southern fare for Nazi mad scientist John Carradine, no doubt pining for weinerschnitzel and large steins of German beer.

An Axis zombie army is Carradine's goal -- his shambling undead would conquer the world. Right.

John's wife has other ideas, which is interesting since she has supposedly shuffled off this mortal coil....at least for the moment.

Mantan's lady love (the African-American maid, who else) tries to warn him: "Things walking that ain't supposed to be walking"

Robert Lowery's remark upon opening a door where a skeleton resides: "Mmmm, Meatless Tuesday"

And just whose side is Bob Steele on? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

A word of warning for villains who tell zombies to bind and gag an enemy: don't let them, since Lowery is able to untie himself in about two minutes.

[Fedya]

Altered States (1980).

Apparently, somebody gave Paddy Chayefsky an odd idea: write a darkly comic version of the third act of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

William Hurt plays a college professor who as a student was interested in sensory deprivation tanks and what the experience is like. Years later as a professor he learns about a tribe in Mexico that uses magic mushrooms to induce hallucinations. He gets the brilliant idea to combine that with the sensory deprivation tank.

The result is a trip that leaves him in what he thinks may be a de-evolutionary ape-like state. As his de-evolution happens, so the movie devolves from an interesting concept piece into unintentional comedy. Hurt comes up with the even more brilliant idea of: having a longer trip in the sensory deprivation tank!

The movie winds up being a misfire, but a fun misfire. 6/10

[Lorna]

LHF, do you (or does anyone for that matter) know why the story was changed in the 1931 movie DRACULA to have Renfield visit Count Dracula's castle at the beginning rather than Jonathan Harker (as happens in Bram Stoker's source novel)?

OMG AN UNSOLICITED DRACULA QUESTION!!!!!

(I am not exactly an expert, but damned if I'm not pretty well-versed in most things DRACULATED.)

The 1931 FILM(S) [including the SPANISH VERSION] are based on a STAGE PLAY by HAMILTON DEANE, why DEANE decided to make RENFIELD the agent visiting DRACULA and not HARKER, I don't know- BUT it's the only change he made to the story that was a good one- it totally works and it helps to keep HARKER as the "straight" romantic, un-corrupted and conventional 1930's lead. and it gives RENFIELD a more understandable and clear relation to the story and the plot.

i mean, I'm HONESTLY not picking on him, really I'm not, but DAVID MANNERS was gay enough as it was, a scene of BELA going in towards his neck would've blown people's feeble, malnourished minds in the GREAT DEPRESSION. [PERSONALLY, I think they would've made an adorable couple.]

in the novel, RENFIELD is just a random patient of the asylum, as I recall, there is nothing to explain his connection to DRACUlA; however there is a character named MR HAWKINS who is HARKER'S BOSS in ENGLAND and it is left open-ended as to whether he knows what he is sending his young employee in for- this dymanic was explored in the 1922 NOSFERATU and the 1979 version too- which kinda combines the HAWKINS and RENFIELD characters into one.

EDIT: JUST TO TACK ON, in the novel DRACULA there is a rather insensitive, but interesting, point established that DRACULA has a special grasp on THE MENTALLY ILL and can rest in the GRAVE OF A SUICIDE VICTIM as if it were his native soil- this last bit was explored in a GODAWFUL 2006(?) MASTERPIECE THEATER version of DRACULA that has some TERRIBLE ACTING.

[Lorna]

[i]i mean, full disclosure I've re-watched THE MUMMY (1933) in parts and in full since my review and it's such a nice restoration and there are scenes where DAVID MANNERS just GLOWS he's SO EFFING HANDSOME.
[/i]

[Swithin]

[i]i mean, full disclosure I've re-watched THE MUMMY (1933) in parts and in full since my review and it's such a nice restoration and there are scenes where DAVID MANNERS just GLOWS he's SO EFFING HANDSOME.
[/i]

I love Zita Johann's response to Manners: "Do you have to open graves to find girls to fall in love with?"

Regarding Renfield: It makes for a much more effective film to have expanded the role of Renfield, who has since become one of the iconic horror film characters.

[j.lunatic]

Hundreds of Beavers (2022)

Get your mind out of the gutter--it's about a mild-mannered applejack distiller who is ruined by marauding beavers. He responds by reinventing himself as a backwoods fur trapper.

It's a live-action film (the beavers and other animals are played by adult-sized humans in blatant mascot costumes) inspired by video games (which meant that certain elements didn't impress me as much as they did younger audience members). But one made by people clearly familiar with Looney Tunes physics, silent comedy (especially Buster Keaton), and the subgenre of films of life in trapping/hunting societies. This really amused me.

If you have a chance to see this in a theater, with an audience able to appreciate these elements, don't delay. Pregaming with your mind-altering substance of choice isn't necessary but definitely doesn't hurt. (AFI Silver was offering a Hundreds of Hangovers cocktail, based on applejack.)

[Lorna]

YOU KNOW, my feelings about THE MUMMY and ZITA JOHANN'S performance in THE MUMMY are very much the same-

I'm torn numerous times every minute between whether it's wonderful, awful, wonderfully awful, camp, meant in sincerity or tongue-in-cheek- one thing for damn sure, IT'S MEMORABLE and sure has some intriguing moments. (also, the story of her experience filming the movie is notewrthy)