What I'm watching

#118 Creature From the Black Lagoon

After discovering some fossilised remains in the middle of the Amazonian rainforest, Dr Maia (Antonio Moreno) returns to his university to discuss the findings with his friends Dr David Reed (Richard Carlson) and Reed’s girlfriend Kay (Julie Adams). Thinking the remains are some unknown missing link between the evolution of animals coming onto land from the oceans, the 3 along with 2 other scientists and a river boat captain make for the black lagoon where the remains were discovered. Little do they know of the horrifying creature which awaits them there.

Although made some time after the universal horror craze of the 30’s and 40’s, the creature from the black lagoon is considered by many to be the last of the original universal monsters while other films of the same time were focusing more on the horrors of the atomic age and monster from beyond the stars.

This is a really entertaining film. The set up and reveal of the monster is effective and the use of only its arm for the first 40 minutes or so, makes it genuinely kind of creepy. I was surprised how effective it could still be even now. Like all the best horror movies it was relying on making our imagination do all the work. When the monster is finally revealed however, it does look a little goofy now but still effective enough when showing some of the underwater fights.

The cast are all fine in their parts (no real front runner among them as the better actor) but they all play their roles well and react as you would expect someone to when confronted by this unknown force.

The main story is a cross between the dangers of science and beauty and the beast. The monster would have left them all alone and been perfectly content if it hadn’t gone after the girl. There is also the question of how far are people willing to go for science/personal greed. It’s a little heavy handed for both sides of the argument but interesting enough to watch.

Unlike most of the other monster films this one was entertaining all the way through and avoided the pacing problem a lot of them had, leaving only an enjoyable creature feature 4/5

#115 The Mummy (1932)

After uncovering an ancient scroll next to some mummified remains, the archaeologist (Arthur Byron) reads it only to have the mummy reanimate itself and escape. Several years later the archaeologist’s son (David Manners) is led by a mysterious man (Boris Karloff) to another tomb. As the site is excavated it becomes clear the man, the tomb and a young girl (Zita Johann) bearing a striking resemblance to the tombs inhabitant all have some sort of connection to one another.

This was another enjoyable flick from the universal monster era. This film isn’t quite what you expect in terms of a mummy movie however. Karloff is only really in the bandages at the very beginning of the film while the rest of the time dressing in normal clothing.

Karloff was probably more interesting in this role than that of the monster in Frankenstein but I imagine that’s because he gets to talk more in this one. All the other actors play their parts well and the story is interesting enough to keep you entertained.

This film seemed to be somewhat linked to Dracula for some reason. The opening credits use the same classical score and two of the lead actors (Manners and Edward Van Sloan) plays some what similar roles in both films. It’s also quite slow paced, like Dracula was, and has the same problem of dragging along just a bit.

A couple of interesting facts about this film are that it’s one of the only universal monster movies not to have a direct sequel. 3 other mummy movies would be made after it but they all centred around a different mummy which portrayed the slow shambling mummy we are more familiar with.

Also the 1999 film staring Rachel Wiesz and Brendan Fraser is loosely based on this version, rather than the others. This can be seen in the desire of Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) to kill a living person to reincarnate his former lover in much the same way Karloff’s Imhotep does.

Better than Dracula but not as good as Frankenstein 3/5

#113 The Invisible Man

A mysterious man (Claude Rains) clad all in bandages disturbed a peaceful rural village with his presence staying at the inn. After refusal to pay the rent and attacking the innkeeper and his wife the police are called for. After they arrive he reveals himself to be completely invisible and escapes killing a policeman in the process. The hunt is then on but how can they ever trap him if they don’t know if he’s standing in the same room as them when the make the plans.

This is another one of the Universal monster films, based loosely on the book by H.G.Wells, and I think it might be my favourite of them so far. Rains, in only his 2nd role, gives a masterful performance and rolls off prose good enough to rival any Shakespearean actor.

Jack Griffin, the invisible man, is an interesting character driven mad by the process which made him the way he is. At some points he’s sympathetic and melancholy trying to find a cure, others he’s balls to the wall insane killing random people and merrily singing little tunes as he skips down the street. You both want him to be caught and yet are equally as happy when he gives the authorities the slip once again.

The effects are fantastic for the time period and, while some of the wire work looks a little dated now, most of them still work rather well.

Definitely give this one a look if you get the chance 4.5/5

#111 Bride of Frankenstein

Starting directly after the events of Frankenstein, the monster (Boris Karloff) survives by falling into a water pit beneath the windmill. Frankenstein (Colin Clive), miraculously surviving his attack by the monster, wants nothing to do with it and decides to flee with his new bride Elizabeth (Valerie Hobson). He is stopped however, by his old teacher Dr Pretorious (Ernest Thesiger) who has also discovered how to grow life (rather than reanimate it) and now wants Frankenstein’s help to make a women. Initially against it, but finally forced by his creation, they succeed in creating a bride for the monster (Elsa Lanchester).

Apparently more in keeping with the book, this time the monster is shown to be more sympathetic, rather than just a mindless killer. We see his plight and persecution as he befriends an old blind man in the woods and his longs for someone like him to be with. When his bride eventually also rejects him it’s all the more saddening.

Karloff and Clive both return to their original roles and are both excellent in them once more. Clive’s doctor has seen the folly of his action and truly just wants to escape from what he has done. The new character of Dr Pretorious might be one of the greatest mad doctors of all time. Thesiger just owns it and it’s a joy to watch.

Elements of the film seem rather silly now, like the small people in the glass jars, but you can see why some of the scenes are still talked about even today. 3/5

#34 Frankenstein (1931)

Medical student Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) decides to create life by re-animating and combining bits of corpses together. After exposing the body to electricity, Frankenstein succeeds but soon grows afraid of the Monster (Boris Karloff) he has created.

Continuing right along with golden age Universal monster movies. Made in the same year as Dracula, partially in response to it, Frankenstein went on to be an even bigger hit and it’s clear to see why. Much like Lugosi did for Dracula, Karloff made the character of The Monster his own (and would go on to reprise it several more times in his career).

Personally I preferred this movie over Dracula mainly because this film had more life to it. It was a little slow to get started but once the monster is up an moving it keeps building towards a climax that doesn’t disappoint. It also felt a lot faster than Dracula and had less hanging pauses present throughout as well.

This is a 3/5 but i get the feeling this was probably a 3/5 when it came out suggesting it is less prone to aging in the same way Dracula is.

#33 Dracula (1931)

Renfield (Dwight Frye) is contracted by the enigmatic Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi) to obtain an Abbey for him in England. Once their Dracula begins to reveal his true nature as a vampire by making Renfield his doting servant and preying on the innocent beauties next door. It’s not long before it’s up to the occult scientist Abraham Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) and friends to stop the accursed Count.

It’s a little harder to rate this one purely because it’s so old and so influential. On the one hand, Lugosi is the man as Dracula, setting up what would become the look and voice of the character for years to come. Frye as Renfield also sets the crazy bar pretty high with his bat shit insane performance.

Having read the book I can also attest that it sticks quite faithfully to the original story which is always pretty neat. Additionally the feel and props used in this film have definitely been taken and used in countless other portrayals for the last 80 years.

On the other hand, this film IS 80 years old and as such it’s lacking in a lot of things we take for granted in movies now. There is no music other than some classical overtures during the credit sequence. This is a result of the film being one of the first horror movies that wasn’t a silent picture. In a way it adds to the tone of the movie but all it really does is make the actions of Lugosi kinda goofy as he movies in to bite a woman or stares the audience down.

It’s a veeeery slow film as well. Again, this is an early film so slow actions and movements are par for the course but it’s still very noticeable now.

It also has a really rushed ending and there are sections it forgets to deal with. It introduces the fact that one of the women Dracula bit is now resurrected, walking London and killing kids. This is established and then the movie completely forgets to do anything about this. Maybe it got cut for time but it was just a little odd.

While it has its faults, it’s such an iconic film I don’t even really care. I’m just glad I’ve watched it. 2/5 now but I’m sure it was a 4/5 at the time and I’m not just saying that because Lugosi’s staring into my soul.