|
Hello, fellow moviegoers! The Invisible Man is directed by James Whale and it stars Claude Rains, William Harrigan, and Gloria Stuart. When a scientist turns himself invisible as a result of one of his experiments, he goes insane and turns homicidal. The Invisible Man is yet another one of Universal’s classic horror films, how does this one compare to the rest?  The Invisible Man was actually an incredibly fun movie to watch. Despite not featuring any monsters or spirits, it manages to earn its place among other films such as Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Wolf Man.
There are two things that I have found carry throughout all of the old Universal monster movies, or at least the ones I’ve seen. The first is the stellar leading actor. Bela Lugosi was iconic as Dracula and Boris Karloff was excellent as Frankenstein’s Monster; The Invisible Man is no exception to this theme. Claude Rains as the Invisible Man was (*surprise *surprise) the best part of the film, and his performance is made even more impressive when you realize you don’t even see him at all. Either you hear his voice, or see him fully covered, head to toe, preventing you from seeing his face. The face is the most useful tool for actors and actresses, and Rains was without that in this film. That being said, Rains manages to convey the character extremely well. The second thing that has carried through these films is the lack falling action. The movie just abruptly ends after the climax. The Invisible Man was a little better at this when compared to some of the other films, but it was still an issue. The story in this film was not at all what I expected it to be. I was expecting to actually see Dr. Griffin turn himself into the Invisible Man, and then go insane, starting with the character’s basics, then making him more complex. It actually did the opposite. When the film starts, he is already invisible. He’s a mysterious figure who you don’t know much about. He seems very complex, but as the film goes on you learn more about him. This way of storytelling set this film apart from many like it, and it was a brilliant way to go about the story. The Invisible Man was a really fun film to watch. Claude Rains gave a fantastic performance in the titular role, and the unfolding of the story was very interesting to watch. This wasn’t necessarily a “horror” film, it was more of a character study that had some thrilling moments to it. I would consider this film more Sci-Fi than I would horror. This might not be the best film to watch for Halloween, but you should still see it sometime! 8/10 What did you think of 1933’s The Invisible Man? How does it compare to other classic horror films? Let me know by commenting on this post! Also, if you enjoyed this review, share it on Facebook and Twitter. It really helps! Don’t forget, I post every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, so check back then for more movie reviews and miscellaneous movie thoughts! Thanks for stopping by! Hello, fellow moviegoers! The Mummy is directed by Karl Freund, and it stars Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners, and Edward Van Sloan. When a group of archaeologists uncover the mummified remains of the Egyptian priest Imhotep, people start mysteriously dying of “natural causes”. As the mummy searches for the reincarnation of his long lost love, the archaeologists try to unravel (Get it?) the mysteries behind the recent increase in death.  The Mummy was a good film, but of all the Universal monster movies that I watched, it was my least favorite. It just didn’t have the same sort of fun energy that was found in all of the other films.
Boris Karloff did a decent job as Imhotep, the mummy, although he didn’t really feel like a mummy. He just seemed like an average guy who walked a little slow. I got what they were going for, a mummy that could be unnoticeable to the public when walking around, but they didn’t really explain that. They just expected the audience to buy into the fact that this extremely old reanimated corpse looked like anybody else, and it was a bit distracting. This isn’t really a mummy movie, it’s just movie about a dude that lived in Ancient Egypt, and now he’s in modern times (as in 80 years ago). In case you haven’t noticed, there is a pattern amongst many of these older films to completely forgo having any falling action. They just let the film end after the climax, and they don’t give any time for the audience to wind down. It’s a flaw that all of these old Universal monster films have had, but it’s a flaw nonetheless, so points docked. One thing that I noticed throughout the film as being extremely interesting were the sets. The whole Egyptian setting was a very interesting one. The backgrounds in all of the building and the rooms that they were in felt exquisite. You could almost feel how old they were through the screen, and in that aspect, the film excelled. The whole concept they were going for in The Mummy was an extremely interesting one, and the backstory told of Imhotep in his prime in Egypt worked really well, but overall I thought the story failed to meet its potential. It wasn’t bad by any means; it just wasn’t nearly as good as it could have been. 6.5/10 What did you think of 1932’s The Mummy? How does it compare to other classic horror films? Let me know by commenting on this post! Also, if you enjoyed this review, share it on Facebook and Twitter. It really helps! Don’t forget, I post every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, so check back then for more movie reviews and miscellaneous movie thoughts! Thanks for stopping by! Hello, fellow moviegoers! The Wolf Man is directed by George Waggner, and it stars Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains, Evelyn Ankers, and Bela Lugosi. It tells the story of a wealthy man who returns home to visit his father at their estate, after being gone for 18 years. When he has a run-in with a werewolf, he begins to experience odd changes as he begins to wonder if he has become a werewolf too. Spoiler alert: He has.  The Wolf Man was actually a really effective horror film when seen through the lens of the time it was made. You can’t show this film to a horror movie fan of today and expect them to be terrified, it’s just not going to happen.
Lon Chaney Jr. was extremely convincing as Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man). He conveyed the fear his character was experiencing in a very convincing fashion. Even in scenes where he had no lines, you could still see the concern he had over his predicament. He didn’t want to hurt anybody, but he couldn’t control the Wolf Man. His human character couldn’t have been further from the Wolf Man, and Chaney did a fantastic job showing that. However, when it came time for him to become a wolf, he did, and he did it wonderfully. This film, like the other Universal monster films, suffers from the absence of falling action. There is no time for the audience to calm down after the film’s exciting culmination. As soon as the climax has concluded, the film does so as well. It was extremely abrupt and it leaves the audience with a bit of a sour taste in their mouths. For the time, the makeup in the film was remarkable. It was by no means equal to the effects of An American Werewolf in London, or the digital effects of today, but considering the film came out 75 years ago, they did a pretty amazing job. The Wolf Man looked like exactly that. He was a man, but he was a wolf at the same time. They didn’t just make him a big wolf, as many werewolf films do now, they mixed the two and created a legitimate Wolf Man. 8/10 What did you think of 1941’s The Wolf Man? How does it compare to other classic horror films? Let me know by commenting on this post! Also, if you enjoyed this review, share it on Facebook and Twitter. It really helps! Don’t forget, I post every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, so check back then for more movie reviews and miscellaneous movie thoughts! Hello, fellow moviegoers! Dracula is directed by Ted Browning, and it stars Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, and Edward Van Sloan. It tells the story of one of Horror’s most iconic characters, the vampire Dracula. When Dracula travels to England and begins preying upon its inhabitants, an investigation is led by Professor Van Helsing. When the professor discovers the truth about Dracula, he attempts to stop him before he turns more people into vampires.  Dracula was an entertaining film to watch, although it might not be for the reason you’d expect. Yes, this film does have those classic Dracula moments, and it does feature great performances, but the most interesting thing to me was how it laid the groundwork for the explosion of the horror genre that would soon follow.
Horror films existed before 1931’s Dracula, as evidenced by 1922’s Nosferatu and 1925’s The Phantom of the Opera, but Dracula redefined the genre. Dracula brought something to the table that hadn’t been present before. What that is exactly is hard to define; it could be many things. However, the proof is in the genre’s popularity growth during the past 85 years. When it comes to the film itself, by far the best part was Bela Lugosi’s performance as Dracula. He managed to perfectly capture the charming aristocrat side of the character, in addition to the horrifying side that makes Dracula so classic. When you look at Lugosi, you see Dracula. He looks the part so extremely well. I believe that’s due to one of two things. First, they perfectly cast the role. Second, he gave such an iconic performance that, in modern times, we just assumed that’s what Dracula has always looked like. For all I know, people in 1930 could have had a much different vision of what Dracula looked like, but since Bela Lugosi’s performance in 1931, Dracula has looked like Lugosi. I’ve noticed one thing about a lot of older films that I find really annoying. No, it’s not the black and white, and it’s not the stage-performance acting. It’s actually the conclusions, or rather, lack thereof. Many of these films simply end, and Dracula falls victim to that. The climax and the film conclude almost simultaneously. There is no falling action. It’s an extremely abrupt ending, and it’s in almost every film I’ve seen from the time. Dracula was an entertaining movie to watch, primarily due to Bela Lugosi’s performance as the titular character. It laid the groundwork for what would become the immensely popular horror genre of today. The film didn’t really have a conclusion, and the story was a little lackluster, but overall I enjoyed Dracula. 7/10 What did you think of 1931’s Dracula? How does it compare to other classic horror films? Let me know by commenting on this post! Also, if you enjoyed this review, share it on Facebook and Twitter. It really helps! Don’t forget, I post every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, so check back then for more movie reviews and miscellaneous movie thoughts! Thanks for stopping by! |
Kyle Kruse
Follow Me for Updates!Twitter: @kruze_reviews
Categories
All
Archives
May 2018
|
RSS Feed