Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), The Bride Of Frankenstein (1935), The Wolf Man (1941) & The Invisible Man (1933) Reviews

I did a bunch of “my favorite horror movies” lists in October & one was My Top Ten Pre-1970 Horror Movies. I’d commented that it was shameful I’d seen so few to be able to make that list and had seen none of the classic “monster” movies such as Dracula, etc. So I was very happy when the Horror Channel in the U.K. showed a bunch of them over Halloween weekend. Thanks to the family for letting me watch half of them, too! I haven’t updated that list with these yet as I’m not sure where to place them at this point but figured that I should at least try to write a little something about these classics even though it’s after Halloween…

Dracula (1931)

Directed by Tod Browning

Based on Dracula (novel) by Bram Stoker & Dracula (play) by Hamilton Deane & John L. Balderston

Starring: Bela Lugosi, David Manners, Helen Chandler, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan

Plot Synopsis: (via Wikipedia)
The film stars Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula, a vampire who emigrates from Transylvania to England and preys upon the blood of living victims, including a young man’s fiancée.

My Opinion:

I don’t know where to start with these “reviews” as I’ve not watched enough classic horror to be able to easily discuss them. I’ll say that Dracula was easily my favorite of those I watched Halloween weekend. Bela Lugosi was great as Count Dracula. Loved his look and the mood of the start of the film in his creepy old castle in the fog & full of cobwebs. The whole thing just said traditional “Halloween” to me, so that was great. A proper vampire movie! Also, I noticed it was directed by Tod Browning who did the movie Freaks, which I absolutely adore & think is a fantastic film that was ahead of its time. So I was eager to see another Browning film.

Vampires aren’t usually my favorite when it comes to the typical “Halloween” monsters. As far as these type of movies go, it seems to be the zombie ones I like the most (thanks, George Romero!). So I wasn’t necessarily expecting this to be my favorite (I thought it would be Frankenstein). But Lugosi was so good & I loved seeing all the “vampire rules” played out, which I admittedly know best thanks to The Lost Boys. No “death by stereo” in Dracula, though! Ha!

Am so glad I finally watched this. I want to see all the Hammer Horror now too to compare, especially Dracula! Am guessing that just has more heaving bosoms. They loved heaving bosoms in old English movies. So between this Dracula, Nosferatu & my beloved The Lost Boys, maybe I do love vampires after all. It’s made me want to revisit Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula now as well. Or… maybe even read the book! Maybe. I did read Frankenstein recently. We’ll see!

My Rating: 8/10

Frankenstein (1931)

Directed by James Whale

Based on Frankenstein (novel) by Mary Shelley & Frankenstein (play) by Peggy Webling & John L. Balderston

Starring: Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, John Boles, Boris Karloff, Dwight Frye, Edward van Sloan, Frederick Kerr

Plot Synopsis: (via IMDb)
Dr. Frankenstein dares to tamper with life and death by creating a human monster out of lifeless body parts.

My Opinion:

Unlike the rest, I do think I at least saw bits of this as a kid. I definitely remember the part with the girl. I forced myself to read this book during lockdown as I must admit I don’t read enough classics. Yes, I stick with Stephen King. I’m old, busy & tired. I’ll watch a serious film as it takes up less of my time but don’t have the energy to read War And Peace or some shit. Give me light entertainment for reading! I admit reading Frankenstein, with its 1818 language, was hard going. But I love the overall story. It’s damn good.

So I was expecting to like this movie the most but I think I ended up a bit disappointed as I didn’t realize how different it was from the book! I have no clue how close Dracula was to Stoker’s novel so that’s probably why I was able to just enjoy that movie as it is. Looks like Frankenstein was also partly based on a play adaptation? I was just kind of sad as I didn’t feel this movie captured the creature’s complex feelings & turned him into more of a monster while the flawed Victor Frankenstein character is hardly explored at all. But, hey – it’s a 1931 film. It’s still a horror classic & gave us the iconic “Frankenstein’s monster” look we now all associate with the character (which is also unlike described in the book). And I’ve now seen Boris Karloff in action as well as Bela Lugosi! It’s about time, I suppose.

My Rating: 7.5/10

The Bride Of Frankenstein (1935)

Directed by James Whale

Based on Premise suggested by Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley

Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Elsa Lanchester, Ernest Thesiger, E. E. Clive

Plot Synopsis: (via IMDb)
Mary Shelley reveals the main characters of her novel survived: Dr. Frankenstein, goaded by an even madder scientist, builds his monster a mate.

My Opinion:

This was a bit of an odd one to me but I really liked that, combined with the first movie, we get a little more of the story from the book. Well, a little. We get a bit with the blind guy and I really liked that part of this movie. My favorite part of the book was when “the creature” hid in a family’s cottage for a very long time & sort of became fond of them & learned from them and the blind man in the movie was I guess a nod to that.

I liked that Elsa Lanchester plays Mary Shelley, starting to tell more of her Frankenstein story, as well as The Bride in the title of the film. Didn’t know that, as I knew nothing whatsoever about this film beforehand. Again, it was great seeing The Bride & her also now truly iconic horror look. Love that crazy hairdo!

I also liked a super weird part of this movie in which a mad scientist guy has some tiny people in jars. In looking it up, I found they’re called “homunculi“. Fascinating! Here’s what it says at that Wikipedia link: “A homunculus is a representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and nineteenth-century fiction, it has historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human.” So that seemed silly at first but now I kind of love that bit. Fun film and, overall, I like the two of these movies together as one.

My Rating: 7/10

The Wolf Man (1941)

Directed by George Waggner

Starring: Claude Rains, Warren William, Ralph Bellamy, Patric Knowles, Bela Lugosi, Maria Ouspenskaya, Evelyn Ankers, Lon Chaney Jr.

Plot Synopsis: (via IMDb)
Larry Talbot returns to his father’s castle in Wales and meets a beautiful woman. One fateful night, Talbot escorts her to a local carnival where they meet a mysterious gypsy fortune teller.

My Opinion:

Enjoyed this one as well, although I don’t really know what to say about this or The Invisible Man as I knew the least about these stories (but of course know the werewolf legend). Well, I know about werewolves thanks to An American Werewolf In London & the beginning of Michael Jackson’s Thriller, of course! Oh, and Teen Wolf. I’m so ’80s! Hey – did you know a guy in Teen Wolf flashes his penis at the end of that movie?

So, anyway – Yeah, I like werewolves almost as much as vampires when it comes to classic Halloween monsters so of course enjoyed this very straightforward werewolf story. Hairy guys are just a little less sexy than those bloodsuckers, I guess. Lon Chaney Jr. stars as the Wolf Man in this (I knew that thanks to Warren Zevon). So I’ve seen another classic monster movie & actor. Feel like I have a tiny bit more movie blog cred now! Wow – this was a pathetic review. Oh! I like the Silver Bullet movie too. God I’m so ’80s…

My Rating: 7/10

The Invisible Man (1933)

Directed by James Whale

Based on The Invisible Man by H. G. Wells

Starring: Gloria Stuart, Claude Rains, William Harrigan, Dudley Digges, Una O’Connor, Henry Travers, Forrester Harvey

Plot Synopsis: (via IMDb)
A scientist finds a way of becoming invisible, but in doing so, he becomes murderously insane.

My Opinion:

I know the least about this story and, no, I’ve not read the H. G. Wells book. In all honesty, I think the 2020 movie was my first real introduction to this character (which I assume is very different from the book!). So I’d feel like an ass saying too much about this movie.

I enjoyed it but liked it a bit less than the more “classic monster” movies I watched Halloween weekend. I loved the special effects, though. I thought they were damn good for 1933! I know jack shit about filmmaking but, with all the stupid CGI these days that rarely moves me, I was more impressed by whatever probably super simple tricks they used in this movie to make this guy’s head, etc, invisible in some scenes. Brilliant! Way cooler than computer magic.

FYI – the star of this one is Claude Rains and, once again, I’m happy to finally see these actors in these iconic roles. And, hey – the old lady from Titanic, Gloria Stuart, is in this. Her heart will go on! God I suck at reviewing old movies. This was good, though. All of these were. I’m glad I finally saw them. Thanks, Horror Channel!

My Rating: 7/10

Rosemary’s Baby (1968) IMDB Top 250 Guest Review

Today we have the wonderful Anna of Film Grimoire reviewing a horror favorite of mine. Anna got really excited about this brilliant film & posted a little about it along with some amazing images from the movie HERE. Anna is passionate about film and writes excellent reviews on a wide variety of genres. Anna – it may not seem like it as I’ve not been commenting on anything on WordPress lately due to a busy schedule but I love your reviews & you’ll wake up one day to suddenly find a million comments from me where I’ve made time to thoroughly raid your blog! I must really annoy people when I do that… 😉

There are still some movies up for grabs if anyone wants to do a guest IMDB Top 250 review. You can find the list HERE.

Now let’s turn things over to Anna to get her full review of Rosemary’s Baby, IMDB rank 229 out of 250…

The second film in Roman Polanski’s famed Apartment Trilogy, Rosemary’s Baby (1968) is a film synonymous with the horror genre. After moving in to a beautiful yet spooky apartment building, Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse become close with their annoying neighbours Roman and Minnie, whether they like it or not. Rosemary becomes pregnant under mysterious circumstances, and with her mothering instincts kicking in, she must fight to protect her unborn child against supernatural forces.

Where does one start with a film that is so iconic, and so ubiquitous? Where do you start writing a review of a film that is so universally loved, and after you finish watching it, you have to sit in silence for a moment to pay it the respect it deserves? It may come as no surprise to say that I love this film. It’s been in my top 10 films of all time list ever since I started thinking about a top 10.

Firstly, the music and sound design are two of my favourite elements of this film. From the very beginning, when the camera is panning over the metropolis of New York City, we hear a simple lullaby that is at once comforting and threatening. This immediately sets the tone of the film, and when the camera rests on the creepy building that Rosemary and Guy seek to make their home, the audience instinctively knows there’s something wrong with it. The repetition of this lullaby during key moments increases that feeling of being threatened. In addition to the music, the sound design is perfect in general. During scenes inside the building, we can hear city sounds, creaking floorboards, kids screaming from outside, taps dripping, traffic noises – all of these sounds combine to create an environment that seems both protected from the outside, but also vulnerable to it. The sound design is as much a storyteller as the characters are.

In terms of the acting, Mia Farrow is charming as Rosemary from the very beginning. She plays her character with such innocence, but also a rawness that’s difficult to pinpoint exactly. At times she’s childlike, at times lustful. As her body changes during pregnancy and she becomes confused by her condition and physical decline, she portrays the conflict between wanting to be healthy and wanting to keep her baby in such a heartbreaking way. Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer portray Minnie and Roman, the suspicious neighbours, perfectly. Particularly Ruth Gordon, who scored a Best Supporting Actress for her role, and whose intrusion into and influence upon Rosemary’s daily life and pregnancy is played with such well-meaning menace. John Cassavetes’ performance as Guy is fraught with his own secret conflict and can be frustrating to watch for this reason, but is also very good.

There are a number of moments in Rosemary’s Baby where I just throw my hands up and say, “That’s it, this is a perfect film.” One particular moment, where Rosemary and Minnie are washing dishes in the kitchen after a dinner party, and Guy and Roman are smoking together in the living room. Rosemary looks back from the kitchen toward the living room to see where Guy is, and we can’t see or hear them, but all we see in that shot is smoke curling across the air from where they’re sitting. Something so simple can be so threatening, and Polanski’s direction nails it every time.

Speaking of which, the direction and cinematography in Rosemary’s Baby are top notch. The camera work adds to the overall feelings of tension as it looks through the apartment slowly and creepily. Any scene where the camera is following Rosemary and another character through the apartment seems strange because it feels like there’s an extra person hanging around watching them. Later in the film, there is some interesting handheld camera work, which adds to the frenzy of certain scenes. The film’s dream sequences are also directed impeccably, in such a way that they do seem like real dreams, rather than ‘movie dreams’ that can be a bit too linear to be realistic.

Meanwhile, the cinematography is amazing. The way the film is constructed visually is just as impressive as the camerawork. Early on in the film, Rosemary and Guy paint the apartment white to make it feel lighter – later in the film, as Rosemary’s pregnancy progresses, the use of shadows and angles makes the apartment look just as dark as before, even though the colour scheme is light. This is but one example of the amazing coexistence between the film’s cinematography and story.

Rosemary’s Baby also has a lot of good rewatch value. Small looks, clever elements of cinematography, and symbolic props add another layer to the film that you might not catch upon first viewing. One example of this is where Rosemary and Guy are looking at baby clothes – revulsion quickly flits across Guy’s face when Rosemary holds up a small jumper. Having already seen the film, something so simple as a facial expression can have a strong impact on the viewer. These smaller moments are so rewarding when you watch the film for a second, or even a third, time.

Finally, the ending of the film is one of the more perfect film endings. The final scene of the film (no spoilers here) is one of the best. Even though some elements of it can be cheesy, purely due to the supernatural elements at play in the film, the “big reveal” is so sinister that I tend to forget about them. Rosemary’s character arc is complete, and as a viewer it can be difficult to reconcile her actions throughout the film with the actual ending of the film. But the film raises an interesting question about what it means to be a mother, and the kind of protective instincts that might arise in a mother upon giving birth to a child.

You might be able to tell that I am a big fan of this film. I honestly could write a lot more about it but I should probably stop before I write a whole book. Rosemary’s Baby is a film that will stay in my top 10 for a very long time. It is a slow burner, but it develops at a steady pace and certainly gathers a lot of momentum. Please watch it, if you haven’t already. It is absolutely worthy of its place in IMDb’s Top 250, and is probably one of the best horror films ever made.

5/5
Watch the trailer here.