The Shining (1980)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 6 out of 10

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd

Rated: R

Genre: Horror, Drama, Mystery

Runtime: 142 minutes

Other Versions: The Shining (1997)

When Jack Torrance (Nicholson) signs up to be the caretaker for the Overlook Hotel while it's closed for the winter, he has no idea what sorts of horrors await him, his loving wife Wendy (Duvall), and their son Danny (Lloyd).  Even stories of some of the horrors that occurred in he hotel are not enough to dissuade him, and he cheerfully takes the job, thinking that it's going to be the easiest money he's ever made.  All he has to do is keep the elements outside from affecting the hotel; keep the boilers burning, etc.  Easy.  And besides, it will give him time to work on his writing; something which Jack has been having quite a bit of trouble with lately.  Everything is going to work out pretty well for the Torrances.  But, there are things lurking in the shadows; things the family is certainly not prepared for.  Danny claims to have an "imaginary friend" named Tony, a little boy who supposedly lives in Danny's mouth and hides in his stomach.  Not only that, but he's having visions.  Visions of things that have happened and things that have yet to occur.  Bloody things happened in this hotel, and bloody things are yet to come.  The hotel starts to have an effect on Jack, as well, turning him from loving husband and father to a maniacal killer; will Wendy and Danny be able to stop him, or will all of Jack's worst nightmares come true?

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is one of those films I felt I just had to experience, especially as a lover of classic horror cinema.  I had constantly seen the title listed alongside with other "classics" such as The Silence of the Lambs and Psycho.  "If you're interested in these sorts of films, " I told myself, "then you had better watch The Shining."  I had been trying for months to watch it, but either found myself too busy, or found that my friends weren't very interested in watching with me.  And half the fun of watching a scary movie is watching it with a friend.  So, finally, I seized my opportunity (and my brother/movie buddy) this summer, and sat down to watch it one rainy Friday afternoon.  While The Silence of the Lambs and Psycho far exceeded my expectations, The Shining left me feeling a bit disappointed as it fell just shy of the mark.

I guess you could say that a chunk of my disappointment stemmed from the fact that I had put too much stock in this movie completely knocking my socks off.  Now, normally, I go into this films, attempting to keep my expectations as neutral as possible.  Not LOW, per se, but neutral.  That way, I won't be swayed by prior prejudices.   But, this was one film that I was excited about.  Probably because it had been on my "To-Watch" list for about three years.  And even before that, it was one of those films that I was pretty interested in watching, but just too scared to actually pick up.  That being said, I've been waiting to watch this movie for years--that's a lot of expectation.  However, high expectations only covered a small portion of my frustrations.  My issue I think, deals with Kubrick's directing style.  I'll have to check out a couple more of his films, but I'm starting to think I'm just not a Kubrick fan.

For me, Jack Nicholson was wonderful.  He absolutely stole the show, and as I watched the film, I found myself silently wishing that there would be more Jack scenes.  He was deliciously creepy.  And I love that sort of character in a horror film.  Not those that are outright scary, or horrible, but those that are creepy and still very human.  I love those sorts of villains.  There is just something so sinister about characters who just become sort of unhinged.  It makes it scarier because it makes you wonder if something like this could happen to anyone; your dad or your brother; neighbor, cousin, sister, grandpa, etc.  Very creepy.  But, there is more to Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance than just a crazed ax-murderer possessed by evil spirits.  He's a family man, a loving husband and father, and he makes us feel for him.

Villains like Hannibal Lecter don't exactly illicit sympathy.  He's more of the guy who gets voicemail messages sounding something like this: "Hey, Dr. Lecter.  I just wanted to let you know that I'm not going to be able to make it to your dinner party on Saturday.  Nothing personal, but I just don't feel comfortable attending an event where I can't be sure if I'm going to be a member of the party or the dinner."  Jack Torrance, however, is a sympathetic character.  There is one scene, in fact, where my heart simply melts for him.  Wendy rushes to his aid after hearing him screaming and crying in his sleep, apparently from a nightmare.  Startled, he falls to the floor, and sits there, drooling, blubbering, and sobbing, as he tells her that he had the most awful dream, where he killed both her and Danny, chopping the bodies up into little pieces.  The pain is so raw, so real, you can't help but feel for him.  In those few minutes, all of Jack's behavior up to this point and afterward is put into perspective: he's not a bad man.  He's just under the influence of forces he cannot control.

Shelley Duvall was also wonderful as her respective character Wendy.  With her big eyes and sweet disposition, it was hard not to like her.  I think she also provided a wonderful foil to Jack's character, in that while he was dealing with frustration, anger, addiction, and possessive spirit, she's a quiet, gentle presence, who calmly puts up with everything that happens, while still maintaining order and reason in the family.  She's reserved, but strong.  And even though she's strong, she's still vulnerable, and that makes us root for her.  She's the underdog, and we don't want anything to happen to her.

Above all else, this movie was just very strange.  Much of it didn't make any sense.  I was confused, very creeped out, and mostly left with more questions than answers when all was said and done. All in all, it was a decent movie, but it just didn't wow me.  I guess if someone came up to me and said, "CS, should I watch The Shining?"  I guess I would say yes.  It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either.  Still, if you're interested in the genre like I am, I think it's just something you should check out.  At least you'd get all the references from Internet memes, right?

Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus (2009)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 2 out of 10

Director: Jack Perez

Starring: Deborah Gibson, Vic Chao, Shawn Lawlor

Rated: R

Genre: Horror, Sci-Fi

Runtime: 85 minutes

Thanks to human folly and global warming, the polar icecaps begin to melt and release two of the most horrifying creatures the world has ever known: Mega Shark and Giant Octopus!  Free from their frozen prison once more, they strike terror into the seas in their devastating attempt to find one another and finish the death match that started many centuries before.

I picked up this film expecting a funny, campy horror flick with lots of fighting, giant monsters, and cool CGI special effects.  Instead, I got a shitty film that broke every rule of screenwriting and acting, with sub par CGI effects reused scene after scene.  In fact, if I may be so bold, I would even go so far as to say that this is the worst movie I've ever seen.

But, a movie this bad has to really be savored.  It takes real effort to be this bad.  So, let's just take it one aspect at a time...First, the script.  The writing for this film was just dreadful.  Besides including so many painful cliches and "classic" stereotypes such as the customary agents in black suits, this film also included drinking alcohol from paper bags, the overly-violent American military stereotype, and of course, the cheesy mentor figure and the customary romance where everything just matches up so perfectly.  It's like these characters were written for each other!  Oh yeah...

I also loved the fact that everyone felt the need to remind everyone that the foreign characters were foreign.  From wonderful lines like "a Kewpie doll for the Irishman" (as if we couldn't figure out he was Irish from the HORRIBLE accent that was sometimes Irish, sometimes American, and sometimes boarderline Scottish), or when the Japanese scientist references "my Japanese government..."  Wow!  I had no idea you were Japanese!   And even if the audience wasn't sure, why would he refer to it like that?  Everyone he is talking to knows that he is Japanese.

I'm including the link to IMDb's collection of quotes from this movie.  They are golden.  Just for shits and giggles, you can check them out here.

Even though the writing sucked, the plot had some potential.  But, no....the script mostly focused on the three main characters: a "washed up" oceanographer, her salty Irish professor/mentor, and her Japanese scientist love interest.  There was almost nothing at all about the shark and octopus...the reason that just about everyone picked up this film in the first place.  I can tell you it wasn't for the romance or the bad accents.  It was for the title characters!

But, I digress....on to acting.  The acting was just dreadful.  Do I need say anything more?  I didn't believe these characters.  At their best they were laughable.  At their worst, they were annoying.  The Irishman's accent faded in and out between scenes, and I think only one member of the Japanese submarine crew spoke with even the slightest hint of an accent....and it certainly wasn't the main character.  The whole thing was just ridiculous.

If you're looking for a movie that is so bad it's good....then this is not that film.  This is just bad.  Really bad.  And you might get a couple good laughs out of it, but it's certainly not worth spending any real money on.  The acting sucks, the special effects are terrible, and the script is in the toilet.  Now, normally, I have a select audience to recommend these films to.  Right now, I'm not sure who would want to see this film.  I guess if you like really bad movies, then this is a good one.  Or, if you're a film professor or film student, you might like this....as a sort of "what not to do" cautionary tale.  As an amateur screenwriter myself, I think this really helped me.  It was kinda fun being able to say "Oh....so THAT'S why I'm not supposed to do that!"

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9.5 out of 10

Director: Drew Goddard

Starring: Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Fran Kranz

Rated: R

Genre: Horror, Thriller

Runtime: 95 minutes

Five friends decide to spend the weekend at a cousin's cabin, but find far more than they bargained for when they discover they are all a part of a perverse and twisted ritual of death.  Before even a single night has passed, the group finds themselves spiraling into horror after horror as they try to uncover the secrets of their torment.

Now, I love horror films.  Not slasher films; horror films.  I can't stand the blood and the gore, but I LOVE to be scared.  Suspense is delightful; I just eat it up.  And this was a great film just for that reason.  While there was most definitely blood...and lots of it, there was such a perfect counterbalance of suspense and just plain freak-you-out horror that I almost didn't mind.  And that's really a first for me to say.

What I loved about this film was just how creative it was.  This is not your average bloody slasher film, or just scare-the-living-daylights out of someone horror flick; it was cleverly written out, cleverly acted, and even fairly amusing.  Perhaps the best part was just how metafictional it was.  This is not just a horror film: it is a horror film about horror films!  This is a horror film that gives the others purpose and meaning, and elevates them to something more than just blood, sex, and violence.  Sure, this film still has all those things, but it has a bit more that really gives it that "spark," and sets it aside from your average, run-of-the-mill zombie flick.

And of course, besides just a tantalizing plot, the characters themselves were wonderful.  Or, at least as wonderful as stock characters can possibly get.  The one that really stood out for me was the total pot-head, Marty (Kranz).  There's always something really funny about those kind of characters in the movies.

Sadly, there is not much more that I can say without giving away too much information.  So, that being said, I can only leave you with a strong suggestion that you check out this film.  It was honestly one of the best horror films I've seen in a long time.  If you enjoy horror films, zombies, ancient curses, or metafiction, then this film is a must-see for you :)

The She-Wolf of London (1946)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 8 out of 10

Director: Jean Yarbrough

Starring: Don Porter, June Lockhart, Sara Haden

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Mystery, Crime, Horror

Runtime: 61 minutes

Life for Barry Lanfield (Porter) and Phyllis Allenby (Lockhart) is quite simply wonderful.  The two are engaged to be married, and they could not be happier with the thought of spending the rest of their lives together.  Tragedy strikes, however, in the form of a string of gruesome murders at the local park; all the victims have their throats ripped out, and it is suspected that a wolf or other large animal is behind the killings.  Phyllis, suspects the worst, as she follows a trail of clues that point to her as the murderer, thanks to the horrible Allenby curse, which has plagued her family for generations.

Before I say anything else, I do just want to warn you all that this is not your average werewolf movie.  What I mean is, you never actually see the she-wolf of London, a woman with fur, fangs, claws, and a menacing growl.  She's always covered up by a cloak. Mysterious?  Yes.  Monstrous?  No.  So, in that respect, I guess you could say that She-Wolf of London is more of a mystery/crime film than a moster movie.  However, the plot is thrilling and engaging.  I was hooked until the very end, just wanting to figure out what was going to happen in this drama-packed film.

June Lockhart is adorable.  And her character is adorable, too.  Phyllis seems to be a female Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man), sweet, innocent, and sickened to the core over what they have become.  And just one look at Phyllis, and your heart just melts with pity.  Sadly, I felt that Don Porter slipped into the background as one of the many anonymous boyfriends from these sorts of movies that no one really remembers.  I felt the character wasn't super developed; rather, he filled a role but nothing more.  Although, to be honest, I feel as though the love interest character in most of these classic movies comes out a bit two-dimensional.  It must just be a flaw within the genre, to make the main, afflicted character more interesting, forcing them into the spotlight and giving them more dimension.

The best part of this movie (for me) had to be all the opportunities for silly interpretation.  Watch it for the first time when you're slap-happy, and it'll be hilariously funny, even the parts that are supposed to be super serious.  I have a feeling that this film, like The Werewolf of London is one of those movies that is honestly trying to be serious and dramatic (and probably was back in the 1940s), but is more silly today.  Still, all in all, it's a very good movie. I'd like to watch it again when I'm in a more sober mood.  Slap happy is fun, too, though.

This is a good film for anyone who enjoys mysteries, crime movies, or the classic Universal horror films.

The Werewolf of London (1935)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 7.5 out of 10

Director: Stuart Walker

Starring: Henry Hull, Walker Oland, Valerie Hobson

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Horror

Runtime: 75 minutes

Dr. Glendon (Hull) is a botanist travelling through Tibet in search of a rare flower that only grows when under the light of the moon.  After ignoring the pleas of the peasants to avoid a certain mountain top which is believed to be guarded by demons, Glendon finds his flower, and is attacked by a wolf-like creature which bites his arm.  Upon returning to London, he makes the acquaintance of Dr. Yogami (Oland), who claims to have made his acquaintance one night in Tibet (although Glendon does not recall their meeting).  Yogami warns Glendon about the curse of the werewolf, and tells him that the strange flower that he found in the mountains is the only antidote.  Glendon ignores him, having far more issues to deal with.  First, he cannot get the strange flower to bloom.  Second his wife has recently become reacquainted with her childhood sweetheart.

Those of you who have been reading my blog recently will know that I really love classic horror films.  Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Mummy...I can't get enough of them!  My favorite monster has always been the werewolf, though.  I've always been fascinated by the thought that in so many myths and legends, it is believed that a man can be turned into a wolf.  Besides that, I've always found werewolves to be the most human of the monsters.  True, they change into evil beasts with fur and fangs, but unlike Dracula and his vampiric brood, werewolves do not choose to act out the way they do.  For this reason, Dracula is evil, whereas Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man) is not.

Werewolf of London is rather different from the werewolf movies Universal horror fans have to expect after watching films such as The Wolf Man, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, or Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein.  The most notable difference is the fact that while The Wolf Man series is about the supernatural, Werewolf of London focuses more on the scientific aspects of lycanthropy.  For example, Dr. Glendon is able to use a plant to ward off his symptoms, while Larry Talbot has to use a medallion.  Also, for an added twist, the victims of werewolf attacks are not always random, but the beast will attack whatever matters the most to him.  In this case, Glendon's wife, Lisa (Hobson).  And to make matters worse, not only does his wolf-self want to kill his wife, but he cannot use the flower's juice for an antidote, because someone is stealing the blooms from the laboratory!

I think the funniest part of this film had to be the transformations.  Not only does he grow fur and fangs (and it does look really cool), but before running out of the house to go and rip some throats out, he makes sure to stop at the coat rack and bundle up.  And yes, that means hat, coat, and a scarf!  What??  Furthermore, the ending (even though I'm sure it was supposed to be depressing or emotional) made me simply laugh out loud. I'm not going to tell you what happens, but I thought it was pretty funny, simply because it was so unrealistic.

All in all, a decent movie.  Not the best I've seen from the werewolf canon, or Universal horror films, but entertaining nonetheless.

Dracula (1931)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 8 out of 10

Director: Tod Browning

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

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Horror

Runtime: 75 minutes

Sequels: Dracula's Daughter (1936), Son of Dracula (1943), House of Dracula (1945), Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Other Versions: Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922), "Spanish" Dracula (1931), Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

When the unsuspecting real estate salesman Mr. Renfield (Frye) travels to Transylvania to sell some London property to the Hungarian aristocrat Count Dracula (Lugosi), he has no idea the terror that will soon be inflicted on the people of England.  Dracula, a vampire, drives Renfield to madness and then seduces and kills Lucy (Frances Dade), the friend of Mina Seward (Chandler), whose father owns the lunatic asylum that houses Renfield.  Concerned about his daughter's failing health, Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston) enlists the help of his old friend Dr. Van Helsing (Van Sloan) who delivers the unbelievable truth: Count Dracula is a vampire, and together, Dr. Seward, Van Helsing, Mina's fiancé Jonathan Harker (David Manners), and the reluctant madman Renfield, must find and destroy him.

I'm a huge fan of classic horror films as a whole, and because of that, Dracula did not disappoint.  It was creepy, powerful, and interesting all throughout.  I adore Bela Lugosi, and his Dracula is the one responsible for the classic image of the immortal Count: a dark, handsome aristocrat with a strong foreign accent and suave manners.  Most of the time, when someone mentions Count Dracula, the first image that comes to mind is NOT Max Schreck's Graf Orlock, but Lugosi’s immortal Count!

Even though the story of Dracula really is about the vampiric Count, I will admit that I've always had a soft spot for the deranged lunatic Renfield.  Dwight Frye is known for his portrayal of creepy characters, from Renfield in Dracula to Igor-like Fritz in Frankenstein.  This guy is simply creepy!  By far, Frye's performance was the best in the film.  While most actors play Renfield like he’s just plain nutty, Frye’s Renfield is sympathetic and pitiful; your heart goes out to him.  Even though he’s the weak-willed, insect-eating slave to the heartless Dracula, his love for Mina Seward is a strong redeeming feature.  At one point in the film, after he has escaped from his cell, he begs Dr. Seward to move him to another asylum so that he will not wake “Miss Mina” in the middle of the night with his screaming.  His role as a madman, however, is more than just munching on flies and screaming in the night.  Everything about Renfield seems “off”.  From the way he talks, to the way he moves, to the freakishly creepy laugh which almost makes him sound like he’s crying.

While Lugosi’s performance is wonderfully mysterious, this was not his best performance by far.  In fact, many film historians specializing in the Universal horror films actually find that Lugosi's Dracula role is perfected in the humorous sequel Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. 

All in all, I think that Dracula is a wonderful film.  It has just enough suspense and atmosphere to sufficiently give you the chills, while avoiding sexual references and gore that are normally associated with vampires in today's films and books.  Lugosi is wonderful as the creepy archetypal Count Dracula, Dwight Frye the perfect, unhinged Renfield, and Edward Van Sloan is by far my favorite Van Helsing. 

Van Helsing is a very hard character to pull off.  The actor portraying him must have the proper balance of mystery and brains, as well as appearing a bit off, so that it's hard for the other characters to really believe him; at least at first.  Van Sloan, however, is perfect for the role.  Unlike performances like Anthony Hopkins’s role in Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), Van Sloan’s Van Helsing is calm, collected, and always in control.  He comes across as a rather quiet, unassuming man, and his subtlety is a perfect match for Dracula’s own dark brand of subtlety. The tension is just right in the scenes where the two characters face off, because you never know who is going to come out on top.

If you enjoy the classic Universal horror films, or have seen Frankenstein or The Wolf Man and are looking for something new, then this should be the next on your list.  Also, if you’re seen some of the more recent vampire films, then you quite simply need to see this one as well!  This is by far one of the best vampire movies of all time, and an enduring classic.  It’s the perfect film for a dark, rainy night.

The Wolf Man (1941)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: George Waggner

Starring: Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains, Maria Ouspenskaya

Rated: PG

Genre: Horror, Drama

Run Time: 70 minutes

Sequels: Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), House of Dracula (1945), Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Remake: The Wolf Man (2010)

After his brother's tragic death, Lawrence "Larry" Talbot (Chaney) returns from America to his family's estate in Wales.  While fixing his father's telescope, he catches sight of the beautiful Gwen Conliffe (Evelyn Ankers) whose father owns the antique shop in town.  When he takes Gwen and her friend Jenny (Fay Helm) to see the Gypsy camp and get their fortunes told, Jenny gets attacked and killed a wolf who turns out to be Bela (Bela Lugosi) the Gypsy fortune teller who is cursed to become a werewolf.  When Larry goes to save Jenny, killing the wolf, and finding himself bitten in the struggle, Bela's mother Maleva (Ouspenskaya) warns him that now, he too will become a werewolf when the moon rises. 

I discovered the classic Universal Horror Films when I was either a sophomore or junior in high school.  I used to watch them with my dad (still do sometimes, although not much anymore, since I started college).  This was the first one we watched together and it has always been my favorite.  Larry is so human, so easy to connect and sympathise with.  I instantly fell in love with the character (it also helps that he's played by the incredibly handsome Lon Chaney Jr., but that's beside the point).  After watching this film, I threw myself into checking out all the other Universal Horror Films, and I've seen most of the standard cannon: Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), The Mummy (1932), and The Wolf Man.  I still need to see The Invisible Man (1933).

I love everything about this movie, but since I could rant on and on for ages, I'll be extra sure to keep it short.

I've always been squeamish about horror films because there was too much blood, or too much violence.  However, older films prove that you don't need blood and violence to be scary.  And even better, they don't need to rely on sex to hold the audience's attention.  In fact, the audience of The Wolf Man doesn't even get to see that much skin, not even Larry's.  When he opens his shirt to show Maleva his wound, he barely even unbuttons it.  One or two buttons are undone, and you don't even get to see anything.  Not saying that I think it was necessary, but I think it was nice that the director didn't need to focus on sex appeal like today's films do.

The Wolf Man is a wonderful springboard into the other Universal Horror films.  I've thoroughly enjoyed watching it again, and again, and again.  If you're interested in scary movies, but don't like sex and gore, then this is a good film to start with.  If you've enjoyed Bela Lugosi's Dracula and Boris Karloff's Frankenstein, then The Wolf Man might be a good film to watch next.  Interesting fact, Lon Chaney Jr. was one of the only Universal actors (if not the only one) to play all of the classic horror monsters: the Wolf Man (The Wolf Man, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, etc.), Frankenstein's Monster (Ghost of Frankenstein), Dracula (Son of Dracula), and Kharis the Mummy (The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Curse, etc.).

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Director: F.W. Murnau

Starring: Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schroeder

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Silent, Horror, Mystery, Fantasy

Runtime: 94 minutes

Other Versions: Dracula (1931), Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), Dracula (1992)

Nowadays, when you ask someone about a good vampire movie, you’re more than likely going to hear titles like Interview with a Vampire, Dracula, or (God forbid) Twilight.  In my experience, though, I’ve found that the older, “classic” films are usually the best.  And Nosferatu certainly proves this point.  True, it could easily be construed as a bit corny in today’s society, but the iconic nature of this film should absolve it of that scarlet letter.  Personally, I’m a huge fan of classic horror films.  The Wolfman (1941), Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and The Phantom of the Opera (1925) are among my favorites.  And I have a feeling that Nosferatu is going to be making its way onto my shelves at home as well.

When Harker (Wangenheim) receives the assignment of closing a real-estate transaction with Count Dracula (Schreck), he is thrilled with the prospect.  Leaving his wife Nina (Schroeder) at home in England, he goes off to seal the deal, little suspecting that he would become the prisoner of a horrifying vampire.  Nina, meanwhile, is sent to stay with Westenra (G.H. Schell) and Lucy (Ruth Landshoff), who are friends of her husband.  Things go from bad to worse, however, as Harker discovers Dracula’s secret and the Count escapes for England.  Meanwhile, Nina and Harker’s boss Renfield (Alexander Granach) start to suffer from mysterious conditions, characterized with sleepwalking and insanity respectively.  Will Dracula be stopped before he causes too much damage?  Or is England doomed to become a feeding-grounds of a horrifying monster?

One thing I loved about Nosferatu versus the other cinematic vampires was just how creepy he was!  There is nothing attractive about this vampire, which makes him even more unsettling.  Bela Lugosi’s Count Dracula was handsome, as was Gary Oldman’s. And apart from his dumb haircut, I’d even say that Edward Cullen has his own level of attraction.   While there is some danger with all of these vampires, Nosferatu reminds us that the original vampires were not so much golden-tongued incubi, but rather, demonic monsters that were supposed to frighten, and not attract.  I’d be far more frightened to find Max Schreck’s vampire standing at my bedside at night than Gary Oldman; that’s to be sure!

I love the use of shadows in this film.  Besides providing an eerie atmosphere, it gives a wonderful added depth to the character of Count Dracula.  Not only does he possess physical power, but he is also able to command shadows; his shadow almost acts as its own powerful being.  In one scene in particular, the shadow’s grip seems almost as powerful as if Nosferatu had used his own hands.  There is little doubt in my mind that this creepy shadow play must have inspired some of the shadow play in both Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), and the highly comedic Mel Brooks spoof Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995).

Shockingly, Nosferatu is one film that should not exist today.  The plot “borrowed” heavily from the plot of Dracula by Bram Stoker, but failed to gain permission to use the plot.  Because of this, various aspects of the plot were changed, including the ending, and various character names.  A few examples are in order…so, listed here are several of the characters, with their names from the original Bram Stoker novel, the original German movie names, and the English adaptation names:

·         Jonathan Harker/Hutter/Harker

·         Mina Murray/Ellen/Nina

·         Rensfield/Knock/Rensfield

·         Count Dracula/Graf Orlock/ Count Dracula

The film survived because a couple of copies were pirated away and hidden until the copyrights were up.  The other copies were rounded up and burned.

I enjoyed this film because I love silent films, old horror films, and vampires.  Max Schreck delivered a deliciously creepy performance, and even though he was only on screen for a very short period of time, I couldn’t help but love his performance.  As with any silent film, it was a bit slow, and a bit corny (especially by today’s standards), but I will say that this Count Dracula had to be the scariest vampire I’ve seen in a long time.  And I don’t mean scary because he was gross or gory; Schreck achieves a certain level of terror just by his appearance and actions.  Too often today, vampire films rely on blood and gore to scare their audiences.  It’s far more difficult to achieve a level of fright by one’s presence, rather than by blood.  I don’t like slasher films, but I love horror films.

Sweeney Todd in Concert (2001)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: Lonny Price

Starring: George Hearn, Patti Lupone, Neil Patrick Harris, Timothy Nolen

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Musical, Drama, Crime, Horror

Runtime: 150 minutes

Other Versions: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1982), Sweeney Todd (2007)

Initially performed on PBS, this is a wonderful production of a story that is as tantalising and forbidding as Mrs. Lovett's meat pies:

After he is wrongly imprisoned for life by a corrupt judge who wishes to seduce his wife, Benjamin Barker (Hearn) returns to London under a new name: Sweeney Todd. He joins forces with a pie maker, Mrs. Lovett (Lupone) to kill all those who wronged him. Sweeney, a barber, slits the throats of his victims while shaving them, while Mrs. Lovett turns the bodies into meat pies to hide the evidence. 

Despite the production's dark premise, this truly is an amazing musical.  George Hearn brings depth and passion to the character, making Sweeney more of an anguished anti-hero than a cold, heartless villain.  Deep emotion can be seen in just a glance or in an expression on his face.  Hearn's Sweeney provides just the right amount of bloodlust and human feeling; it almost seems that he is justified in his dark killing spree....almost.  Instead of a dark, sinister murderer, we are shown a man in the greatest pain; his wife Lucy is dead and his daughter Johanna is in the custody of the same man who had him imprisoned and drove Lucy to suicide 15 years earlier.  Of course, its not surprising that Hearn's performance is so powerful; he played the role of Sweeney once before in the 1982 film production Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street alongside Angela Lansbury.

Patti Lupone's performance as Mrs. Lovett is simply delicious.  She brings the perfect combination of humor, suspense, and drama to the part.  Her Mrs. Lovett is not only devious, but she seems completely competent, as though there is something wrong (the woman makes meat pies from human flesh!) but its hidden under the guise of a benevolent pie maker.  She is a fascinating person to watch perform, as she's so dynamic, and works perfectly alongside Hearn.

The two of them were supported by a great cast, including Neil Patrick Harris as the young Tobias Ragg (Toby), Davis Gaines as lovestruck sailor Anthony Hope, and Victoria Clark as the crazy beggar woman.  I have to say though, that probably the best supporting actor (apart from NPH, who defines awesome in every production he does) would have to be Timothy Nolen as the wicked Judge Turpin.  His character was dark, troubled, and multi-layered.  In Judge Turpin, we see almost as much conflict as in Sweeney himself, even to the point where both men give into their respective temptations.  Just as Sweeney is not totally a villain, but has his lighter, more sympathetic moments, so does the judge, who, though clearly the villain of the piece, has moments where he is very human and almost relatable.  Its hard to fully hate Nolen's Turpin, because he's so human.

A wonderful, wonderful production that I cannot recommend highly enough.  Must be seen to be fully appreciated, as I cannot do it justice on my own.

**This movie has 1 bonus feature!**

**This movie has 1 bonus feature!**

**This movie has 1 bonus feature!**

The Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 7.5 out of 10

Director: Brian de Palma

Starring: Paul Williams, William Finley, Jessica Harper, and Garrit Graham

Rated: PG

Genre: Horror, Musical, Cult Classic

Run Time: 92 minutes

A disfigured, Phantom-esque anti-hero, a Faustian deal, and a trade straight out of The Picture of Dorian Gray; add a some awesome 70s music, a transvestite rock star, and black leather, and you have The Phantom of the Paradise. After his life's work is stolen by a demonic music producer and his face crushed in a record press, timid composer Winslow Leach sells his soul to ensure that the woman he loves will be able to sing his rendition of Faust at the opening of Swan's new music hall, The Paradise.

To be completely honest, I didn't think I was going to like this movie when I first started.  In fact, I thought it looked pretty dumb.  Mostly, I was watching it because of the Phantom of the Opera ties, and I just love POTO.  Looking at the trailer online, though, I couldn't help but think it was a nasty cross-over between POTO and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  But, The Phantom of Paradise is so much more!

Finley portrays a wonderfully sympathetic protagonist, Winslow Leach; tormented, abused, and eventually destroyed by Swan (Williams).  Besides his heart-wrenching portrayal of a 1970s American version of Leroux's classic character Erik, he also had really awesome makeup and a cool costume.  Its not too often that you see a Phantom dressed in black leather and donning a silver helmet instead of just a mask.  He was by far my favorite character in the movie.

As for the villainous Swan, Paul Williams was perfect!  Definitely one of the best "devils" I've seen in films.  His aura of mystery in the beginning leaves the audience in the dark just as much as Winslow, but the more we learn the more devious he becomes.  This is the first Paul Williams movie I've seen, and I'm very impressed with his acting.  He doesn't over act.  His character is powerful, devious, and harboring a dark secret, but he seems pretty cool with that.  Nothing worries him because he's already attained eternity.

Even though the movie was only rated PG, one must remember that PG-13 was not yet a rating, and honestly, I would not show this film to any children.  Its definitely PG-13.  The topics are too heavy for younger audiences, and the double unmasking at the end is going to be a little too intense.  That being said, the makeup was amazing for both of the unmaskings (although a little graphic); and (I believe) provided the desired effect. 

The best scene in the movie, though, without a doubt, had to be the shower scene when Winslow, in the guise of the Phantom, confronts rock-star Beef (Graham).  I'm not going to say too much, but it does involve a plunger. ^_^

If you're a POTO fan, you might enjoy this film, although I will say that its not as true to the story as some of the other versions are; in fact, apart from a disfigurement, a mask, an "opera house" (in this case a rock hall), and a character very loosely based on Christine, its not very POTO at all.  There's no Raoul, the manger is the villain, and the Phantom actually works for him!  Finley's Phantom is much more timid and weak than most of the others; you would never see Lon Chaney's cowering from an unarmed man who's over a foot shorter than him!  (6'4"/5'2")  But even so, I'd recommend this movie to anyone who's curious about it; its well worth it to check it out.  If nothing else, at least listen to the amazing soundtrack.  Most of the songs are written by Paul Williams (Swan).

**This movie has 2 bonus features!**

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 5 out of 10

Director: Robert Fuest

Starring: Vincent Price, Joseph Cotton, Hugh Griffith, and Terry-Thomas

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Horror
Run Time: 94 minutes
Sequel: Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972)

When a group of doctors all begin to die in mysterious circumstances, the murders are linked to madman Anton Phibes, a scholar and theologian who considers them responsible for the death of his wife several years previously.

Dr. Phibes is a dreadfully creepy film, sometimes thrilling, all times suspenseful, and often down right vile.  Dr. Anton Phibes, played by horror film master Vincent Price, attempts to avenge the death of his beautiful wife Victoria by killing all the doctors who performed the surgery she died during.  Of course, a good horror film needs more than just a simple string of murders, and Dr. Phibes does not disappoint.  All of the murders committed are reminiscent of the Biblical plagues, such as locusts, rats, blood, and the death of the first born child.  It's a very creepy movie and often, the murders are pretty disturbing.  I enjoy a good scare every once in a while, but seeing a man being completely drained of his blood via IV, or another being eaten by rats is rather unsettling to me.  Several sources actually say that The Abominable Dr. Phibes was actually the inspiration for the Saw movies, and while I haven't seen them (and honestly don't plan to) I can believe that this would inspire something as gruesome as Saw.

Vincent Price was wonderful as the title role.  Because his character wears a "flesh" mask to cover his horrendously deformed face, he is unable to communicate with facial expressions, and for the most part relies on just his eyes, which get quite a few creepy close-ups.  The other thing I found to be interesting is Price's vocal roles.  In the accident that disfigured him, Phibes loses the ability to talk, but using a strange phonograph device, he is able to talk though his throat in a broken, choppy dialogue.  Personally, I just adore Vincent Price's voice, and it was weird hearing him talk this way.  But, even with his words a bit garbled and broken, he's still amazing.

If you enjoy old horror films or Vincent Price, I would highly recommend this to you.  If you're really not a fan of either one, then perhaps you would be better off watching something a little more pleasant.  I'm a Vincent Price fan, so for me, this was totally worth it.

**This movie has 1 bonus feature!**