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.

Beach Blanket Bingo (1965)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: William Asher

Starring: Frankie Avalon, Annette Funicello, Deborah Walley

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Chick Flick, Musical

Run Time: 97 minutes

Sequel: How to Stuff a Wild Bikini (1965)

Frankie (Avalon) and Dee Dee (Funicello) are the cutest couple on the beach, but when singing sensation Sugar Kane (Linda Evans) drops right out of the sky and is saved by Frankie, Dee Dee can’t help but feel a little bit jealous.  To make matters worse, when the couple decides to try out skydiving lessons, and Dee Dee finds herself with yet another rival to deal with.  This time, it’s Bonnie Graham (Walley), a too-cute skydiving instructor who decides to make Frankie her new romantic interest.  Meanwhile, the gang’s friend Bonehead (Jody McCrea) falls in love with Lorelei (Marta Kristen), a mysterious girl who saves him from drowning.  Add Sugar’s crafty manager Bullets (Paul Lynde), a biker gang led by none other than the “infamous” Eric Von Zipper (Harvey Lembeck), skydiving instructor Big Drop (Don Rickles), Buster Keaton as his assistant, and lots of music and fun; and you have Beach Blanket Bingo.

One thing I will say is that this movie is incredibly corny.  I don’t say that to be mean.  In fact, I just LOVED it!  But, it is very corny.  It’s obvious that it’s very dated.  However, even though it might not be enjoyable for the same reasons as in the 1960s, that doesn’t mean you can’t still have a good time watching it.  What might have been considered “cool” back then is perhaps a bit “corny” now, but that makes it funny, and who doesn’t enjoy a good laugh?  This is a film that doesn’t take itself too seriously, and I love that!

Avalon and Funicello are of course the principle love interest of this film, but to be honest, I think that Dee Dee should have ditched Frankie before the first half of the film had even finished.  I’m not going to sugarcoat it; the boy is such a player!  Yes, he’s a cutie, and yes, the girls seem to love him, but really, he should show a bit more respect for the girl he already has!  Whether he’s hanging off the arm of Sugar Kane, or “helping” Bonnie with her skydiving gear, Frankie is always putting the moves on the ladies, whether he realizes it or not!  Plus, his rather juvenile comments about Dee Dee’s desire to learn skydiving (a girl’s place is in the kitchen, not jumping out of a plane) should be enough to earn him a good tongue-lashing for his insolence).

I personally thought the romance between Bonehead and Lorelei was just adorable.  In case you couldn’t guess from his unfortunate nickname, Bonehead is certainly not the most observant young man.  However, when Lorelei catches his eye, he really starts to pay attention.  McCrea was super sweet, and downright adorable; and of course, the viewer instantly feels for him.  Not only does he fall in love with a mermaid, but no one believes him!  And of course, Marta Kristen was beautiful; what a perfect mermaid!

The Rats (a biker gang) were obviously meant to be the main comic force.  Led by the slapsticky Eric Von Zipper, with his “Mice” Puss and Boots (Alberta Nelson and Myrna Ross, respectively), and the dastardly South Dakota Slim (Timothy Carey), they always manage to provide plenty of laughs.  (Although, I’m not going to lie; it’s pretty corny stuff).

All in all, this was a fun movie.  It may not be an Oscar-winning performance, or anything, but it was good enough.  This is not the kind of movie someone watches expecting some greater truth to be revealed, or that they will be treated to award-winning acting or the greatest cinematography of the decade.  They expect music, bikini-clad girls, and a lot of fun.  And that’s what they get.  No more, no less.  I guess it’s one of those films that you have to go into with certain expectation in mind.  But, if you want something light-hearted and fun for a nice summertime diversion, then you should be sure to check this out, “bubbie”!

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.

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo, or The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 5 out of 10

Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring: Enrique Irazoqui, Margherita Caruso, and Susanna Pasolini

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Religious, Historical, Drama, Biography

Runtime: 137 Minutes

Language: Italian (dubbed in English)

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo is not exactly my first choice of film.  That's not to say that I don't enjoy a good theological film or anything like that.  It's just that when looking for the Gospel of Matthew in a movie form, I would normally turn to Godspell.  However, if you're in a somber mood, have about two hours to set aside, and are a well-versed Christian, this is surely a film you would enjoy.

Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo is basically what you would get if you fed the Gospel of Matthew into a screen-writing machine and handed out the completed piece as a script.  That's not to say that there aren't inaccuracies and changes made, but rather that the plot takes you straight from the Nativity to the Resurrection and everything in between--complete with choppy transitions and lots of speeches.

One frustrating aspect of Il Vengelo Secondo Matteo is that you really have to be a Christian to understand it.  Not enjoy it.  Understand it.  The film lacked transitions that make plots easier to follow, and besides that, there were very few details to designate who certain characters were.  Mary and Joseph were not named in the opening scene, and even later on in the film, it was difficult to tell who several of the characters (including John, Peter, and Judas) were.  All viewers had to go off of was the classic actions performed by them in Gospels.  I was also bothered by the lack of transitions between the scenes.  It was almost as though Pasolini decided that he wanted to change the scene, and he wanted to change it right that second, so he just jumped into it.  Now, it’s understandable if this is how the Gospel plays it out, but for the viewer, it can be a bit confusing.  We don’t have chapters and verses to break it up for us.

And of course, who can forget the dubbing?  Personally, the one thing I love so much about foreign films is the language.  I can’t understand any of it, but there is something delightful about listening to the sound of the French in Germinal or the Italian in Life is Beautiful.  However, with a dubbed film, I usually feel like I’ve been force-fed some sort of nasty meat-substitute in place of real beef.  What I mean to say is that it’s kind of shitty.  This was one of the better dubbings I’ve heard, but even so, I would have greatly preferred subtitles instead.  It was annoying when the English-speaking actors would rush through their lines because the Italian was shorter, or when you could see that the lips obviously didn’t match what was being said.

However, putting all my complaints aside, I have to say that there were several things that I really liked about this movie.  First, I loved the cinematography.  The sets were amazing; and when you were shown a scene, it wasn’t just a little piece of it.  Actually, the camera would pan out and show you everything…and it was beautiful!  When you weren’t panned out on the scenery, the camera was drawn close to all the faces…I loved seeing the faces.  There were so many people with so many unusual faces and expressions….it made you feel as though you were right there in the crowd coming to see Jesus; a sense of intimacy was produced with the film and the audience. 

Enrique Irazoqui was an amazing Jesus.  His commanding presence among the people was perfectly offset by the gentle smile he gave the children.  What interested me the most, though, was his appearance in general.  Strange as it may seem, I was surprised to see a short-haired Jesus.  The long-haired, bearded Jew has become the iconic picture of Jesus.  This one was a bit different from how I pictured him looking.  I was also a bit surprised by how serious he was.  I guess I always thought of Jesus as someone a little more kindly.  That’s not to say that Irazoqui was too harsh; just different.

All in all, I would say that this was a good film.  If you’re interested in Christian Theology, then you would probably enjoy this.  (I enjoyed it for that reason).  However be forewarned about the length and the terrible dubbing.  If you are able to find a DVD copy, you’ll have to tell me if they have it in the original Italian or not.  I had to watch an old library VHS, haha.

(On a side note, there is a version of this film in color.  Get the black and white variation; something is lost in the transition to color!)

The Ace of Hearts (1921)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 9 out of 10

Director: Wallace Worsley

Starring: Lon Chaney, Leatrice Joy, John Bowers

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Silent, Romance, Drama, Crime

Runtime: 75 minutes

A secret society meets to discuss the fate of their "client," a powerful and corrupt man whom they believe should be killed for the greater good.  The assassin will be one of their own, and the choice is determined by whoever among them draws the ace of hearts playing card.  Farallone (Chaney) and Forrest (Bowers), two colleagues in the society, find themselves rivals for the affections of Lilith (Joy), the only female member.  However, Lilith is only concerned with the group's secret "cause," and refuses both of their advances.  However, when Forrest is dealt the ace of hearts, she agrees to marry him.  But, after their first night together, it seems that Forrest might not be able to carry out the plans.

This was a very interesting silent film, and one I enjoyed quite a bit.  There were some parts that were slow, but overall, it was an exciting premise and carried out very nicely.  Chaney and Bowers were perfect rivals.  Watching their characters Farallone and Forrest interact created just the right amount of tension and drama without being over-the-top.  Both actors had faces you could read like a book, especially in scenes of high emotion.  Bowers has very expressive eyes, and Lon Chaney, the "Man of a Thousand Faces" gave yet another riveting performance.  His character was so beautiful and so pained; its hard not to feel for Farallone!  Chaney's soulful eyes just swallow you up.  In a perfect contrast to this dark, broken character, Forrest is boyish and innocent, shy and excitable; this is a young man with his first crush.
 

Leatrice Joy also did a wonderful performance as Lilith.  Oftentimes, in films where the main purpose of a female character is to cause tension between the two male leads, its easy for them to become underdeveloped and one-sided.  However, Joy's character is full of life, and fascinating to watch as she makes her transformation from anarchist blindly following a cause to a tender, gentler woman who cares more about love than political upheaval.

All in all, a good performance.  Despite his small amount of screen time, Hardee Kirkland made a wonderful antagonist/villain as the society leader Mr. Morgridge.  I have to say though, that Chaney stole the show.  The scene where Farallone stands in the rain staring up at Lilith's bedroom window just breaks my heart.  His performance is touching, painful, and sad, but beautiful.  Sometimes, complaints are made that Chaney has a tendency to over-act.  However, if he does, this is not one of those 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!**

By the Sun's Rays (1914)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 5 out of 10

Director: Tod Browning

Starring: M.J. Macquarrie, Lon Chaney, Seymour Hastings

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Silent, Drama, Western

Runtime: 11 minutes

By the Sun's Rays is one of silent film star Lon Chaney's earliest films (possibly his earliest surviving), during an era where he was mostly scripted as a villain.  In this short film, even though Chaney is listed second to Macquarrie, its obvious who's the real star.  With his mastery of pantomime and facial expressions, Chaney creates a captivating villain.

Frank Lawler (Chaney) is a corrupt clerk who uses his position to alert a posse of outlaws when shipments of gold are coming through the area using a small mirror to reflect the sunlight and act as a beacon.  Detective John Murdock is called in to investigate the situation, and once Lawler is found out, pretty young Dora Davis (Agnes Vernon), the object of Lawler's affections plays bait to stall for time.

Since this film is so short, instead of posting a trailer, I'm simply going to post the entire film.  It's only eleven minutes, and despite its mediocre rating is still worth seeing.  Mostly, I gave it a lower rating because there's not enough time to build up a great plot, and I couldn't help but wish that Chaney's role had been more substantial.  A nice tidbit, though, for Chaney fans, and enjoyable overall.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (1999)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10

Director: David Mallet

Starring: Donny Osmond, Maria Friedman, and Richard Attenborough, Joan Collins

Rated:Not rated

Genre: Musical, Religious, Family

Runtime:78 minutes

This is one of my favorite movies.  I've loved Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat since I was in THE FOURTH GRADE, and even now, this is a movie I treasure.  It's cute, quirky, and fun, with music that makes you want to get up and dance!  I can't even remember how many times I've seen this film.....but at least 20, to give a conservative estimate.

This is based off of Andrew Lloyd Webber's first musical: Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, written in collaboration with Tim Rice. It retells the Biblical story of Joseph (Osmand), son of Jacob (Attenborough), and his eleven jealous brothers.  Joseph is his father's favorite, and when Jacob buys him a brilliant coat of many colors so that everyone will know how much his father cares about him, his brothers decide they've had enough of being second best, and decide to get rid of him.  While a slave in Egypt, Joseph gets falsely accused, thrown in prison, and eventually rises though the ranks to become second in command to the Pharaoh, who needs him to interpret his dreams.

This is a movie that the whole family can enjoy; not just the adults or just the kids.  Most of the entries on this blog will be geared toward teens and adults since those are the kinds of movies I choose to watch, however, this is one of the few films that is for everyone.  Full of fun songs such as "Go, Go, Go Joseph," "Benjamin Calypso," and "Any Dream Will Do".

Yes, this production is a bit cheesy, but that's a part of the charm.  Just trust me on this.  So, get some popcorn, a friend, or the whole family, and enjoy this wonderful, energetic film!

Jesus Christ Superstar (2000)

Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 5 out of 10

Director: Gale Edwards, Nick Morris

Starring: Glenn Carter, Jerome Pradon, Renee Castle

Rated: Not Rated

Genre: Musical, Religious

Run Time:107 minutes

Other Versions: Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

Based off of Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous "rock opera" of the same name, Jesus Christ Superstar is an epic musical production.  The story details the last week of Jesus' (Carter) life through the eyes of Judas Iscariot (Pradon), his best friend and right-hand man, who will later betray him.  Although a delight to watch, this movie is filled with Biblical inaccuracies, portraying Jesus as a self-centered, ignorant young man who has allowed his new-found popularity to go to his head, while Judas is the level-headed apostle who tries to keep him on the right path.  The setting is more modern than its 1973 counterpart, with revolutionaries and gangs instead of hippies.

I enjoyed this movie, however, there were quite a few things that bothered me.  First of all, I don't agree with how Jesus was portrayed as naive, oblivious, and a conceited drama queen.  Plus, I was not a fan of how they overly sexualized his  relationship with Mary Magdalene.  Also, Carter has a wonderful voice, but he launched into falsetto tones far too many times, and at parts that didn't need falsetto.  The chief priests, especially Annas (Michael Shaeffer), besides looking like a cross between The Matrix and the Spanish Inquisition, were absolutely demonic (but wonderful), making it nearly impossible to understand why Judas would go to them to betray his friend.
 

Speaking of Judas, I have to say that next to Ben Vereen, Jerome Pradon is my favorite Judas.  His performance is powerful, moving, and emotional, making the viewer really sympathise with him.  I loved his role, and honestly, Pradon made the movie for me.

All in all, an okay movie.  Not the best I have seen, but enjoyable, and reminiscent of Donny Osmand's Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.  Although, I have to say that I preferred Godspell to Jesus Christ Superstar.  However, if you enjoy the works of Andrew Lloyd Webber, I would say that this film is worth it.  If musicals really aren't your thing, then I'd suggest looking for a different movie.