Randolph-3 Reviews

The Other (1972)

Fine psychological terror

[8/10 · 31 July 2002]

This is a very good example of a film that is scary without resorting to elaborate special effects or extreme gore. The effect is achieved through psychological terror, mood, and effective performances. This movie reminds me of the 1960's version of The Haunting in that way. However, The Other is not a gothic type of film like The Haunting, which relied on a spooky mansion in a remote location. The Other takes place in a more ordinary setting, very familiar to many people. In a way, that makes it even more effective.

The Haunting (1999)

This movie is not a remake of the 1963 film classic...

[12 August 1999]

This movie is not a remake of the 1963 film classic. In fact, it is only loosely based on the Jackson novella that is supposedly its source. Sure, the characters' names are the same and the basic situation is the same, but beyond that, almost everything has been changed. The ending, especially, was drastically changed to make the main character into a kind of a savior, rather than the hapless and pitiful (but highly sympathetic) victim of the original. I guess that was done to appeal to modern sensibilities? Also, this film relies heavily on special visual effects, whereas the 1963 classic relied exclusively on psychological terror and suggestion. As a result, the newer film is only about a tenth as effective -- that is, scary -- as the older one. I suggest all potential viewers skip the 1999 film and go straight to the 1963 one.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

This film has two things in its favor...

[12 August 1999]

This film has two things in its favor. It has terrific production values. More importantly, it has taken the interesting position that the original story, as told in Stoker's novel through a collection of diaries and journals, doesn't tell the "entire" story of what happened. That is, this film says the characters' Victorian sensibilities wouldn't allow them to record all the details exactly as they happened. Unfortunately, this film is marred as it continues the post-Hammer era trend -- now a hackneyed cliche -- of trying to portray Dracula as both a romantic hero and an evil bloodsucking human vampire. You want to portray Dracula as "too much in love" with Mina to bite her? It just doesn't work. As of the date of this writing, the great horror film that could be based on an accurate adaptation of Stoker's novel has not yet been made.

Dracula (1979)

This is supposed to be a "horror" movie?

[12 August 1999]

Dracula is supposed to be un-dead, but a better word to describe this movie would be "un-frightening." Dracula is not scary if you make him overly sympathetic. And the portrayal of the Van Helsing character here is just silly. Still, there are a couple of interesting visual touches and special effects.

Count Dracula (1977 TV Movie)

Presented as a sort of miniseries in three parts...

[12 August 1999]

Originally presented on television as a sort of miniseries in three hour-long parts, this production had enough time to tell the story the way Stoker wrote it. And, in fact, they did a pretty good job of that, although they still took some liberties. The production values were not too good (the frequent switching between video and film recording was plainly visible and annoying) and the acting was not memorable. But the main thing I remember about this production was my sense that Louis Jourdan was terribly miscast as Dracula. I kept expecting him to cry out "Gigi!" at any moment. This production represented one of the early efforts to give the Count a more romantic nature. At least it did not go quite as far in that effort as some other misguided films have done.

Dracula (1974 TV Movie)

Jack Palance reminds me of Lon Chaney Jr....

[12 August 1999]

Jack Palance reminds me of Lon Chaney Jr. trying to "be" Dracula -- or a "son" of Dracula, in Lon's case (in "Son of Dracula"). To me, Palance looks pretty comfortable wearing leather and sitting on a horse in the Wild West. He exudes a sort of fundamental American decency and ruggedness, kind of like Ronald Reagan used to do (in Western movies, I mean). Palance certainly does NOT look right wearing a cape and trying to impersonate a thoroughly evil reanimated Transylvanian nobleman's corpse. He, like Chaney Jr., tries to muddle through the role of the Count by looking very, very grim. It worked better for Lon than it did for Jack. Not much better, but still better.

Count Dracula (1970)

This film has the requisite quality of "creepiness."

[12 August 1999]

Despite some relatively poor production values, this film has the requisite quality of "creepiness" that any good Dracula film really should have. Kinski is fine. This is also Christopher Lee's most accurate performance as the Count. Too bad the editing is so jumpy. It's almost like watching a documentary, or an antique silent film (but with sound). If they had just invested a little more money, this could have become "the" authentic film adaptation of the novel. As it stands, it is only for real devotees of the genre.

The Haunting (1963)

Without a doubt, the greatest ghost movie ever made is this.

[12 August 1999]

Without a doubt, the greatest ghost movie ever made (so far) is this one. This, despite the fact that no visible ghost actually appears in the film. You won't even know exactly who it might be the ghost of, or even whether it's just one ghost or many. Never mind all that; the ghost or ghosts ARE there, all right.

As a matter of fact, there is only one type of visible "special effect" in the entire film, which is the supernatural bending of a door. Everything else is conveyed by brilliant acting, photography, and sound effects.

Son of Dracula (1943)

Lon Chaney Jr. may not be the best Dracula, but...

[12 August 1999]

Lon Chaney Jr. may not be the best Dracula ever to appear on the screen, but he is at least doing okay in the role of the "son." This film has a surprising amount of appropriate gloomy atmosphere, given the improbable story line and locale. The creators of this film also have used the implied "romantic" aspects of the Dracula legend correctly: his romance is merely a cover-up for his underlying, indisputably evil nature. This film would be a good choice for watching at a Halloween party.

The Invisible Man (1933)

What you really have to appreciate here is Rain's performance.

[12 August 1999]

What you really have to appreciate here is Rain's performance in the title role. Using very little more than just his voice, Rains made this character completely believable, even as the character declined into a state of madness. The special effects may not be quite up to today's standards, but they still come off pretty well, which is remarkable given the amount of time that has passed. This is one of those films that could not be changed without diminishing it. It is a real must-see for anyone interested in either the horror or sci-fi genres.

The Mummy (1932)

After Karl Freund did the cinematography on "Dracula"...

[12 August 1999]

After Karl Freund did a good job on the cinematography in "Dracula" in 1931 -- some claim he actually directed the first fifteen minutes or so of that film, which are the most effective -- his studio, Universal, gave him this film to direct. It really is very similar in some ways to the 1931 "Dracula" in that it is slow, deliberate, creepy, and dark. It even has many of the same cast members as "Dracula" and, like that film, the only really good acting is supplied by the person playing the main character(Boris Karloff in this case). "The Mummy" also introduced the idea of the villain travelling across great distances of time and space to reunite with the reincarnation of his lost love. That idea was not a part of the 1931 "Dracula" but since has been incorporated into other Dracula films, especially Coppola's 1992 effort, as a motivation for the villain's obsession with a particular female.

Drácula (1931)

Superior in every way to the English language version, except one...

[12 August 1999]

This version is superior in every conceivable way to the English language version (shot simultaneously in 1931) except one: Lugosi is a much better Count Dracula -- the best so far, really. However, Carlos Villarias is better than many of the actors who tackled the role in later years. This Spanish version is well worth watching.

Dracula (1931)

Lugosi is brilliant, but...

[12 August 1999]

Lugosi is brilliant as Count Dracula. He was perfectly cast in this part. In retrospect, one wonders why there was ever any hesitation about his selection for the role. Unfortunately, just about everything else in the film is mishandled. I don't know whether this was the fault of the director, the editor, or the producers who perhaps thought that English-speaking audiences were too delicate to be fully exposed to the horror implied in the screenplay. In any case, this film only becomes alive (or should I say "undead") when Lugosi is on the screen.