Night of the Living Dead (1968) Review

 

        Now we’re in the sixties and the realm of horror has changed significantly. If you remember from my first outing of reviewing horror, most of the films branched off and focused on satanic rituals and closeted killers. With this film, no one could’ve imagined how this independent film changed the landscape and further cemented a sub-genre. 

1. Zombies

        Before Night of the Living Dead came out, there were other zombie films. The knock on them was that it was mostly taboo of just the thought of a corpse coming back to life. Since the belief of the dead coming back was mostly from African and Haitian beliefs. One of the first zombie films called White Zombie was released in the early 30s.

        So back to this film, the film is mostly straightforward in terms of plot. Siblings have been attacked by a roaming zombie. The survivor Barbra finds an abandoned home and takes refuge. Unbeknownst to her is that there are survivors who each have different intentions of survival. The main highlight of the film is seeing the character dynamics on display. I’ll elaborate more as to how it’s a reflection of the time it’s set in.

        With that, how are the zombies? Well, for being the one to set the standard and for its series to improve on them, it’s interesting to see how George Romero establishes the Living Dead. The film doesn’t exactly say as to how the dead are coming back. We hear various radio broadcasts as to how, but nothing definite. Outside looking in, they’re slow and lumbering as they barrel through the abandoned house. 

        Another aspect that makes its appearance in other films is that there’s an instance where they can run. For instance, Barbra runs away from the first zombie, and we see that it quickly hobbles to get her. While not running, it showed that this creature can move at a brisk pace instead of casually lumbering. One more is that they kill with weapons. Sometimes they imply bite since we don’t see that, but some hold weapons and straight up kill the regular humans. 

2. Reflections of the Times

        Aside from the zombies, the film is a classic due in part because of the survivors. It’s a motley crew since they all just want to survive. However, their major flaw in the whole movie is that they’re distrusting and prideful. We see that Ben is the impromptu leader and tries to lead by boarding up the house. What makes it all fail is that the others don’t listen and do their own things. 

        I say that the film is progressive in terms of its presentation. We haven’t seen a horror movie where a black guy takes a lead and tries his darndest to survive the onslaught. Especially in the sixties since this was just on the onsite of the civil rights movement. But it doesn’t shy away from the racism, since Barbra doesn’t listen to what Ben wants her to do. 

        One last thing is that we get moments of how the government have been completely inept with the whole situation. Brief moments occur where they’re just dodging questions and ultimately letting the surviving citizens take up arms and stop the dead. I think in one way that while yes, the zombies are the threat. Although you can make the argument that humans are the worst monsters when thinking about this movie. 

3. Franchise Starter or the many, many Dead franchises

        For grossing 30 million with a 150,000-dollar budget is rather impressive. No one could’ve imagined just how influential the movie was and how much it meant to pop culture. And I find it funny that the copyright status is nonexistent, meaning anyone can release the movie. I’m glad it’s like that since the ending would’ve been changed had a major studio bought the movie for distribution.

        It's clear then that George Romero had an idea and immediately created a franchise. I’m kicking myself that I’m not going to cover what’s considered his best work Dawn of the Dead. That one laid the foundation of how bloody, and action packed the film is. More so that when it got released internationally, it created a different franchise that Romero had no involvement called Zombi. 

        You know how it is, I get myself lost in the ever-deepening rabbit hole. There was yet another franchise called the Return of the Living Dead. This was established due to a dispute between Romero and his screenwriter John Russo as to how to expand on the first movie’s success. It only ever had one great entry as the sequels from what I gathered, sucked. 

        The movie ultimately did get remade in the early 90s. Special effects artist Tom Savini, who worked for the special effects of Romero’s sequels, helmed the remake of George’s first film. It gained a following but couldn’t match the classic as in most cases. The film was actually made to address the copyright foul up that the first one had.

4. Overall 

        This film is an absolute classic. If you like zombies and drama, I highly recommend it. 

House of Wax (1953) Review

 

        We’re in the 50s now and cinema is at the crossroads of change. It’s during that time where they had a hefty competition with TV. You had a lot of movies try any sort of gimmick to get audiences into seats. One was with the musicals, which I’ve talked about when I did an overview of A Star Is Born. Another was using the extra dimension. This is where 3-D got its start around that period. With that, here’s what I think. 

1. Mystery of the Wax Museum

        What’s interesting about this film is that it’s a remake. Well, to be specific the 1930s version was an adaptation of the play The Wax Works. It follows the main gist of the story. Professor Jarrod is a sculptor who creates historical figures. I’ll elaborate more on that. His business partner Burke sets fire to the museum to get the insurance. After that, mysterious killings occur during a new wax museum being established.  

        What I like about this movie is that its mostly a period piece. Mostly every man and woman is dressed in a multi layered suit with the funny looking hat. Now it’s obvious that the set is inside the studio lot. You can’t close out an entire block of New York and configure it to look like the late 1900s. Particularly when the main character we focus on Sue, is chased by the mysterious cloaked figure. The chase is disorienting since there’s no clear direction with where she’s going. 

        Professor Jarrod is also an interesting character. As I mentioned earlier, he’s a dedicated wax sculptor whose motif is on historical figures. Albeit, sculpting when the figures have died. Such as him having on display Lincoln being assassinated. Already, there’s a weird aura of him since he designs something macabre. He considers them cheap but educates the tourists on the figures. 

I won’t give away the twist ending since, the film makes us think that there’s more cloaked killers running around. 

        There is one sculpting that he loves, and its of Marie Antionette. He has infatuated with it since he sees it as his best work. After his museum is razed, Sue along with her friend talk to Jarrod. He mentions that she has the face that mirrors the Antoinette sculpting. It tips us off that he's very prideful and will do anything to rebuild his best work. 

        The best moment is when his museum his set on fire. When he fights Burke, we see the fire gradually build up. Intersperse with cuts to the various wax figures being melted away. Seeing all of them have their faces melted off looks cool. Now, I don’t have proof, but I believe Steven Spielberg saw this movie and used that sequence to have one of the villains in Raiders of the Lost Ark go the same way as the wax figures.

2. Vincent Price

Vincent Price steals the show for this movie. In fact, its with this one thought brought him back to the level of popularity within the horror genre. Within his early part of his career, he was only in secondary roles and didn’t have top billing. After the success of this film, he was in high demand. It’s one thing to be type cast as a recurring character role within the horror genre, but Price nailed all of them since he had a charisma about him. I think what attributed it was his distinct Missourian voice.

3. 3-D

        You wouldn’t believe as to how this gimmick even got popular. Well, the whole idea of 3-D predated this film by about 50 years. It was experimented since the possibilities of showing anything in film was unimaginable in those times. To put it simply, for the effect to actually work, the theater literally needed a silver screen to have the effect work. 

        So yeah, it went mainstream after the success of this film since it was the first color 3-D film. And there’s this one moment where the film breaks the fourth wall. It’s when the promotor is playing with the paddle ball to get people into the museum. He paddles the stringed ball to the camera and its one of the memorable scenes in the film. I’ll excuse that the version I saw wasn’t in 3-D, since it’s just a product of its time. 

4. Overall

        House of Wax is an enjoyable mystery horror film. It has moments of levity with the humor, but watch it for Vincent Price. 

The Body Snatcher Review

 

        We’re in the 1940s now. This is where the horror genre would see a big shift. Now, with what was happening around the world, the things that were scary were nothing compared to the atrocities that were transpiring. Monsters and mythological figures couldn’t possibly beat the idea that an army could simply wipe out a specific group of people. This is where the type of horror where humans can be scarier than monsters. 

1. Story

        Based on the story of the same name by Robert Louis Stevenson, which was based on an actual event that happened in England and Scotland. The Body Snatcher focuses on Dr. MacFarlane helping a young girl with damaged legs. He has an assistant named Donald who makes the girl comfortable by his manners. Meanwhile, he hears a cabdriver named John Gray who delivers a cadaver for his class. Not knowing of the cabdriver’s secret. 

        It was tough trying to find a movie about the 40s. Mind you, there was some Universal Monsters that I wanted to look in. This one has the main stars of Dracula and Frankenstein, so you know it’ll be good. Given the time, Boris Karloff was well known and it’s interesting seeing him in his monster debut and give a great performance. This was the last film to feature the two actors together. Sometime later I’ll talk about the two Edgar Allen Poe adaptations that have them. 

        Now, what makes this film one of the best from its time is that it seems to be focusing on this idea of class and criminals. Both John and MacFarlane are much alike, since they know a lot about the human anatomy. The difference is obvious with how they’re put together, with MacFarlane more dignified and John being well just scraggly. There’s a level of beef that is also seen since John pesters his student by threatening to share a secret. 

        Another thing I noticed that highlights the difference between a servant and monster is MacFarlane and Donald. When they’re treating the young girl, he’s more friendly to her and not one to rush her to be recovered. MacFarlane is full of pride in his work, while Donald is the more idealistic assistant who wants to do good. It makes his relation to Gray more tragic since he claims to be a better man, but can't see that himself and John are almost the same. 

        Alright so with all that explained to the best of my ability, how’s the horror. It’s more psychological with John going out of his way to demean MacFarlane by making him feel worthless. More so that, John makes Donald feel responsible since he needs the cadavers that were people he saw earlier. Aside from that, it’s got that creepy vibe which helps when we hear the horse walk on the cobblestone streets. Hell, the horse is white which isn’t subtle in the least bit.

        One last thing I wanted to talk about is the scene involving both Karloff and Bela Lugosi. These two built Universal’s Classic Monster franchise. It’s evident that Karloff was way more famous than Lugosi since he got more exposure as an actor. I feel that this scene involving the two practically symbolizes the actors in a meta sense. For instance, the janitor Joseph confronts John about his actions. The two fight and ultimately Joseph is killed. It’s sad reading that Lugosi was in poor health when the shooting happened. And this scene cemented the fact that he was just relegated to supporting cast. 

2. Overall

        I haven’t seen that much horror movies from the 40s, but this is by far the best one that I’ve watched. Parts of it is slow, but the psychological angle makes up for it. 

Doctor X Review

        This is an interesting one. Whenever I do something special such as these guides to the classic horror movies. I always want to do one that has some historical aspect to them. One year I’ll scrape the bottom of the barrel and see some crappy ones. Anyways, I want to talk about Doctor X to wrap up my look into 1930s horror. 

1. Doctor Xavier

        I’ll talk about the reason why this movie is historically important in movies in a bit. With that, this is an interesting horror movie from Warner Bros. Specifically, this is based on a play that was happening in a decade prior to this film’s release. Now obviously, it’s a horror movie, but it has that spin of being a crime movie. I feel that when these two types collide, it mostly produces something great. 

        With that, we follow a reporter named Lee, who tries to get a scoop about the roaming murderer in New York City dubbed the Moon Killer. He tries to follow the police to see the gruesome aftermath of the victims. Meanwhile, the police call in Doctor Xavier to see if he can investigate. This is the interesting part of the movie; they have the doctor perform an experiment to see if the other suspects are the real killer. 

        The movie makes it seem that the Doctor is the killer in question. It’s an interesting take that the police is willing to let him be the one to figure out who the killer is. All the while, Lee is trying to get the story for his paper. We get to see the betterment when Lee comes across the Doctor’s daughter. At first she’s mad at him for writing a negative piece on him and he admits that he was forced to. 

        Now for the killer himself, we hardly get a good look. I mean we do see a glimpse of his face, and almost come close to killing Lee. When it’s revealed who the actual killer is, it almost looks grotesque with how he puts on his face. He applies some wax-like substance and smears it all over his face to assume a different identity. This idea has popped up in another movie, but I’m getting ahead of myself. 

        One last thing I want to talk about is that the film has a comedic element to it. Most of it comes at the expense with Lee. There’s moments when he’s a trickster and he messes with an officer by using a buzzer on his hand. I can divulge on the comedic moments, but this movie is perhaps the first color and comedic horror movie. 

2. Technicolor

        To put it into perspective of how significant this movie was, nearly all movies were shot in black and white. It’s just a fact. Now, there were certain circumstances where color did appear in a dominant black and white film. One example is in the first adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera. The Wizard of Oz made it popular, but it had the sepia tone in the beginning and the end. 

        With Doctor X, its interesting to how the process was done. How they did it was the reels were dyed with color. When they put it together, it would immediately pop up. As I continued my research, only the big cities had the luxury of seeing the color version of the movie. Which means that there’s two version, since the small cities and towns just saw the black and white version. 

3. Overall

        Doctor X is a product of its time. Not to say it’s dull, but it’s a good watch. You know it’s a classic Warner movie when people talk fast and used the transatlantic accent. 

 

Frankenstein (1931) Review

 

        Back in the 1930s, Universal contributed to the growth and popularity of the horror genre. With the success of Dracula, producer Carl Laemmle Jr. decided to do another adaptation. This time by focusing on the novel by Mary Shelley. Considered by many to be the best out of all the Universal Monsters, Frankenstein made an immediate impact in pop culture.

1. The Monster

        The way the movie starts is interesting. It has actor Edward Van Sloan give caution to the audience before the movie starting. I want to say that it’s the first time that an actor or someone from a production would introduce the film. As far as I know that this method has been used again for The Ten Commandments when Cecil B. DeMille introduced the film before it started. So yeah, for the time I think it works since no one could’ve imagined what they’ll be seeing. 

        For the most part, the film is loosely based on the actual novel itself. In fact, the movie is based on the theater play. Much like its counterpart Dracula. It does contain various plot points of the book, but it mostly diverges and instead focuses on the scientist himself. Henry decides to reanimate a dead corpse with his assistant Fritz. This is the thing that people easily think that the crazy assistant is called Igor. I’ll talk about that aspect later. 

        Anyways, as the doctor creates his abomination, his former professor tells him that the brain he used was that of a criminal. And you can probably imagine what happens from there. What I like is that we get a lot of focus on Henry. We understand what drives him to create. It’s his pride and overall sense of curiosity of doing something that hasn’t been attempted. Specifically, we learn from him that he wants to ‘renew’ life and discover the mysteries of life and death. It would’ve been easy to just make him a wacky scientist with no real cause or want. 

        I think the overall theme of the movie is the idea of the monster. When we see Frankenstein, he’s just a lumbering being who doesn’t know from right or wrong. You can probably say that he’s literally a newborn with stitched up parts. The film exposes who really is the actual monster. We see Henry’s assistant whip the creature into submission, as the monster grunts and yells. It’s not so much that the monster is a brute, but ultimately the one who wants to control it. 

        Of course, I can’t continue to talk about the film without talking about the creature itself. This film put Boris Karloff on the map. In fact, it was a rumor that Bela Lugosi was going to play the character but backed out considering that the creature didn’t have lines. Although, it was the filmmakers that wanted Karloff and not Lugosi. The way the character looks has been the defining look for generations. You don’t have to watch the movie to know that the monster has a flat head with bolts sticking out his neck.

2. My Favorite Scene

        This one scene in particular has been for awhile cut, depending on if you lived in some states in the US. The scene in question is the one involving Frankenstein and the little girl Maria. As Frankenstein escapes from his confinement, he wanders and happens across the young girl. She’s showing him how to make a flower float. The creature unintentionally murders the girl as a way to mimic what he learned. 

        The scene is the best moment in the film since it adds depth to the creature. For one thing, it showed a little bit of humanity when the creature was playing with the little girl. It almost gives us just a glimpse that maybe the monster can learn to be good, considering that his brain is that of a criminal. Unfortunately, that’s not the case at all. In one way, it’s actions leads to the destruction of Henry’s lab and his seemingly destruction.

3. Legacy

        This one movie helped expand Universal’s Monster Universe. It made bank in the box office, which prompted the producer to make more films out of other established works and mythology. The creature has spawned a series within the overarching franchise with four sequels and a comedy. Also, it created a cliché with the mad assistant. The sequels had a character named Igor, but he was just a blacksmith. In fact, the hunchback assistant did pop up in the sequels, but was called Daniel. 

        Also, it’s one of the first characters to do a crossover. Before Marvel Studios or whatever Warner Bros. has been attempting to do, Universal had their stars duke it out before. It was dubbed a ‘monster rallies’ since it involved some of the monsters to fight. Aside from that, this character has been adapted in other movies and his look has popped up in various Halloween decorations. 

4. Overall

        Frankenstein did what so few movies try, be a hit and have a lasting impact nearly a century later

Nosferatu (1922) Review

.

        Happy October! It feels good to finally arrive at this month where I get to talk about horror. Well, think of it like a personal view guide from the early part of the 20th century to now. As always, the toughest part of picking which movie to talk about is always the ones that get left over for next year. That’s always a pain, but you still get an appreciation of how one genre evolves and spawned a sect of sub-genres. With all that out of the way, let’s talk about the most influential horror movie. 

1. Story without Dracula

        There’s so much behind the scenes info for this movie. For one thing, it was supposed to be an adaptation of Bram Stocker’s “Dracula”. Although, the filmmakers didn’t have the license to make the adaptation. To get around it, they altered how the story is being presented. Mostly retaining the central idea of “Dracula” but creating a new character. 

        Basically, the story involves Hutter who is tasked with helping the hermit Orlock get a piece of property. As he travels to meet with the recluse, he scoffs at the inn’s residents about the danger of the man. So much so he reads a piece of text that describes the count but laughs at the absurdity of it.

        Even though the movie is 100 years old, it’s always interesting how it’s presented. I’ll elaborate more on the version of the movie that I watched. The main gist is that during the silent era, the European way of showing horror was showing the macabre and grotesque. While the American way of horror was more psychological and understanding the monster or threat. 

        More so when watching a silent movie, there’s no sound. It’s interesting how the story is presented with the body language of the main character. We can imply what’s being talked about when we have brief moments of dialogue of what’s being said. Additionally, see what’s being established as the next act or scene is about to take place. 

2. Count Orlock

        Yeah, Nosferatu is the stand in for Dracula. The way he’s presented still elicits that creepy aspect about him. It’s his face, something about it without ever uttering a sound has that unsettling factor to it. Even when he moves, its stilted but its just uncomfortable to look at since with it being in black and white enhances his threat. 

        When watching the movie, you’re probably wondering why there isn’t a bat. One motif that I found interesting is that he’s mostly associated with rats and vermin. Once more with his face, there’s a shot where he has sharpened buck teeth. Fitting since he bites his victims, and it leaves the distinct mark. Additionally, the motif of rats is appropriate since that’s usually associated with disease. 

        For instance, when he boards the ship to head for the main characters town. One of the sailors checks on the coffin cargo. He damages it and sees that it’s full of rats as they spill out. Ultimately, we see the Count rise up strangely. In fact, when translating Nosferatu from either Roman or Greek languages, it says either unclean spirit or bringer of plague. Again, as the creature is mostly associated with rats. 

One more thing that makes this character distinct is his shadow. You don’t have to see the movie but that iconic shot of his shadow going up the stairs is the main highlight. I feel that his shadow is supposed to be a representation of the art style called German Expressionism. If you want to know what that is, please refer to my review for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Anyways, it’s more tame than Caligari, but manages to show fear when we don’t see the actual figure.

3. Legacy

        As I mentioned before, the filmmakers weren’t allowed to use Dracula, but they forged ahead. They even included the credit of being inspired by the story. Inevitably, the widow of the author took the filmmakers to court, and the judge ordered the film to be destroyed. For a while it was a lost movie. Various copies popped up in different parts of the globe, but were damaged due to the film being combustible. So, what I saw was a surviving print.

        The movie has been an immense influential piece of cinema. Many more films adopted the gothic feel of Nosferatu and copied characteristics that have since become a defining feature of a vampire. As always with any movie prompted a remake with filmmaker Werner Herzog‘s adaptation in the 70s. And it was adapted once more in 2000 under the name Shadow of the Vampire. That one was framed as a ‘making of’ featuring John Malkovich and Willem Dafoe. 

        In fact, my first exposure to Nosferatu was Spongebob Squarepants of all things. It was in the episode "Graveyard Shift". Near the end, the main characters figured out what was causing the lights to flicker and lo and behold it was the Count. Surprisingly, it’s being adapted for a second time. With director Robert Eggers helming the adaptation. I trust him to deliver on the goods since he has a knack to make his films feel historic such as The Witch and The Northman.   

4. Overall

        With Nosferatu being 100 years old, I recommend watching this influential piece of cinema to see how far the vampire has evolved.