list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Mummy on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Mummy/23531/default.aspx Title: The Mummy
Year: 1932
Director: Karl W. Freund
Plot: The Mummy represented Boris Karloff's second horror starring role after his "overnight" success in Frankenstein. Brought back to life after nearly 3,700 years, Egyptian high priest Imhotep wreaks havoc upon the members of the British field exposition that disturbed his tomb (shades of the King Tut curse). While disguised as a contemporary Egyptologist, he falls in love with Zita Johann, whom he recognizes as the latest incarnation of a priestess who died nearly 40 centures earlier. Spiriting Zita away to the tomb, he relates the story of how he had dared to enter her ancestor's sacred burial crypt, hoping to restore her to life. Caught in the act, he was embalmed alive and his tongue was cut out for his act of sacrilege. Now that he has returned, he intends to slay Zita, so that they will be reunited for all time in the Hereafter. Despite its melodramatic trappings, The Mummy is essentially a love story, poetically related by ace cinematographer and first-time director Karl Freund. Jack Pierce's justly celebrated makeup skills offers us two Karloffs: the wizened Egyptologist and the flaking, rotting mummy, who though only seen for a few seconds remains in the memory long after the film's final image has faded. Best line: "It went for a little walk." The Mummy was followed by four stock footage-laden sequels, none of which approached the power and poignancy of the original. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:51:45 GMTThe Mummy1932Karl W. FreundThe Mummy represented <a href="/players/P____36942/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Boris Karloff</a>'s second horror starring role after his "overnight" success in <a href=/films/12430/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Frankenstein</a>. Brought back to life after nearly 3,700 years, Egyptian high priest Imhotep wreaks havoc upon the members of the British field exposition that disturbed his tomb (shades of the King Tut curse). While disguised as a contemporary Egyptologist, he falls in love with Zita Johann, whom he recognizes as the latest incarnation of a priestess who died nearly 40 centures earlier. Spiriting Zita away to the tomb, he relates the story of how he had dared to enter her ancestor's sacred burial crypt, hoping to restore her to life. Caught in the act, he was embalmed alive and his tongue was cut out for his act of sacrilege. Now that he has returned, he intends to slay Zita, so that they will be reunited for all time in the Hereafter. Despite its melodramatic trappings, The Mummy is essentially a love story, poetically related by ace cinematographer and first-time director Karl Freund. <a href="/players/P___106460/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Pierce</a>'s justly celebrated makeup skills offers us two Karloffs: the wizened Egyptologist and the flaking, rotting mummy, who though only seen for a few seconds remains in the memory long after the film's final image has faded. Best line: "It went for a little walk." The Mummy was followed by four stock footage-laden sequels, none of which approached the power and poignancy of the original. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide12243http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t03371nblos.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Mummy/23531/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/31/36853.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/31/2008 5:00:30 PM
Body: It’s Halloween, a time when sales of candy and rentals of horror movies spike off the charts. Candy has been around since the time of the ancient Egyptians, but the horror film is barely 100 years old. The genre is enjoying a resurgence in popularity over the past several years: right now you’ve got Saw V in wide release, Let The Right One In in limited theaters, the vampy teen Twilight coming up in a few weeks and True Blood making waves on HBO. Studios can’t seem to go more than a few months without releasing some sort of a zombie flick, and vampires are coming back into their own. But what was the first real horror film? Before movies existed, people had to get their scares from books and the local newspaper, but now you can just switch on cable and tune into NBC’s Chiller channel for instant scares. Check out a brief history of the horror movie after the break, and look just how far we’ve come. Georges Méliès is best known for his short film A Trip To The Moon, with the iconic image of the Man in the Moon with spaceship embedded in his eye like a bullet. He was born in France in 1861 and eventually became a successful stage magician, although he found more fame (but no fortune) as a filmmaker in the then newfangled art of cinema after seeing a demonstration by the Lumiere brothers in 1895. For the next several years he created some of the first films to feature special effects, especially using the “stop-trick” of stopping the camera and substituing something into the frame before resuming filming. Just watch any episode of Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie to see this used ad infinitum. One of Méliès’ first films was Le Manoir du Diable, or The House of the Devil, which is considered to be the world’s first horror film. It’s two minutes long, extremely grainy, and not scary at all by today’s standards. It premiered on Christmas Eve in 1896, and was the first in a string of many short horror films, including Le Diable Noir, Le Monstre (check out the dancing skeletons!), and Le Chaudron Infernal. By the early 1900s, Germany was producing full-length feature horror films with Der Golem in 1913 (remade in 1920), as one of the first Frankenstein-esque films, Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari in 1919, which influenced the look and feel of the classic horror films of the 1930s, and Nosferatu in 1922, which was one of the first enduring vampire stories. These movies eventually made their way to Hollywood, and by the 1930s Universal was making many of the horror films which are considered the “Universal Classic Horror” movies. Films like Dracula, The Mummy, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were just some of the films that terrified audiences and launch the careers of actors like Lon Chaney, Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff. These movies persisted through the 1950s, although by then the fear of the atomic bomb had given rise to movies about irradiated creatures terrorizing mankind, like Them! and Tarantula. The possibility of aliens invading the Earth and having their way with humans was also a common theme in horror films, from Invasion of the Body Snatchers to It Came From Outer Space. The late 1950s also featured often gorier films, a trend that continued heavily through the 1960s. Hammer Films seized on the new obsession with gore and churned out low budget bloodfests often starring Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee. This period was also when Vincent Price rose to popularity, having starred in the very popular House of Wax in 1953, he went on to star in a series of low budger horror flicks for Roger Corman, based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Although films that were based in gore continued to be made through the 1960s and 70s, they were considered camp and didn’t break into the top ten. In 1960 Alfred Hitchcock turned the tables to show that it was often unhinged people who were more terrifying than ever with Psycho. Gone were the supernatural creatures, the irradiated monsters, and so on. But by now horror had become splintered and fractured with many different subgenres and categories. The late 1960s through the 1970s saw popular horror movies like Rosemary’s Baby, Jaws, The Exorcist, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. By the 1980s, Jason, Freddy, and Michael were the top trio of movie monsters, who spawned multiple sequels that were all extremely formulaic and repetitive, and by the 1990s the fervor for horror movies had died down. Although in the early 2000s, horror movies became extremely popular again with supernatural movies like 1999’s The Blair Witch Project jumpstarting the craze that went on to movies like and The Grudge and The Ring, and “torture-porn” began filling seats with people begging to be grossed-out in movies like Saw and Hostel. We’ve come a long way since Georges Méliès flickering short films entertained audiences, and he could probably have never imagined the kind of horror movies people would be watch today. But he’d probably be fascinated by the special effects, and making inventive scary movies of his own. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:00:30 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/31/2008 5:00:30 PM It’s Halloween, a time when sales of candy and rentals of horror movies spike off the charts. Candy has been around since the time of the ancient Egyptians, but the horror film is barely 100 years old. The genre is enjoying a resurgence in popularity over the past several years: right now you’ve got Saw V in wide release, Let The Right One In in limited theaters, the vampy teen Twilight coming up in a few weeks and True Blood making waves on HBO. Studios can’t seem to go more than a few months without releasing some sort of a zombie flick, and vampires are coming back into their own. But what was the first real horror film? Before movies existed, people had to get their scares from books and the local newspaper, but now you can just switch on cable and tune into NBC’s Chiller channel for instant scares. Check out a brief history of the horror movie after the break, and look just how far we’ve come. Georges Méliès is best known for his short film A Trip To The Moon, with the iconic image of the Man in the Moon with spaceship embedded in his eye like a bullet. He was born in France in 1861 and eventually became a successful stage magician, although he found more fame (but no fortune) as a filmmaker in the then newfangled art of cinema after seeing a demonstration by the Lumiere brothers in 1895. For the next several years he created some of the first films to feature special effects, especially using the “stop-trick” of stopping the camera and substituing something into the frame before resuming filming. Just watch any episode of Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie to see this used ad infinitum. One of Méliès’ first films was Le Manoir du Diable, or The House of the Devil, which is considered to be the world’s first horror film. It’s two minutes long, extremely grainy, and not scary at all by today’s standards. It premiered on Christmas Eve in 1896, and was the first in a string of many short horror films, including Le Diable Noir, Le Monstre (check out the dancing skeletons!), and Le Chaudron Infernal. By the early 1900s, Germany was producing full-length feature horror films with Der Golem in 1913 (remade in 1920), as one of the first Frankenstein-esque films, Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari in 1919, which influenced the look and feel of the classic horror films of the 1930s, and Nosferatu in 1922, which was one of the first enduring vampire stories. These movies eventually made their way to Hollywood, and by the 1930s Universal was making many of the horror films which are considered the “Universal Classic Horror” movies. Films like Dracula, The Mummy, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were just some of the films that terrified audiences and launch the careers of actors like Lon Chaney, Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff. These movies persisted through the 1950s, although by then the fear of the atomic bomb had given rise to movies about irradiated creatures terrorizing mankind, like Them! and Tarantula. The possibility of aliens invading the Earth and having their way with humans was also a common theme in horror films, from Invasion of the Body Snatchers to It Came From Outer Space. The late 1950s also featured often gorier films, a trend that continued heavily through the 1960s. Hammer Films seized on the new obsession with gore and churned out low budget bloodfests often starring Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee. This period was also when Vincent Price rose to popularity, having starred in the very popular House of Wax in 1953, he went on to star in a series of low budger horror flicks for Roger Corman, based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Although films that were based in gore continued to be made through the 1960s and 70s, they were considered camp and didn’t break into the top ten. In 1960 Alfred Hitchcock turned the tables to show that it was often unhinged people who were more terrifying than ever with Psycho. Gone were the supernatural creatures, the irradiated monsters, and so on. But by now horror had become splintered and fractured with many different subgenres and categories. The late 1960s through the 1970s saw popular horror movies like Rosemary’s Baby, Jaws, The Exorcist, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. By the 1980s, Jason, Freddy, and Michael were the top trio of movie monsters, who spawned multiple sequels that were all extremely formulaic and repetitive, and by the 1990s the fervor for horror movies had died down. Although in the early 2000s, horror movies became extremely popular again with supernatural movies like 1999’s The Blair Witch Project jumpstarting the craze that went on to movies like and The Grudge and The Ring, and “torture-porn” began filling seats with people begging to be grossed-out in movies like Saw and Hostel. We’ve come a long way since Georges Méliès flickering short films entertained audiences, and he could probably have never imagined the kind of horror movies people would be watch today. But he’d probably be fascinated by the special effects, and making inventive scary movies of his own. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/9/34950.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Classic_Horror/222/34561/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 8/30/2008 5:55:53 PM
Body: On this subject, I cannot say enough about the classic Universal 'monster movies' of the 30's and 40's... Beginning with Dracula and Frankenstein (the best of the best) and continuing with The Mummy and Bride of Frankenstein (which many people consider to be BETTER than the original) and The Wolf Man , these movies are the most fun I have ever had with my pants on! I know that everyone has heard of these movies but few people have ever actually watched them! And ALL of the sequels were nothing short of fantastic! Leading up to the GREAT 'monster-mash' movies of the early 40's! These things were nothing short of phenomenal and nobody can call themselves a true Horror Movie fan until they have seen Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman and House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula . Besides Karloff and Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. was perhaps the greatest star of this era... Not only was he was the only one to play Lawrence Talbot (The Wolfman) in several movies but he also played "Dracula" (Son Of Dracula) and "The Frankenstein Monster" (The Ghost of Frankenstein) and "The Mummy" (The Mummy's Tomb) ... Son of Frankenstein was the inspiration for Mel Brooks' classic Young Frankenstein ! Be brave and watch some of these oldies but goodies! You won't be dissapointed! < GOR >
]]>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:55:53 GMTDr_GorHORROR MOVIES 1018/30/2008 5:55:53 PM On this subject, I cannot say enough about the classic Universal 'monster movies' of the 30's and 40's... Beginning with Dracula and Frankenstein (the best of the best) and continuing with The Mummy and Bride of Frankenstein (which many people consider to be BETTER than the original) and The Wolf Man , these movies are the most fun I have ever had with my pants on! I know that everyone has heard of these movies but few people have ever actually watched them! And ALL of the sequels were nothing short of fantastic! Leading up to the GREAT 'monster-mash' movies of the early 40's! These things were nothing short of phenomenal and nobody can call themselves a true Horror Movie fan until they have seen Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman and House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula . Besides Karloff and Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. was perhaps the greatest star of this era... Not only was he was the only one to play Lawrence Talbot (The Wolfman) in several movies but he also played "Dracula" (Son Of Dracula) and "The Frankenstein Monster" (The Ghost of Frankenstein) and "The Mummy" (The Mummy's Tomb) ... Son of Frankenstein was the inspiration for Mel Brooks' classic Young Frankenstein ! Be brave and watch some of these oldies but goodies! You won't be dissapointed! &lt; GOR &gt; http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_25_Monster_Madness/625/34360/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/25/2008 4:59:40 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] I'd really like to hear about your favorite monsters. Who scarred you? Who sucked? Dr. Gor........... I'm talking to you. [/quote] While all of the giant monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong et al are pretty cool and certainly 'spotlight-grabbers', there have been many, many movie monsters that are not as tall but even more terrifying. Dracula , Frankenstein , The Mummy and The Wolf Man were among the first of these and remain some of my favorites. Here are some of my other favorite 'monster movies' ... Hell Night ... Anything with Linda Blair ranks at the top of any list of mine. The Funhouse ... Monster on the midway stalking sexy teenage girls... oh what fun! Tower of Evil (aka The Horror on Snape Island) ... Deranged, deformed killing machine in an isolated light-house. Anthropaphagus (aka The Grim Reaper aka Savage Island) ... Deranged, deformed killing machine on an isolated Greek island. Rawhead Rex ... Ancient and pissed off pagan demon runs rampant in Ireland. House By The Cemetary (?) ... The Fulci classic in which a family really DOES have a monster living in their basement. Well, those are some of my favorites but there are MANY more! Way too many to list them all here. Monsters Rule! < GOR >
]]>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:59:40 GMTDr_GorWeekly Theme8/25/2008 4:59:40 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] I'd really like to hear about your favorite monsters. Who scarred you? Who sucked? Dr. Gor........... I'm talking to you. [/quote] While all of the giant monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong et al are pretty cool and certainly 'spotlight-grabbers', there have been many, many movie monsters that are not as tall but even more terrifying. Dracula , Frankenstein , The Mummy and The Wolf Man were among the first of these and remain some of my favorites. Here are some of my other favorite 'monster movies' ... Hell Night ... Anything with Linda Blair ranks at the top of any list of mine. The Funhouse ... Monster on the midway stalking sexy teenage girls... oh what fun! Tower of Evil (aka The Horror on Snape Island) ... Deranged, deformed killing machine in an isolated light-house. Anthropaphagus (aka The Grim Reaper aka Savage Island) ... Deranged, deformed killing machine on an isolated Greek island. Rawhead Rex ... Ancient and pissed off pagan demon runs rampant in Ireland. House By The Cemetary (?) ... The Fulci classic in which a family really DOES have a monster living in their basement. Well, those are some of my favorites but there are MANY more! Way too many to list them all here. Monsters Rule! &lt; GOR &gt; http://www.spout.com/groups/Natsukashi/XIII_The_Monster_Squad/592/34346/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: Natsukashi
Post Date: 8/25/2008 2:54:19 PM
Body: The Monster Squad (1987)Directed by: Fred DekkerWritten by: Shane Black and Fred DekkerStarring: Andre Gower as Sean CrenshawRobby Kiger as PatrickBrent Chalem as Horace (The Fat Kid)Michael Faustino as Eugene Tagline: “Call them for a monster-ous good time!” By: Jason Plissken Pre-Screening Memories: I haven't seen The Monster Squad since I was in high school, but since it had “Monster” in the title, it was required viewing. I would scour the TV listings every week, checking for what creatures would be featured for the week. This one sounded like the Mother Lode, in that it featured all the classic monsters from Universal Studios: Dracula, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. The movie came out in 1987, but I didn't see it until it came on HBO about a year later. My memories of the film are pretty vague but I did learn a number of things from watching it: I remember the movie was corny but still able to keep my attention. There were several little details about the kids in the film that I wanted for my childhood: to battle monsters as a young kid, a really cool treehouse (that was two-story, no less!), and a neighborhood girl like Patrick's sister (played by Lisa Fuller, which was really the height of her film career, unless you count Teen Witch). I thought that it was really cool that the main character, Sean Krenshaw (played by Andre Gower), was able to watch a nearby drive-in movie from his roof. I could not have cared less if I could not hear the dialogue, just watching it would have been enough to occupy me. I could do the whole Mystery Science Theater 3000 thing, I suppose, and make up my own dialogue. I remember Fat Kid declaring that the "Wolf man had nards." Childish, I know, but 'nards' is just a funny word. It was the first time I heard sex referred to as "dorking."Again, I was a kid, these things were endlessly fascinating to me. I remember a World War II bomber loaded with Dracula's coffin in thebeginning. At the time, it seemed perfectly plausible for the ancient tomb of Nosferatu to circle over middle America for no apparent reason whatsoever. I remember having a fondness for the film in the way it handled its leads, not treating them as typical “Hollywood” kids, in much the same way that “Stand By Me” and “The Goonies” seemed to. They never seemed to talk down to their targeted audience. Will the exclusive “Monster Squad” still allow membership to Jason now that he's an old guy? Find out in the podcast here: download it here.
]]>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:54:19 GMTusesoapNatsukashi8/25/2008 2:54:19 PM The Monster Squad (1987)Directed by: Fred DekkerWritten by: Shane Black and Fred DekkerStarring: Andre Gower as Sean CrenshawRobby Kiger as PatrickBrent Chalem as Horace (The Fat Kid)Michael Faustino as Eugene Tagline: &ldquo;Call them for a monster-ous good time!&rdquo; By: Jason Plissken Pre-Screening Memories: I haven't seen The Monster Squad since I was in high school, but since it had &ldquo;Monster&rdquo; in the title, it was required viewing. I would scour the TV listings every week, checking for what creatures would be featured for the week. This one sounded like the Mother Lode, in that it featured all the classic monsters from Universal Studios: Dracula, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. The movie came out in 1987, but I didn't see it until it came on HBO about a year later. My memories of the film are pretty vague but I did learn a number of things from watching it: I remember the movie was corny but still able to keep my attention. There were several little details about the kids in the film that I wanted for my childhood: to battle monsters as a young kid, a really cool treehouse (that was two-story, no less!), and a neighborhood girl like Patrick's sister (played by Lisa Fuller, which was really the height of her film career, unless you count Teen Witch). I thought that it was really cool that the main character, Sean Krenshaw (played by Andre Gower), was able to watch a nearby drive-in movie from his roof. I could not have cared less if I could not hear the dialogue, just watching it would have been enough to occupy me. I could do the whole Mystery Science Theater 3000 thing, I suppose, and make up my own dialogue. I remember Fat Kid declaring that the "Wolf man had nards." Childish, I know, but 'nards' is just a funny word. It was the first time I heard sex referred to as "dorking."Again, I was a kid, these things were endlessly fascinating to me. I remember a World War II bomber loaded with Dracula's coffin in thebeginning. At the time, it seemed perfectly plausible for the ancient tomb of Nosferatu to circle over middle America for no apparent reason whatsoever. I remember having a fondness for the film in the way it handled its leads, not treating them as typical &ldquo;Hollywood&rdquo; kids, in much the same way that &ldquo;Stand By Me&rdquo; and &ldquo;The Goonies&rdquo; seemed to. They never seemed to talk down to their targeted audience. Will the exclusive &ldquo;Monster Squad&rdquo; still allow membership to Jason now that he's an old guy? Find out in the podcast here: download it here. http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Horror_Thriller_Mystery_Classics/222/10240/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 6/6/2007 7:16:36 AM
Body: Since I am awake and can't get back to sleep, I started watching a very old silent movie from about 1926, directed by Alfred Hitchcock called The Lodger, a story about a man under suspicion of being Jack the Ripper. I started thinking about some of my other favorite old movies like The Mummy, The Wolfman, Dracula, Frankenstein, Psycho, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Suspicion etc. What are some of your favorite "old" Classics (would you consider an old classic to be something before 1970?)...
]]>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:16:36 GMTdivinemsjunebugHORROR MOVIES 1016/6/2007 7:16:36 AMSince I am awake and can&#39;t get back to sleep, I started watching a very old silent movie from about 1926, directed by Alfred Hitchcock called The Lodger, a story about a man under suspicion of being Jack the Ripper. I started thinking about some of my other favorite old movies like The Mummy, The Wolfman, Dracula, Frankenstein, Psycho, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Suspicion etc. What are some of your favorite "old" Classics (would you consider an old classic to be something before 1970?)... http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/princess/MemberTagFilms.aspxprincess
Number of films tagged: 612

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 72

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:53:48 GMT6123372Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/curse/MemberTagFilms.aspxcurse
Number of films tagged: 398

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 39

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:30:07 GMT3981739Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/reincarnation/MemberTagFilms.aspxreincarnation
Number of films tagged: 220

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 18

]]>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:02:03 GMT2201518Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mummy/MemberTagFilms.aspxmummy
Number of films tagged: 143

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 16

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:04 GMT1431416Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/egyptologist/MemberTagFilms.aspxegyptologist
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:16:19 GMT3022Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lovelorn/MemberTagFilms.aspxlovelorn
Number of films tagged: 41

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:02:22 GMT4111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/egyptian--nationality/MemberTagFilms.aspxegyptian--nationality
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:09:43 GMT18700Tag