Fright Month: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Fright month ends, not with a bang or even a ghostly wail, but with a chuckle. I don't think this movie is supposed to be a comedy, but most of it sure passes for one in my book. Except for the scenes where I felt sorry for the monster.

My favorite part was when the old blind hermit taught Frankenstein how to drink wine and smoke cigars. The monster kept grunting, "Mmmmm, gooooood," which made me giggle. Then when he met up with Doctor Pretorius, the monster almost reminded me of Herman from an episode of The Munsters.

Looks like a remake is coming out next year. I wonder if it will actually be scary?

Her hair is buick. Wish I could get mine to do that.

Fright Month: Frankenstein (1931)

Yet another non-scary scary movie. I'd never seen this movie before, but I knew all of those bits and pieces that have been embedded in our cultural history--Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster out of old body parts and brings it to life, shouting "It's alive!" with his trusty hunchback (not Igor, but Fritz) at his side, and terror ensues.

I read the book just over a year ago, so I already knew that the original story differed quite a bit from those tidbits mentioned above. But I was hoping the movie would impart some thrills and chills, especially since not many of my other Fright Month flicks did.

Too bad my hopes were dashed. I found nothing creepy or frightening in this movie. But even though it was lacking in tension, it was still an interesting and entertaining film. Probably one that everyone should watch at least once. I mean, it's a classic, right? But now that I've seen it once, I'll probably be stopping there.

I must admit that, though it may not have scared me at all, this movie did create quite an iconic image of Frankenstein's monster. This is exactly the way everyone pictures it.

Fright Month: The Broken

I'm not as freaked out as I was during the last part of Session 9, but here's another creepy one. Gina McVey sees a girl driving by on the streets of London, which wouldn't be a problem at all except for the fact that the girl looks exactly like Gina. She follows her double, and things get weird. I like weird. (And surreal, and mind-bending, as the netflix synopsis describes this movie.)

If you pay attention to a few small details, what should have been a big surprise at the end isn't so surprising. But I will be kind and not tell you what those details were, because if you're looking for them  you're sure to notice them. And being surprised is always more fun, isn't it?

During the first little bit of the movie nothing is very scary except for the music. In fact, it seemed a bit silly with tense, dramatic music and no reason for it. But I suppose they were setting the tone. And, as long as I'm complaining, I'll mention that I could have done without the sister-in-law-in-the-shower scene, which was a bit over the top in an otherwise subtly tense movie. But overall, I give this one a couple of thumbs up.

I am left wondering . . . why? And glad in the knowledge that my kitchen is directly on the other side of my bathroom mirror. There's nothing scary in my kitchen.

Fright Month: Session 9

Fright attained.

You already know that abandoned insane asylums creep me out. Of course that's the setting for this movie. A five-man construction crew is hired to clean the place up, and then . . .

. . . things start to happen.

The first 40 minutes were a bit slow. The next half hour started getting interesting. But the last thirty minutes? Oh my goodness. Let's just say I'm trying to keep my back to the wall.

I may be sleeping with the lights on tonight.

Fright Month: Children of the Corn

I'm having trouble finding a scary movie. I was just sure this one would give me nightmares and maybe even put me off eating corn for the rest of my life, but no. I'm not scared to look behind me. I'm not even any more frightened of my kids than usual. I did jump a time or two during the movie, but not significantly.

Of course, it didn't help that Hud was scoffing throughout the entire thing. But even I had to laugh when he made fun of the main character, Burt, by saying, "You're getting your [butt] kicked by corn."

At the end of the movie when the car was full of cornstalks but the viewer was supposed to be lulled into thinking it's all over, it suddenly hit me: I know Steven King's stories well enough to know there was probably one more surprise lurking. Sure, I was right, but it was a pretty weak one.

Chalk another one up for my "it was a disappointment but at least now I've seen it" list.

Fright Month: Nosferatu (1922)

This was kind of a misfire as far as fright is concerned. I think the main problem was the music. Sometimes the soaring orchestral score added to the atmosphere; more frequently it lent an almost unacceptably comedic air to the movie. Some of the music was really beautiful, but most of the time it didn't do a thing towards upping the creepiness factor.

There were at least three songs I totally recognized, and it's driving me crazy because I can't figure out what they were. I tried looking online for information regarding the score, but all I could find is that this movie has had a variety of scores, and the one I heard is most likely not the original.

A far cry from Edward Cullen, eh?

Maybe I'm uncultured, but I think this is the first silent film I've ever watched. It's got some serious over-actors (I was wishing that something would wipe that beatific smile off Jonathon Harker's face, and was quite pleased when the phantom stagecoach driver did the trick), though I suppose that, without the benefit of speech, some overly-dramatic body language was of necessity. As were, it seems, crazy eyebrows (see Renfield).

Citizens of 1922 must have been some seriously slow readers. Those title cards were onscreen for far longer than necessary.

I wonder why they changed Mina's name to Nina?

Easy Virtue

How not to get my husband to watch a movie: when he asks what it's about, tell him, "I think it's about an American girl in the 1800s who marries an Englishman and they have problems and smoke a lot." Of course, as it turns out, it's actually set in the 20th century (maybe the 1920s or 30s?), but I don't think that would have made a difference to Hud.

At least it was far more light-hearted than I expected. I thought this movie was going to be all serious and dramatic and angst-ridden. I figured it was much in the same vein as last night's The Age of Innocence, but I couldn't have been more wrong. The couples switcheroo at the end was entirely predictable, but that is acceptable in a movie that Mandy warned I should go into with very, very low expectations.

By the way, I'm not doing so well in carrying out Fright Month, am I. In case you were especially worried about that, let me reassure you that I plan to get on with the scary stuff next week.

The Age of Innocence

At wine book club tonight, our meeting was a multimedia extravaganza. After finishing our bottle of wine discussion on the book, we watched the movie adaptation. It's pretty rare that I get to watch a movie when the book is so fresh on my mind.

Well, of course I mentally catalogued all of the differences between the book and the movie. They left out a few minor characters (most notably Medora Manson and Mr. Welland) and changed a few names (Dallas became Theodore in one instance and Townsend in another, and two different Fannys became Annies), but there were only two major ideas that were left out. I mention both in my review of the book--the first was May Archer's unspoken monologue, the second was Dallas Archer's observation about the nature of communication in his parents' generation. But overall, the movie was very faithful to the book and was an excellent adaptation.

One thing that bothered me a little bit about the movie was the narrator. First of all, that there was one. It was a little awkward. However, the movie would have had to leave out so much without that device. Second of all, the narrator was an older-sounding woman who was never introduced. Who the heck was she, and how did she know all this stuff she was telling us? This was especially odd since the entire book was written from Newland Archer's point of view. It would have made much more sense to me if he had been the narrator.

Not surprisingly, I found the book better than the movie, although the movie was also quite good. If you have to choose between the two, I say read the book. If you can only spare two hours and nineteen minutes, the movie will do.

Fright Month: The Amityville Horror (2005)

In honor of Halloween, I have lined up a few scary movies for this month. We're off to a chilling start with the newest version of The Amityville Horror.

I read the book by Jay Anson probably fifteen years ago. Of course, it's been so long that I barely remember it, but I do have a vague memory of feeling fairly doubtful that it was actually a true story. Although the original DeFeo murders undisputedly happened, this movie did nothing to dispel the idea that the paranormal activity that the Lutz family were supposed to have experienced might have been drug-induced, or a ploy to make a buck, or a combination of the two. But I have to admit that is one creepy-looking house! It's as if it has evil eyes.

I think the movie changed quite a few things as compared to the story told in the book. The father of the family took much more of a Jack Torrance turn in the film, and I don't remember all of the business about torturing Native Americans hundreds of years ago.

At least the movie was pretty creepy, unlike Paranormal Activity. I mean, I'm not expecting to see dead people reflected in my bathroom mirror, and I never did spill my wine, but the movie carried quite a bit of tension.

I'm not sure why I was thinking this would be the original version--maybe because I don't remember ever hearing that there was a remake--but I was kind of disappointed when I opened the netflix envelope and found that this movie was released in 2005. At first I was thinking I might want to watch the original too, but now that I've watched the 2005 version I'm thinking I probably won't bother. Unless you tell me it's necessary.

Best parts: the scenes of Ryan Reynolds without a shirt. MMmmmmm.

Hit Girl is in this one too!

Labyrinth

I don't have much to say about this movie, except that it is firmly rooted in the 80s. If the totally last-century soundtrack hadn't clued me in, I would have known merely because of David Bowie's utter fabulosity.

I'm sure if I'd seen this movie in 1986 I would have loved it. I don't know if I'm too old for it now, or if I'm just spoiled by today's movies, but I wasn't especially impressed. Even Hud's memory of the movie was much better than the actual experience of watching it.

You Don't Mess with the Zohan

I can't believe I stayed up late to watch this movie. In fact, I can't believe I watched this movie at all. I don't know, maybe Bill Bryson was right and I don't have a sense of humor, but I probably only laughed four times during this movie. One of those times was when the Phantom cracked eggs into a glass and fuzzy chicks came out.

If you're smart, you don't mess with watching the Zohan.

Letters to Juliet

This movie was just gag-me sappy. And yet, against my will, I loved it right from the very first song (Colbie Caillat singing "You Got Me," one which I hadn't heard previously, but I was so proud that I recognized Caillat's voice. I had to download it because it's just impossibly happy.) Too bad that was the only good song. Most of the rest of the soundtrack consisted of pop Italian love songs and Disney-fied orchestral pieces, though I think I recognized Caillat in another song or two.

I'm sure my approval of this movie was largely due to its setting in Italy, which is just too perfect, but even for a predictable chick flick I really enjoyed it. The presence of handsome Christopher Egan didn't hurt either.