JSutton780

Speaking as someone who never warmed up to Adult Swim's live action shows, Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell is a gem that makes me laugh without fail every time I watch it.

No two episodes ever feel the same, the acting is hilarious, and the over the top special effects are great (most notably the spider creature that appears from time to time). Henry Zebrowski's portrayal as the oafish demon Gary reminds me of so many people I've met in my life. Gary is a lovable loser who never gets lucky but by God (or in this case by devil) do I find myself rooting for him. Opposite of Gary there's Claude, played by Craig Rowin. Claude acts as Gary's antithesis. He's sharp and cunning and constantly trying to better his position in the office, sometimes at the expense of his fellow demonic co-workers. I like the chemistry between Gary and Claude on the show, I feel that they're very organic and relatable to anyone who has ever worked in an office.

However, Matt Servitto's portrayal as the head honcho Satan makes this show for me. My father worked in corporate and was in charge of a lot of people. Throughout my life I saw glimpses of his work life and annoyance/happiness with his employees. Servitto's performance reminds me soooo much of the way my father behaved. Just his unimpressed facial expressions and the way he stares at his employees gets me rolling with laughter. I do realize that this is a very personal opinion, but I think anyone who's ever had a strict boss can relate to Servitto's Satan.

The only downside to Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell is its run time. I would really like to see it lengthened to thirty minutes. Some would argue that it is best suited for a small run time, but I think it has the potential to spread its leathery, bat like wings and expand.

To sum it up, Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell is a unique comedy with no equal. I highly recommend it.

Where to begin?

When I was fourteen I got this movie as a gift from a relative that I had met twice in my entire life. It is, in every sense of the word, a B-Movie but a decent one. It's entertaining, that much I can give it, but it won't be winning any awards.

The film centers around a Chinese man, aptly called "Bruce" who gets mixed up with the mob and so forth and so forth. The plot, or lack there of, isn't that important. It's enjoyable and funny at times with some martial arts action mixed in. You'll chuckle, probably not full on laugh, but chuckle. It's a good film to turn on to fill the silence.

I can see some appeal in this film if you're an avid fan of classic martial arts film, particularly Bruce Lee films.

If you ever come across this film I'd recommend giving it a view if you're a fan of these kind of movies.

One of weakest Universal Horror Films I've ever seen, House of Dracula is something of an over ambitious film with a lot of ideas but an ungraceful execution.

The plot of this film is so convoluted and busy that I'm not going to bother trying to explain it. Sufficient to say, an array of classic monsters revolve on and off the screen, ranging from Frankenstein's Monster, Dracula, the Wolfman, a surprising hunchback, and a Jekyll and Hyde type Mad Doctor. Monsters more or less appear simply to say "Hello, here I am. I'm what you paid to see" and then leave as quickly and as puzzling as they came. The most frustrating aspect of the plot is the series of coincidences, one after another, that the director used to lazily propel the story forward. Dracula just happens to show up the same week as the Wolfman. Frankenstein's monster just happens to show up underneath the Mad Doctor's lab. It's a little much for the audience to buy. Lazier than this even was the recycled footage used from Ghost of Frankenstein at the end of this movie.

The setting is good enough but nothing outstanding. The same tropes are all present, a glorious, sparking laboratory, a creepy castle glowing in the moon's light, and in one scene a garden reminiscent of the garden in Dracula. I wasn't impressed with the atmosphere, but it got the job done.

The cast is as mediocre and unimpressive as the rest of the film. John Carridine is a miss as Dracula, I have always felt that way. My opinion's no different here. Lionel Atwill returns to play an Inspector once again. He gets the job done but it's nothing compared to previous performances. Lon Chaney Jr. reprises his infamous role as Lawrence Talbot, the Wolfman. His performance is outstanding, he gives off the impression that he's fed up being the Wolfman and its starting to weigh heavy on his soul. Perhaps Chaney was channeling his own frustration and exhaustion with being typecast as a monster in every film.

Onslow Stevens plays Dr. Franz Edelmann and is really the highlight of the film. His performance mirrors the story of Jekyll and Hyde, a benevolent, humble doctor who becomes a murderous madman. There is an exceedingly well done scene in this movie with Stevens bantering with a carriage driver who he then dispatches. Honestly, this scene is the only reason I would watch this movie again.

Glenn Strange plays Frankenstein's Monster. That sentence is shorter than his actual screen time.

House of Dracula marks a decline in the quality and creativity in the Universal Horror series. It's predecessor, House of Frankenstein, is indeed a superior film but I feel that both lack a certain element. Call it a soul, the movie lacks a soul. That's the best way I can think to put it. It's worth a watch, but nothing more.

Son of Frankenstein delivers on all fronts. Sporting great sets, a classically chilling atmosphere, and a superb cast, this has become my go-to movie whenever I'm in the mood for an old fashioned monster flick.

The film differs from many of its kin because its a whooping hour and forty-some minutes long, but it is leisurely paced and not a moment of it comes off as boring. I've heard from various sources that Universal Studios cut the director a bigger budget for this movie. This really shows in the quality of the set designs. While I do believe there is nothing quite like the barbaric infamy of Colin Clive's laboratory, SoF's overly detailed, sulfur pit infested castle and lab rivals it's father.

Speaking of rivaling his father, the titles spotlight character, Wolf von Frankenstein, proves to the audience that he is not just a clone of his father. Wolf (masterfully portrayed by Basil Rathbone) stands out in my mind as one of the best performances in any Universal Horror film. Where Colin Clive's mad doctor boasts a manic and intimidating screen presence, Rathbone's portrayal comes off as warm and caring then spirals into a frantic, guilt riddled hysterical mess. Through his interactions with his wife and son and his desperate attempt to appease the townspeople you get the feeling that Wolf von Frankenstein is a caring, sweet man. Then, sure enough, the old Frankenstein obsession starts to show and when it does the film starts to go a mile a minute. While watching these movies I'm never afraid or creeped out by any means. Modern Hollywood has left me desensitized. However, I must admit that there was a part in this movie that legitimately sent a chill up my spine. I won't spoil it, but when it happens you'll know what I'm talking about.

Opposite of Rathbone is Lionel Atwill playing the persistent Inspector Krogh. Upon first seeing Atwill's introduction in the film, I found myself rolling my eyes and thinking "Here comes the stereotypical, paranoid townsman ready to demonize Frankenstein." I could not have been more wrong. Atwill's Inspector Krogh is one of the most interesting character's I've ever encountered in an old horror film. His sympathy for Frankenstein's family and the cat and mouse game it turns into leaves you invested throughout the whole plot. The entirety of the film you are left wondering who will win, the witty, young doctor or the sharp, weathered inspector. Not to mention, Krogh has a very personal and interesting reason to fear the Monster. In many ways, I found myself regarding Krogh as the hero of the story.

But let's not fool ourselves, we don't watch these movies for the heroes. We watch them for the monsters!

Boris Karlof and an unrecognizable Bela Lugosi are here in full form. This is Karlof's last appearance as the Monster and its a memorable one. His first appearance in this film is not something I'll soon forget. This is not the most aggressive you'll see the Monster, but definitely the most terrifying. This is largely due to the fact that he is being controlled by Bela Lugosi's Ygor, who sports enough cunning to use the monsters as a killing machine. Rather than going on a mindless rampage, the Monster is sent on James Bond-esque missions to assassinate Ygor's enemies. As you witness these murders happening you realize that this makes for a rather disturbing concept.

Lugosi's Ygor is undoubtedly the highlight of this movie. Personally, I found this to be the Hungarian actor's best performance, even outshining his legendary role as Dracula. His lines are delivered with such savagery, you can absolutely tell what kind of a life Ygor has led and what kind of ideas go through his head just from his voice alone. The makeup here is superb (though his wig is a little iffy at times) and Lugosi's dedication to Ygor's unique 'posture' makes you forget that the seductive Hungarian is beneath the beard and fake teeth.

Son of Frankenstein is a must see for any horror fan. I could also see this acting as a 'gateway drug' for budding horror enthusiast. While not as classic as the original or as interesting as the sequel, Son of Frankenstein is exciting and can keep just about anyone entertained. I highly recommend it.