baronlibra

You really had to be a teenager in 1957 to appreciate the effect this movie had on teens back then. Elvis was just starting out and there are similarites to the reactions of adults and teenagers to both icons. (In fact Yvonne Lime was "dating" Elvis (pictures of Elvis and Yvonne together were in movie magazines back then) when this film was made and from what I understand, he even visited the set. Too bad they couldn't have had him sing a song in it!) There is an amazing backstory AMC could make about the senate hearings on juvenile delinquency and this film; the senators mentioned the bad effects this film had on teenagers even though none of them had seen it!

Anyway, Gene Fowler Jr (who had edited Academy Award films like LAURA) was chosen to direct this, his first film and although he at first had second thoughts about doing it, his wife convinced him "no one would see it anyway." Boy, was she wrong! His background as an editor helped him be a better first-time director than most and helped make this picture, made on a shoe-string budget in only 7 days, better than all the other teen horror films back then. The camera angles on the fight at the beginning, Dawn Richard's gymnist seeing the werewolf upside down at first (and therefore the audience too), showed that he had good ideas in setting up shots.

Michael Landon, contrary to what some believe, never downplayed his connection to this film for it gave him his start in show business. He may at first have had doubts about being connected with it with the initial uproar, which is why he turned down the chance to play the werewolf a second time, but after that, he never bad-mouthed the film. In fact, he paid homage to it on a Halloween episode of "Highway to Heaven."

Anyway, the acting is good all around with standout performances by Landon and Whit Bissell. The "science" used to turn Tony into the monster may be silly today, but in the 1950's, there were a lot of talk and film plots about past-life regression following the Bridey Murphy newspaper accounts (also used in THE SHE-CREATURE). Again you had to live in the 1950's to understand all this. Philip Scheer's werewolf makeup is one of the better pre-Howling/American Werewolf ones in movie history and while the transformation scene isn't as good as in THE WOLF MAN or THE WEREWOLF, the director did not have a lot of money or time to work with and did a good job considering.

A film has to be pretty good, even with a low budget, to be as successful as this one was...and to remain a cult favorite 45 years later. It has stood the test of time and deserves to be considered a classic of its kind.

While a lot of Hammer fans seem to feel this the best of the Hammer Frankenstein films, I think it one of the worst in terms of plot. Would you make a Dracula film and not have him be a vampire? Or a Sherlock Holmes movie and turn him into an ordinary detective? I think not, yet this film turns the Baron into an ordinary "mad scientist" interested in brain transplants instead of creating life. You could have left the name Frankenstein out entirely, used DR. SMITH MUST BE DESTROYED as the title, and had the same movie. Then the character of Baron Frankenstein is never consistent. In CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, the Baron kills an old scientist to get his brain (the rest of his "materials" are from grave robbing and charnel houses). I think this was a bad idea from the scriptwriter. Now in REVENGE, EVIL and CREATED WOMAN, the Baron is more a misunderstood, more human character who is so intent on creating life, he doesn't see the evil he is doing and can't understand why he is being persecuted by the townspeople and authorities. He doesn't go out and kill people, his creatures do that. Now comes MUST BE DESTROYED, which starts with the Baron, wearing a mask, decapitating a rival scientist, and being an overall evil person who blackmails, rapes and does a simple brain transplant instead of trying to create another monster. Hardly the stuff of classic Frankenstein films. Hammer does redeem itself in AND THE MOSNTER FORM HELL, where the Baron is again portrayed as the misunderstood Baron again trying to create another creature. (BTW: HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN was a remake of CURSE played for black comedy and not part of the actual series.) It is a well acted film with Peter Cushing always in fine form, and has all the usual Hammer atmosphere, but is just not that great a film. REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a much better film.

You really had to be a teenager in 1957 to appreciate the effect this movie had on teens back then. Elvis was just starting out and there are similarites to the reactions of adults and teenagers to both icons. (In fact Yvonne Lime was "dating" Elvis (pictures of Elvis and Yvonne together were in movie magazines back then) when this film was made and from what I understand, he even visited the set. Too bad they couldn't have had him sing a song in it!) There is an amazing backstory AMC could make about the senate hearings on juvenile delinquency and this film; the senators mentioned the bad effects this film had on teenagers even though none of them had seen it!

Anyway, Gene Fowler Jr (who had edited Academy Award films like LAURA) was chosen to direct this, his first film and although he at first had second thoughts about doing it, his wife convinced him "no one would see it anyway." Boy, was she wrong! His background as an editor helped him be a better first-time director than most and helped make this picture, made on a shoe-string budget in only 7 days, better than all the other teen horror films back then. The camera angles on the fight at the beginning, Dawn Richard's gymnist seeing the werewolf upside down at first (and therefore the audience too), showed that he had good ideas in setting up shots.

Michael Landon, contrary to what some believe, never downplayed his connection to this film for it gave him his start in show business. He may at first have had doubts about being connected with it with the initial uproar, which is why he turned down the chance to play the werewolf a second time, but after that, he never bad-mouthed the film. In fact, he paid homage to it on a Halloween episode of "Highway to Heaven."

Anyway, the acting is good all around with standout performances by Landon and Whit Bissell. The "science" used to turn Tony into the monster may be silly today, but in the 1950's, there were a lot of talk and film plots about past-life regression following the Bridey Murphy newspaper accounts (also used in THE SHE-CREATURE). Again you had to live in the 1950's to understand all this. Philip Scheer's werewolf makeup is one of the better pre-Howling/American Werewolf ones in movie history and while the transformation scene isn't as good as in THE WOLF MAN or THE WEREWOLF, the director did not have a lot of money or time to work with and did a good job considering.

A film has to be pretty good, even with a low budget, to be as successful as this one was...and to remain a cult favorite 45 years later. It has stood the test of time and deserves to be considered a classic of its kind.

I will never understand the need to remake classic films, even silent ones. If Hollywood needs to remake films, they should take a bad film like FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER and make something worthwhile out of it. I have heard it said Herzog tried to get a dreamlike quality into his remake. The only dreamlike quality I got was the urge to fall asleep...and I was wide awake when I went to see it in the theatre. There is no pacing to the film, and the fact that a sequence showing a boat wander into the harbor lasted a full 6 minutes shows the film needed a good job of editing! NOSFERATU was a waste of film that should have been used to create something more worthwhile. If you want to see a credible attempt to make a superior version of DRACULA may I recommend the Philip Saville directed-Gerald Savory-scripted BBC version of COUNT DRACULA starring Louis Jourdan which was shown on PBS in the US, and not the edited version. Now there was someone who understood Stroker's DRACULA. It has a few flaws (shot on tape instead of film and Jourdan was not the best choice to play Dracula...I would have preferred Max Von Sydow made up to look like Stoker's description of the Count), but was the best attempt I have seen yet to do the book justice.

Despite a few flaws, this has got to be the best version of Dracula yet. It follows the Bram Stoker novel pretty faithfully and spends a full 3 hours doing so. Forget Bela Lugosi's DRACULA or even the Hammer version with Christopher Lee (though Lee was very good), this is the one to watch.

First I'll mention the flaws which detract from it being the definitive version, although it comes very close. First, this production was shot on tape instead of film. Second, Louis Jourdan was miscast as the Count although his performance is solid throughout. I would have preferred Christopher Lee or even Max Von Sydow as Dracula, made up to look like Stoker's description in the book. Third, two characters in the book are merged into one character, an American but this is a minor fact. I also wish they had used the fact Dracula seemed to look younger after drinking the blood of his victims. Also, watch out for the edited version which removed the scene where Dracula gives his three "brides" in his castle a baby to sup on. This is in the book (also another scene I wish someone would film is the mother of the baby pleading with Dracula to give her back her child, wherein Dracula calls the wolves in the forest to attack and feed on her!) Lastly I could have done without the "negative" closeups of Dracula's mouth after feeding on his victims.

But overall, it follows the book very closely and the acting from most of the cast is superb. Bosco Hogan as Jonathan Harker and Judi Bowker as Mina are top notch, and Frank Finlay is terrific as Van Helsing. Jack Shepherd makes for the best Renfield yet, never overacting. The music is very creepy in parts and adds to the atmosphere. I highly recommend this version until someone actually films the ultimate version, if that ever happens.

Anyone who thinks Johnny Weissmuller is what Burroughs Tarzan is all about doesn't know anything about Tarzan. While Johnny looked great in the role, he did not portray Tarzan the way ERB created the character. And unfortunately it has taken a long time to try to bring the true Tarzan to the movie and TV screen. Joe Lara looked more like most artists drawings of the Apeman and the lost civilizations was what ERB wrote many stories about! What Epic Adventures did wrong was do stories about Tarzan's search for his "inner self" which was a bad idea. Also they brought too much fantasy into the series. Anyone who has read the Tarzan novels know Tarzan visited lost civilizations of Romans, Greeks, prehistoric worlds, Opar with Queen La, etc. The silent films were a lot more true to ERB's vision than anything done since sound movies came into being. Also Jane should have been brought into the series. And whatever happened to the so-called second season and Xavier DeClie stepping in as Tarzan (a bad move in my opinion) and Jane being introduced? Fact is the pilot TARZAN'S RETURN was a lot better than the actual series that followed. Instead of Tiemba, they should have introduced Muviro, the leader of the Waziri and Tarzan's friend in the books and kept Paul D'Arnot in the stories. A return to the Weissmuller "Me Tarzan You Jane" apeman now would be a worse move if another live action Tarzan movie or TV show is produced.