With Halloween done and dusted, i’m left to sift through the remnants of the post ‘spooky season’ Bluray and DVD hangover pile. and given that this year I decided to revisit my ‘Universal Monsters: Essentials Collection’ set as part of the festivities, I’ve found that, by November 1st, the only film left in the set that I havent actively reviewed on here is their 1943 take on ‘The Phantom of the Opera’…and much like a trick or treaters sack. By the end of the day on November 1st, the good candy is gone, and im left with the unwrapped salt water taffy and a leaking sticky can of V8 from the one house that didnt get any candy in and had to scramble the cupboards to find ANYTHING to give out…I dont like Universals 1943 adaptation of ‘The Phantom of the Opera’

Now, dont get me WRONG. its nothing that this film PERSONALLY does wrong that puts me off it. If anything this is a very lavish production. A rich and sumptuous offering with grand sets, clear and semi creative direction. distinct cine and a stunning turn by Claude Rains as the titular Phantom.

My issue is purely around the pacing, and more importantly, the filling. Im still honestly a little confused as to why they included this film in the ‘Universal monsters essential collection’ set, given that the only real ties it has to the series is that this is a romance/tragedy with some darker elements… and ‘The Mummy’ and ‘Dracula’ are also romance/tragedies with more pronounced horror elements. but thats about it. All the other films in this boxset are presented in B&W, this is the only one presented in colour, while it *could* be said that this has horror elements. I’d really rather disagree, it doesnt have the vibe of any of the other universal horror movies either before or after it. It feels really more like they just wanted to put this film out, knew it probably wouldnt sell well as a standalone release, so they just shoved it onto this Universal monsters boxset because it has a creepy guy in a mask stalking a singer…thats seemingly the only tie…well…other than Claude Rains being in it.

Like I say, Direction? stunning. Cine? rich, colourful, well composed. the soundtrack is distinct the performances, more than suitable. Its the script that puts me off this.

Its not so much the plot, thats fine, the tone is VERY stuffy and overly dry with only a few moments of comedy help progress things, the problem I have is this film clocks in at 91 minutes (easily the longest ‘monster’ movie of this era) and it just seems to go on and on and on and on. WAY too many elongated operatic numbers, WAY too many scenes of people just idely talking in luxurious penthouses.

I lost track of the characters fairly early on because they keep introducing people who maybe get a line or two and then vanish. By the hour mark I was clockwatching. by an hour and a quarter i’d actively given up on thinking this film was going to turn it around, and I rounded up the 90 minutes BEGGING for it to finish sooner.

The characters (outside of Rains performance) are all overly dry and simplistic, the drama isnt nearly enough to hold me as an audience member. its just a slow death march to the inevitability we all know is coming with these characters from about 10 minutes in. And whereas the other universal monster movies have that same problem, the OTHER universal monster movies at least have the fortune of interesting characters, eccentric performances or unique stories to tell to help get the audience to their end point. This had no such luck.

I cant even really say ‘Well, it was in a horror boxset, but im sure if I was in the mood for this kind of film, i’d probably enjoy it more.’ Because films like ‘House of Wax’ or ‘The Mad Magician’ came out roughly around the same time as that (give or take a year or 5) and THEY offer a similar tale, but utilise the time in much more interesting and distinctive ways.

The majority of my score here is going purely on the technical aspects of the production, which for the time are very impressive…But its rare I find a film so against my own interests as a film goer that I feel almost repelled from it. This really wasnt my rodeo. I cant recommend it. There are other films that do this kind of thing significantly better.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/phantom-of-the-opera/

Watched on Thursday October 31, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/halloween-2018/3/

Watched on Thursday October 31, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/halloween-iii-season-of-the-witch/5/

Watched on Thursday October 31, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/criminally-insane/1/

Did the world really need a sequel to 1993’s ‘Hocus Pocus’? Its a question i’ve been wrestling with since the project was announced back in 2020/2021. But! whether I wanted one or not, it happened. and now having actually sat down and seen what 29(ish) years of planning for a sequel to what was a genuinely enjoyable family comedy has produced. I think this was a valuable lesson in ‘Just because an audience demands it, doesnt mean it needs to exist.’

The film picks up 29 years after the events of the first film with a new group of classmates who are heavily interested in the ‘occult’ when one of the gang (Cassie) splits from the trio because the magic stuff is ‘cringe’ and weird. the group feel deflated. However after a VERY ‘special’ birthday gift from the owner of a local witchcraft museum/store, the Sanderson sisters are ressurected and out for vengence against the decendent of a reverend who wronged them some 300 years prior.

And. At it’s heart. this film has the fantastic bones of a story. it has all the elements that would make a sequel to ‘Hocus Pocus’ work present. We have a bit more lore brought in, a plot around friendship, covens and being your authentic self. The original cast for the Sanderson sisters reprising their roles after all this time. and it pains me to say that while all these elements are present (and good!) the end product has sadly been focus grouped and sponsorshipped into a very dry end product that feels like its a tribute act to the first film, rather than something that could stand on its own two feet.

The script at its core is fine, I like the idea of the sisters reignighting a blood feud after centuries and how that line develops, I liked Becca and her group of friends. I thought they were animate and interesting. But the pain of 21st century ‘marvelfication’ of disneys output plagues this film relentlessly. Self aware 4th wall breaking is CHRONIC and way heavier handed than the occasional moments from the first film. the script cant go more than 5 minutes without referencing the events of the first film either directly or in a ‘hey! remember when this happened last time?!’ kind of way.

There are several moments that make no sense in this sequel, because either the Sandersons wouldnt have been alive to experience the events theyre referencing, or they contradict the events of the first film. Am I supposed to believe that the Sandersons, without ANY prompting or foreshadowing created the song ‘One way or another’ totally independently from Blondie, off the cuff? If I am, then I fear its a bridge too far for me to suspend my disbelief.

Thats another thing, the HEAVY leaning into elements that were kind of inpromptu in the first film. The ‘put a spell on you’ scene from the first film was organically grown into the film, Winifred goes to a party where the host band are playing a rocky version of the track, she listens into it and likes the vibe, and then later in that scene, she uses the song she just heard, incorporates it into one of her spells and transfixes the audience.

Other than that scene and Sarah Sanderson singing to capture children (Which is established here as being just a thing witches do and not something Sarah is particularly unique for), the Sandersons wernt ‘Known’ for enjoying singing and dancing…This film however pretty much opens by saying ‘OH YEH! THE SANDERSONS WERE A GODDAMN CHORUS LINE.’ and then, because the audience want them singing and dancing, theres 3-4 singing and dancing numbers that are forced in, dont make sense and dont really do anything for the plot.

There are moments like that all through the film where its clear someone in a ‘think tank’ session just said ‘Hey! I liked this bit’ and so they do it a dozen times in this film, but with non of the charm of warmth.

And thats not to mention the extended advertisements within the film itself…I dont want to get hocked ads for ‘Wallgreens’ (a store I cant even go to) and Siri in the middle of my family movie, at best its distracting and at worst its insideous.

The dialogue takes a hit too, with most scenes amounting to something KER-RAZY happening, followed immediately by one character saying ‘Well…THAT just happened!’ in a sarcastic tone, on repeat, for near enough the full runtime.

The pacing is lopsided, it opens slow, builds up fairly well in the 2nd act when the Sandersons actually make it to town, and then slows to a crawl as the in references, 4th wall breaks and gurning smother the 3rd act to within an inch of its life, before the film just kind of, abruptly ends with a hair pin character turn that genuinely left me feeling like i’d been short changed of the last hour and a half.

The humour here was hit and miss, I enjoyed a lot of the jokes here, and I think Midler, Parker and Najimy are a fantastic trio that play on the traditions of Stoogery and the marx bros well…When they landed a joke, I’d say it was on par with the quality of the original. But when they miss (and they miss a lot) ts groan worthy, or at worst it left me stoney faced. Again, I cant help but feel like somewhere a focus group had a lot of say in what jokes ‘worked’ and what ‘didnt’ and I feel like thats ultimately harmed the film more than helped it.

The direction is fine, this is a Disney movie…I had no doubt it wouldnt at least be passable, theres an overeliance on CGI here which I thought was a bit of a shame, and I dont think this does anything particularly ground breaking. But its a passible studio film. Or rather, to me? there was nothing glaring that made me wince.

Same goes for the cine, I feel like this one was a bit murkier than I personally would have liked. The colour is there, but the scourge of mainstream 21st century colour correction to keep everything looking sleek and cool over colourful and vibrant (unless your a kids film) strikes again. the edits fine enough, but honestly, that 3rd act needed a LOT of tidying up and I think had this been cut down to sub 90 minutes it would have easily gained another half star if not more.

Performances are fine, the Sandersons are animate, lively and havent lost any of the charisma from the first film, I do feel like Sarah and Mary have been somewhat ‘Fladerized’ in the scripting. they had a bit more nuance in the first film, but here Sarah only speaks when she’s being airheaded and Mary…if anything, ends up being a bit creepier than last time…and I didnt much care for that.

Our heros for the film (Whitney Peak, Belissa Escobedo, Lilia Buckingham) are fine, as mentioned, I dont feel the script does them any favours, but they work with the lines they’re given, they really bring a level of animation to their performances that is missing from mainstream YA features. I thought they were inoffensive, they did good with a mixed hand to me.

And the score is NOT as good as the original. the whimsy is gone and instead it sounds like dollar store Danny Elfman. its a real shame, and I feel in places its not really best implemented either.

Despite my protestation, ‘Hocus Pocus 2’ did have moments that I quite enjoyed. I liked the plot (broadly) The comedy was fun, the direction and performances were on the level and It was nice enough to revisit this world as I felt like after the first film there was still opportunity for unmined exploration.

However; I feel like the focus and purpose of this film has gotten lost along the way. nice little moments from the first film like the Sandersons invading a house owned by an old man dressed as the devil believing he IS the actual dark lord are totally absent in this film (and dearly missed) It feels too safe, to keen to retread old ground and its worst crime, is it feels like its ‘trying’ too hard to be ‘cool’. Which bizarrely goes against the ACTUAL message the films trying to put across.

In short, I didnt dislike this film. But its a FAR cry from the original. I’ll happily rewatch this one again, because like I say, it has its moments and its inoffensive on the technical level. But I cant recommend this one honestly, its a background film, something you have on while doing something else. and I feel like if they want to do a ‘Hocus Pocus 3’ in future. they REALLY need to let the writers and directors shape the production, rather than a committee.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hocus-pocus-2/

Arguably the crown jewel of the ‘Universal Monster’ series, I’ve found there is VERY little to complain about when it comes to ‘Bride of Frankenstein’ a damn near perfect sequel that introduces OODLES of pathos and comedy to what was originally a fairly straightfoward horror film of man messing in gods domain.

The sequel picks up immediately after the events of ‘Frankenstein’ with a frankly bizarre introduction to the film in which Lord Byron and Mary Shelly discuss the film adapatation of ‘Frankenstein’ (notably NOT the novel) before Mary pauses and essentially says ‘…You know…the story didnt end there…’ at which point we’re flung into what can only be described as a fever dream plotline in which Frankensteins monster survived the windmill burning at the end of the last movie and goes on a back woods fleeing spree while periodically being chased by hunters.

Meanwhile; Henry SOMEHOW managed to survive being thrown off the windmill at the end of the last movie also, and is recovering at his castle, when a new Doctor ‘Dr. Pretorious’ appears and desperately tries to get Henry to recommence his work in reanimation. revealing that he himself has also been working on reanimation, but has struggled to do so with a full size specimin.

The two decide to work together in creating a female iteration of ‘The Creature’ and when the two plotlines overlap, its decided this new creature shall be Frankensteins friend/wife/mate…

And literally, the only criticism I have of this film is that the titular ‘Bride’ is in the film for less than 5 minutes RIGHT at the very end in an, admittedly VERY well handled twist.but it did rather leave me longing for much more.

Outside of that, I honestly have no notes for this film. The scripts punchy, tight, has enough complexity to the plot to keep it interesting, but not too much that you lose focus. The tone is damn near perfect with wonderfully silly moments like a blind hermit teaching Frankenstein to smoke being married up to genuinely heavy hitting emotional scenes (‘We belong dead’) The characters are all a little more manic and bizarre, they’re more complex without feeling laboured. the fact this is a sequel is largely waved away with the opening 5 minute recap and then it just gets into the action, delivering blow after blow of A+ cinema.

The direction is probably the greatest feat of the ‘Universal Monster’ franchise, and VERY likely to be the most revolutionary picture that Universal has ever produced in its history. the sets and special effects in a film of this age are frankly bordering on witch craft, its an astounding feat of technical wizardry and I shudder to think of the combined lack of sleep the crew had making this. Its paid off though, as this is genuinely an astounding creative vision.

The cine is also amazing for the time, with a clear mastery of lighting, tones, shades and an open page to experiment with lighting and shot setup techniques. The results are a film that feel 10 years ahead of its time and is breathtaking to say the least.

The performances? Karloff and Lancaster are astounding. I sincerely believe this may be Karloffs greatest single performance. Earnest Thesinger however is probably the out and out low key highlight of this film as Dr. Protorius. campy, clearly insane and absolutely DOMINATING any scene he’s in. its a masterful performance showcasing that you dont have to be loud and act big to pull of ‘crazy’ a quiet word and subtlety goes a long way.

Special shoutout to Una O’Connor as well as ‘Minnie’ bringing her shrill and shrieking performance from ‘The Invisible Man’ back with avengence. shes amazing.

Its got a killer orchestral soundtrack that used damn near perfectly. Im gonna level with you, this things pretty incredible. Incredible for the time, and incredible even today. If you’ve see ‘Frankenstein’ this is absolutely a no brainer…GO WATCH THIS. People coming to this without having seen the first film, I fear may lose a little bit of enjoyment on the viewing experience. But id say if you dont have an hour and 10 to catch ‘Frankenstein’ before jumping into this one, its still more than worth seeking out.

Between this and ‘The Invisible Man’ i’d say we have some of the finest mainstream cinema the 30s had to offer. and I do NOT say that lightly.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bride-of-frankenstein/

Watched on Thursday October 31, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/garfields-halloween-adventure/3/

Watched on Wednesday October 30, 2024.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hocus-pocus/2/

It’s basically an 80 minute horror trailer compilation, exactly what it says on the tin, just with a little extra AGFA weirdness thrown in for good measure (see: random footage interspliced into the trailers and a nice refreshment lead in)

It’s pretty decent, though, if I’m being honest, I think I preferred their Intermission supercut release, or their Christmas tape compilation from a couple of years ago.

Still! It’s got a good range of trailers and it’s great to help get you into the spooky mood!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-agfa-horror-trailer-show/

10 years after ‘Dracula’ and ‘Frankenstein’ took to theater screens, the groundwork for what is considered ‘Classic’ Universal Horror was cemented and running fine, and in 1941, that momentum would go from strength to strength with ‘The Wolf Man’

The plot?, Focusses around the tragic circumstances surrounding Larry Talbot, Larry has returned to his estate on hearing the news of the death of his brother in a hunting accident, and while reacquainting himself with his estranged family members he discovers a beautiful young lady working in the antiques shop across the way. after schmoozing her into going out on a date, the pair walk back through the foggy moors where Larry and his date are set upon by a wolf. Larry kills the wolf, but gets bitten in the process and on waking from being knocked unconcious, he finds that life isnt quite the same, and that sightings of a killer werewolf are beginning to come to light, could Larry and the killings be connected?! well…this is one of lon cheyney jrs most well known roles…so yes. yes he is responsible…he’s the wolf man.

I’ve always had a soft spot for not only this film, but the films that make up the tale of Larry Talbot, they play him as a very tragic figure, desperate for a solution to his troubles, but here, theres still at least SOME semblence of hope to Larrys character, which I think adds a nice contrast to his character, being thrown into a past he spent 18 years running away from.

To me? ‘The Wolfman’ feels like a refinement of Universals processes…and while I cant say its perfect, the polish is definitely there. The script is a little slow burn, but balances tone and substance about right, it paces out the action to help keep things fairly evenly distributed. while it is slow across the runtime, I cant personally say any one part was TOO slow for its own good. and the tone, while striving for straight laced macabre horror, finds itself constantly on the precipice of camp horror comedy (the LGBTQ symbolism and overtones are MORE than present here). Its not exactly subtle with its messaging or coding. But I appreciate that this is a film trying to do something that breaks away from the VERY repetative plotlines of the universal horrors that came before it.

The direction is atmospheric, engaging and interesting. they play with a more toned down take on the german expressionist work established in ‘Dracula’ and ‘Frankenstein’ its probably closer in tone to ‘The Mummy’ but there are almost noir elements present here throughout also which kind of help mark a shift in the Universal monster movies away from european expressionism and more towards a US driven noir/thriller aesthetic. I can take or leave either honestly, but this seems to be the line in the sand in the transition between eras.

Non the less direction of the cast is solid, if not a little stiff at times, the action scenes are very well choreographed for the time, the set designs are moody, smokey and the lower lighting is very much welcome, though I do wish there was a touch more experimentation thrown into the mix, just to really help elevate things to the next level.

The cine is fine, as mentioned theres a clear progression from the early to mid 30s work here, shots are much less unique visually, but much more coherent in terms of sequence building and they utilise quite a bit more B-roll shots than previous entries. the shadow and texture work here is honestly some of Universals best outside of maybe ‘Dracula’ or ‘Bride of Frankenstein’ and the edit, while maybe a little TOO speedy on the cut front, feels fresher and more modern than its contemporaries.

Performance wise, while this is the role Lon Cheyney Jr. is often held in regards for, and I dont think his performance is BAD here, I feel like the character really fleshes out over the sequels to this movie. Here? his performance is fine, but its largely bewildered…and while I know thats what they’re going for. It leaves very little room for range in the performance, and does cause things to sag a little for me…Like I say, he’s GOOD at bewildered…and his wolfman performance is superb. I just wish they’d given him a bit more range, Claude Ranes as Sir John Talbot has a warmth to him at times that masks the more complex character underneith, I think he was a perfect choice for the role, and Bela Lugosi as ‘Bela’ is a brief, but equally wonderful cameo that I feel REALLY adds to the tone and atmosphere of the piece.

Ignoring that the backbone of this film is built on racism towards the ‘travelling’ community (because, this film is SUPER racist on stereotyping in hindsight) I really kind of like this one. I feel the wolfman sometimes has to fight for 3rd place in the Universal monster contest between ‘The Mummy’ and ‘The Creature from the black lagoon’ But at least on his first outing, I found ‘The Wolfman’ to be an engaging and interesting slowburn horror with some wondeful visuals and a fairly engaging script. its imperfect, but I enjoyed it, i’d recommend it, and I think if your getting into older horror, this is as good a place as any to build up your reference points.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-wolf-man-1941/1/