Style2

Flying Saucers Over Hollywood: The 'Plan 9' Companion (1992) (V) Directed by Mark Patrick Carducci

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 2:50 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,



This is obviously being a low-budget and almost fan-made documentary about Edward D. Wood Jr.'s notorious 'opus magnum' "Plan 9 from Outer Space". It's not an impressive looking or put together documentary by any means but it's being a pretty insightful one, that shares and elaborates on some fun facts.

It's not necessarily a documentary about the making of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" but more one about Wood's entire career, in which "Plan 9 from Outer Space" plays the central role, holding and bringing everything in this documentary together. It's something that works out well but can be deceiving for those who are expecting a documentary purely focused on the making of "Plan 9 from Outer Space".

They managed to get a whole bunch of people in front of the camera, who in one way or the other were involved with "Plan 9 from Outer Space". They share their thoughts and memory of the movie but more so of Ed Wood and those who had passed away already, such as Bela Lugosi, Tor Johnson and Criswell. Most of the information is pretty insightful and helps you to learn more about the movie as well as those involved who had passed away already, which also includes Wood himself of course.

This is a fan project, so there are nothing but kind words about him (well, almost entirely) but otherwise this would had most likely been a very depressing documentary, without any fun to it, since Wood's life was far from a happy tale, so I actually don't mind this. It's actually great to see how all these people, after all these years, can speak still so passionately about him and praise him for what he all did and achieved, which might not seem like much but is still quite a big accomplishment all when you look at it objectively. He at least often succeeded to get some big names in his movies and he (almost) always managed to get the movies made in the first place, with basically no money.

His passion and love and devotion to his projects made up for his talent, which just wasn't quite there. It's actually great to see Wood himself directing some scenes for a movie in this documentary. It was just like I always had imagined, he was extremely passionate and committed about it and seemed to be just happy to do it as well. He truly was in his element. There is some more unique footage of Wood himself in this documentary, which was always something I was interested in.

This is being a pretty good and insightful documentary to watch, if you can forgive it for its somewhat amateur like look and feeling at times. But you shouldn't have any problems with that if your interested in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and Edward D. Wood Jr.!

7/10

The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood Jr. (1995) Directed by Brett Thompson

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:39 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Well, I can't say this is a bad documentary but it isn't one that is being terribly interesting or well made either. Guess it serves its purpose but I did wish it covered some more new grounds and explored more of Edward D. Wood Jr.'s life and especially his personality.

The thing is that this documentary won't offer anything new for the Ed Wood enthusiasts and those who aren't interested in Wood's persona or movies probably won't even watch this movie in the first place. So who does this documentary appeal to exactly and what audience did it got made for? It just isn't being clear enough for me to say but having said all of that, this is not a bad watch and it at least features a ton of Wood regulars in it, not saying anything new really but it's still interesting to hear their side of things, though it at times doesn't gives you a clear view of things since sometimes everybody is telling you are different version of things, so you still don't know what is being totally true and what's not.

I was actually surprised to see the amount of people, who were once involved with Wood, they got in front of the camera to speak. Not just the obvious persons like Dolores Fuller, Vampira, Conrad Brooks and Paul Marco but also people such Norma McCarty, who he was married with for one day and reverend Lynn Lemon, who pretty much got ripped off for money by Wood. This is sort of refreshing that it's not just being a documentary in which everybody is saying good things about its main subject but there is also definitely criticism and times in which Wood's bad sides and mannerisms get emphasized. Especially Bela Lugosi Jr. makes it very clear he did not liked Wood at all and hated him for what he did to the final years of his father's career and life.

It was also nice to see Lyle Talbot in this, who starred in a couple of the most infamous Wood movies and died in the same year as this documentary got released, at the age of 94, making this documentary probably the last thing he appeared in.

As strange as it might sound, I'm a really big Ed Wood admirer, not because of the quality of his movies but the way he always got them made and the love and passion he put in to them. He by no means was the worst director that ever lived but it's definitely fact he was one of the absolute worst writers out there. But I still don't feel I truly understand the true person and this documentary didn't do anything to change that. I wished it delved a bit deeper into his personality and private live and not just focused on his movies and the people he was involved with so much.

Of course I still learned some new stuff from this documentary and it does contain some unique footage, such as the first commercial Wood directed in the '40's. But the things I mostly learned from this documentary were mostly non-Wood related, such as Vampira being a bit of a wild thing when it came to men and especially celebrities. I never knew she was involved with Orson Welles more than once in his life. They were lovers, as Vampira is not reluctant to tell you about, even though she didn't really got asked about it and then suddenly pretends as if it's something she doesn't want to talk about too much or go into detail about it.

The documentary isn't shot all that interesting. It just consists out of a bunch of Wood regulars sitting around, getting interviewed and some archive footage, from mostly Wood's own work. At times it even looks and feels as if the interviews got shot in different years and this documentary is just a compilation of already existing interviews, though I doubt this really was the case though.

It perhaps was also a bit of a problem that the documentary makers obviously were Wood admirers, just happy to do this and to talk to some of the people who appeared in his movies, or that were involved with him in another way. It makes this movie of a happy and entertaining documentary, rather than an interesting and insightful one. I'm not complaining all that much about it though, since I still had a good time watching it, as any other Wood enthusiast should be able to do.

7/10

Ninotchka (1939) Directed by Ernst Lubitsch

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:00 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 17 September 2008)

Ernst Lubitsch was a good genre director, who made more fun movies like this around the same time. He already began his career way back in 1914 as a director, in his native Germany. Writer and acclaimed director Billy Wilder, who co-wrote the screenplay for this movie always had regarded him as one of his favorite directors. His style, called 'The Lubitsch Touch' was even a well known phrase at the time. The movie features some great humor, which makes this movie a very amusing one to watch. This is thanks to Lubitsch's but also really thanks to its script with some fine, comical written dialog in it.
It's the kind of movie in which the story is more secondary. Having said that it doesn't mean that the movie has a bad story though. It's a quite good story on its own right and basically one fine and effective story to build a good and fun movie around, like this movie turned out. But besides being a comedy the movie of course also still is a romantic one and a quite good and original one I must say, which is mostly due to Greta Garbo's character and her performance, in one of her last movie roles till her early retirement.
Greta Garbo deserved an Oscar for her role in this movie but unfortunately she only received a nomination. She plays a tough, cold, stereotyped Soviet official, who melts for the charms of the Melvyn Douglas character. She plays it in an entertaining way, without falling into comical and overdone clichés. Melvyn Douglas was also truly great in the movie and he and Garbo formed a great couple in this movie. The movie also features Bela Lugosi, in a rare comical role. Not that his role is anything too comical though. He probably is the most serious character out of the movie. His role is also quite small really and only is in the movie for a couple of minutes, at the very end of the movie.
The movie can also be seen as a satire on the former Soviet union and the different social classes. East meets west in this movie and the movie doesn't leave an opportunity wasted to make fun of both worlds but without ever getting offensive or crossing the edge. It's a fun satire, rather than one that is trying to make a statement with it.
Delightful movie!
9/10


Watch trailer

Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) Directed by Robert Florey

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 12:23 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 10 September 2008)

Going to a freak show with Bela Lugosi, this could be a suiting alternate title for this movie. It's a very short movie, that lasts just over 1 hour. It's obviously a small production with small production values. It's story is simplistic but also obviously effective for an early '30's genre movie. And hey, it has Bela Lugosi in it, which alone already makes this an interesting watch.
It's an early Edgar Allan Poe adaptation, though definitely not the earliest since that one dates way back to 1908. Coicindently this 1908 movie got also based on the novel 'Murders in the Rue Morgue'. It mixed in the famous Sherlock Holmes character in it, which makes it sound like a very interesting movie to watch, though that movie is simply not available now days and I wonder if the movie actually still exists.
It's a nice shot movie, that at times look like its down in the same style as movies from the silent era. The movie obviously has some stylish looking sequences. Especially the cinematography is sometimes something great and unique, for its time at least.
It has a slow moving story, that isn't always told well. In its potential it seems like a good enough story to make a chilling horror movie out of but I don't feel director Robert Florey used the story to its full potential. Instead now the story often feels more ridicules than anything else really.
All of the acting in this movie seems rather outdated now days and are also simply below par. Bela Lugosi plays a typical role for him and plays him in his trademark kind of style. It definitely makes this movie a good watch for the fans of him. They will surely appreciate and enjoy his performance in this movie.
A watchable movie but just not the greatest thing the Universal studios have to offer when it comes down to early 20th century horror.
6/10


Watch trailer

The Body Snatcher (1945) Directed by Robert Wise

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 10:33 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 14 April 2008)

This is one excellent piece of psychological horror/thriller, from director Robert Wise.

This movie has a great story, that is brilliantly acted out by its actors. The story is based on Robert Louis Stevenson novel, that is inspired by the true historical story of the grave robbers turned murderers Burke and Hare. The movie features lots of psychological thriller elements, which makes this movie also a rather special one for its time. This is not a horror movie necessarily but it nevertheless breaths the same atmosphere, which still makes it right to regard this a bit as an horror movie.

It's a movie that not just relies on its atmosphere but also really its characters. The characters play the central role within this movie and the movie shows the slow and steady transformation from good till evil.

When you have in your cast both Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi of course all other actors are going to be overshadowed by their presence. However not Henry Daniell, who was surprisingly great. He isn't that well known but did quite a few good movies back in the '30's and '40's. Boris Karloff always has been sort of underrated for his acting skills. In this movie he really plays one of his finest roles, perhaps even his very best. The Lugosi role is quite small within this movie actually but it's always something special to see Lugosi and Karloff together on screen. This movie marked their last screen teaming.

The movie is greatly told and director by director Robert Wise. It was one of his earlier movies and showed a great premise of things yet to come. He always had the tendency of doing genre movies differently. This movie is very different from horror movies from the same decade, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was a very different science-fiction movie from any of the other genre movies made during the same time period, just to name a couple of examples. It makes his movies always very original and unexpected ones and because of that also often great movies to watch.

A truly recommendable movie.

8/10

Watch trailer

Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) Directed by Charles Barton

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:39 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,



(Review originally written at 3 March 2007)

 In my opinion this movie can definitely be seen as a sequel to other Unveriscal classic movies such as; "Dracula", "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein", "Dracula's Daughter", "Son of Frankenstein", "The Wolf Man", "The Ghost of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man", "Son of Dracula", "House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula". It does not only feature the same character and actors, it also follows and continues some of these plot lines even though obviously this movie is more spoofing and comical, the reason why it's debatable whether or not this movie is canon.

 Of course there is not really much to the story here and why should there be? All the ingredients to make this is a good and fun movie are already pleasant; the two comical actors Bud Abbott and Lou Costello and the classic horror movie stars Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and Glenn Strange. In the end Vincent Price even makes an 'appereance' as The Invisible Man.

 Lugosi for the second and last time plays the movie famous blood sucking vampire; Count Dracula. He does this with just as much passion as the first time and even manages to handle the comical dialog in a good way, with his crazy accent. Lon Chaney Jr. reprises his role as Lawrence Talbot/The Wolf Man. Glenn Strange once more plays the Frankenstein creature. I've always found Strange's Frankenstein's creature performances to be an underrated one. He plays the monster in the same way as Karloff did. Too bad that his character gets way underused in this movie. Weird, especially considering that this movie is named Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet FRANKENSTEIN. Chaney Jr. and Lugosi play a far bigger role in this than Strange does.

 The movie has some good comical moments in it mixes this all perfectly with the classic monster movie ingredients, without being disrespectful about it. The humor mostly works in my opinion thanks to Lou Costello, who really steals the show in this movie with his comical performance. His character is the most entertaining, has the best lines and he has the silliest actions.

 The movie is good looking with its sets, costumes, make-up and cinematography. The movie does a good job at recreating the horror atmosphere from the '30's movies.

 Nevertheless I feel that this movie is always being slightly overrated. Other Unverisal monster mash movies work just as good or even better as entertainment. Movies such as; "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" and "House of Frankenstein". It's a different kind of 'fun' but they in my opinion work better in terms of entertainment. Nevertheless, this movie is of course also still perfectly fun to watch.

 Fun and well worth to watch, especially if you're familiar with either "Dracula", "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein", "Dracula's Daughter", "Son of Frankenstein", "The Wolf Man", "The Ghost of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man", "Son of Dracula", "House of Frankenstein" and/or "House of Dracula".

7/10

 Watch trailer

Island of Lost Souls (1932) Directed by Erle C. Kenton

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 7:17 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 16 January 2007)

 This is the first movie adaption of the H.G. Wells novel; The Island of Dr. Moreau.

 The movie is great to watch but it by no means is a classic. There are a few elements present in this movie that makes it distinct itself from other genre movies at the time but it still fails to really capture the right mood and atmosphere required for a good horror/fantasy movie.

 The movie its story takes a while to take really form even though the pace is surprisingly high. It does work good for the movie its 'mystery' but it doesn't always keep the movie interesting or likely. Of course it's not a requirement for a movie like this to be 'likely' but some more depth and better story flow and more detailed build up and explaining wouldn't had hurt the movie. Of course it's not that the movie is a bad one to watch now but it's just not a "Frankenstein" or "Dracula", though it really could had been, since in essence the potential was really there, with its story and in its style of film-making of the time period.

 The movie is definitely well made when it comes down to the production values and acting. The movie is good looking, with convincing sets and make-up effects for all the 'creatures'. The movie is not as 'campy' as you perhaps would expect and they did a good job at making the movie look as realistic as possible, without ever really getting ridicules by going over-the-top. The cinematography is absolutely great and provides the movie with a couple of creative looking sequences.

 Strangely enough the movie doesn't feature any music during the actual movie itself. Some of the sequences could had really used some (atmospheric) music, also as a tool to perhaps build up the tension. The movie now is almost like a silent-movie at times! Not quite good enough for 1933 standards.

 The movie is perhaps lacking a bit too much in depth, since the story itself offered so many great themes, about playing God for yourself and loosing yourself in the process of it. The movie fails at ever becoming interesting when it comes down to that subject and other deeper meanings in the story.

 The movie is also definitely uplifted by the performances of the cast. Richard Arlen might not be the best leading man but Charles Laughton on the other hand as Dr. Moreau is perfect. He delivers a great performance and puts down the character with the right sinister/well educated tone. I also liked Arthur Hohl in his role. Bela Lugosi also has a small role in the movie as the Sayer of the Law but I really couldn't understand halve of what he was saying! But his presence alone made a great impression.

 I still surprisingly like the 1977 movie version of the novel best.

 7/10

 Watch trailer
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top