Change Your Image
abs-14
Reviews
Dracula (1931)
Underrated or overrated?
Dracula (1931) june 12, 2017 by abs007 SYNOPSIS
The dashing, mysterious Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), after hypnotizing a British soldier, Renfield (Dwight Frye), into his mindless slave, travels to London and takes up residence in an old castle. Soon Dracula begins to wreak havoc, sucking the blood of young women and turning them into vampires. When he sets his sights on Mina (Helen Chandler), the daughter of a prominent doctor, vampire-hunter Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) is enlisted to put a stop to the count's never-ending bloodlust.
Initial release: 12 February 1931 (New York City) Directors: Tod Browning, Karl Freund Production company: Universal Pictures
STORY
The Dracula story is, of course a brilliant one. However I'm not rating the original Stoker novel but this adaptation of the play of the novel. I quite like this treatment overall although it betrays its stage play origins in the middle where it becomes little more than a filmed theatrical production and becomes stodgy.
68%
ACTING
I was worried at the start of this film that I was in for that unique early talkies style of acting. Just dialled up a little too high. However once it settles in to the the main meat of the movie the main cast are pretty good. Dwight Frye is a splendid Renfield and Van Sloan a believable Van Helsing. Now Lugosi. Is he really good or actually not really? For me he just about gets away with it. He certainly has a certain charismatic bearing and his delivery of what to him are foreign lines is charmingly odd, but some of those glares to camera are teetering on the edge of comical at times.
75%
VISUALS
The opening half hour of the film is top notch. Dracula's castle is very nicely realised with all the mist and creepy crawlies you'd expect. The sea voyage over to England also looks fine. The middle section is hard to judge as it's all very set bound although those sets are good.
80%
MUSIC
Now how can I fairly judge a film's music score when it doesn't have one! Not through choice either but just because it wasn't done on many of the early talkies. What it does show is just how important music is to create the necessary atmosphere and to help with storytelling. This film is crying out for a music score in the scary scenes and it really is diminished because of it. How to be fair about this
I'm just going to score it 50%. I know it's not perfect and it's unsatisfactory but I can't think of any other way to do it.
50%
PACE
These older films are slower. That's just a fact. However after that great start it does get bogged down for a good forty minutes in the middle before a decent climax. The director definitely needed to use some imagination in those slow scenes and it hurts the film.
60%
SCARINESS
A good horror film needs to be at least a bit scary. This is an old movie and though I'm sure it gave the general public of the day the willies it is very tame today. Having said that the opening is quite spooky as is Lugosi's Count and Renfield is often quite unnerving.
65%
FINAL PERCENTAGE SCORE
66.3%
The Mummy Returns (2001)
More Of The Same .....But More
I would have to say that THE MUMMY RETURNS is a more than satisfactory sequel to THE MUMMY. If you liked the first one (and I did) then you'll know what to expect and hope for this time around. And it doesn't disappoint. The return of all the main original cast members helps to give the movie that familiar "boy's own adventure" feel that was one of the original films winning qualities. Don't expect too much in the way of plot or story-line here but for over 2 hours of non-stop effects-led action, this picture cannot be beaten. For the most part the computer FX are very good to brilliant, but there are a couple of moments when they don't convince, especially with the appearance of the Scorpion King at the climax. It reminded me a bit of one of those excellent Ray Harryhausen creatures from JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS or any of the Sinbad adventures. Good in their day certainly but surely not cutting the high tech mustard of today's movies. Whether the budget or time was getting a bit tight or they simply went for a mega special effect too far I don't know, but whatever the reason I feel that if they couldn't match the quality to the rest of the film they shouldn't have bothered, and maybe come up with a slightly less ambitious ending. But I'm nit-picking. If you liked THE MUMMY then go and see the sequel. It's more of the same....but MORE!
Roadblock (1951)
Typical, well-made film noir
This is a typical film noir of the period and , in my opinion, this is no bad thing. It follows all the typical patterns of a hundred other B-movies of a similar type of it's day. Shadowy photography, good man laid low by the femme fatale, a few seedy gangsters thrown in, all the ingredients are there. If you're not a big fan of noir then you might switch off after 30 minutes exclaiming that "I've seen it all before", and you'd be right. Personally I love the genre and thought this was a competently made movie with good performances by the leading actors. McGraw is perfect as the law-abiding detective seduced into lawlessness by the siren of the piece (Dixon).
If you like film noir check ROADBLOCK out. If you don't then maybe this movie's not for you.