I love this movie. To me, Byrne seems to be introducing a European, Felliniesque, sensibility to American themes. Filled with seemingly unconnected dialogue and subtle satirical jabs at consumerism and mass produced entertainment, the film gallops along at a good pace. Byrne's character is a true outsider, it's never explained why he's visited Virgil but he faithfully reports on its people and it's events, breaking the fourth wall with his commentary. Byrne's detached delivery is almost Brechtian, he observes, narrates but never gets involved emotionally, nor does he pass judgement. John Goodman is spectacular with his "consistent panda bear figure" and is, probably, our main character as we are encouraged to follow his pursuit of love. Unusually there is no antagonist in this movie, although Viacorp makes me a little uneasy. Watch this movie!
Reviews
3 Reviews
Drácula
(1931)
Conde Dracula
20 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Having had the Region 1 Universal Monsters box set for 15 years, I have only just got around to watching this version of Dracula.
At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to say this anyway, it is true what the critics say about it: it is superior in many ways to the English version. It is much more successful in its movement than Todd Browning's version as the camera work is much less static. Browning's version often gives the impression of being a filmed stage play. In addition, the female roles have a more pronounced sexuality due to the costumes and their portrayal of the roles.
Although it has often been touted that this version is a shot-by-shot reproduction of the English version, there are some differences that make it in many ways superior. For example, when Renfiled crawls towards the unconscious nurse, the scene is extended to reveal his motive for doing so. The portrayal of Renfield is more passionate, more unhinged than Dwight Frye's, which takes nothing away from his work in the original as it is a perfect match for the movie and probably as much as Browning could get past the American censors.
Knowing the original so well, it s delightful to spot where other deviations occur and how much they improve on the "original". Fore example, when the wives descend on Renfield, the shot moves to outside of the window giving a more horrific denouement.
Now, the elephant in the room: Carlos Villarias is no Lugosi. Physically, he has sausage fingers as opposed to Lugosi's long, pianist's digits and so I feel it would have been better for him to have dropped the gestures and found his own way of creating menace. Also, some of his expressions are comedic, more like a man with constipation than horrific intent (check out his reaction to Renfield's crucifix, for example, he looks more disappointed than scared).
Overall, this version delivers.
At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to say this anyway, it is true what the critics say about it: it is superior in many ways to the English version. It is much more successful in its movement than Todd Browning's version as the camera work is much less static. Browning's version often gives the impression of being a filmed stage play. In addition, the female roles have a more pronounced sexuality due to the costumes and their portrayal of the roles.
Although it has often been touted that this version is a shot-by-shot reproduction of the English version, there are some differences that make it in many ways superior. For example, when Renfiled crawls towards the unconscious nurse, the scene is extended to reveal his motive for doing so. The portrayal of Renfield is more passionate, more unhinged than Dwight Frye's, which takes nothing away from his work in the original as it is a perfect match for the movie and probably as much as Browning could get past the American censors.
Knowing the original so well, it s delightful to spot where other deviations occur and how much they improve on the "original". Fore example, when the wives descend on Renfield, the shot moves to outside of the window giving a more horrific denouement.
Now, the elephant in the room: Carlos Villarias is no Lugosi. Physically, he has sausage fingers as opposed to Lugosi's long, pianist's digits and so I feel it would have been better for him to have dropped the gestures and found his own way of creating menace. Also, some of his expressions are comedic, more like a man with constipation than horrific intent (check out his reaction to Renfield's crucifix, for example, he looks more disappointed than scared).
Overall, this version delivers.
The Frolic
(2007)
A fine rendering of a disturbing story
2 January 2020
The Frolic is one of the first stories i read by Thomas Ligotti and, after reading it, it stayed with me for days. It's an ambiguous tale of a presumed paedophile who denies his crimes. He doesn't abuse them, he takes them on a frolic through the, frankly disturbing, places he lives. He doesn't murder them, he frees them when the folic has to end. The whole cast is amazing but the standout performance is Maury Sterling - what an actor. He cycles through voices, personalities and moods with stunning speed. His English accent is perfect and especially creepy when the allusion to little "darlings" is decoded. The standout moment of Sterling's performance? The smile - you'll get it when you see it.
Tell Your Friends