Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1912)

Without a doubt, Robert Louis Stevenson's celebrated classic, "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde", is one of the most famous and influential novels of Gothic horror ever written, as its main theme, the inner conflict between a man's good and evil natures, has inspired countless works and several adaptations to film and stage. Thomas Russell Sullivan's 1887 stage play, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was one of the most successful of its time, and soon found itself as the source for film adaptations thanks in part to the touch of romance that Sullivan added to Stevenson's tale. While the most famous adaptation of this play is without a doubt the 1920's version (starring John Barrymore), that was actually the third time the stage play was adapted to film, with the first version produced in 1908 and the second being this film, made in 1912 by the Thanhouser Company.

In this version, James Cruze plays Dr. Jekyll, a respectable scientist who has dedicated his studies to the creation of a formula to separate humanity's two natures. To test the formula for a last time, Jekyll locks himself in his laboratory and drinks the potion, waiting for the effects to take place. Suddenly, he transforms into his evil alter ego, which takes the name of Mr. Hyde and begins to wreak havoc in town. Hyde takes the antidote to become Jekyll again and cover his crimes, but Jekyll's repeated use of his Hyde's persona begins to take its toll on him, making the transformation to occur without the need of the potion, almost at will. In one of these uncontrolled changes, Hyde murders the town's preacher, who is the father of Jekyll's sweetheart (Florence La Badie). This event makes Jekyll to realize how dangerous Hyde really is, but unfortunately, he no longer has the antidote.

As written above, the basis for this movie is definitely the play written by Thomas Russell Sullivan, as the film moves away from the mystery of the novel and takes a more direct approach to the theme of split personalities. The movie touches an interesting theme in the idea of Jekyll becoming "addicted" to being Hyde, only to discover that his constant use of the Hyde persona has made it take over his original personality, almost like a metaphor to drug use. In those years screenplays were rarely used, but it's highly probable that director Lucius Henderson wrote one for the film, as the plot is very well developed considering the short runtime of 12 minutes (just one reel). While the style Henderson uses in the movie is pretty straightforward and a bit stagy, it's not really a bad movie and some scenes (specially the melodramatic ones) are still very effective.

James Cruze, who during the 20s would become a respected director, delivers an effective performance as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. His Jekyll is particularly effective, as unlike most versions where the character is the epitome of goodness, Cruze makes him a flawed human in a very convincing way. His Hyde is less convincing, although that's probably because actor Harry Benham also played the character in several scenes Still, to Benham's (and Henderson's) credit, the change between actors is practically impossible to distinguish. Thanhouser regular Florence La Badie appears as Jekyll's sweetheart and she is quite good as the character, although her role in the film is considerable smaller than in the play, as the movie focuses completely on Jekyll's conflict. Interestingly, Thanhouser's child prodigy Marie Eline appears in a brief role as the kid who gets knocked down by Hyde in that classic scene.

While the acting is of excellent quality (as usual with Thanhouser films), the style of the film may come off as too stagy to modern viewers and sadly, the budget limitations do show off in more than one occasion. Still, Henderson makes his movie an entertaining and to an extent, faithful adaptation of Stevenson's novel that will certainly appeal to fans of the classic tale. Lucius Henderson's version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" may not be a mind blowing experience today, and even when compared to other movies of its period (the German film "Der Student Von Prag" comes to mind) it comes off as simply better than average, however, it's by no means a bad movie and I'd even say that it's required viewing for anyone interested in the early years of American horror cinema

7/10
-------------------------------


Watch "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1912)

Only in the Way (1911)

In 1909, a former theater actor named Edwin Thanhouser decided to enter into the rising motion picture business after making a good fortune by managing the Academy of Music Theater in Milwaukee. After moving to New York, he opened the Thanhouser Company, a motion picture studio that enjoyed a good popularity from 1910 to 1917, producing films of great quality in terms of acting, almost on par with those done by Griffith for the Biograph Company. The high standards in the acting of this movies was the result of Thanhouser's involvement, as he was among the first producers to have a strong experience in theater. The 1911 short film, "Only in the Way", is one of the Thanhouser movies were this can be easily appreciated, as while it's far from a masterpiece, the performances are excellent, specially the one by the young Marie Eline, the legendary star nicknamed "Thanhouser Kid".

In "Only in the Way", Marie Eline plays little Marie, the only daughter of a young marriage that seems to be having a bad time. The problems between Mom and Dad begins when Grandma decides to live with them as, while Marie is delighted by the idea, Mom dislikes to have her husband's mother around, as she feels that Grandma will only give her troubles. Marie, who needs the help of a crutch to walk, is very close to her Grandma, and considers her the only friend she has in the world, as like her Granny, she also finds herself at times out of place in her family. Soon after Grandma's arrival, Marie's Mom decides that Grandma must leave, so she asks Grandma to go and live in a retirement home. Marie feels saddened by the news, but soon she decides that if Grandma is an obstacle in Mom and Dad's way to happiness, she must be in the way too, so Marie runs away hoping to live with her Grandma.

Unfortunately, little is know about this early films, so the names of the crew behind the movie are now lost forever. One can assume that in these early Thanhouser movies, Edwin Thanhouser had a lot of creative control, as only after becoming successful he would hire (and credit) writers and directors for his movies. Anyways, what can be said about "Only in the Way" is that the story is pretty well developed considering that it was a 12 minutes long one-reeler. The plot captures nicely the internal conflict of the child, and the consequences that family troubles have on children. The directing of the film is of good quality, nothing really amazing, but very effective and with an excellent cinematography. What really stands out are the performances of the actors, as not only they are of excellent quality, but move away from the stagy style of the early movies and have a natural style (This hints that Thanhouser himself was the director).

As written above, the performances are of a really good quality, looking quite ahead of its time and on par with what Biograph was producing at the time (Griffith's films were a big influence for Thanhouser). Sadly, there are no records on who played who in this movie, except for Marie Eline, who as "The Thanhouser Kid" was one of the early movie stars. The actress who plays Mom is very good, and while due to the limited runtime we get nothing but glimpses of her neurosis, her portrayal is top notch. At the same time, the actress who plays Granny is also very natural in her performance, and the chemistry she has with Marie Eline makes for some great scenes together. Still, "Only in the Way" is completely Eline's show, and she certainly makes the most of it, delivering a terrific performance that even now looks amazing for an actress of her age (she was 9 at the time).

While probably not as well known as the Biograph or the Edison Company films, the Thanhouser short films have some pretty interesting elements that make a good watch for those interested in the history of early American film-making. The Thanhouser Company would enjoy great popularity in the following years after movies like the 1912 version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (starring a young James Cruze) and 1914 "The Million Dollar Mystery" (also with Cruze). Sadly, Thahouser films would end its production in 1917, when the film industry was on a depression (and when most of the major studios had already moved to Hollywood). Still, its movies are, while maybe not masterpieces, a small glimpse of how American film-making was being developed in those early years. despite its shortcomings, "Only in the Way" is a good short movie and the perfect introduction to the movies of the Thanhouser company.

7/10

Buy "Only in the Way" (1911)

The Greatest Directors Ever... according to Total Film

The famous British magazine "Total Film" has released a list of 100 directors which they consider as "the greatest". As always happens with this kind of lists, many personal favorites will be missed, the order of the list will shock some, and a notorious lack of movies in "foreign" (i.e. non-English) languages will take place. Still, I'd say it's a pretty good list (although of course, I disagree with it in many places), mainly because it's not about who's the best but about who has been influential to cinema in general. And I think they got the first spot right.

Here's the Top 10 (with the comments published by the magazine editors), you can check the rest of the list here:

10 David Fincher
The perfectionist
“Some people make movies so they can have a big house,” says Fincher. “Some people do it so they can date Swedish models... If I wasn’t making movies I would be drunk and homeless.” The MTV auteur who segued from Rolling Stones’ and George Michael vids to the fascinating failure of Alien3, Fincher’s do-or-die vision eventually delivered the seminal Se7en, mirrored this year by Zodiac’s more muted but no less intelligent take on fractured masculinity, obsession and loneliness (and, oh yeah, a serial killer). Hardly prolific, but Fincher’s smarts, wit and eye are unsurpassed in his generation; even his popcorn pictures (The Game, Panic Room) are a different league. Always pushing the technical envelope, he matches his meticulousness with mordant humour and a growing sense of humanity. Expect third Pitt hook-up, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, to stun you. Kubrick has an heir.
Picture perfect Fight Club. A beautiful and unique snowflake.


9 Peter Jackson
The ring master
A bashful, only child growing up in Pukerua Bay, New Zealand, Peter Jackson latched onto the 8mm camera he was given at the age of eight, forging a small talent that became big.

Jackson’s early work – camp splatter movies Bad Taste and Braindead, influenced by George A Romero – segued into the rapturous, teen-lesbian murder tale Heavenly Creatures and the mature, visionary storytelling of The Lord Of The Rings. “It was a giant undertaking,” says Jackson of his three-film, five-year odyssey, “but I consider it a personal film – my film of a lifetime.”

Maybe so, but now that he’s finally laid to rest his obsession with King Kong, a liberated Jackson can funnel his extraordinary filmmaking talents into more intriguing artistic-multiplex synergies – including, he says, a return to his gorehound roots.

First up, Alice Sebold’s ghost-child drama Lovely Bones, the perfect vehicle for his rhapsodic blend of visceral emotion and transporting fantasy.
Picture perfect The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Eleven hours of pure cinematic majesty.


8 Stanley Kubrick
The recluse
Even in death – it’s still hard to believe he’s gone – Kubrick remains a semi-mythic figure, hidden behind a thicket beard, monolithic intellect and the front gates of his Xanadu-like mansion. Bizarrely, he’s greater than any one of his 13 truly unique films. After WWI trench-tragedy Paths Of Glory, Kubrick became less interested in humans than humanity itself, driving actors to hundreds of identical takes in his obsessive search for perfection. Even Dr Strangelove (an original, brilliant, terrifying nuclear comedy that equates military might with big, swinging dicks) and Lolita (sex and power again) reach us through a God-like POV that belongs to him and none of his characters. He fish-eyed Big Questions through some of the most unforgettable spectacles in cinema: 2001’s celestial enigma; The Shining and A Clockwork Orange’s mesmerising horrorshows; Full Metal Jacket’s clinical destruction; Eyes Wide Shut’s end-of-century sign-off. Daring, demanding and unique.
Picture perfect 2001: A Space Odyssey. To infinity and beyond.


7 Ingmar Bergman
The confessor
“At times, the demons can be helpful. But you have to beware. Sometimes they will help you along to hell.”

Ingmar Bergman knew what he was talking about. Survivor of a cracked faith and four broken marriages (a fifth ended when his wife died of stomach cancer), the Swedish auteur made a career out of “the ability to attach my demons to my chariot” (The Seventh Seal, Shame, Scenes From A Marriage, Autumn Sonata, Fanny And Alexander).

And if his chariot’s wheels occasionally threatened to come off, that only helped Bergman work through his crises of creative confidence in movies like Persona and Hour Of The Wolf, positing the artist as charlatan.

Honing his uncluttered style over 60 years and 50-odd films, he shoots his tortured protagonists in looming, luminous close-up, his camera performing keyhole surgery to extract tumorous lies. It is, as critic David Thomson puts it, a “cinema of the inner life”, revelatory in every sense.
Picture perfect Persona. Bergman’s silent scream.


6 Orson Welles
The conjuror
It’s almost forgotten that, apart from the stalled projects, TV ads and ballooning waistline, Welles’ ‘thwarted’ post-Kane career is a roll-call of masterpieces and locked-down classics. Ever the showman mythologiser, Orson was well aware of this. The fabulous wreckage of The Magnificient Ambersons, Shakespearian epic Chimes At Midnight, inky noirs Touch Of Evil and Lady From Shanghai, conjuror’s trick F For Fake… all dance between ambition and failure, truth and illusion, character and destiny, fact and fiction. Welles’ thrill at the possibilities of the medium are palpable, along with his mastery of camera, sound, editing and performance. He was a true genius. And his exhilarating imagination still kicks hardest in that astonishing debut. Greatest lists are nothing but consensus. That Kane keeps topping them means few of us could do without it.
Picture perfect Citizen Kane. Believe the hype.


5 Francis Ford Coppola
The godfather
“Anything you build on a large scale or with an intense passion invites chaos,” said the great lost beard of new Hollywood. He started out small, mind. Plucked from film school by Roger Corman in ’62, on $90 a week, Coppola shot the shocker Dementia 13 in Ireland. Cheap axe-ploitation? Sure, but it kick-started his eclectic career, which sprawls from the claustrophobic intensity of The Conversation to the sun-drunk Finian’s Rainbow. Isolation is a key theme, possibly because at nine, this son of a concert flautist fell ill with polio and had to be kept indoors. After the grandiose Godfather films, excess consolidated his myth and almost destroyed him, financially in the case of One From The Heart and physically in the case of Apocalypse Now. “My film is not a movie,” Coppola said. “It’s not about Vietnam. It is Vietnam.”
Picture perfect The Godfather: Part II. A journey into the heart of darkness.


4 Howard Hawks
The all-rounder
This one-time car racer made silents in the ’20s but really flew in the talky ’30s. His motto was modest: “Make a few good scenes, don’t annoy the audience.” But he was actually magnificently complex, being a crowd-pleaser who made genre (screwball comedy, westerns, film noir, science-fiction, musicals) pieces his own, a writer of “realistic” dialogue who made non-realist entertainments and a man’s man who directed legendary female performances. He was also a genius talent-spotter, pairing Bogey’n’Bacall – first in classy war romance To Have And Have Not and then in labyrinthine noir The Big Sleep. As ’50s French critics recognised, he was the studio helmer as auteur, the populist as artist. Bringing Up Baby, Red River, Rio Bravo… who can match him now?
Picture perfect Screwy newspaper rom-com His Girl Friday.


3 Steven Spielberg
The universal entertainer
“I always like to think of the audience while I’m directing. Because I am the audience.” From movie brat to movie mogul, Steven Spielberg has never lost the common touch. The first thing he ever saw at the flicks was The Greatest Show On Earth (1952); a couple of decades of home-moviemaking, film school and TV apprenticeship later (Duel was grand enough to go big-screen outside the US), he was the new Cecil B DeMille. And exactly 30 summers after the epochal Jaws, he was still packing in the popcorn-eaters with War Of The Worlds.

But being the most successful director on earth comes with a price: ever since ET (“maybe the best Disney film Disney never made” – Variety), Spielberg has been stereotyped as a sentimentalist, more at home with reassurance than risk. Truth is, he’s rarely rested on those billion-dollar laurels, always looking to evolve his craft despite the constants that recur across his work (absent dads, kids in jeopardy, scores by John Williams).

In fact, finally bagging Oscars for Schindler’s List spurred Spielberg into beginning a drive for complexity rather than complacency, making films like Saving Private Ryan, AI and Minority Report. A trailblazer who works at a phenomenally fast rate – who else could make WOTW and Munich in the same year? – he’s too much of a craftsman to cut corners. “Spielberg has always maintained obsessive quality control,” says critic Roger Ebert, “and when his films work, they work on every level.”
Picture perfect ET The Extra-Terrestrial. Aliens and alienation.


2 Martin Scorsese
The don
Little Marty wanted to be a priest, but he could never square the seminary with his one true religion: movies. So he got busy channelling all that misplaced morality through the lens of a movie camera…

Scorsese has now spent 40-odd years tapping the vein of violence pulsing beneath the skin of the Italian-American dream. Yet still no living director comes close to his delirious cocktail of movie scholarship, blazing technique and the kind of actorly respect that coaxes looming turns from both Oscar-winners and phoner-inners.

Like any lapsed Catholic, he’s obsessed with blood and body, but the ultraviolent rep is just a byproduct of his grand passion: power. “Growing up, I saw power exercised in two ways,” says Scorsese. “The power of the church and the power of the street, which was exercised through violence.”

His films are most thrilling when they mesh the two: street scenes and biblical themes (greed, punishment, redemption). The mob stories (Goodfellas, Casino) unfold in worlds where being ‘made’ is both blessing and curse; where enemies and Godlike ‘bosses’ spare or snuff out life at will.

He’s not married to the mob. There are towering tales of men at war with their own natures (Raging Bull, Taxi Driver), prescient celebrity-cult satire (King Of Comedy), smart biopics (The Aviator). The tardy Oscar nod was a career box ticked, but for Marty, it’s always been about one thing: the movies.
Picture perfect GoodFellas. Stand-out guys.


1 Alfred Hitchcock
The puppetmaster
Hitchcock is cinema. No director has been more manipulative or downright entertaining. “Some films are slices of life,” he noted. “Mine are slices of cake.” His wit and intelligence is there for all to gasp at – but was his heart as cold as some have claimed, including the blonde actresses he allegedly tormented? He likened actors to cattle, insisted on storyboarding every shot, and worked from a gloriously cruel creed (“Make the audience suffer as much as possible.”)

This east-end boy got his break in movies designing titles. His third credited gig as director, 1927’s The Lodger, brought his knack for suspense to the fore. (The film also featured the first of his celebrated cameos).

International acclaim greeted The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1934 and by 1940 he’d debuted in Hollywood with the gothic Rebecca. His thrillers could be dark and demented (Spellbound) or just plain wicked (Rope) but with each picture, his technique grew more innovative...

Hitchcock was at his peak in the ’50s and early ’60s: Rear Window, Psycho and The Birds were playful masterpieces that disorientated and indicted the voyeuristic audience; North By Northwest is perfect; and nowhere in cinema is the rug pulled out more dramatically than when Janet Leigh decides to freshen up in Psycho...

Sure, after the sexually charged Marnie in 1964, his creativity waned. But so what? There’s more deviancy and daring in one frame of his ’50s films than most directors manage in a lifetime.

And Hitch just pips Marty to the top spot because, as our eight-page special shows, he may be long gone but his influence lives on...
Picture perfect Vertigo. Hitch scales new heights.

- Source: www.totalfilm.com

The Craft (1996)

Since its origins in the "beach films" of the 50s and 60s, the so-called "teen film" genre has been the target of much criticism despite its constant popularity among the audiences. A lot of this comes from the notorious tendency of teen films to be nothing more than clichéd stories done to cash in the popularity of celebrities or fashionable trends, and sadly teen horror, source of most of the worst horror films ever made, is a main offender in this aspect. However, not every horror film aimed to teenagers is dumb, as there have been movies that actually use the conventions of its genre to actually make something interesting and creative with it. Brian De Palma's classic, "Carrie", is probably the best example of this, as it intelligently uses teenage angst as source of horror. While nowhere near De Palma's masterpiece, Andrew Fleming's "The Craft" walks on the same lines with relative success.

In "The Craft", Robin Tunney plays Sarah Bailey, a troubled teenage girl with suicidal tendencies who has recently moved with her family to Los Angeles in order to have a fresh start. In her new school, she meets Bonnie (Neve Campbell), Rochelle (Rachel True) and Nancy (Fairuza Balk), three outcast girls who have an interest in the occult and actually are practicing witches. Sarah is invited to join their group after Bonnie notices that Sarah seems to have the real supernatural powers of a natural witch, and after she joins them in their rituals, they discover that with her help they are able to achieve things beyond the normal witchcraft. With this real magical power, the four girls begin to solve their respective problems and everything seems to be perfect, until the ambition for more power overwhelm them, and they discover that everything has a price.

Based on a story by Peter Filardi, "The Craft" was written by director Andrew Fleming and Filardi himself. It is essentially a teen drama with a touch of supernatural horror that, while predictable in its storyline, feels fresh and original thanks to the interesting plot that Filardi creatively develops. What makes it interesting is the amount of research that the writers put on the screenplay, as they based the rituals the characters practice in real witchcraft practices that followers of nature-based religions perform (obviously with exaggerated results); and what's most important, the angle they take on the story is not meant to be disrespectful to followers of those religions, but presents it as a philosophy as valid as any other faith. Of course, it's hard to escape the clichés of teen dramas, but Filardi never fails to make the story entertaining thanks to a good amount of character development.

Director Andrew Fleming takes a very straight forward approach with "The Craft", following to the letter the typical conventions of the teen movie genre, with a dose comedy thrown to good effect, a very modern atmosphere and a polished visual look (courtesy of Alexander Gruszynski's cinematography) designed with the MTV generation in mind. While at first sight this may sound unoriginal, it actually adds to the film's charm, as the overall feeling that results as the horror elements begin to enter the story is one of a teen drama gone to the dark side. The special effects aren't really amazing but they work effectively and even today look pretty good and convincing. Fleming's directing of his cast is another of the elements that make the film good, as nearly everyone gives at least a good performance that helps the film in some way.

As written above, the performances by the cast are something that makes the movie to stand out, starting with Fairuza Balk, who as the lonely and angry Nancy becomes easily the best actress in the cast. Going over-the-top as her character gets more power, Balk makes a villain that is as delightfully insane as she is sympathetic. Robin Tunney is a effective as Sarah, but her performance feels kind of weak when compared to Balk and even Neve Campbell (the fact that as the hero, her character is probably the most clichéd doesn't help). In the supporting roles, Neve Campbell and Rachel True are very good, specially Campbell who despite the relatively small size of the role shows why she would be the one whose career would rise in the following decade. Skeet Ulrich and Christine Taylor also appear in supporting roles with good results, although Ulrich seems to have troubles with his role.

It would be easy to dismiss "The Craft" as just another teen horror film like the many weak movies the genre spawned in the late 90s, but even when it may not be a classic, "The Craft" has a lot going for it that makes it stand out among the rest. True, the story is predictable, disjointed at times, and truly loses some steam at the end; but the way Filardi plays with the moral conflicts between the characters as well as that of being an outcast and having magic powers is pretty interesting. That element together with the fact that it offers a different (and at the time fresh) view on witchcraft and nature-oriented religions makes "The Craft" an interesting and entertaining movie. Still, one has to remember that "The Craft" is first and foremost a supernatural teen drama, so anyone expecting a straight forward horror film will probably be disappointed.

Despite its many flaws, "The Craft" is definitely one of the best American horror movies of the 90s, showing a true understanding of the 90s pop culture and a disposition to play with both the horror and teen movie genres. Sadly, few horror films followed this movie's path and most of the rest of the teen horror movies for the MTV generation ended up having the worst qualities of the genre. It's not "Carrie" but still, "The Craft" is one of the good ones.

8/10

Buy "The Craft" (1996)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

More than 10 years after the publication of the first book in the "Harry Potter" series, there's no doubt that J. K. Rowling's fantasy novels are on the way of becoming classics of the genre due to its imaginative world and its captivating story, which has gone from simple tales of adventure to darker and more complex themes as its main character, the young wizard Harry Potter grows up. The fourth installment of the series, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" began this maturing process, as in that book our hero discovered that fighting against evil, embodied in the figure of Lord Voldemort, wasn't a child's game, as the forces of evil do not hesitate in killing innocents. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", fifth novel in the series, continued and expanded this transformation, and naturally, the movie adaptation followed the same path.

As usual, we find Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) spending the summer at the house of his hateful relatives, the Dursleys, however, something feels different this time, as even when he was the one who discovered that Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) had returned, nobody, not even his good friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), had attempted to get in touch with him. Harry suspects something strange is going on, and his suspicion gets confirmed when a group of Dementors attack him and his cousin Dudley (Harry Melling), forcing him to use magic to save him. After this event, Harry is informed that he is now expelled from Hogwarts, however, the Order of the Phoenix, a group of elite wizards lead by Harry's former professor Alastor Moody (Brendan Gleeson), appear at the Dursleys' house to take Harry away. It seems that Harry's fifth year has started a bit earlier this time.

Replacing Steve Kloves as scriptwriter for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is writer Michael Goldenberg, who faces the mammoth challenge of adapting Rowling's longest book to film. As any fan of the series should expect, details from the novel had to be omitted, but it must be said that Goldenberg manages to create a script that despite the omissions remains true to the story's spirit by keeping the core themes and staying faithful to the main plot. One of the key elements of the novel's plot is Harry's angst, and Goldenberg manages to successfully explore this aspect in his screenplay, devoting a great deal of it to the developing of Harry's character (something missing in the previous installment). Sadly, this has the consequence of limiting the screen time of the rest of the characters, as even major character such as Ron and Hermione get reduced screen time in this occasion.

As the new person in the director's seat, David Yates wisely decide to keep a sense of continuity between films and follows the same dark visual style that has been part of the series since the third installment ("Prisoner of Azkaban"), keeping the film in tone with the more mature challenges the characters face now that they have grown up and the evil's presence is stronger. A major theme in the movie is how the life at Hogwarts is affected by the many political conspiracies to hide the fact that Voldemort has returned, and fortunately Yates manages to pay enough attention to this aspect without taking the focus out of the main characters. While Yates does give his film a very fast pace, he manages to make the story easy to understand even to those unfamiliar with the novel and the many details that weren't included in the adaptation.

One of the most noticeable things in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is definitely how much has Daniel Radcliffe improved as an actor, as after many years of being the weakest link in the young trio, he finally shows up a considerable development and a real domain over dramatic scenes. Of course, it helps a lot that the script is almost entirely dedicated to his character, although sadly, this also means that Emma Watson and specially Rupert Grint receive almost zero chance to shine, although both make great performances despite this. The rest of the supporting characters suffer of this same thing as well, although Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson and specially Alan Rickman deliver remarkable acting despite the short screen time they have. However, the highlight of the film is Imelda Staunton's acting as Dolores Umbridge, as she delivers what's simply an unforgettable performance.

As written above, anyone expecting a faithful adaptation of the books will be sorely disappointed. To expect the level of detail Kloves and director Chris Columbus had in the first two films is simply pointless, but that doesn't mean Yates and Goldenberg are not talented, one has consider that since "Prisoner of Azkaban", Rowling's seres has grown bigger and deeper than the first two books. True, it's sad not to see some of the most famous scenes of the series in the movie, but what Yates and Goldenberg have done is still impressive as the movie does exactly what the novel did in a flawless way: it gives depth to the characters and completes their transition from kids to teenagers. In fact, the movie's real problem is that it's a bit too fast paced for its own sake, with the events happening at times too quickly to be noticed. I'm sure nobody would complain if 20 extra minutes were added to help slow the pace a bit.

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" may not be an adaptation as faithful as hardcore fans would want, but in the end the approach the filmmakers have taken since the third chapter has given the series an identity of its own. This fifth installment is a great addition to the series, as it delivers perfectly the intended message: Harry Potter is not a kid anymore, and his biggest challenge awaits ahead.

7/10

Buy "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" (2007)

Bottles (1936)

In 1929, Walt Disney Productions began to produce one of the most influential series of short films of all time, "Silly Symphonies". Unlike Disney's other famous series of shorts ("Mickey Mouse"), the "Silly Symphonies" shorts wasn't about the company's famous recurring characters, but were more about experimenting with new techniques and styles of animation. This approach made "Silly Symphonies" very popular, and soon other animation teams began to follow that approach, like Warner Bros' "Merrie Melodies". Among the best of the shorts influenced by "Silly Symphonies" was definitely "Happy Harmonies", a series of musical short films created by former WB employees, Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising, which was distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Produced in Technicolor, "Happy Harmonies" showed a technical proficiency at times as good as the shorts by Warner and Disney, and 1936's "Bottles" is a good example of this.

The story of "Bottles" is pretty simple: During a dark stormy night, a Druggist is working late making what seems to be a new kind of poison, as the bottle has its top shaped as a skull. The druggist falls asleep, and at this moment, the Bottle of poison comes alive, using a potion to shrink the druggist to the size of a bottle. The druggist awakes, shocked after being magically miniaturized, but his shock becomes marvel as he discovers the secret world of his bottles, who by night come alive and begin to sing. Baby bottles crying in harmony, dancing Scotch whiskey, and two bottles of salt water who dance like sailors are just some of the many bottles who participate in the dancing and the singing with the druggist. However, not everything is fun and party, as the deadly bottle of poison has a secret plan for the druggist, and recruits the witch-hazel and the Spirits of Ammonia for his evil scheme.

Like most of the "Happy Harmonies", the movie was written and produced by Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising, with the music and the songs written by their regular collaborator at MGM, Scott Bradley. As usual in their cartoons, the movie is based on the concept of inanimate things coming to life, in surreal experiences where the inanimate things sing, dance and behave as real persons. Anyways, inn "Bottles" they show a lot more of imagination and wit in the creation of the characters, as while at times the link between the bottle and their persona is pretty obvious, there are a couple where the connection between them is a very creative and unexpected one. The comedy is done in lighthearted fun, although the plot about the Poison bottle has a nice touch of the horror as it's filled with a good dose of suspense. Finally, Bradley's songs are fantastic, and some of the best in an MGM cartoon.

Produced in wonderful Technicolor, "Bottles" is a beautifully looking cartoon that makes excellent use of the variety of colors that the Technicolor process allowed director Hugh Harman to use. Harman brings Bradley's song come alive in remarkably well designed musical numbers where the highly detailed bottles (resembling popular brands of those years) act like singers and dancers in the film's choreographs. The visual look of the movie retains the same style that Harman and Ising had been developed since their years at Warner Brothers, with very fluid and dynamic animation and, as written above, carefully designed characters. Also, given the horror elements of the story, the directors add a nice touch of Gothic atmosphere to the movie that works perfectly within the film, with the serious looking "monster bottles" making good contrast with the "good" bottles.

While there's a lot to praise in "Bottles", it also carries with what was the bane of the musical "Happy Harmonies" films done without Bosko, their signature character: the plots were pretty much the same. So, even when "Bottles" does include some of the cleverest character design of all the "Happy Harmonies" films, when one has seen a film from this series, the rest will invariably look like repetitive. However, if one can get past these flaw, "Bottles" is a very rewarding cartoon, as it manages to play on the many stereotypes of the culture of 1930s without being insulting or disrespectful in any way (as some other short films from those years were). Showing a remarkable use of the Technicolor process, "Bottles" is all about good fun, good music, and of course, a few scares.

8/10

Der Student Von Prag (1913)

One of the most important artistic movements in the history of cinema was without a doubt German expressionism, the highly atmospheric style of film-making developed during the 20s in Berlin. Classic movies like "Das Cabinet Des Dr. Caligari." (1920) and "Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens" (1922) were the most famous direct results of this movement, and while the movement didn't have a long life, its enormous influence over cinema can still be felt today, specially in the horror genre. One of the key figures of this style would be director Paul Wegener, director of 1920's "Der Golem, Wie Er in die Welt Kam", as in his debut as a filmmaker, seven years before the making of that classic, he was already making experiments with expressionism in film. That early prototype of German expressionism was incidentally, another horror film: "Der Student Von Prag".

"Der Student Von Prag" ("The Student of Prague"), is the story of Balduin (Paul Wegener), a student with the reputation of being the best fencer in Prague, but who always find himself with financial troubles. One day, Balduin rescues the beautiful countess Margit (Grete Berger) from drowning in a lake after her horse drop her by accident. Balduin falls immediately in love with her and tries to see her again, but soon he discovers that he'll have to compete with her rich cousin, Graf Von Schwarzenberg (Lothar Körner), who also wants to marry her. Knowing that he can't offer her much, Balduin wishes to be wealthy, and this is where a sorcerer named Scapinelli (John Gottowt) enters the scene. Scapinelli offers Balduin infinite wealth in exchange of whatever he finds in his room. Balduin accepts the proposal, only to discover in horror that what Scapinelli wants is his reflection in the mirror.

Loosely inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's short story "William Wilson" and the classic legend of "Faust", the story of "Der Student Von Prag" was conceived by German writer Hanns Heinz Ewers, a master of horror literature and one of the first writers to consider scriptwriting as valid as any other form of literature. Written at a time where cinema in Germany was still being developed as an art form, "Der Student Von Prag" shows a real willingness to actually use cinema to tell a fully developed story beyond a camera trick or a series of scenes. Like most of the scriptwriters of his time, Ewers screenplay is still very influenced by theater, although "Der Student Von Prag" begins to move away from that style. While a bit poor on its character development (specially on the supporting characters), Ewers manages to create an interesting and complex protagonist in the person of Balduin.

While "Der Student Von Prag" was Paul Wegener's directorial debut and Stellan Rye's second film as a filmmaker, it's very clear that these two pioneers had a very good idea of what cinema could do when done properly. Giving great use to Guido Seeber's cinematography, the two young filmmakers create a powerful Gothic atmosphere that forecasts what the German filmmakers of the following decade would do. Wegener would learn many of the techniques he would employ in his "Golem" series from Seeber and Rye. Despite having very limited resources, Rye and Wegener manage to create an amazing and very convincing (for its time) visual effect for the scenes with Balduin's reflection (played by Wegener too). Already an experienced stage actor at the time of making this film, Wegener directs the cast with great talent and also attempts to move away from the stagy style of previous filmmakers.

As Balduin, Paul Wegener is very effective and probably the best in the movie. It certainly helps that his character is the only one fully developed by the writer, but one can't deny that Wegener was very good in his role as the poor student who loses more than his mirror reflection in that contract. John Gottowt plays the sinister Scapinelli with mysterious aura that suits the character like a glove. Few is said about Scapinelli in the film, but Gottowt makes sure to let us know that he is a force to be feared. The rest of the main cast is less lucky, with Grete Berger being pretty much average as countess Margit, and Lothar Körner making a poor Graf Von Schwarzenberg. However, it must be said that Lyda Salmonova was pretty good in her expressive character and Fritz Weidemann made an excellent Baron Waldis-Schwarzenberg, showing the dignity that Lörner's character should have had.

Considering the movies that were being done in those years in other countries and the fact that its remake (made 13 years after this film) is superior in every possible way, it's not difficult to understand why "Der Student Von Prag" hasn't stood the test of time as well as other early films. The movie's main problem is definitely its extremely low budget, as it resulted in the film being considerably shorter than what Ewers' story needed to be fully developed. This makes the plot feel a bit too vague at times, or even incomplete, as if there was something missing in the narrative (of course, there's also the possibility that the existing print is really incomplete). However, "Der Student Von Prag" is a very interesting early attempt at a complex tale of horror and suspense in film that, while inferior to what other filmmakers were doing at the time, left a powerful impression in history.

As the direct predecessor of the German expressionist movement, it's hard to deny the enormous importance that "Der Student Von Prag" has in the history of German cinema, probably in the history of cinema in general. It may look dated even for its time, but considering the limited resources its director had, it's truly better than most films from that era. As the movie that started Paul Wegener's career, and with that German expressionism, "Der Student Von Prag" is a must see for everyone interested in this slice of film history.

7/10

-------------------------------

The Son of Kong (1933)

In 1933, Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, two former adventurers working in the film industry, created one of the most amazing movies of all time in "King Kong", a grandiose spectacle of horror, action and fantasy about the adventures of a filmmaker (played by Robert Armstrong) in a mysterious island where he finds Kong, a giant ape who is captured and taken to New York in order to be exhibited as "The Eight Wonder of the World". What Cooper and Schoedsack created in "King Kong" was something more than a movie, it was pure magic, as few images in the history of cinema remain as powerful as the scene of Kong standing at the top of the Empire State Building. Given the enormous success of the film, the studios demanded a sequel to be produced immediately, so Cooper and Schoedsack found themselves forced to repeat the hit with a lower budget and tighter shooting schedule.

A month after the events of "King Kong", former filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is constantly in trouble because of the numerous lawsuits following the destruction that Kong, the giant ape he brought to New York, made during his failed escape. Fortunately, his old friend, Captain Englehorn (Frank Reicher), invites Denham to join his new crew and sail to South Asia, where they can make a living and recover from their financial problems. During one of their trips, they find the man who sold Denham the map to Skull island, Helstrom (John Marston), a former captain who convinces them that there is a treasure in Skull island, secretly planning to steal their ship. Determined to find the treasure, Denham decides to return to Skull island, but the adventure won't be easy, as he'll have to deal with a stowaway girl named Hilda (Helen Mack), Helstrom's evil plans, and the Son of Kong.

Ruth Rose, who wrote the screenplay for the original "King Kong", is also in charge of the screenplay for this sequel, and she keeps exactly the same thrilling mix of genres that made the first one so special. However, there are significant changes in the tone of the film, as in "The Son of Kong" she takes a more lighthearted approach and also makes the offspring of the famous giant ape a heroic character. As odd as it may sound, there's a lot of character development in this movie, mainly in the figure of Carl Denham, who through the movie goes from his well-known ambitious persona to a man who learns to respect the beasts he once considered as nothing more than living gold mines. As in the first film, Rose manages to inject a notable dose of realism to the story despite its fantasy touches, without a doubt the result of her own life as an adventurer along her husband (Schoedsack).

Director Ernest B. Schoedsack returns to the detector's seat in this sequel and once again he gives the movie that gritty realism product of his years as a documentary filmmaker. The amazing special effects by Willis H. O'Brien also return, although due to budget and time limitations, their appearance is tragically limited this time. It is mainly because of this reason that this time the actors receive more chances to show their talents. Schoedsack's directing of his cast is pretty effective, and manages to handle his cast as good as he does his special effects. While Merian C. Cooper limits himself only to produce the film, his taste for magnificent epic action sequences can still be felt in the movie, particularly in the grand finale at Skull island, where he delivers as many thrills as his budget and schedule allowed him.

The acting in "The Son of Kong" is actually effective, and at times even better than the one in the film (granted, Kong was the true star of that classic). Robert Armstrong is wonderful as Carl Denham, making his character's personal transformation a very believable process, as he never loses his wit and charm. Helen Mack is one of the film's highlights as Hilda, as she delivers an excellent performance as the young woman who has lost everything and decides to join Denham's adventure. I'm tempted to say that Mack makes a better protagonist than Fay Wray, but honestly, their characters are too different to compare. As the malicious Helstrom, John Marston is very good, never too over-the-top and surprisingly, very human in his role as the film's "villian". Finally, Frank Reicher gives a dignified performance as the good old Captain Englehorn, making the best out of his role.

Despite its many good elements, "The Son of Kong" often gets labeled as "underwhelming" and receives severe criticism because it fails to live up the expectations the original "King Kong" made. Personally, I think that such criticism, while certainly valid, it's a bit unfair, as considering the limited budget and time that Cooper, Schoedsack and Rose had to complete a new film, the result is of good quality, and while of lesser magnificence, it make a fine conclusion to Carl Denham's story. Even the fact that writer Ruth Rose decided to focus on lighthearted comedy instead of thrilling horror can be seen as a wise move, as it finally gave Kong what many wanted him to receive in the original: compassion. True, it's sad to see a movie with great potential to suffer because of lack of time and budget (O'Brien's special effects get even less screen time this time), but it wasn't really as bad as its reputation says.

While "The Son of Kong" is by all accounts a good and entertaining movie, it certainly pales in comparison with its predecessor's greatness, as "King Kong" casts a shadow that's simply too difficult to overcome. However, if one is willing to forgive the film's problems, one'll find a terrific tale of adventures in the same spirit as the original. This is not "King Kong", but it's still a fun ride.

7/10

Buy "The Son of Kong" (1933)

Dracula (1958)

After the enormous success of 1995's classic mix of horror and science-fiction, "The Quatermass Xperiment", the relatively small studio named Hammer Film Productions decided to dedicate most of their productions to the fantastic genres. A sequel to "Quatermass" quickly entered into the studio's plans, but it would be another movie what would become a success even bigger than "The Quatermass Xperiment" and the birth of what is now known as "Hammer Horror": Terence Fisher's "The Curse of Frankenstein". Thanks to its use of vibrant colors and daring (for the time) sexual undertones, Fisher's reinterpretation of "Frankenstein" renewed the interest in horror films and set the basis for a new style of Gothic horror. A style that would be perfected in Fisher's next movie for Hammer, another reinterpretation of a classic of Gothic literature, Bram Stoker's "Dracula".

In this version of the famous novel, Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) is a librarian who arrives to Count Dracula's (Christopher Lee) castle to work. At the castle, Jonathan finds a strange woman (Valerie Gaunt) who asks him to help her escape from Dracula's enslavement. Jonathan agrees, but she is not a normal woman, she's a vampire, an undead creature who preys on humans to feed on their blood. This doesn't surprise Jonathan, as he is actually a vampire hunter determined to kill Dracula, who is an ancient and powerful vampire. Unfortunately, his plan goes wrong and ends up bitten by Dracula, transforming him in the very thing he was going to kill. Days later, Harker's friend, Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) arrives looking for his friend, but finds him as a vampire and is forced to kill him. However, this is only the beginning, as now Dracula has Jonathan's fianceé Lucy (Carol Marsh) as his next target.

Like "The Curse of Frankenstein", the screenplay for this movie (titled "Horror of Dracula" in the U.S. to avoid copyright infringement with Universal's film) was written by Jimmy Sangster, who makes a considerably different story than the one done in Tod Browning's movie. For starters, this time Van Helsing is not only the one with the necessary knowledge to hunt the monster, but also a proficient fighter and overall a more active character than before. Count Dracula has also been reinterpreted, as Sangster takes the sensuality of the vampire one step beyond, and enhances his aggressive brutality without diminishing the Count's classy elegance. A notable trait in Sangster's script is the considerable amount of development he gives to his characters, as while the plot a bit simplistic, he makes us really care about the protagonists while at the same time making Dracula a fascinating creature.

Once again, Terence Fisher's directing is what elevates this work from a good story to a great movie, as in "Dracula" he seems to take everything that made "The Curse of Frankenstein" a hit to the next level, resulting in the definitive example of Hammer Horror. With Bernard Robinson's beautiful art direction and Jack Asher's excellent cinematography, Fisher creates an atmospheric Gothic nightmare in bright colors that even today remains as fresh and influential as it was the day it came out. Fisher's use of color in horror here is even more calculated, as also uses them to shock and terrify as exemplified by his fixation with the bright red of blood. This time Dracula is a real monster, and Fisher makes sure to make him the ultimate predator, however, his seductive image is kept intact as Fisher plays on the Victorian sexual repression with subversive subtlety.

One of the best elements in this version of Stoker's novel is definitely the acting of the cast, which is for the most part of an excellent quality. The stars of "The Curse of Frankenstein", Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, appear here in the roles that made them legends. As Dracula, Christopher Lee shows his very powerful presence, making a terrifying portrayal of the undead monster that almost equals Lugosi's classic performance. On the other hand, Cushing truly is the star of the film with the magnificent display of talent he gives as Dr. Van Helsing. Personally I think that nobody has given a better performance as Van Helsing than the one Cushing does in this movie. However, the movie is not only about Cushing and Lee, as Michael Gough truly shines in his role as Arthur Holmwood, Lucy's brother forced to join Van Helsing's battle against Dracula in order to save his family.

The rest of the cast is also excellent, with great performances by Melissa Stribling as Arthur's wife Mina, and the aforementioned Carol Marsh and John Van Eyssen, who make the best out of their certainly small roles. Credit must go to Fisher's directing of his cast as well, as he really seems to get the best out of each one of the actors, making "Dracula" one of the best acted movies of the ones Hammer produced. In fact, if there's a flaw in this Gothic masterpiece, that would be that sadly there isn't enough time to fully enjoy each one of the diverse characters that Sangster, Fisher and the cast have created in this movie. Just like any other story with multiple film versions, it's hard to resist the temptation to pick a "best version" of "Dracula", specially when two highly celebrated films (this one and Browning's) are among those adaptations.

Personally, I prefer Browning's 1931 version over this one, however, Terence Fisher's "Dracula" is a masterpiece of Gothic horror as good as the one by Universal, and my choice is based more on personal preferences than on any superiority in terms of quality. Thanks to Fisher's masterful directing and the amazing performances of its cast, "Dracula", or "Horror of Dracula" as it's known in America, easily ranks among the best movies that came out of the legendary Hammer Film Productions, and simply one of the best horror movies ever made.

9/10

Buy "Dracula" (1958)

A shameless bit of self promotion: Horror 101 - The Book

Many moons ago, I was invited by a dear friend of mine, Aaron Christensen, to collaborate in a strange yet interesting project he had been developing alomst since we met each other at the IMDB forums: a book about the most influential films in the history of the horror genre. I was surprised by the idea, mainly because he had decided to choose me, but also because it seemed so impossible to coordinate a project of this magnitude among horror fans. However, after months of hard work, me, Aaron, and 76 like-minded comrades from many different places, finished working on what was now called, "Horror 101: The A-list of horror films and monster movies", a book collecting essays on 110 classic films. I did the essay concerning Roger Corman's "House of Usher" and the one about both versions of "The Fly", and I truly appreciate that Aaron had picked me back when this was still just a horror fan's dream.

Well, here it is, by the fans and for the fans, "Horror 101: The a-list of horror films and monster movies". If you are interested in what does the book contain, click here to learn more about this little project, it'll take you to our current myspace site. Those able to go to the "Horrorfind Weekend" convention at Baltimore, Maryland be sure to visit Aaron, who surely will be there creating as much buzz as possible about the book.