Horror 101: The A-list of horror films and monster movies

As I wrote back in August, I was lucky to be invited to join a team of horror fans from around the world in the writing of a reference book about horror movies. Well, the book was finally released on August 31, but at the time it was available only via our dear publishers, Midnight Marquee. However, to those like me who live out of the USA, it is now finally available on Amazon.com, whom while have a slightly higher shipping cost, it's a lot safer than the normal shipping from other bookstores.

I want to thank once again to Aaron Christensen for letting me participate in this great event (as far as I know, there aren't many books written by an international team of more than 70 horror fans) and hopefully, it won't be the last time this happens.

By the way, I've added a link to get this book below the "Interesting links" sections on this humble blog.

Thanks!

P.S. Sorry for the slow movement that has been on this blog, but personal reasons have prevented me from writing for a couple of weeks. Hopefully, I'll be back very, very soon with more.

Buy "Horror 101: The A-List of Horror Films and Monster Movies"

El Día de la Bestia (1995)

Just as it happened in the film industries of many European countries, the horror genre in Spain had a slow and difficult development until the 60s, when people like Narciso Ibanez Serrador and Amando de Ossorio added a Spaniard flavor to the Eurohorror of those years. However, Spaniard horror lost steam as the 70s ended and by the 80s it was again in a deep slumber in which only cult figures like Jess Franco and Paul Naschy kept truly working within the genre. Fortunately, the 90s brought an entirely new generation of young filmmakers who, having grown up with the films of that golden age, started to create a new series of horror films for the modern reality of Spain. Among this new generation was Álex de la Iglesia, a former comic book illustrator who seduced by cinema, took Spain by surprise in 1991 with his short film, “Mirindas Asesinas”, and with his second feature film, “El Día de la Bestia”, proved that Spaniard horror is finally back.

In “El Día de la Bestia” (literally, “The Day of the Beast”), Alex Angulo plays Father Ángel, a priest who in his work as a scholar of Theology, seems to have discovered the real message hidden in the book of Revelations: the exact date and the location where the Antichrist is going to be born. Father Ángel is sure that the son of Satan will come to the world in Madrid on the Christmas Eve of 1995, so all he needs to kill the diabolic baby is the exact location of his birth. To do this, he decides to travel to Madrid, hoping to be able of becoming a Satanist in order to discover the place where the Antichrist will be born. However, finding the Satanists proves to be a very difficult mission, specially without an idea of where to look at, so Father Ángel recruits metalhead José María (Santiago Segura) and TV psychic Professor Cavan (Armando De Razza) to aid him in his quest to kill the baby before it’s too late.

Like practically every film by De la Iglesia, “El Día de la Bestia” was written by him in collaboration with Jorge Guerricaechevarría, the writer who has been De la Iglesia’s right hand since the beginning of their careers. “El Día de la Bestia” mixes remarkably comedy with horror by adding a considerable amount of dark humor to the story without falling in common devices like parody or spoof. It is not exactly the kind of comedy that results in big laughs, but one that leaves a malicious smile of complicity due to its irreverent darkness. While “El Día de la Bestia” is mostly a black comedy, the writers do not forget that it’s also a horror film, and so themes such as the violence of the end times and the character’s feeling of impotence against an imminent apocalypse are very well used. It’s an excellent mixture of genres that certainly gets benefited by the great development of the characters and its clever use of irony.

In “El Día de la Bestia”, director Alex de la Iglesia shows that his earlier work wasn’t the result of an amateur’s lucky strike, and that he has real talent behind the camera. With frenetic rhythm and a wonderfully dark apocalyptic atmosphere, Alex de la Iglesia makes his dark tale come to life in a spectacular fashion. Giving an excellent use to Flavio Martínez Labiano’s cinematography, De la Iglesia captures the essence of the story in the bizarre beauty of the contrast between the colorful happiness of Christmas and the gritty urban violence of Madrid’s streets. Despite the low budget, the special effects look pretty good, and thanks to De la Iglesia’s great camera-work and good eye for visuals, the whole movie has the visual look of a comic book without falling in the typical silliness that tends to surround this kind of style.

Not only the writer and the director did an excellent job in the film, the cast deserves a lot of credit for the movie’s high quality. As Father Ángel, Alex Angulo is simply exceptional, carrying the film without problems thanks to his natural talent for black comedy and skill to make a very likeable character. Santiago Segura is also very good as José María, very believable in his role as the junkie metalhead willing to aid Father Ángel in his mission. However, the highlight of the film is Italian actor Armando De Razza’s perfomance as Professor Cavan, as he manages to steal every scene he is in as the hilariously skeptical TV psychic. In the supporting roles there are also excellent performances, specially Maria Grazia Cucinotta as the dumb blonde who dates Professor Cavan. Terele Pávez and Nathalie Seseña are also very good in their roles.

The mix of comedy and horror is definitely quite popular among modern directors, but often the results of such mixture of genres are sadly disappointing no matter how good the intentions or the ideas behind them are. Fortunately, “El Día de la Bestia” is an exception to this, as it moves gracefully between genres (no doubt due to its preference of smart black comedy over cheap slapstick), staying true to its roots while at the same time exploring new grounds with a witty sense of irony that makes it a breath of fresh air. Delightfully irreverent and very well-crafted, this twisted modern version of the Biblical story about the Three Wise Men is definitely a nice addition to the genre as it was only the beginning of the new generation of Spaniard horror films.

Often overlooked as a mere comedy, “El Día de la Bestia” is an excellent movie that can stand proudly as one of the best (or maybe THE best) horror movies that Spain has given to the world in a long, long time. After a troubled yet very promising debut with “Acción Mutante”, director Álex De la Iglesia proved here that his success wasn’t a lucky strike, and that he had a lot to offer to the new Spaniard cinema and the horror genre in general.

10/10

The Gorilla (1939)

During the 20s, murder mystery stage plays were extremely popular at Broadway theaters with plays like "The Bat" and "The Cat and the Canary" being huge hits everywhere. Naturally, film versions of this stage plays began to be produced, and thanks to their spooky sets and intriguing plots, this movies became an enormous influence for the horror films of following decades. Ralph Spence's "The Gorilla" was another of this kind of murder mystery stories that made the jump to cinema, with its first adaptation being made in 1927. What made "The Gorilla" different to the others was the humor it had, as it was more a spoof of the genre than a serious tale of horror. While nowhere near as successful as the other film versions of plays, "The Gorilla" was popular enough to be remade twice, the first time in 1930 and the second in 1939, with the legendary Bela Lugosi.

In this version, Lionel Atwill plays Walter Stevens, a very rich man who receives a letter from a killer who names himself "The Gorilla", threatening to kill him the following night. Worried about his life, Stevens hires three detectives (Jimmy, Harry and Al Ritz) to be with him in the mansion and protect his life. He has also called his nephew Norma (Anita Louise), to whom he explains the situation and what she should do in the case of his death. Her boyfriend Jack (Edward Norris) is with her, and along Kitty the maid (Patsy Kelly) and Stevens' butler Peters (Bela Lugosi), they will remain in the house hoping to find the Gorilla before he manages to kill Mr. Stevens. However, it doesn't seem an easy task to accomplish, as the three bumbling detectives seem to be clueless as where to start looking, and far more afraid of the Gorilla than Mr. Stevens himself.

Adapted to the screen by Rian James and Sid Silvers, this version of "The Gorilla" retains that comedic approach on the mystery stories that the play originally had, however, since the movie is a vehicle for the Ritz brothers (their last film for Twentieth Century Fox), there's a lot more emphasis on the slapstick that this comedy team was famous for. As a spoof on the genre, "The Gorilla" plays with every cliché that this kind of movies had, from the ensemble of different characters forced to spend the night in a dark mansion, to the classic whodunit plot twists that keep the secret of the murderer's identity. Mixing horror, mystery and comedy isn't easy, but Spence's play had a fairly good plot that managed to do the trick. Sadly, this adaptation isn't as successful, as the mix here feels forced and messy, as if the writers weren't sure what to make of it.

Directed by the extremely prolific Allan Dwan, "The Gorilla" features an excellent use of lighting and set design to create a dark atmosphere. Despite the extremely low production values (it was a troubled production due to labor disputes between the brothers and Fox), Dwan comes up with a solid film that at times manages to help to forget the lousy quality of the script. It's nowhere near the level of his other movies, but personally I think that he makes the often incoherent story watchable and funny. While the emphasis is on slapstick, there's still some of the play's wit in the characters played by Patsy Kelly and Bela Lugosi, whom are the perfect counterpart to the brothers' physical comedy. Fortunately, "The Gorilla" lacks the usual sing and dance that made the Ritz brothers famous, as it would had been out of place in Dwan's film.

Unfortunately the performances in "The Gorilla" are pretty much average, as while there are displays of brilliance among some members of the cast, others are simply unremarkable at best. The Ritz brothers have a bit of both sides, as they aren't really bad performers, but while some of their jokes are good (Harry Ritz was indeed talented), most of the times they all feel out of place in the movie. Edward Norris and Anita Louise are pretty average in their performances, with Norris being a very wooden actor in this film. Classic horror star Lionel Atwill plays his character with great skill, but it's not really one of his best roles. The highlights of the film are Patsy Kelly and Bela Lugosi, with the legendary horror star showing that he also had an underrated talent for black comedy as Peters the butler.

As written above, this movie is not exactly an excellent film, as while the original stage play was a witty mix of genres, this version ends up as a poorly built mishmash of styles: it wants to be a proper mystery (and has enough to be one) and a spoof at the same time. Sadly, the addition of the Ritz brothers to the mix doesn't really help anything, as while they weren't really a bad comedy team, their style simply isn't well adjusted to the movie. And it's not really the brothers' fault, as with some more work the script would had been perfect (apparently, the quality of this script was one of the reasons the brothers left Fox). On a completely different subject, the low budget really hurt the film, as while director Dwan and his team did very well with what they had, it really looks pretty poor in some accounts (the Gorilla suit for example).

While definitely "The Gorilla" is far from being a classic on the level of earlier Lugosi films, it's by no means a completely bad film, and it's certainly unworthy of the bad reputation it carries today. Sure, it's hard to get used to the Ritz brothers' style of comedy, specially when it's badly written as it is here, but even when it's not comedy classic, "The Gorilla" does deliver good entertainment. It's worth a watch, if only to get a glimpse of a different side of Bela Lugosi.

6/10

Buy "The Gorilla" (1939)

Ye Ban Ge Sheng (1937)

Ever since it was conceived by French writer Gaston Leroux in his novel, "The Phantom of the Opera", the tale of a disfigured musical genius who roams the Opera house has become one of the most famous horror stories of all, and the inspiration of many films. Without a doubt, the most famous of those films was Rupert Julian's "The Phantom of the Opera", produced by Universal studios in 1925 with Lon Chaney as the Phantom. That classic adaptation would be one of Universal's biggest hits of all time, and not only in America, as literally in every country it was shown it became very popular. In one of its showings, the film was seen by a young Chinese filmmaker named Weibang Ma-Xu, whom fascinated by Chaney's performance, conceived his very own version of the story and titled it "Ye Ban Ge Sheng", literally, "A Song at Midnight".

The story is set in an old theater, where many important actors performed once, but that now is abandoned as rumor says that the ghost of famous singer Song Dangping (Shan Jin) roams the place. One night, an acting troupe arrives, hoping to have success in such a famous theater. However, they all end up disappointed when they see the sad state of disuse in which the theater is right now. Despite this, they begin the preparations for their debut, and young singer Sun Xiaoou (Chau-Shui Yee) is chosen to play the lead. Xiaoou retires to practice alone, as he has troubles to sing the part correctly, and it's at this moment when he hears the ghost of Song Dangping, who appears to teach him how to sing. With the aid of the ghost, Xiaoou is a success, but when he tries to thank his master, he discovers the secret behind the ghost of Song Dangping.

As written above, director Weibang Ma-Xu wrote "Ye Ban Ge Sheng" as a reinterpretation of "The Phantom of the Opera"'s story, however, he only took the concept of the deformed musical genius and created his very own tale out of it. "A Song at Midnight" is essentially, a tragic romance with horror elements, as the plot focuses on the Phantom's inability to be with the woman he loves (played by Ping Hu) and his decision to use his disciple to interact with the world he lost. It's a really fresh take on the concept, as it truly keeps the spirit of the story while at the same time adapting it to the Chinese culture. Ma-Xu plays skillfully with mystery and suspense, as he unfolds the details of the story with the care of an artisan. It's pretty obvious that he loved the concept a lot, as his development of both plot and characters is remarkably good.

Interestingly, the idea of the story wasn't the only thing Ma-Xu adapted from Western film-making, the style Ma-Xu uses in "A Song at Midnight" is also clearly inspired by Universal horror movies of the 20s and the 30s (mainly "Frankenstein" and "Dracula"). With the excellent cinematography by Boqing Xue and Xingsan Yu, together with a slightly expressionist set design, director Ma-Xu creates an ominous gloomy atmosphere of mystery and magic that really sets the mood for this story of horror and romance (most of the scenes are set at night). Naturally, the film has many limitations due to budgetary reasons, however, Weibang Ma-Xu inventively manages to create a very powerful film that looks great despite his limited resources. I also must say that the work of make-up for this Phantom is simply excellent.

The cast is pretty effective in their performances, and despite the natural melodrama of the story, there's little overacting in the film. In his debut on film, Chau-Shui Yee (who would become a big star in the 40s) is very good as the young Sun Xiaoou, and while he looks a bit wooden at times, he truly had a natural presence in front of the camera. As the tragic anti-hero Sing Dangping (Shan Jin) is simply excellent, managing both the fearsome and the vulnerable sides of his character with a great ease and control. It's impossible to know if the singing voices of their characters are those of Shan Jin and Chau-Shui Yee, but their work is simply masterful. Ping Hu plays Li Xiaoxia, Sang Dangping's lover, and while she looks beautiful in her role, she is prone to overacting just a bit too much for her own sake, although it's not really a problem.

While an interesting example for early Chinese horror, "Ye Ban Ge Sheng" is sadly far from being a masterpiece, as there are several details that prevent this film from being perfect. Contrary to what could be expected, the film's main problem is not caused by the low budget, but by the strange pace the film has at times. What I mean is that often the story flows at a good pace but suddenly it gets slowed by long scenes of Chinese opera that, while of great beauty (and very interesting to foreigners), damage the pace the story has and can be boring to people not expecting this (In a way similar to Universal's 1943 remake of "The Phantom of the Opera"). Other than that, the movie is an excellent Chinese entry into the early horror genre, and those with a fondness for Universal horror films from the 30s will find a movie very much akin to their tastes.

Sadly, when it was initially released, "A Song at Midnight" struggled to be taken seriously because Chinese critics considered it was "too American" for a Chinese film. Fortunately, audiences reacted better and it is now one of the most famous horror films in the country (so much that Ma-Xu directed a sequel in the 40s, the Shaw brothers made a remake in the 60s, and recently Ronny Yu has done another version in the 90s). Fans of Asian cinema, this movie was the beginning of all.

8/10

Buy "Ye Ban Ge Sheng" (1937)

Transformers (2007)

To most kids growing up in the 80s, the word "Transformers" had one very special meaning: fabulous vehicles able to transform into giant robots. And when I say "most kids", I don't mean only American kids, as this concept, created by the Japanese toy company Takara, became truly a worldwide phenomenon when in 1984 the American company Hasbro launched the "Transformers" toy line with a captivating back-story. What started as a toy line became a full fledged epic tale detailing the adventures of the Autobots, a group of heroic Transformers who protected Earth from an evil faction of their own people who called themselves Decepticons. More than 10 years later, "Transformers" remains a popular concept, and proof of that is the fact that filmmaker Michael Bay has directed a live action film about it. Sadly, the result is far from being more than meets the eye.

In "Transformers", Shia LaBeouf plays Sam Witwicky, a young high school student whose biggest wish is to own a car in order to impress his beautiful classmate Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox). Unfortunately for him, all he can afford is an old rusted Camaro with a tendency to fail at the most inappropriate occasions. One night, he watches his car move by itself, and he follows it to a junkyard, where it transforms into Autobot Bumblebee (Mark Ryan). This won't be the last of his surprises, as after this discovery, he'll be chased by another autonomous vehicle, a police car. Bumblebee manages to save Sam and takes him to his fellow Autobots. Their leader, Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen), explains Sam that this is only the beginning of a new chapter in their constant war with the Decepticons, but that Sam has the key to something that could end it once and for all.

Developed by writers John Rogers, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the screenplay for "Transformers" essentially moves between two main stories: the constant war between the Autobots and the Decepticons, and Sam's coming of age story. In fact, this last theme becomes the most important of the two, as the film focuses a lot on Sam's friendship with his sentient car, Bumblebee, as well as his wish of being Mikaela's boyfriend. Several more subplots are added, some very interesting and some pretty pointless, but unfortunately, the writers do a poor job in tying everything together and the result is a convoluted story that feels awkward in its poor balance of action and comedy. The writer's attempt to develop their character is certainly commendable, as they truly manage to humanize them in a fairly believable way. Sadly, it's not good enough to save the script.

As usual with Michael Bay films, his style "Transformers" is more eye candy than real storytelling, as he puts a lot more emphasis on fast moving action scenes filled with special effects than in the story the writers delivered for him. Of course, I know it's obvious that the special effects of the giant robots is the movie's main selling point, and they are the reason the movie was made in the first time; however, Bay's trademark quick-cut style of editing together with his shaky camera-work make very hard to fully appreciate the work of the special effects team, as Bay seems to believe that to make a dynamic action film he needs to keep the camera constantly moving without a real reason. If there's something to praise in Bay's directing, that would be his decision of making the Transformers look the most realistic possible, as it adds a lot to the epic nature of the storyline.

The acting in the film is pretty much average, with Shia LaBeouf making a very effective performance as Sam, although he is in no way remarkable or outstanding. Mikaela Fox is sadly of the ones who make an awful job, as in this movie she proves that she was only hired because of her looks, not because of any real talent. On the other hand Josh Duhamel is truly one of the highlights of the movie, and one of the few who really adds a lot of power to the film. Hopefully Duhamel will become a rising action star in the future. In a nice detail, Peter Cullen reprises his role as the voice of Optimus Prime, and once again gives his character that the powerful presence it had in the cartoon. Unfortunately, that can't be said of Hugo Weaving, whose great job as Megatron's voice gets lost by an overuse of sound effects in his voice-work.

Personally, the biggest problem I have with "Transformers" is not that it's bad (it is not), it is that it could had been a lot better given the elements Bay had to work with. I'm not saying the script is a masterpiece, as it seriously lacks focus and fails at mixing comedy and action, but the approach director Michael Bay used in the film only made it feel even more mediocre than what it is. While the movie has a wonderful visual look (no doubt thanks to Bay's experience making commercials), his frantic editing and sloppy narrative diminish the quality of Mitchell Amundsen's cinematography and the special effects team's masterful work. I won't deny that there are instances where his style works perfectly, and that the movie gets really entertaining in more than one occasion, but I couldn't help but feeling that I was watching a long commercial instead of the epic battle of robots that the advertising promised.

"Transformers" is one of those movies that provide instant entertainment and give the impression of being pretty cool, but end up feeling shallow when one begins to seriously think about them. That's probably the best advice to enjoy "Transformers": not to think too seriously about it, as ultimately it is as shallow as a TV commercial. It's a fun movie with great special effects and some good performances, but it's not the great action movie that it could had been.

6/10

Buy "Transformers" (2007)

Les Cartes Vivantes (1904)

Few persons have meant as much to the history of cinema as Georges Méliès, the now legendary French stage magician that revolutionized film-making with his enormous narrative creativity and his many discoveries and inventions in the field of special effects. As a member of the first audience that experienced the Lumières' first screening, Méliès discovered cinema and immediately realized the enormous potential it had as a narrative art. During the following 15 years, Méliès would become one of the most important producers of movies, and he went from making amusing "gimmick movies" (films about Méliès making an impossible magic trick) to creating some of the most amazing stories of those years, using his skills to enter the genres of horror, fantasy and science fiction. By the year of 1902, Méliès was focusing more on his major projects than on "gimmick movies", but he still made several ones to test some new tricks. 1904's "Les Cartes Vivantes" was one of those shorts.

As usual in his "gimmick films", "Les Cartes Vivantes" (literally, "The Living Playing Cards") is about a Magician (Méliès) performing an amazing magic trick. This time, the trick involves a simple deck of playing cards, and a large cardboard that resembles a blank card. The trick begins with the Magician making one card grow bigger, to the size of a book. Then, by simply throwing the card towards the cardboard, it becomes an enormous version of the card the Magician threw. As if that wasn't enough, the Magician transforms the giant card (a 9 of Spades) into the card of the Queen of Hearts. With that card on the cardboard, the Magician proceeds to to make the image come alive by transforming the drawing into a real life Queen of Hearts who walks out of the card. To finish the trick, he returns the Queen to the card and decides to transform the card into the King of Clubs; but the trick may be really on him.

As written above, for Méliès this kind of short films were more than a way of having a fresh and original catalog of movies in his theater, they were a chance to test new or improved tricks and special effects he could later use in his major projects. "The Living Playing Cards" is a prime example of this, as it is composed of many of the tricks that Méliès had used in many previous occasions (dissolves, multiple exposures and several editing tricks), but the way they look in this movie is considerably better than when Méliès used them for the first time. When one watches the movies Méliès did before 1901, the effects look marvelous but primitive; "The Living Playing Cards" is the direct evolution of his talents, and it's easy to notice that his work of editing has improved considerably since his early years. His use of props and set design to build up an atmosphere has also improved, and he captures perfectly what his real performances as a magician would had been.

Honestly, there's nothing really remarkable in "Les Cartes Vivantes" besides its amazing display of special effects, but like every Méliès film, it has a special magic that makes difficult not to enjoy them. Méliès had an enormous charm as a performer, and despite the shortcomings of the technology of his time, he really knew how to use cinema's potential to entertain his audience the best he could. While in the end, "The Living Playing Cards" may not be anything more than a "gimmick trick", one has to remember that in 1904, the legendary Méliès was preparing his most ambitious project to date: that often forgotten masterpiece named "Le Voyage à Travers l'impossible", better known in English as "The Voyage Through the Impossible".

8/10

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Given that it's nowadays regarded as one of the most famous classics of French literature, it's not surprising that Gaston Leroux's Gothic novel, "The Phantom of the Opera", has become the source for many adaptations to film, stage and other art-forms. The immortal story of the deformed musical genius who terrorizes the Opera Garnier while helping a young soprano to become the main singer is definitely now an icon of Gothic literature thanks to its mix of horror, mystery and romance. Producer Carl Laemmle, head of Universal Studios, saw in this combination the potential for a classic movie, and decided to make it the ultimate spectacle. To accomplish that feat, he hired director Rupert Julian (who had just completed "Merry-Go-Round") to helm the movie, and for the main role, he casted none other than the "Man with a Thousand Faces", Lon Chaney.

Set in 1890s Paris, "The Phantom of the Opera" is the story of young soprano Christine Daae (Mary Philbin), who with the help of an unknown tutor, has gone from being part of the chorus to become the understudy of Carlotta (Virginia Pearson), the Prima Donna. On the first night of Opera's new season, Vicomte Raoul De Chagny (Norman Kerry) assists to the show in order to see Christine, whom he loves very much. To Raoul's surprise, Christine tells him that their relationship can't continue as it gets in the way of her career, and that she must follow her tutor's orders in order to become the best singer in Paris. As this happens, strange letters have arrived to the Opera House's new management, demanding that Christine must sing the main role instead of Carlotta. Fear begins to spread among the crew of the Opera House, as it is believed that the Phantom of the Opera is more than just a superstition.

Adapted to the screen by Elliott J. Clawson, Raymond L. Schrock and the usual army of writers that would write and rewrite the many treatments of the script, the 1925 version of "The Phantom of the Opera" is surprisingly one of the most faithful to Leroux's novel. While numerous posterior versions (from Universal's own 1943 remake to the famous musical version) have played mostly on the romance aspect and the tragedy of the title character, the screenplay for this movie remains true to the novel's origins in Gothic literature and keeps the story of the Phantom deeply rooted in the horror and mystery sides of the story. The Phantom is sympathetic, yes, and the love triangle is still present, however, here he is also the complex murderous sociopath who's closer to what Leroux intended him to be. A touch of comedy is added to the script, although never too much to deviate from the atmosphere of the story.

While now is considered a classic movie of the silent era, "The Phantom of the Opera" had an extremely troubled production, with almost five persons attempting to transform the story into a watchable film. Director Rupert Julian created a lavish production, with expressionist influences and atmospheric cinematography; but since he did not got along with Lon Chaney, it was "the Man with a Thousand Faces" who had to deal with the directing of actors. Due to poor reviews, director Edward Sedgwick was assigned to "rebuilt" the film and added the movie's comedy touch. In the end, editor Maurice Pivar saved the day by getting the best from the many different ideas and combining them into one single movie, so it's probably thanks to him that we have a great film in this early American attempt at creating Gothic horror with a slight expressionist touch.

As many have said before, it is ultimately Lon Chaney's performance what makes this version of Leroux's story to be so wonderful and enjoyable. Wonderfully over-the-top, Chaney truly becomes the misunderstood monster he plays with great talent and powerful presence, to the point of overshadowing everyone else in the cast. Still, the beautiful Mary Philbean manages to deliver an effective performance as Christine Daae, portraying the character's naiveté in a very natural and believable way. Sadly, the same can't be said about Norman Kerry, whom as Raoul is definitely the weakest link in the cast. Arthur Edmund Carewe makes a short yet very important appearance as the mysterious Ledoux, and while small, he makes his role a very memorable one. Snitz Edwards is the film's main comic relief, and while annoying at times, he gets the job done.

But there's something even more memorable than Chaney's performance and the amazing art design in "The Phantom of the Opera", and that is the incredible make-up that Lon Chaney himself designed for his character which is probably the best one he ever did in his prolific career. Despite being limited by the technology of his time, Chaney designed with great creativity the now iconic "skull face" of the Phantom, just as monstrous and grotesque as Leroux intended it, proving once and for all why he earned the nickname of "The Man with a Thousand faces". Still, not everything is perfect in this movie, as while editor Maurice Pivar certainly did a wonderful job at the titanic labor of putting everything together, at times the fact that it was made by many different directors can still be felt in the pacing of the film, but still, it's unnoticeable for most part of the film.

This adaptation of "The Phantom of the Opera" is often considered as the best, and while that probably has more to do with the fact that there hasn't been a "definitive version" yet, one can't deny that this classic of the silent era has stood the test of time like few movies in history. Granted, Chaney gave better performances in other movies, but with his terrific make-up and the wonderful art design (which looks awesome in the Technicolor sequences), this version of Leroux's novel is a must-see for every fan of Gothic horror.

9/10

Buy "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925)

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