Well said, FD! I agree, I think Jekyll/Hyde 31 is very impressive, especially the camera work and camera tricks. It has more interesting and effective motion than some modern day films. The direction/camera pace is fast out of the gun, and becomes seamless, and well integrated into the story. The camera work must have blown some minds in 1931.

And being pre-code the dialogue seems very modern. No holds barred in what he's talking about and how he says it.

I think it is the best Jekyll/Hyde film to date. Still none of the films capture the short story well enough, which is too bad, because it has the best concepts, no need to change anything.

FryeDwight? If anything, what did you think the potion and change was a symbol(s) for?

Freaks: I enjoyed it, though it felt a bit slow sometimes, even for a kind of short film.

It also seemed to me that the story still holds relevancy today. The idea that the freaks, in a way, actually look more welcoming and tolerant than the "norms" can still resonate in an age where bullying is being heavily debated.

I finally own Night of the Living Dead, Carnival of Souls, and Nosferatu on Bluray. ::cool::

My copy of NotLD seems to be very poor quality though it has so much static on the screen. Maybe one day I should replace it with a better copy? This version is from Mill Creek and I think they're one of those companies that always publish public domain films in really poor quality.

Not sure what you mean by static, besides the obvious TV white speckle static.
You getting sound static too? Either don't sound normal. The DVD copy I have is SD, but there's no static.

You could send it back, get a refund, try another source.

I mean the little white fuzzy things that tend to appear in old black and white movies that are not polished quality.

I don't think I can send it back because I have had it a long time and I no longer have the Walmart receipt. But maybe I can just accept it as is? The poor quality might even feel a little retro.

Besides I have seen all these movies in worse quality when I used to download them for free from archive org ::big grin::

Oh, the specks on old films, like lint and hair. ::big grin:: Ya, I wouldn't worry about that. It is kind of homie. Electronic static would be out of place.

I guess in the most vulgar parlance I can think of was He had a major desire to get laid, hence all the panting to get married. And while Muriel is out of town , he goes to see Ivy, but "undercover" as it were, to not have damage to his Victorian image/reputation.

Seriously, he wanted to separate the two selves of human psyche and have the best of both worlds without anyone knowing. In the excellent Greg Mark commentary (Greg is my favorite for these, good writer and cool guy), he compares Hyde at first as a young puppy or kitten, more mischievous than anything else-He also looks a LOT like Jimmy McNulty from THE WIRE in his first change. As time goes on, Hyde's baser instincts come out and he truly becomes a Monster.

I think you're right, in a way, on both accounts, that is in your first paragraph, you may be saying the potion is the vehicle for him to get laid in secret and 'not damage his Victorian image/reputation'. And in your second paragraph you're noting the film's, may I say, ridiculous theory about the good of separating the good man and the animal man -- which is not in the novel, and something I didn't like about the film.

You didn't mention what you thought the potion represented. In the short story (only about 170pgs), I think it's alluded to even more than in this or other films. I kind of think it's a bit obvious. I think it's alcohol. For many throughout history it's the potion that causes inhibition, and for some allows, or causes, people to lose contact with their higher brain function, empathy, morality, love and self control. Of course it's also a symbol for whatever else acts to do the same thing... a theory, a practice and societal system. But he does drink it, doesn't he? ::big grin::

Here's a quote from the film about the why he made the potion (which is not in the short story).

So, in the bold, is where it's ridiculous, that is, it doesn't really make any sense within itself. Liberate evil to fulfill itself so it troubles us no more? I'm guessing he means do it, the animal impulses, to get it out of your system? Yeah, like that ever worked. ::big grin:: Both the book and film do point to the same thing, in that, even so with the alcoholic, the more this activity is done, the more it entrenches itself into the person/brain/psyche/soul, not the other way around. It, 'evil', or unchecked selfishness, and insanity, emerges even without the potion, and can't be reversed even with the antidote, so to speak.

Of course I recommend reading the short story, as it's only 170 pages. Love to hear what you think.

House of Dracula (1945)
6/10

"Count Dracula (John Carradine) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr) seek cures for their afflictions; a hunchbacked woman, a mad scientist (Onslow Stevens) and Frankenstein's Monster have their own troubles."

It's an interesting story, with some interesting scenes, especially the trippy piano scene. Still, the story and characters are shallow, the dialogue and some acting is rather campy, it's not scary or exciting, little to no build of suspense.


Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1943)
6/10

"Two hapless freight handlers find themselves encountering Dracula (Lugosi) , the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr)."

I liked this better when I was a kid. If you find Costello's regular screen routine funny, than you'll like this. You'll know after the first scene with him. If not, you're in for a long show, cause this is Costello doing his thing over and over again. Other than that, there's not much there; because although the Universal Monster Characters are playing it straight, as they should, it's not convincing, especially Dracula is not at all the character he was in Dracula (1931) he's more of caricature. They get chased around, near misses, some secret passages and gags.

During the scene where Abbott & Costello bring Drac and Frank into the museum, I was really bored to tears. Just didn't find it was funny.

Rosemary's Baby, 1968


https://66.media.tumblr.com/f1d240bd...y8l9o1_500.gif