Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034465)

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.

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034495)

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.

Originally Posted by LuvablePsycho (Post 1034731)

I really want to watch the original black and white version of Village of the Damned. I've never seen it before.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20160615191952

Originally Posted by Oro13 (Post 1034734)

Man, when I was a kid and saw this classic little Mario Bava anthology, it was one of the few that got to me. More specifically, the segment “ The Drop of Water “ freaked me right the fuck out, lol. One of the creepiest little morality tales of all time, and it still holds up today.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-22-2015/gjcFNO.gif
Whole lotta nope right there ::shocked::

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034737)

I've never seen it either. Too bad we can't throw a film party online and watch it all together.

Originally Posted by Sculpt (Post 1034737)

I've never seen it either. Too bad we can't throw a film party online and watch it all together.


Yes! I totally agree! It freaked me out as an adult. So beautifully shot and directed. The other two were forgettable to me.

Originally Posted by FryeDwight (Post 1034860)

VOTD is pretty good and George Sanders turns in a stellar performance.

"A Drop of Water" is incredibly creepy and I find "The Vurdulak" impressive as well.

2000 MANIACS (1964). Follow up to Herschel Gordon Lewis's BLOOD FEAST is a better made film, but still pretty bad. Almost a splatter film of BRIGADOON, there are some brutally gruesome scenes and probably unintentional humor ("Rolling in my Sweet Baby's Arms"), but the film suffers from low budget and amateurish cast. **