Last Movie Watched

I just realized. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Phantom of the Opera.

YRM7BnU.jpg


A classic of the Silent Age. I highly recommend it if you ever get a chance to see it.
 
Felonious Monk said:
The book isn't too shabby either. ;)
Click to expand...
Hoooo boy, after I read Dracula when I was 9 I went hog-wild on the classic horror character novels. I read Leroux’s book five times before I turned 11.
And yes, the Chaney film is still the best filmed version of the story BY FAR and the only one to even attempt to capture the look and feel of Erik.
 

Here's a link to the Phantom's IMDB page.

The film premiered in the USA on November 15th, 1925. I've lost count of how many times I've seen it over the years. There are three things that really stand out to me: The beautiful atmospheric sets and elaborate costumes, the amazing performance by Lon Chaney, and how closely the screenplay adhered to Gaston Leroux's novel. The word "classic" gets tossed around a lot, but the 1925 version of Phantom of the Opera truly is classic in every sense of the word.

We should do something to celebrate on November 15th this year.

eiSCQWu.jpg


And no, I don't mean drop a chandelier on my head.

That would be painful.
 
Last edited:
"If I am the Phantom, it is because man's hatred has made me so. If I shall be saved, it will be because your love redeems me."

To me, that was always the most amazing take away from many of the classic Universal horror films. The Phantom, the Hunchback, Frankenstein's Monster ... they weren't the monsters.

People were the monsters.
 
SDcomics said:
The Phantom, the Hunchback, Frankenstein's Monster ... they weren't the monsters.
Click to expand...
Mmmmmm Erik is a psychopath in his 60s who is sexually grooming an 18 year old girl, posing as a supernatural being sent by her dead father. He wants to keep her all to himself in a basement lair he built. He frequently murders to fulfill this goal. He gaslights, coerces and threatens Christine on the regular.
😬
I have a lot of deep empathy for Erik, and absolutely he is horrifically traumatized and abused, but he is ABSOLUTELY a monster and part of my maturation process was accepting this while still singing through the finale of the ALW musical and crying my eyes out.
He’s one of the first full-tilt supervillains: “regular” human but a preternatural polymath genius, hideously disfigured, has secret lair, uses “powers” for extortion, wants to sexually possess a much-younger girl. Sure, his circumstances are tragic, but he allowed those circumstances to make him a monster inside. Quasimodo and the Frankenstein Creature aren’t quite like that, although a case could be made that the novel’s version of the Creature, while intensely sympathetic, does kill children and innocent women for revenge, which is pretty damn monstrous.

Still, probably the only absolute monster in the “classic monster” canon is Dracula. He’s got zero sympathetic qualities and it’s icky when people try to drop them in.
 
But his singing voice is so dreamy!

Went & saw Together with my best friend on Tuesday. Not super original (and maybe even less than that if the copyright infringement claim is legit lol), but still a well-acted, well-filmed, gross & disturbing body horror.
 
SDcomics said:
I would add Boris Karloff's Mummy.
Click to expand...
Agreed and: basically, The Mummy is a functional remake of Dracula, and its core storyline is what many modern Dracula stories latch onto to try to make the Count sympathetic . . . the whole “reincarnation of my lost love, I’ve crossed oceans of time to find you, yadda yadda” thing. The Mummy got it right: that’s gross, and it’s not sexy.
 
Finally got around to watching 28 Years Later over the weekend. I was excited for this one, but it felt like such a departure from the feel of the first two films. No problems with the acting across the board, but
some of the video game-style elements (kill scenes, enemy classes, etc.) didn't do it for me. I really like Jack O'Connell (Remmick in Sinners was *chef's kiss*) but Jimmy? Ehhh, the Jimmy Savile Cult and their parkour action scenes at the end were the final nail in the coffin that now houses my dead hopes.
 
Last edited:
Caught a showing of Weapons last night, and loved it. Definitely went in with high expectations from all that I was hearing; managed to go in spoiler-free, and with a full audience, and that really helped the experience. Some great mystery, some really tense moments, and a surprising amount of humor worked in. The last act was bonkers and had the audience cheering and clapping at the catharsis of it. Wasn't anywhere near as scary as I thought it would be (which is good, because I'm a bit of a wimp when it comes to jumpscares), but there was enough to keep me on the edge of my seat. Some really good symbolism and allegory too. Without spoiling anything, the villain of the film is an instant icon (to me, at least), and I'd love some sort of figure as soon as possible- Movie Maniacs, NECA Ultimate, what have you.

Between this and Sinners- both movies that utilize horror quite effectively, but I would argue aren't straight up traditional horror films- it's a good year for the spooky genre. I hope both get some recognition come awards season. I don't know if Weapons will get quite as much love in the filmmaking categories- it's certainly less "artsy" than Sinners, but I could see it at least getting Screenplay, Directing, maybe some technical nods, depending on what awards show we're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top