JonnyGeetar

...When the film is in color? And very good color too- really well done photgraphy which -besides Marilyn- its pretty much all the film has going for it. (I think someone else has asked this before.)

as wonderful an actress and singer as Kahn was, she sadly only made a handful of decent films- three of which Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety and Blazing Saddles are (I think) 20th Century Fox titles that are not terribly likely to be loaned out to TCM. Clue and Paper Moon are good- and she also has a small (but hilarious) role in What's Up Doc? After that (and disregarding her work on the stage)- the resume gets a little spotty. Sadly, she was the best part of some truly lousy movies: the jaw-droppingly horrendous Slapstick of Another Kind, Betsy's Wedding, Won-Ton-Ton: The Dog Who Saved Hollywood. I'll be nice and stop there. An evening or birthday tribute would be better, a month-long tribute would inevitably feature some really bad s***. (Love and miss you though, Miss Kahn.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 1, 2011 9:50 PM

Funny. I was thinking more apple cloves or clove cigarettes- but I see your point. You didn't miss much today, the Hammer Mummy movies are pretty all-around dull (some nice costumes, that's about it.) Whether it's Universal or Hammer: if you can't outrun The Mummy, then you deserve to die.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}They are also fond of the name "Hans." In REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN, EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN and FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN, there is a Hans being handy in the cast. There's a cheap little cheeseball of a film from the late 80's called Transylvania Twist that nonetheless has some very funny moments parodying classic horror movies. One of those is a parody of the traditional "gathering of the villagers with the pitchforks and torches" scene, and they're all named Hans. One is named Hans Hoffe, one is named Hans Honne, one is named Hans Huppe. Confusion ensues. Pretty funny (as I recall.) CORRECTION: the hero in Dracula Prince of Darkness is named Charles (and oddly, his blonde wife is Diana.) Nonetheless, there are Pauls in the next three movies in a row. (They also recycle the name "Clove" for Dracula's human manservant, although the look is verrrry different in the two different films in which he appears.) What the hell kind of name is "Clove" anyhow? Or is it Klove? (Does it matter?)

Has anyone noticed how popular the name "Paul" is in Hammer films? The "Hero" (Frankenstein's tutor and repentant mentor) in The Curse of Frankenstein is named Paul, one of the leads in The Gorgon is named Paul. The Mummy's Shroud has a character named Paul. Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has Risen from the Grave and Scars of Dracula all have heroes named Paul and Taste the Blood of Dracula has an important character named Paul. Seems like half the Hammer catalogue is scenes of hot women walking down corridors and saying "Paul? Paul?,..Where are you, Paul?" Is there something inherently terrifying about the name or am I needlessly obsessing?

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > As for DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, the film would have been so much stronger with Lugosi...as would have both of the House films (no knock on John Carradine, but the role was Lugosi's). And I agree that RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE seems a very well done "sequel" to the 31 film. But...on its own merits, I really enjoy DRACULA'S DAUGHTER...The only thing that really bugs me about the finished film is Otto Kruger's character, who just annoys the heck outta me! 1. Carradine was a good actor, but he is just so damn wrong as Dracula. His one contribution to the role seems to be bugging his eyes out, as though Dracula is not so much a vampire as he is someone addicted to Vivarin. His Dracula is also so easily disposed of in the House films that it's laughable, why are we supposed to be scared of him when you can just drag his coffin out into the sun? In fact, it's stupid to call House of Dracula House of Dracula, as the title character is killed about thirty minutes before the end of the film. Fun fact: after Carradine crashes his coach, and right before he dies in the sunlight in House of Frankenstein- his fake mustache is half/on, half/off. Check it out on youtube if you like. 2. I read in the excellent horror poster collection coffee-table book by Roland Borst called Graven Images (check it out, it's worth it) that Return of the Vampire was actually going to be called The Return of Dracula but the numbnuts at Universal wanted to sue, so they changed the title and the character. It's still better than any of their sequels. 3. Yes, aside from the absence of Lugosi (and the pacing) Otto Kruger is an issue with Dracula's Daughter. There is far too much (unfunny and annoying) comedy in his banter with Marguerite Churchill, I think it was Universal's attempt to mimic the comedy moments that worked in Werewolf of London and Bride of Frankenstein from the previous year, maybe with a little Thin Man thrown in. It doesn't work, he's a terrible romantic lead and I have no idea where Dracula's daughter would fall in love with him.

I need a hanky to wipe away the drool from reading your lost. A few random observations- 1. If you haven't already, you should check out the book Dark City: The Lost World of Film Noir by Eddie Muller. I think it would be right up your nightmare alley. 2. I think Gloria Grahame would be touched (and rather surprised) to find how much she is admired and how much interest she provokes to this day. 3. Beyond the Forest apparently absolutely cannot be shown at all because of some bulls**t legal decision (there's a certain poster on this site that loves to spit that routine out every time I say "why on earth do we get Escape to Witch Mountain on Bette Davis day and not Beyond the Forest ? )However, as they worked to free up The Constant Nymph from its copyright issues, there is certainly hope that Forest will see the light of day sometime. 4. The Dark Mirror can be seen on youtube, although (I have to warn you) it's really, quite frankly, awful. It was one I remembered seeing as a kid, and checked it out a year ago for the first time in sges and it was ludicrous on a level of today's movies. 5. Have you tried checking out some of these titles on youtube? I used to sneer at checking out films on my PC, (and I still get derided by pan-and-scan, hi-fi, wi-fi, super-duper resolution, 8-bit, mp-industrial Criterion snobs on this site for the suggestion) but sometimes being able to see it period is better than no options at all, and youtube is a goldmine of classic titles you otherwise would have no access to at all. As annoyed as I get with the programming and budgeting decisions on TCM, I know it is a complicated dance they have to do wrangling the dough and dodging the legal issues, as well as dealing with the different film companies who (mostly) could care less about their classic libraries- including taking the time to air the titles out for those of us who would love to see them. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Oct 29, 2011 10:00 AM

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}Please TCM, continue running these William Castle thingies. It makes JonnyGeetar froth at the mouth and that alone makes them worthwhile programming. No, that was a latte' I had this morning. The Castle thing isn't froth-worthy in the least.

as a kid in the eighties, I used to love to watch Perry Mason re-runs on the SuperStation. They especially appealed to me as my father was (and is) a defense attorney...Although imagine my surprise when he informed me that most trials don't last a day and an attorney's client is not always innocent and wrongly accused. oh well. Raymond Burr was such a good actor, although I feel like it was a bit of a waste (right word choice?) that he went to TV. He's so good with almost no dialogue in Rear Window, he's one of the only characters I find interesting in A Place in the Sun and he's a formidable opponent to Barbara Stanwyck in Crime of Passion. I was surprised some years ago to discover that he was verrrrrry openly gay (as open as one could be in those days). It's added a new layer to his persona when I see him on screen...And I note, it's really fun to check him out at the televised 1954 premiere of A Star is Born (which is on the DVD, and can I'm sure be seen on youtube.) Her shows up with a studio-arranged beard on one arm and a very young, handsome army (?) guy in uniform practically on the other and there's really no doubt as to what the arrangement was.

> {quote:title=Rickey wrote:}{quote}I liked the Perry Mason television series but also love the Perry Mason movies with Warren William. Wish they would have made more of them Just read the other day that one of the major studios is doing a Perry Mason "relaunch" or "re-load" or "reboot" whatever the term they use for corpse-**** in Hollywood these days. Robert Downey Jr. is playing the title role and it will be set in LA of the 1930's. Your wish has been granted, bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

I kind of forgot about Nosferatu and I deliberately left Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein off the list (not because I don't love it- I do- just because I see it as more of a comedy or even an anomale than a horror movie, although the "horror" scenes in it are more effective than either of the two lousy Universal "House Of.." horror movies that proceed it.) Also anjoy Frankenstein vs. The Wolfman for the oddity that it is. Fah-lo-la-la-lo-dee. The only one on your list I can't side with is Dracula's Daughter that film just makes me so mad. More than any other film studio, Universal is responsible for the worst sequels ever. I still don't get why they would make a Dracula sequel and NOT use Lugosi, although they used his LIKENESS in some of the promotional material, PAID HIM A SALARY FOR THE MOVIE, AND went out of their way to write his character out permanently (the body is burned) when they resurrected him so easily in the seriously sub-standard sequels featuring the woefully miscast Lon Chaney Jr. and John Carradine. It's a shame James Whale didn't direct a Gloria Holden/Lugosi version of the story (or even a Gail Patrick/Lugosi version), that I could seriously get behind. Return of the Vampire is more of a sequel to Dracula than Daughter (or Son of Dracula for that matter.)

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > Sounds like TCM just can't please everyone no matter what they do. Yes, but one thing is always certain: they're going to please you no matter what. (your arms ever get tired from waving the pom-poms all the time?)

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}This is a great update of "Reefer Madness". No. Reefer Madness is linear, lucid, and pretty easy to follow even if the mechanics aren't exactly ace and the ultimate moral is a bit cloudy. This thing is The World As Seen By Someone Who Has Done Mushrooms, Niquil, Sudafed, Some Mescaline Jell-O and had a Bad Case of Attention Deficit Disorder to Start With. But I guess that title was too long, so they just ripped off Thomas Wolfe.

Oh, for the clarity of 55 Days at Peking...

Jonny Geetar's favorite classic horror films: 1. White Zombie (1932) 2. The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) 3. Phantom of the Opera (1925) 4. The Wolf Man (1941) 5. Werewolf of London (1935) 6. Mad Love (1935) 7. Them! (1954) 8. (tie) The Mark of the Vampire (1935) and The Return of the Vampire (1944))- both flawed films, but points for atmosphere. 9. The Old Dark House (1932) 10. Dracula (1931) (another flawed film, but the good points are very good.) 11. Freaks (1932) 12. Targets (1968)- (I would classify it as a horror movie) 13. The Invisible Ray (1933) 14. Plan Nine from Outer Space (1959) (yes, really) 15. Torch Song (1953)

And I have absolutely no idea what the hell is going on. Not a clue. An electric Santa Claus could show up and start playing the accordian and I would not be the least surprised. This thing is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head, and I'd like to think I'm not slow to catch on to things. And why do Niven, Gardner and Heston all look like they're in their sixties?

> {quote:title=BillyBrown wrote:}{quote}I would like to see on TCM the following William Castle movies: > > UNDERTOW, JOHNNY STOOL PIGEON, THE FAT MAN, HOLLYWOOD STORY As would I. Those are some intriguing titles and I know nothing about them, did he direct or produce them? I'd hate to think I was giving him a raw deal while unfamiliar with something good he might have done.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote: I also find The Exorcist funny in a very dark way.I remember SNL doing a sketch called The Exorcist II, with Richard Pryor as the priest, and Larraine Newman as Regan. Great spoof.}{quote} > > {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}I found the movie "The Exorcist" more funny than scar The Exorcist is one of the greatest screwball comedies of all time. I did a post ripping it in the "Films and Filmakers" forum and a lot of people replied with "OH NO! It's scary! You just have to be Catholic to get it", and then they went into enumerating why it was wrong to find anything about the movie even remotely funny. Never have I been so grateful for my quaint Episcopalian upbringing as when I read some of those posts. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Oct 25, 2011 6:15 PM Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Oct 25, 2011 6:19 PM ARRRRRGH! The text of my post keeps showing up in the quoted section, maybe THERE IS A DEVIL!

All your answers are possible, The film's ending is open to interpretation: see it how you want to see it. Ooogie boogie boogie!

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}The Hammer films though were works of art so I think TCM is more than justified in playing those. Some yes, some notsomuch. But I also enjoy a lot of the Hammer titles, and always watch (and the 31st this year is pure Hammermania all day) However: I'm always a little frustrated/disappointed by them as they could nearly all be better in a lot of simple ways (especially true for all their Dracula flicks.) The imagery is always great and the acting is often inspired, but the stories don't always hold up. I think in the absence of most of the Universal titles, TCM is relying heavily on Hammer, and Lord knows they could do worse.

It's also worth noting that the people who made this made a lot of educational short films for middle schoolers through a company called Centron in the 50's and 60's. Among them were Cheating and Why Study Industrial Arts and a lot of them are about as creepy as Carnival. You can really see the influence. It's also also worth noting that the guys behind Mystery Science Theater 3000 have a company called Rifftrax where they take public domain movies and make fun of them. Carnival of Souls was one of their first releases- and it's hee-lar-ee-ous, although they're pretty harsh on the film (at times maybe a little unfairly), the constant organ music, the director's cameo, and the leading lady's acting, and they frequently cite the fact that it is basically a 20 minute premise stretched out to an 80 minutes through the use of a looooot of filler and some looooong establishing shots. But still, it's worth checking out (as are theIr treatments of Plan 9 From Outer Space and House on Haunted Hill and you can rent them via netflix or buy the DVD's for about $8.00 via amazon.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Oct 25, 2011 1:21 PM

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > Corman has made, and produced, plenty of good B films. Some of my favorites not mentioned yet are *A Bucket of Blood*, and *The Trip*. Sorry, I just can't help but feel like Corman gets too much of a break on his reputation because he gave breaks to guys who became big names, and has a zillion titles to his credit, the budgets to which tally to about $1500. His films are unimaginative, dull, promising of better things that they never deliver on, lacking any flair, witless, at times offensive, and he's reaaaally bad about recyling footage to where it's not art, you can just see the gears whirring about "how can I do this cheap and use it for something else?" One of my favorite movies of the 60's is Bogdanavich's excellent Targets which is a masterpiece in spite of Corman, who produced it and insisted the story of a sniper somehow include Boris Karloff and footage from The Terror. The end result is one of the best results of art somehow triumphing over utter hackery (a rare victory.) I have never seen The Trip but Masque of Red Death is his only genuinely good film that I've seen (and even it has some "filler" moments.) Swamp Women/Diamonds, Gunslinger, Attack of the Giant Leeches, Little Shop of Horrors, The Undead, It Conquered the World, The Terror, The Tomb of Ligea, House of Usher, Teenage Caveman and (sorry) Bucket of Blood are pure amatuer night in Dixieland without a creative or intelligent moment among them. But then again, this is mon opinion. (And, don't worry, no one ever agrees with me.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Oct 25, 2011 10:52 AM

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > Why are you so angry all the time when TCM doesn't cater to YOUR tastes? It's not all about you. Everyone loves to throw that line out whenever someone does a post critical of the programming. It's not about MY tastes, it's about diversity and deviating from the paint-by-numbers quality the sched has had for the last few years. P'raps we did not see the first paragraph of me post wherein I applauded their recent programming uptick, and I also note, for example, I'm totally not in to silent movies- I watched Steamboat Bill Jr and that's it as far as the Buster Keaton tribute goes- but I think it's fantastic they made him the star of the month as it led them to stray from the "usual suspects" of film titles they rely upon so heavily and have given prime time air time to silents, a genre that is sadly ignored by the network and that (even though I rarely watch) I get there are people other than me who do like to watch and I stand in solidarity with them. I also did not watch one nanosecond of the "Singing Cowboys" salute this July (?) but again, I thought it was great as they showed a lot of titles they do not normally show and that appeal to some people somewhere (for some reason.) It's not all about ME, Baby.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > It's a crime that STRAIT-JACKET gets an earlier slot tonight rather than THE DEVIL'S BRIDE and especially MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH. I was thinking the exact same thing as I looked at the sched. Masque of Red Death is the only good film Roger Corman ever directed and it's one of Vincent Price's best performances. I'd've given it the 8 pm slot gladly.

Let me start by saying the programming on TCM has been better in recent months than it has in a long, long time. Summer Under The Stars was great, The Kirk Douglas tribute was great, The Buster Keaton SOTM is well-deserved, Temple Drake was nice and The Constant Nymph was a real gift. Halloween? Eh notsomuch. The term "Horror Movie" has come to mean one of four things on TCM: Val Lewton movies, Hammer movies, Public Domain movies and William Castle movies. I get that they can't get (most) of the Universal horror line-up, I understand and don't fault them (damn shame though, as they end up on AMC where every five minutes we get a 10-minute long commercial break) I get the Val Lewton thing, even though I totally don't get why his stuff is considered such genius (not that Bedlam and Curse of the Cat People aren't good, but then again, they aren't really horror films.) He's been featured in a lot of TCM-related tributes (wasn't there one in June?) and Cat People was featured (rather undeservingly) on The Essentials But whatever, it's not horrible and neither are his films, just uninteresting (to me) I get the Public Domain thing- although they have given prime-time hours to a lot of public domain stuff in the last year. But fine- you guys need to save some money, and Carnival of Souls and Dementia 13 are inn-teresting in their own cheap little ways, even though they are totally available on umpteen-hundred "30 shocking horror" compilation DVD's. I get the Hammer thing, but can we see some Scars of Dracula and (while we're talking public domain) The Satanic Rites of Dracula which is really not that bad. But the William Castle thing, UGH! His movies are GARBAGE. And it's not just Halloween. Straight Jacket and ZOTZ! (sic?) show up all the time throughout the year and they are baaaaaad- not good/bad or entertaining bad, just dishwater dull, poorly written and conceived B-A-D. Mr. Sardonicus is awful, The House on Haunted Hill is ABSOLUTELY AWFUL (but at least they don't have to pay to show it.) The Tingler is BORING (no wonder they had to shock the seats in the theater, everyone was probably asleep.) GIVE THE WILLIAM CASTLE THING A REST, PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TCM, I BEG YOU. And to make matters worse, for some reason, the TCM TRIVIA game that I play daily (and have never come close to placing at, even though I have on rare occasion gotten all 15 questions right) HAS HAD A F***ING WILLIAM CASTLE-RELATED QUESTION (or two) ON IT EVERY DAMN DAY FOR THREE MONTHS NOW. What the hell is the obsession with the guy? Okay, Homicidal is all right (even though that "you have the right to leave during the scary part" is stupid) and he produced Rosemary's Baby which some people, for some reason, seem to like, but can we quit acting like the guy was some ahead of his time, visionary, misunderstood genius showman- some mix of Orson Welles, PT Barnum and Hitchock? HIS FILMS STINK! (and not even in any inn-teresting ways, I mean, if you're going to be bad, be realllly bad- not just boring and nonsensical.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Oct 24, 2011 9:24 PM. I forgot to mention I Saw What You Did which is also crap. Complete crap.