Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

The Bad News Bears (1976)

I saw this when first released, I was seeing nearly every Walter Matthau movie coming out in the 1970s. I remember liking this one, the foul mouthed misfit kids were funny. I was surprised at the time to see Brandon Cruz from The Courtship Of Eddie's Father (one of my favorite TV shows) as Vic Morrow's son. I haven't seen it all the way through in years but have caught bits and pieces when it was recently shown on one of my premium cable channels.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

TWO AGAINST THE WORLD (1936)- released by WB all of FIVE YEARS after the FIVE STAR FINAL! they changed THE SETTING from a NEWSPAPER to NEWSRADIO and BOGART is in the ROBINSON PART and the script stinks, the director clearly didn't have a clue what he was doing, and there is actually a moment in it where you can see BOGART LITERALLY LOSE HIS PATIENCE AND JUST GIVE UP ONSCREEN! Which shocked me, although I don't blame him.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028426/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_72

IT MAY ACTUALLY BE BOGART'S WORST FILM (not that there is a lot of competition for that title.)

I’ll have to keep an eye out for this one. 

Ive always wanted to see that movie where Bogart plays the mad scientist. That just seems odd. 

As much as I love Bogart, there is at least one thing he did not do well—accents. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woman in the Dunes (1964)

In this Japanese New Wave film, an entomologist becomes trapped in a sand dune with a widow and nearby villagers force them to continuously dig the sand for their profit in exchange for rations. Director Hiroshi Teshigahara incorporates a fair amount of avant-garde influence to create a pretty unnerving experience for the viewer (seriously, the last 30 minutes of this film are pretty disturbing). Toru Takemitsu's jarring score only heightens the film's eeriness. Very, very effective film. I need to check out The Face of Another (1966) next, as I hear that's Teshigahara's take on Eyes Without a Face (1960).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

I’ll have to keep an eye out for this one. 

Ive always wanted to see that movie where Bogart plays the mad scientist. That just seems odd. 

As much as I love Bogart, there is at least one thing he did not do well—accents. 

ReturnofDoctorX.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

"News" articles are presented with a political bias, depending on which way the news company leans.

It was pretty much always that way.  Read about the press in the early US (ie. 1790s) and people like Benjamin Franklin Bache.

Park Row and a lot of other movies show the less than virtuous side of the newspaper industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2020 at 11:52 AM, chaya bat woof woof said:

I've seen First Wives Club so many times that I feel I can quote the dialogue.  

Same here. Actually this might really sound weird, but I was born in the 90s, and I grew up watching First Wives Club on a rather regular basis beginning at the age of 4. I think in part because of it and some other films I saw a lot when i was young, it left me with a lifelong respect for actresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Same here. Actually this might really sound weird, but I was born in the 90s, and I grew up watching First Wives Club on a rather regular basis beginning at the age of 4. I think in part because of it and some other films I saw a lot when i was young, it left me with a lifelong respect for actresses.

I saw it once in the theater and I remember being struck by how many scenes that were in the trailer that they edited out of the final print.
the entire film is a patchwork, if you read about it on IMDb or Wikipedia. Huge edits were made before it was released, I recall there was a cat fight between Sarah Jessica Parker and Bette Midler In promos  that  hit the cutting room floor.Entire plot lines and actors were cut to cameos- including Heather Locklear and Jon Stewart as a romantic interest for Goldie Hawn.

It’s very curious.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love The First Wives Club.  I think I may have even rented it, or maybe my parents did, I don't remember.  But I remember seeing it when it was relatively new.  It came out when I was 12, so that seems reasonable.  Even then, I found Sarah Jessica Parker incredibly annoying.  

I think this was one of Elizabeth Berkely's post-Showgirls films, but she still looks like Showgirls in this movie, just with more clothes.

One of my favorite parts is when wannabe Sarah Jessica Parker is at the auction where Goldie Hawn and "Euro-trash" Bette Midler are trying to bet against Parker to drive up the price and get more money out of Midler's soon to be ex-husband.  Parker is hemming and hawing over buying a plate (or something) and in the nick of time, Maggie Smith tells Parker that "Jackie O has one just like it" and Parker's paddle shoots up in the air.

Of course, the ladies' rendition of Lesley Gore's "You Don't Own Me" is awesome as well.  I also love the part when the ladies are on the scaffolding outside the apartment when it suddenly collapses.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shampoo (1975)

I recorded this film during Goldie Hawn's SUTS day.  I'd heard about this film and have never seen it. I was also fascinated by the photos of Warren Beatty's hair that I'd seen on posters and movie covers from this film. This film is also on Criterion and I wanted to see if I needed to add this to my collection.

I do not. 

This film was okay.  I watched it intently, from start to finish.  It had its moments.  Supposedly it was a comedy.  I didn't laugh at all, except at Warren Beatty's hair, his scarves, and his post-makeover on Julie Christie.  In this film, Beatty plays George Roundy, a successful hairdresser in fancy pants Beverly Hills.  His clients are all rich women who do nothing but lament to him how much they dislike their husbands. It is obvious that his career is the perfect platform for hooking up with rich, lonely women.  In fact, the film opens with George having sex with one of his clients, a lonely married woman, Felicia (Lee Grant).  He then gets a call from his girlfriend (!), Jill (Goldie Hawn), who is lonely and wants George to come over.  So here is George, the casanova of Beverly Hills, having sex with his mistress and TAKES A CALL FROM HIS GIRLFRIEND during the middle of his rendezvous.  Then he leaves his mistress to see his girlfriend. What a player.

That's only the beginning.

The main plot has George wanting to leave his employer and start his own salon.  George doesn't care for how his boss, Norman, wants to nickel and dime the clients, when he performs mediocre haircuts at best.  Norman seems to never have any clients and spends his days yelling at George.  George on the other hand, has a jam-packed schedule and can't keep up with all his appointments, both inside and outside the office.  George has been trying to start his own salon, but first he needs to secure financing.  He isn't having any luck until mistress Felicia suggests that he make an appointment with her husband, the wealthy Lester (Jack Warden).  George goes to visit Lester, only to learn that Lester also has a mistress.  Coincidentally, Lester's mistress, Jackie (Julie Christie), is George's ex-girlfriend! Felicia is unaware of George's connection to Jackie, but seems aware of her husband's extra-marital relationship with Jackie.  Felicia is brazen in her affair with George, including one scene where she comes home from errands, finds George in her daughter's (Carrie Fisher) bedroom.  It's obvious to Felicia EXACTLY what took place in that room.  However, she's undeterred, as she lures George into her room, pulls her panties off, and insists on having sex with him right then and there.  She doesn't even bother to take her fur coat or go-go boots off first.

It's obvious in this film that George and Jackie still have a thing for each other and they have sex twice in the film.  George and Jackie's feelings for one another fluctuate between lust and anger often throughout the film. At the beginning of the movie, Jackie has a blonde version of Peg Bundy's hair.  George then restyles it (and possibly dyes it) into a fluffy severe bob with bangs.  I was really hoping that there'd be a scene where Jackie (George's ex-girlfriend) and Felicia (George's mistress) meet and have some type of showdown, because George gave them both the same hairstyle! I was hoping that somehow the identical hairstyles would somehow ruin his cover and the two ladies would realize that he was hooking up with both of them, but alas no.  Regardless, Jackie's new hairdo is awful.  It is just too wide--it made her look like she had a tiny head and face. I did love her black sequin, backless gown, that was awesome. 

The highlight of the film is probably when George attends a party with his date, ex-girlfriend Jackie.  George takes Jackie to the party at the behest of Lester, who obviously has to attend the function with his wife and not his mistress.  Lester is unaware of George and Jackie's history with one another. Then, Lester and Felicia attend.  Felicia, you may recall, is Lester's wife who is sleeping with George.  Lester is unaware of his wife's affair.  Then, George's girlfriend Jill attends the party, with her date, Johnny. Both Jackie and Felicia are unaware that George has a girlfriend.   This messy situation is obviously a disaster and culminates with Jackie loudly announcing that she wants to get some [blank] from George--then precedes to try to get some [blank] from him, under the table. 

You'd think a movie in which Warren Beatty plays a man dating his girlfriend, while re-kindling things with an ex-girlfriend, while sleeping with his Mistress (and her daughter!) on the side whose husband is also sleeping with Beatty's ex-girlfriend and who is unaware of Beatty's connection to her sugar daddy's wife, and also whose sugar daddy is unaware of Beatty's history with his mistress and affair with his wife would be right up my alley. The scandal! The drama!  But meh.

With the legend behind Beatty's conquests with women, one would think that this film was a biopic.  It is not.  Supposedly it is based on an amalgamation of different Hollywood-based hairdressers, including Manson victim, Jay Sebring.  

I just didn't "get" this film I guess.  I didn't find anything particularly interesting about it, except for Beatty's hair and wardrobe.  I was fascinated by how short Goldie Hawn's formal dinner dress was.  I was confused by Lee Grant's sailor dress.  I loved Julie Christie's backless black sequined dress.  The three women looked like they were attending three different parties. And what was with the after dinner speaker's weird chanting? I did not care for that at all. I liked some of the scenery and loved Julie Christie's house.  But despite the amount of affairs and non-gratuitous sex in this film, it just wasn't interesting. It was just okay. I don't see myself needing to watch this again. 

I also don't know why this was on Goldie Hawn's day.  This film was much more about Warren Beatty's character than hers, it should have been scheduled on his day.

What this film DID do for me is introduce me to Julie Christie.  I don't think I'd ever seen her in a film before prior to this one.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tremors (1990)

tremors_large.jpg?v=1448398128

I can remember watching this numerous times when I was a kid. Loved it! It's kind of a throwback to 1950's monster flicks. The story is original with colorful characters. I love the characters of Val and Earl played by Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward. They have a great chemistry. The monster effects are fantastic, too.

On a side note, now that I'm older, I notice things I never paid attention to before. The little girl in the movie is the same girl in Jurassic Park. Also, Bert, played by Michael Gross of Family Ties, is very entertaining. I bet this movie was more of a release for him. I'm sure it felt good to get away from the Keatons and shoot up a huge, ancient worm-thing for a change.

rtdH5GZ.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

The scandal! The drama!  But meh.

Haha that says it all!

10 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

But despite the amount of affairs and non-gratuitous sex in this film, it just wasn't interesting.

Yeah, I remember all the hype about what a fabulous movie SHAMPOO was when it came out but couldn't even dream of seeing it at 14/15 y/o. I finally saw it as an adult and just didn't "get" it. Thanks for watching it & saving me the trouble of giving it a re-try.

5 hours ago, Rudy's Girl said:

The story is original with colorful characters.

I saw this for the first time at a 35mm Horror Festival in a classic movie theater because I had nothing else to do. I was pleasantly surprised at how fun it was and  was most impressed with Kevin Bacon whom I now regard as a top notch excellent actor of our day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

Shampoo (1975)

I recorded this film during Goldie Hawn's SUTS day.  I'd heard about this film and have never seen it. I was also fascinated by the photos of Warren Beatty's hair that I'd seen on posters and movie covers from this film. This film is also on Criterion and I wanted to see if I needed to add this to my collection.

I do not. 

This film was okay.  I watched it intently, from start to finish.  It had its moments.  Supposedly it was a comedy.  I didn't laugh at all, except at Warren Beatty's hair, his scarves, and his post-makeover on Julie Christie.  In this film, Beatty plays George Roundy, a successful hairdresser in fancy pants Beverly Hills.  His clients are all rich women who do nothing but lament to him how much they dislike their husbands. It is obvious that his career is the perfect platform for hooking up with rich, lonely women.  In fact, the film opens with George having sex with one of his clients, a lonely married woman, Felicia (Lee Grant).  He then gets a call from his girlfriend (!), Jill (Goldie Hawn), who is lonely and wants George to come over.  So here is George, the casanova of Beverly Hills, having sex with his mistress and TAKES A CALL FROM HIS GIRLFRIEND during the middle of his rendezvous.  Then he leaves his mistress to see his girlfriend. What a player.

That's only the beginning.

The main plot has George wanting to leave his employer and start his own salon.  George doesn't care for how his boss, Norman, wants to nickel and dime the clients, when he performs mediocre haircuts at best.  Norman seems to never have any clients and spends his days yelling at George.  George on the other hand, has a jam-packed schedule and can't keep up with all his appointments, both inside and outside the office.  George has been trying to start his own salon, but first he needs to secure financing.  He isn't having any luck until mistress Felicia suggests that he make an appointment with her husband, the wealthy Lester (Jack Warden).  George goes to visit Lester, only to learn that Lester also has a mistress.  Coincidentally, Lester's mistress, Jackie (Julie Christie), is George's ex-girlfriend! Felicia is unaware of George's connection to Jackie, but seems aware of her husband's extra-marital relationship with Jackie.  Felicia is brazen in her affair with George, including one scene where she comes home from errands, finds George in her daughter's (Carrie Fisher) bedroom.  It's obvious to Felicia EXACTLY what took place in that room.  However, she's undeterred, as she lures George into her room, pulls her panties off, and insists on having sex with him right then and there.  She doesn't even bother to take her fur coat or go-go boots off first.

It's obvious in this film that George and Jackie still have a thing for each other and they have sex twice in the film.  George and Jackie's feelings for one another fluctuate between lust and anger often throughout the film. At the beginning of the movie, Jackie has a blonde version of Peg Bundy's hair.  George then restyles it (and possibly dyes it) into a fluffy severe bob with bangs.  I was really hoping that there'd be a scene where Jackie (George's ex-girlfriend) and Felicia (George's mistress) meet and have some type of showdown, because George gave them both the same hairstyle! I was hoping that somehow the identical hairstyles would somehow ruin his cover and the two ladies would realize that he was hooking up with both of them, but alas no.  Regardless, Jackie's new hairdo is awful.  It is just too wide--it made her look like she had a tiny head and face. I did love her black sequin, backless gown, that was awesome. 

The highlight of the film is probably when George attends a party with his date, ex-girlfriend Jackie.  George takes Jackie to the party at the behest of Lester, who obviously has to attend the function with his wife and not his mistress.  Lester is unaware of George and Jackie's history with one another. Then, Lester and Felicia attend.  Felicia, you may recall, is Lester's wife who is sleeping with George.  Lester is unaware of his wife's affair.  Then, George's girlfriend Jill attends the party, with her date, Johnny. Both Jackie and Felicia are unaware that George has a girlfriend.   This messy situation is obviously a disaster and culminates with Jackie loudly announcing that she wants to get some [blank] from George--then precedes to try to get some [blank] from him, under the table. 

You'd think a movie in which Warren Beatty plays a man dating his girlfriend, while re-kindling things with an ex-girlfriend, while sleeping with his Mistress (and her daughter!) on the side whose husband is also sleeping with Beatty's ex-girlfriend and who is unaware of Beatty's connection to her sugar daddy's wife, and also whose sugar daddy is unaware of Beatty's history with his mistress and affair with his wife would be right up my alley. The scandal! The drama!  But meh.

With the legend behind Beatty's conquests with women, one would think that this film was a biopic.  It is not.  Supposedly it is based on an amalgamation of different Hollywood-based hairdressers, including Manson victim, Jay Sebring.  

I just didn't "get" this film I guess.  I didn't find anything particularly interesting about it, except for Beatty's hair and wardrobe.  I was fascinated by how short Goldie Hawn's formal dinner dress was.  I was confused by Lee Grant's sailor dress.  I loved Julie Christie's backless black sequined dress.  The three women looked like they were attending three different parties. And what was with the after dinner speaker's weird chanting? I did not care for that at all. I liked some of the scenery and loved Julie Christie's house.  But despite the amount of affairs and non-gratuitous sex in this film, it just wasn't interesting. It was just okay. I don't see myself needing to watch this again. 

I also don't know why this was on Goldie Hawn's day.  This film was much more about Warren Beatty's character than hers, it should have been scheduled on his day.

What this film DID do for me is introduce me to Julie Christie.  I don't think I'd ever seen her in a film before prior to this one.

SHAMPOO was never one of my favorite films either. Great cast, could have been an interesting story but really dull execution of it.

And you're right, it's really more Beatty's film than Goldie Hawn's. I am curious why they would put this on during her day, it was really nothing more than a supporting role.

As much as I like Lee Grant, it really wasn't an award-winning performance in my book. But then 1975 was such a mediocre year for women's roles, had it been a stronger year for female parts I doubt she would have been nominated, let alone win.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cry of the Werewolf

Did somebody leave the cap off the tube of airplane glue when they wrote this thing? What's with the rubber band around the doggie's jaws? No animals were harmed in the making of this film - only humiliated. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

ReturnofDoctorX.jpg

I think Bogie's entrance holding the white rabbit in this film is one of the great movie entrances. In an interview, director Vincent Sherman was asked if a lot of thought went into the intricate lab design and equipment for this film. Sherman replied, "No, I just called the prop department and said, 'Bring me a lot of stuff, I have to bring a rabbit back to life.'"

Return+of+Dr+X_2.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As for CRY OF THE WEREWOLF---

I don't recall seeing that one.  Were the "werewolves" the "magical" kind, like in the "Twilight" franchise.....you know....people, as they turn into werewolves, become animals twice to three times their human size with clothes that vanish when they transform and magically reappear when they return to being human? :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Cry of the Werewolf - Love Blanche Yerka (Madame DeFarge (sp?) in A Tale of Two Cities).  Fun seeing Nina so young and weird theory about genetic disposition re: being a werewolf.  Prefer it to many of the new werewolf/vampire film.  Nothing can beat The Werewolf (not sure of the exact name) with Maria O., Claude R. and Lon Chaney Jr.

Last night, watched Protocol from TCM on demand.  Noticed Goldie Hawn was executive producer.

Re:  First Wives Club:  loved Ivana Trump's cameo, love that Dan H. and Bette reunited, and the woman who wrote the book died on the operating table (in, I believe, a botched plastic surgery).

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blondie's Blessed Event Poster

Blondie's Blessed Event (1942) Movies! Network 7/10

Blondie has a baby girl and Dagwood makes friends with a free loading playwright. 

A very funny entry #11 in the series, one of the best. The new baby girl is named Cookie and Baby Dumpling demands to be called by his real name Alexander. This one is also helped by the appearance of two scene stealing character players. Hans Conried is the playwright and he shows his use of voices and disguises. Mary Wickes plays a tough talking maid who is a aspiring actress. There is also a quick reference to the need for victory in the new war effort. And Daisy has a litter of puppies.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked out CRY OF THE WEREWOLF (1944)- as featured on NINA FOCH'S SUTS DAY.

tumblr_m568takG7a1qh0yodo1_1280.jpg

It's the variation on CAT PEOPLE from COLUMBIA PICTURES, but with lesbian werewolves in New Orleans that I never knew existed. It uses the same score as RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE- which I think was made by Columbia in 1943, although I swear I have seen it credited as 1944- I wish they had used some of the sets. 

I liked it better than CAT PEOPLE, but to be honest, I don't particularly like CAT PEOPLE.

this movie is not as much fun as RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, but then, so few movies are.

they either use real wolves or big akitas as the titular WEREWOLF, no make-up involved. it's an unusual choice to say the least, but i salute their effort.

ONA MASSEN (?) is the female lead, she's definitely meant to be a nod to the SIMONE SIMON character from CAT PEOPLE; she has a few "VADDLING IN HIS GRANDVADDER's VOODSTOPPES!" moments where she is hard to understand, but amusing to watch nonetheless.

this film has one of the most cramped secret passages i have ever seen.

NINA FOCH is one of those actresses like MARIE WINDSOR,:she may only be in something for 5 minutes, but they're gonna be a great five minutes. i remember watching an episode of MURDER SHE WROTE (one of the later seasons) and she gave 110% when I think even Angela was at 85%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

SHAMPOO was never one of my favorite films either. Great cast, could have been an interesting story but really dull execution of it.

And you're right, it's really more Beatty's film than Goldie Hawn's. I am curious why they would put this on during her day, it was really nothing more than a supporting role.

As much as I like Lee Grant, it really wasn't an award-winning performance in my book. But then 1975 was such a mediocre year for women's roles, had it been a stronger year for female parts I doubt she would have been nominated, let alone win.

I don't really understand why it was on Hawn's day.  Her character is on the peripheral and barely even has a role in Beatty's saga about self-discovery and realizing he doesn't find a life full of sexual escapes with random women fulfilling, and that he'd rather be in a long-term relationship with one woman whom he loves. This film I think could have been good.  I think it could have either played up the melodrama or soap angle to make it more dramatic.  Instead, it's just kind of meandering.  By the end, when Beatty has his epiphany and tries to make things more official with Christie, I couldn't care less.  Too little, too late is what I thought about Beatty. 

Grant's character was just a floozy.  She was cheating on her husband with Beatty, then had the gall to be upset with him for leaving her to go with his girlfriend.  Forget about the fact that Beatty is cheating on his girlfriend with her.  I would assume that she found out about her husband's affair with Christie, and decided to have an affair of her own with Beatty.  She's a lonely, wronged rich woman. I felt like Carrie Fisher's character was just random.  She didn't really even need to be there, except to serve as another sex partner for Beatty.  But after her one scene, she isn't heard from again. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Haha that says it all!

Yeah, I remember all the hype about what a fabulous movie SHAMPOO was when it came out but couldn't even dream of seeing it at 14/15 y/o. I finally saw it as an adult and just didn't "get" it. Thanks for watching it & saving me the trouble of giving it a re-try.

Lol.  Yeah.  When it ended, "Meh" was about as much enthusiasm I could muster. 

I think if I watched this as a teenager, I would have found it incredibly boring.  As a 36-year old, I didn't find it boring as much as I found it uninteresting.  Beatty's hair was the best thing in this film, and not because it was good, but because it was so big. This film was supposedly "satirical."  I have no idea what it was satirizing.  It seemed like it was supposed to be this manifesto of a man's journey to self-discovery where he realizes that a long-term relationship is more worthwhile than a myriad of random sexual partners. However, it didn't seem like he came to this epiphany until the last 5 minutes of the movie and even then, it also seemed like he only came to this realization because he was afraid of losing Christie. 

I like to give films a second chance, but there has to be something there that makes me want to give it a re-watch.  I didn't see anything compelling enough to make me want to give this a re-try.  Maybe if I find out more about the satirical angle, but meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

they couldn't snag the rights to DEATH BECOMES HER.

Death Becomes Her is on HBO Max! I would have been okay with them showing Overboard.  Lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

 

 

As for CRY OF THE WEREWOLF---

I don't recall seeing that one.  Were the "werewolves" the "magical" kind, like in the "Twilight" franchise.....you know....people, as they turn into werewolves, become animals twice to three times their human size with clothes that vanish when they transform and magically reappear when they return to being human? :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

To be honest, Tone, I couldn't finish watching, it was that bad. It was more about zombies and gypsies than werewolves. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I checked out CRY OF THE WEREWOLF (1944)- as featured on NINA FOCH'S SUTS DAY.

tumblr_m568takG7a1qh0yodo1_1280.jpg

It's the variation on CAT PEOPLE from COLUMBIA PICTURES, but with lesbian werewolves in New Orleans that I never knew existed. It uses the same score as RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE- which I think was made by Columbia in 1943, although I swear I have seen it credited as 1944- I wish they had used some of the sets. 

I liked it better than CAT PEOPLE, but to be honest, I don't particularly like CAT PEOPLE.

this movie is not as much fun as RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, but then, so few movies are.

they either use real wolves or big akitas as the titular WEREWOLF, no make-up involved. it's an unusual choice to say the least, but i salute their effort.

ONA MASSEN (?) is the female lead, she's definitely meant to be a nod to the SIMONE SIMON character from CAT PEOPLE; she has a few "VADDLING IN HIS GRANDVADDER's VOODSTOPPES!" moments where she is hard to understand, but amusing to watch nonetheless.

this film has one of the most cramped secret passages i have ever seen.

NINA FOCH is one of those actresses like MARIE WINDSOR,:she may only be in something for 5 minutes, but they're gonna be a great five minutes. i remember watching an episode of MURDER SHE WROTE (one of the later seasons) and she gave 110% when I think even Angela was at 85%.

Thanks for sharing the photo. I love it. Pretty dog. 

Yes, oh yes. Return of the Vampire. One of my favorites. An interesting take on vamprism during the war where the enemy is bombing such vital military installations like graveyards...

Andreas!

I agree with you about Nina's presence in films and TV. She was wonderful.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...