Cool... Feel free to write small mini-reviews/impressions of these films as you see them. It would be interesting to see your reaction to some of these 'classics'.
Classic SF...opinions....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I will. I haven't seen Silent Running since rerun in the '70s on television. And I never saw it theatrically. I've seen Them!, originally rerun on television in the '70s then about two years ago on TCM. Dracula and The Wolf Man I've only seen clips of and never the films themselves in entirety. I'm curious how the original 1941 The Wolf Man will compare with the remake I saw earlier this year and now have on DVD.
Last edited:
Throwing another name in for sheer weirdness value...
Zardoz
The Guardian Newspaper in the UK have been running a Greatest Films of All Time feature this week, and today they got to sci-fi.
The results of their poll will be posted here later on
A quick rundown...
25. Starship Troopers
24. Pan's Labyrinth
23. The Princess Bride
22. Akira
21. Edward Scissorhands
20. The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
19. Dark Star
18. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
17. Brazil
16. Planet of the Apes
15. Back to the Future
14. Alphaville
13. The Matrix
12. Terminator/Terminator 2
11. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
10. King Kong (1933)
9. Star Wars (1977)
8. Spirited Away
7. ET The Extra-Terrestrial
6. Solaris (1972)
5. The Wizard of Oz
4. Alien
3. Blade Runner
2. Metropolis (1927)
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Might be some ideas in that, but an odd definition of sci-fi in my opinion.
Zardoz
The Guardian Newspaper in the UK have been running a Greatest Films of All Time feature this week, and today they got to sci-fi.
The results of their poll will be posted here later on
A quick rundown...
25. Starship Troopers
24. Pan's Labyrinth
23. The Princess Bride
22. Akira
21. Edward Scissorhands
20. The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
19. Dark Star
18. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
17. Brazil
16. Planet of the Apes
15. Back to the Future
14. Alphaville
13. The Matrix
12. Terminator/Terminator 2
11. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
10. King Kong (1933)
9. Star Wars (1977)
8. Spirited Away
7. ET The Extra-Terrestrial
6. Solaris (1972)
5. The Wizard of Oz
4. Alien
3. Blade Runner
2. Metropolis (1927)
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Might be some ideas in that, but an odd definition of sci-fi in my opinion.
The films I'm expecting to arrive at anytime now:
Destination: Moon
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1956)
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)
Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers
First Spaceship On Venus
Greystoke: The Legend Of Tarzan
Run Silent, Run Deep
The Man Who Saved Christmas
Still to be ordered:
Nosferatu
The Mummy
The Invisible Man
The Creature From The Black Lagoon
The Bride Of Frankenstein
The Time Machine
When Worlds Collide
Capricorn One
Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun
The Andromeda Strain
20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
12 Monkeys
The Final Countdown
Marooned
The Right Stuff
The Fly (1986)
The Tarzan Collection (Johnny Weismuller)
Wolf
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
Miracle On 34th Street
Patterns
3:10 o Yuma (1957)
A Night To Remember
Three Days Of The Condor
O' Brother, Where Art Thou?
Note: the still to be ordered or obtained list is actually a great deal longer, but the above titles are the ones that spring immediately to mind.
Destination: Moon
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1956)
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)
Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers
First Spaceship On Venus
Greystoke: The Legend Of Tarzan
Run Silent, Run Deep
The Man Who Saved Christmas
Still to be ordered:
Nosferatu
The Mummy
The Invisible Man
The Creature From The Black Lagoon
The Bride Of Frankenstein
The Time Machine
When Worlds Collide
Capricorn One
Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun
The Andromeda Strain
20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
12 Monkeys
The Final Countdown
Marooned
The Right Stuff
The Fly (1986)
The Tarzan Collection (Johnny Weismuller)
Wolf
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
Miracle On 34th Street
Patterns
3:10 o Yuma (1957)
A Night To Remember
Three Days Of The Condor
O' Brother, Where Art Thou?
Note: the still to be ordered or obtained list is actually a great deal longer, but the above titles are the ones that spring immediately to mind.
I didn't see "The Incredible Shrinking Man" anywhere in the lists(?) It's a wonderful film-- much better than the title might first lead you to believe...
Hmm... I hadn't thought of that one.
Some others I'm considering (although not considered Classic SF...yet):
2010 (1984)
Batman (1989)
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977)
Frequency (2000)
Gattaca (1997)
The Illusionist (2006)
Inception (2010)
Kick Ass (2010)
Pitch Black (2000)
The Prestige (2006)
The Right Stuff (1983)
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Space Cowboys (2000)
Terminator 2 (1991)
12 Monkeys (1995)
Watchmen (2009)
2010 (1984)
Batman (1989)
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977)
Frequency (2000)
Gattaca (1997)
The Illusionist (2006)
Inception (2010)
Kick Ass (2010)
Pitch Black (2000)
The Prestige (2006)
The Right Stuff (1983)
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Space Cowboys (2000)
Terminator 2 (1991)
12 Monkeys (1995)
Watchmen (2009)
And so this evening, after all these years, I've finally seen the 1931 Dracula.
First, a little background. I've actually read Bram Stoker's original novel near exactly twenty years ago. After I struggled some with some of the odd words within the old English prose I stuck with it and discovered a story that was genuinely eerie and quite atmospheric. I will say that I wouldn't advise reading this at 2 or 3AM as I did---it gave me weird dreams.
Since then I've seen Francis Ford Coppola's version, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and the silent Nosferatu. Now I've finally seen the famed 1931 version.
I'm not a fan of silent films in general, but Nosferatu was effective in creating a genuine atmosphere and sense of unease on some level. In it's own way it's a more faithful adaptation of Stoker's novel than the 1931 film. And while Coppola's version suffers from some poor acting I do feel it visually brings the original novel to life. But while the silent film and Coppola's each have their strengths and flaws neither of them have had the enduring impact of the '31 film.
Watching Dracula I instantly recognized where so many cliches and conventions began in regards to horror films in general and vampire stories in particular. Knowing this allowed me to look past now familiar conventions and experience the film on its own terms.
Candidly, and since I can't really escape the sum of my own experiences, I find aspects of this film rather stagey and theatrical. A little more nuance would be appreciated. Yet I also see that this film could also be watched pretty much as a silent film and this isn't surprising considering it was made still early after the introduction of sound in movies. With that perspective I can overlook much of the stage like and theatrical aspects.
It's easy to see how Legosi made such an impression. Whereas as some might call his performance uneven and a bit overdone in parts (and it is) I also appreciated aspects of it. His accent and particular speech pattern made his Dracula seem like someone not wholly comfortable with English, a language not his native tongue. And he certainly wasn't Hollywood handsome even though he's far removed from Max Shreck's otherworldly appearance in Nosferatu. But in an immigrant like way he managed to give his Dracula a measure of old world charm and presence. His performance is unusual and distinctive and it's easy to see how after so many years when you think of a vampire you instantly think of channeling Legosi's portrayal.
I will say that the film feels abbreviated and there are other aspects that make it feel like it was shot on a constrained budget, which apparently it was. It's too bad because it is a story that deserved a more lavish production which the resources of the time could have provided if they'd been willing to spend the time and money.
And finally I found the performances of the secondary characters better than those of Frankenstein, of which it's Karloff's performance that supports and elevates that film.
Overall I liked Dracula. And while it certainly isn't the best example of film making I've seen I can also recognize its importance and why it has made such an impression on generations of audiences.
First, a little background. I've actually read Bram Stoker's original novel near exactly twenty years ago. After I struggled some with some of the odd words within the old English prose I stuck with it and discovered a story that was genuinely eerie and quite atmospheric. I will say that I wouldn't advise reading this at 2 or 3AM as I did---it gave me weird dreams.
Since then I've seen Francis Ford Coppola's version, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and the silent Nosferatu. Now I've finally seen the famed 1931 version.I'm not a fan of silent films in general, but Nosferatu was effective in creating a genuine atmosphere and sense of unease on some level. In it's own way it's a more faithful adaptation of Stoker's novel than the 1931 film. And while Coppola's version suffers from some poor acting I do feel it visually brings the original novel to life. But while the silent film and Coppola's each have their strengths and flaws neither of them have had the enduring impact of the '31 film.
Watching Dracula I instantly recognized where so many cliches and conventions began in regards to horror films in general and vampire stories in particular. Knowing this allowed me to look past now familiar conventions and experience the film on its own terms.
Candidly, and since I can't really escape the sum of my own experiences, I find aspects of this film rather stagey and theatrical. A little more nuance would be appreciated. Yet I also see that this film could also be watched pretty much as a silent film and this isn't surprising considering it was made still early after the introduction of sound in movies. With that perspective I can overlook much of the stage like and theatrical aspects.
It's easy to see how Legosi made such an impression. Whereas as some might call his performance uneven and a bit overdone in parts (and it is) I also appreciated aspects of it. His accent and particular speech pattern made his Dracula seem like someone not wholly comfortable with English, a language not his native tongue. And he certainly wasn't Hollywood handsome even though he's far removed from Max Shreck's otherworldly appearance in Nosferatu. But in an immigrant like way he managed to give his Dracula a measure of old world charm and presence. His performance is unusual and distinctive and it's easy to see how after so many years when you think of a vampire you instantly think of channeling Legosi's portrayal.
I will say that the film feels abbreviated and there are other aspects that make it feel like it was shot on a constrained budget, which apparently it was. It's too bad because it is a story that deserved a more lavish production which the resources of the time could have provided if they'd been willing to spend the time and money.
And finally I found the performances of the secondary characters better than those of Frankenstein, of which it's Karloff's performance that supports and elevates that film.
Overall I liked Dracula. And while it certainly isn't the best example of film making I've seen I can also recognize its importance and why it has made such an impression on generations of audiences.
Last edited:
That's about how I feel about the movie. The stillness and Stage like qualities hurt the movie, but the great performances elevate it to greatness. Bela Lugosi owns the role, and is the reason the movie is still legendary. Dwight Frye is great also as Reinfeld. There are of couple of sequels, but I didn't care much for them, and Lugosi's presence is sorely missed.
Frankenstein is a better movie overall, and for coming out the same year as Dracula, is far more cinematic (Due to a bigger budget and the direction of James Whale, one of the best directors Universal had.) Bride of Frankenstein is better than the original and Son of... is worth seeing at least once.
My favorite Universal Horror films are Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein. Outside of the classic monsters, The Black Cat (1934) is their best fright film IMO. It was literally made while the studio chief was away, and is really wild for a 30's film.
It's got Satanic rituals, Torture by way of flaying the skin, Dead women preserved in glass cases, and Lugosi/Karloff side by side. I recommend checking it out after seeing the more essential Universal Monsters.
Frankenstein is a better movie overall, and for coming out the same year as Dracula, is far more cinematic (Due to a bigger budget and the direction of James Whale, one of the best directors Universal had.) Bride of Frankenstein is better than the original and Son of... is worth seeing at least once.
My favorite Universal Horror films are Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein. Outside of the classic monsters, The Black Cat (1934) is their best fright film IMO. It was literally made while the studio chief was away, and is really wild for a 30's film.
It's got Satanic rituals, Torture by way of flaying the skin, Dead women preserved in glass cases, and Lugosi/Karloff side by side. I recommend checking it out after seeing the more essential Universal Monsters.
I wonder if some might assume the '31 film is the original source material at least film wise. For those that may think that then I urge them to not only see the silent film Nosferatu, but also read the original novel. I find myself now interested to read it again to refresh my memory and also to read the original Frankenstein which I've never read.
I guess I just lumped it in with the superhero genre which is (in many cases) tangentally SF.
With all respect, this has become an annoyance of mine lately. Kinda sucks that kids growing up now will hear the term "SF" and think Spidey and Wolverine.
I just hate that budgets that would have gone to the next "Contact", "Gattaca" and hell, even "Event Horizon" are now going to the bargain basement superheroes that have not been plumbed and exploited.
Well there is crossover to varying degree. Superman is very much rooted in science fiction, being from an alien world and an advanced culture, coming to Earth by spacecraft and relying on loose scientific rationalizations to explain his abilities. And so are many other superhero characters tied to science fiction like ideas.I guess I just lumped it in with the superhero genre which is (in many cases) tangentally SF.
With all respect, this has become an annoyance of mine lately. Kinda sucks that kids growing up now will hear the term "SF" and think Spidey and Wolverine.
I just hate that budgets that would have gone to the next "Contact", "Gattaca" and hell, even "Event Horizon" are now going to the bargain basement superheroes that have not been plumbed and exploited.
Zorro isn't a superhero in the usually accepted mold. Neither is Tarzan or Conan for that matter. Yet they might be considered "super" in the sense that they excel beyond the capabilities of the average man.
I do agree that many worthy SF ideas could be passed over in favour of the next big budget superhero flick because I don't see why we can't have both. The real failing is that films today are often assessed in terms of big opening weekend box office potential and few for worthiness of idea. What annoys me is the assumption that something smart as well as being a visual spectacle isn't considered a good risk.
We need more people who can pitch an idea based on the sizzle and flash yet weave in the steak upon delivery of the finished product.
If you watch it you have to try to watch it in a very laid-back state. I imagine certain herbal supplements might help.
It's an interesting treatment on boredom and malaise and has some funny moments.
So now I've just finished watching the 1941 The Wolf Man for the very first time.
When one is watching older films you can often consciously remind yourself to make allowances for how films were made in decades past. In this case I have two slight criticisms or reservations to make. Firstly, casting Lon Chaney Jr. as a lord's son seems an odd fit because Larry Talbot is so American. Either cast someone more suitable or tweak the character so that he's not a lord's son, particularly a lord living in England or Europe or wherever. That said I think Lon Chaney Jr. does a fine job as an amicable fellow feeling evermore creeped out by what's happening to him. He telegraphs his dawning horror effectively.
My second quibble is that this film felt abbreviated. I wanted more story and more of the Wolfman. It also felt just a bit claustrophobic because they were stuck on the same soundstage for the Wolfman scenes. As such it doesn't feel as sprawling or as atmospheric as the recent 2010 remake of the film, and I quite liked that film.
Now my reservations are out of the way. Whereas as I felt there were stagey and creaky aspects to Dracula and Frankenstein I felt next to none of that for The Wolf Man. I really liked this movie and it impresses me as a polished, nuanced (for the most part) first-rate production. The writing and acting was good all around and quite convincingly realistic (within the context of the subject matter). And while I felt the film deserved more story and screen time I can't argue with what I felt was good pacing---the story moves right along. This film doesn't suffer in any real way because of its age compared to more contemporary productions. The picture and sound quality was excellent. I also appreciate the film's genuine music for scoring as opposed to the soulless collection of noises that often passes for film scoring today.
Even with my small reservations I give this film five stars. Of the three big names of classic horror (and I liked them all) so far I liked this one best.
When one is watching older films you can often consciously remind yourself to make allowances for how films were made in decades past. In this case I have two slight criticisms or reservations to make. Firstly, casting Lon Chaney Jr. as a lord's son seems an odd fit because Larry Talbot is so American. Either cast someone more suitable or tweak the character so that he's not a lord's son, particularly a lord living in England or Europe or wherever. That said I think Lon Chaney Jr. does a fine job as an amicable fellow feeling evermore creeped out by what's happening to him. He telegraphs his dawning horror effectively.
My second quibble is that this film felt abbreviated. I wanted more story and more of the Wolfman. It also felt just a bit claustrophobic because they were stuck on the same soundstage for the Wolfman scenes. As such it doesn't feel as sprawling or as atmospheric as the recent 2010 remake of the film, and I quite liked that film.
Now my reservations are out of the way. Whereas as I felt there were stagey and creaky aspects to Dracula and Frankenstein I felt next to none of that for The Wolf Man. I really liked this movie and it impresses me as a polished, nuanced (for the most part) first-rate production. The writing and acting was good all around and quite convincingly realistic (within the context of the subject matter). And while I felt the film deserved more story and screen time I can't argue with what I felt was good pacing---the story moves right along. This film doesn't suffer in any real way because of its age compared to more contemporary productions. The picture and sound quality was excellent. I also appreciate the film's genuine music for scoring as opposed to the soulless collection of noises that often passes for film scoring today.
Even with my small reservations I give this film five stars. Of the three big names of classic horror (and I liked them all) so far I liked this one best.
Last edited:
It's one of my favorites. The latest box set, featuring all three versions of the films, is terrific, whether you purchase it on Blu-Ray or regular DVD.
I'll definitely recommended this one again. The Blu-Ray looks great, the features are nice, and the movie is one of the best sf films of the 1990s.
You really can't go wrong with this, and the 2-disc special edition version has a lot of nice features.
I think it's terrific and absent from far too many lists of sf films from the 1990s. Of course, it's a remake of the French short La jetée, which can be found with a simple search on Youtube or Google video. It's 26 minutes and mostly composed of still photographs, but if you've never seen it, it's worth watching once.
So tears flow to their predestined end.
What I remember most about this film is its sense of unexpected, uncontrollable fate.
I hope you're going to watch "The Mummy." In my book, that one's at the top of the list in the creepiness department.
What I remember most about this film is its sense of unexpected, uncontrollable fate.
I hope you're going to watch "The Mummy." In my book, that one's at the top of the list in the creepiness department.
The Wolf Man in great, maybe my third favorite universal horror. I agree that Chaney Jr. isn't believable as a lord's son, but intentional or not, the performance adds to the seperation between Chaney and his father/his new community.
Claude Rains is excellent as always. One of my favorite actors of the period for sure. This guy may have racked up more great supporting roles than any other actor in history.
Glad you liked it.
.
Claude Rains is excellent as always. One of my favorite actors of the period for sure. This guy may have racked up more great supporting roles than any other actor in history.
Glad you liked it.
.
The only Mummy I'm familiar with is the Brendan Fraser version, which I like and which I also know is quite a different animal from the Boris Karloff original. And, yes, I intend to order the original The Mummy.
Similar threads
